Events & Promotions
| Last visit was: 06 Sep 2026, 00:16 |
It is currently 06 Sep 2026, 00:16 |
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Sep 0712:01 AM PDT
-11:59 PM PDT
On the 7th, GMAT Club Tests will be Free! Including all the Quizzes, Questions, and Tests. 12 AM - 11:59 PM PDT- Sep 09
07:00 AM PDT
-10:00 AM PDT
Meet AdComs and explore top Master’s programs - MiM, MiF, MSc, MSBA and more. - Application Fee Waivers - Free 1-Week of GMAT Club Tests: - Master's Application Toolkit - Grand Prize Giveaway
06 Mar 2009, 12:52
Kudos
Bookmarks
This is very much Grassley's gig. He is loving this, and is a mastermind when it comes to protectionism.
That guy is about to cost me probably $5000. Not that I wouldn't have spent it anyway.
CNBC is surprisingly reasoned on this. Not that it matters for anything.
It is a pretty controversial debate because it is completely contrary to the whole American policy. It is a stunning asymmetry, and it is like the US is a kid who takes the ball home when he is losing. It is so blind sighted it is unreal. Now the world shouldn't employ the best person, they should employ anyone who fits x demographic, but the best in that. The comparable situations of such behavior are miserable, but if anyone did this to the US, Grassley would lose his **** about it as well.
cdnaudit - people come from different backgrounds with different goals and different ways of getting there. The working class want to move forward, achieve and make progress in their life. The kids of the wealthy get all social / non-profit / giving back, because their life has afforded them that luxury. Rash generalization, but as soon as you give to the fact that other people may have different objectives in life, see things differently, have different experiences and want different things, it should immediately follow that this isn't an issue. People should be free to do what they wish.
I mean, have you ever considered how long it takes to pay back $80k in rupees? I can introduce you to five people who recently had jobs at Investment Banks taken away from them purely due to US policy. I am sure they can give you a very lengthy explanation. They planned to go back in five or so years. Now, they are in the position where to find equivalent ability to pay their loans, they need to be earning 10m rupees per annum. If you can find them these opportunities, I am sure they will be very happy to hear from you.
That guy is about to cost me probably $5000. Not that I wouldn't have spent it anyway.
CNBC is surprisingly reasoned on this. Not that it matters for anything.
It is a pretty controversial debate because it is completely contrary to the whole American policy. It is a stunning asymmetry, and it is like the US is a kid who takes the ball home when he is losing. It is so blind sighted it is unreal. Now the world shouldn't employ the best person, they should employ anyone who fits x demographic, but the best in that. The comparable situations of such behavior are miserable, but if anyone did this to the US, Grassley would lose his **** about it as well.
cdnaudit - people come from different backgrounds with different goals and different ways of getting there. The working class want to move forward, achieve and make progress in their life. The kids of the wealthy get all social / non-profit / giving back, because their life has afforded them that luxury. Rash generalization, but as soon as you give to the fact that other people may have different objectives in life, see things differently, have different experiences and want different things, it should immediately follow that this isn't an issue. People should be free to do what they wish.
I mean, have you ever considered how long it takes to pay back $80k in rupees? I can introduce you to five people who recently had jobs at Investment Banks taken away from them purely due to US policy. I am sure they can give you a very lengthy explanation. They planned to go back in five or so years. Now, they are in the position where to find equivalent ability to pay their loans, they need to be earning 10m rupees per annum. If you can find them these opportunities, I am sure they will be very happy to hear from you.
06 Mar 2009, 13:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
ok, I agree with you. It does sound racist (what they're trying to implement) and it is unfair.
My rant goes against the whole idea of moving to the states to live after getting higher education. Doesn't it make more sense to let the country that made you who you are benefit from whatever you have to offer?
I don't agree that the children of the wealthy are the only ones who get all charitable. I myself come from a low middle class latin american family and worked my way up to a top undergrad business school (where I am now), I don't have a lifesyle that would *afford* me the chance of getting all cute and going 100% into social enterprise. However, my main goal is not by any means to create a non profit if I do move back 'home'. It is to go there, work my way up in whatever industry I decide to go into and then give back to the community.
I guess what I'm saying is that moving to north america is not the only way to 'get ahead', I'm sure there are some great opportunities for fresh hard working MBAs in developing economies too.
My rant goes against the whole idea of moving to the states to live after getting higher education. Doesn't it make more sense to let the country that made you who you are benefit from whatever you have to offer?
I don't agree that the children of the wealthy are the only ones who get all charitable. I myself come from a low middle class latin american family and worked my way up to a top undergrad business school (where I am now), I don't have a lifesyle that would *afford* me the chance of getting all cute and going 100% into social enterprise. However, my main goal is not by any means to create a non profit if I do move back 'home'. It is to go there, work my way up in whatever industry I decide to go into and then give back to the community.
I guess what I'm saying is that moving to north america is not the only way to 'get ahead', I'm sure there are some great opportunities for fresh hard working MBAs in developing economies too.
06 Mar 2009, 13:35
Kudos
Bookmarks
Interesting discussion.
The immigration policy in the US has been a confusing patchwork for a long time now.
It makes no sense because it's not supposed to. Anyone who has gone through the green card process can attest to the byzantine and utterly unpredictable process.
The problem isn't that lawmakers don't know how to fix it - like most things in politics, it's not the lack of ideas but the lack of political will -- which goes back decades.
In theory, it should be real easy to simply staple a *green card* to every graduate degree held by an immigrant. Administratively it's easy, and it makes total sense (importing bright minds into the US, they settle down, have smart kids, blah blah blah).
The frustrating thing is that immigration reform tends to be an afterthought and near the bottom of the agenda for lawmakers.
The only constituency that has fought *for* immigration reform has been the business community. They were the ones who lobbied for the expansion of the H1 program, and they have been the only constituency that lawmakers listen to (they won't listen to immigrants because immigrants can't vote). Moreover, "immigration reform" ends up lumping two sides of the spectrum -- illegal immigration/migrant workers and professional/skilled workers under the same umbrella of "immigration reform" -- which ends up being a political instrument that elected officials will use to stoke the fires of populism.
I really feel for you guys who are immigrants. It really sucks. And right now, the very constituency that has your back -- the business community (and the biggest lobbyists have been tech and financial services) -- isn't exactly what elected officials want to be seen with right now. If big business is screaming "WE NEED MORE SKILLED WORKERS!" few lawmakers are really going to make it their priority. They will listen, but will minimize the association because it will provide easy target for any political opponent who wants your seat). Moreover, other issues such as the current economic crisis, healthcare reform, energy policy, and foreign policy -- all will take up more than enough time and political horsetrading that immigration policy will yet again become an afterthought -- a patchwork of nonsensical legislation that builds on a legacy of yet more nonsensical legislation.
Having said that, from my anecdotal experience from my generation of MBAs when getting US work visas was easier -- a lot of the MBAs went back to their home regions anyhow. Most if not all the Japanese and Koreans went back. A good majority of Chinese, Taiwanese and overseas Chinese (Malaysian, Indonesian, Singaporean, etc.) chose to work in HK or Shanghai or Singapore. A good majority of the South Americans went back. As did the Euros. So given the opportunities for these MBAs in their home regions, a lot of them went back anyway. The only group (and understandably so) that were the most hardcore about staying in the US were the Indians - but then who knows that may change going forward.
What the immigration policy has done now for skilled workers is only accelerate what was already happening - that a lot of these US educated foreign professionals are heading back to their home countries anyway.
The immigration policy in the US has been a confusing patchwork for a long time now.
It makes no sense because it's not supposed to. Anyone who has gone through the green card process can attest to the byzantine and utterly unpredictable process.
The problem isn't that lawmakers don't know how to fix it - like most things in politics, it's not the lack of ideas but the lack of political will -- which goes back decades.
In theory, it should be real easy to simply staple a *green card* to every graduate degree held by an immigrant. Administratively it's easy, and it makes total sense (importing bright minds into the US, they settle down, have smart kids, blah blah blah).
The frustrating thing is that immigration reform tends to be an afterthought and near the bottom of the agenda for lawmakers.
The only constituency that has fought *for* immigration reform has been the business community. They were the ones who lobbied for the expansion of the H1 program, and they have been the only constituency that lawmakers listen to (they won't listen to immigrants because immigrants can't vote). Moreover, "immigration reform" ends up lumping two sides of the spectrum -- illegal immigration/migrant workers and professional/skilled workers under the same umbrella of "immigration reform" -- which ends up being a political instrument that elected officials will use to stoke the fires of populism.
I really feel for you guys who are immigrants. It really sucks. And right now, the very constituency that has your back -- the business community (and the biggest lobbyists have been tech and financial services) -- isn't exactly what elected officials want to be seen with right now. If big business is screaming "WE NEED MORE SKILLED WORKERS!" few lawmakers are really going to make it their priority. They will listen, but will minimize the association because it will provide easy target for any political opponent who wants your seat). Moreover, other issues such as the current economic crisis, healthcare reform, energy policy, and foreign policy -- all will take up more than enough time and political horsetrading that immigration policy will yet again become an afterthought -- a patchwork of nonsensical legislation that builds on a legacy of yet more nonsensical legislation.
Having said that, from my anecdotal experience from my generation of MBAs when getting US work visas was easier -- a lot of the MBAs went back to their home regions anyhow. Most if not all the Japanese and Koreans went back. A good majority of Chinese, Taiwanese and overseas Chinese (Malaysian, Indonesian, Singaporean, etc.) chose to work in HK or Shanghai or Singapore. A good majority of the South Americans went back. As did the Euros. So given the opportunities for these MBAs in their home regions, a lot of them went back anyway. The only group (and understandably so) that were the most hardcore about staying in the US were the Indians - but then who knows that may change going forward.
What the immigration policy has done now for skilled workers is only accelerate what was already happening - that a lot of these US educated foreign professionals are heading back to their home countries anyway.
06 Mar 2009, 14:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
cdnaudit
Well - I don't know about Venezuela and South America - but in India getting into the elite b-schools is just brutally competitive. Mind you - this is just the domestic competition. 99.9th percentile cutoff in the entrance exam is just impossible to achieve - yet students do it and get into IIMs and so far have shaped up some of the flourishing businesses in the country. So in India, it's just the competition that forces students to look elsewhere for a good business education. Even for the so-called international 1 year programs in India, competition is again brutal.
I'm sorry to say this but your rant about working in the US after studying is completely baseless. The cost of an american business education makes it impossible to go back to the home country and work, unless you are from the first world, and there are students who do that. In the developing world, the salaries don't match the cost and you'll have to work forever to pay off your loans.
