I am not really that concerned with the ultimate economics of the situation. I have no real problem if we, as a country, break even, make money, or end up in the red on international students. I have a problem with the strange policy of paying for a particular individual's education and then asking them to leave. I do not believe it is good national policy, and it also disrupts real human lives after they spend 4-6 years here getting an advanced degree, and are then often told to go home. In many cases, they have already started building a life here, and they want to stay. Why not make it easy for them? If they stay, they are likely to add to our economy and culture.

If they want to go home, I have no problem with that. It's not ultimately about how much money is spent/earned on international students. It's about having a sane and consistent immigration policy. An immigration policy that says: "graduate students that cost money GOOD, educated professionals BAD" is not consistent.

Sure, I guess. If I go to someplace in Germany, supported on German taxpayer money, the same problems may exist. (At least, that's how I interpreted your post...) But I have two problems with that:

1. Without bringing up specific examples of high-barrier-to-entry-for-residency-status-after-getting-a-free-education at other locations throughout the world, the argument is a strawman. Maybe other places do the same thing, but maybe they have different policies. I don't know.

2. Even if you come up with a slew of examples of how Germany also kicks out American students that travelled there on a grant paid by the German government, it is irrelevant. The question is not: "What do other countries do?" It is: "What should we do?"

I'm not trying to advocate for less money being spent on foreign students. All I mean is that if there are educated, professional people out there who want to come to the US, then the US should make it easy for them to come in. They will add to the culture and economy. If they want to stay home, that's fine too. The point about where the money comes from and where they are educated is really secondary. But inviting people in, paying for their education, and then asking them to leave is the worst possible solution in my opinion.

If Germany also does this, then Germany should make it easier too. If I were educated in Germany at German expense, lived there for 4-6 years, and I wanted to stay and build a life for myself over there, I think they ought to let me. It wouldn't make much sense to kick me out after all that. But I don't know what they do, and it's kind of immaterial.

For undergraduate degrees, yes, we do. But the main point is for advanced degrees in STEM. For graduate students, yes, tuition is still charged. The university gets paid whether you are international or not. The question is: Who pays?

It may surprise you that most STEM graduate students don't pay for their own tuition. In fact, most get paid out of some grant money somewhere. So, in effect, the American Heart Association, or the National Institutes of Health, or the National Science Foundation, etc, etc, will pay a professor at a university to study a problem. The professor then hires a graduate student to work on said problem. The professor takes the grant money and pays the student's tuition and a small salary. So, in effect, US organizations and taxpayer dollars fund an overwhelming amount of international students. This is fine, the professors, universities, and various agencies want to attract the best talent, and it's a worldwide marketplace.

Now, the real kicker is that after they graduate with a masters or doctorate, we make it difficult for them to stay here if they want. There should be an easy path in place for recipients of advanced degrees at US universities to stay here if they want. There's not. An awful lot of them are sent back home against their will. So I ask you: What is the point of bringing someone to this country, funding their education, and then demaning that they return home?

I find the notion that reality conforming to a semi-obscure prediction market based in Ireland to be patently ridiculous. Something like an election is decided based on millions of individuals who go out and vote. An example from the most recent election in the US:

Every statitician worth their salt was predicting Obama as the likely victor. Nate Silver was only one, but he had the biggest microphone. There was also Andy Tannenbaum (electoral-vote.com), Larry Sabato (UVA center for politics), and even one with a conservative bent, but I can't recall the guy's name (electionprojection.com).

However, despite that, you'd NEVER have known that Obama was likely to win if you watched the news. The media drummed it up as the "closest election EVAR!". I have relatives who only watch the news, and they all told me afterwards that either they were relieved and surprised Obama won handily, or upset and surprised he won handily, based on their political preference. The bottom line: Reality matched what the polls said, not what everybody was told on the news. The media is an indisputably powerful force for changing perception, but it didn't seem to actually make the election any closer. So why should we expect something like intrade to be able to move the needle of reality? If intrade had predicted a Romney win due to some serious market manipulation, it would have been roundly mocked afterwards, and Obama bettors would have laughed all the way to the bank. So I guess I still don't really see what the issue is...

That said, if you have an academic paper that might explain the concerns in a more proper form, please feel free to send me a link. I'm an amateur in this field, and I know that my ideas can have gigantic holes in them.

I see. Well, in that case, he might be right, but I still doubt it... He posits then that the effect of the market manipulator will dilute across all markets. Okay, but so what?

I would argue that a heavily skewed market would then attract heavier volume, which will dilute the manipulators influence until we reach an equilibrium. Going with the same example, lets assume the two markets have closed the gap, and finally reach the same odds, say 5:1. That doesn't mean that equilibrium has been reached. That only means they will now more or less move in tandem (ignoring further manipulation) to the equilibrium, presumably 4:1.

Analogy: Suppose there is an active weather prediction market, and someone manipulated it heavily for whatever reason. You notice one morning that there are 2:1 odds that it will rain tomorrow. You check several markets, and they all have the same odds. You check, and the weatherman says there is a 90% of rain. Do you take the bet? I bet the markets see some big bets and heavy volume until the odds go up to approximately 9:1...

TL;DR: If the odds don't match what the "crowd" thinks, then the "crowd" will bet untill it does. The crowd will exploit the easy money left on the table by the manipulator, and if the odds aren't right, the "crowd" will continue to bet until it matches the groupthink, regardless of the manipulator.

Caveat: Of course, with deep enough pockets, manipulators can have an effect regardless of volume. That's true in any market. So again, I fail to see what the point is... It's certainly not peculiar to prediction markets.

Not disputing that two sites might have different odds. Just curious as to why it would be considered a problem? The disparaity should be self-correcting in at least the folloiwing two ways:

1) Savvy bettors will help even it out. If the odds are different, as you point out, a risk-free gain can be made by clever wagering. With free money on the table, people will write automated scripts to detect this sort of thing. They will bet as much as they can when this scenario happens, because hey, why not? This will in effect bring the odds closer together.

2) Typical bettors will help even it out. Suppose you think Obama is going to win. You're pretty sure of it. You check the two sites, and and see odds of 4:1 and 6:1, respectively. Why on EARTH would you place a bet on the 6:1 site? If you only have $100 to bet, it will go further on the 4:1 market. When this situation occurs, the average Obama bettors will flock to the 4:1 site, while the Romney bettors will go to the 6:1 site. The odds will converge.

If, in a scenario where someone has money to burn and continually manipulates the market, then these markets lose their predictive value, yes. However, in that case, there is easy money to be had... Might as well stop complaining and ride that train.

I think you're looking for "How William Shatner Changed the World", hosted by William Shatner.

No, really, I think that's it.

I generally agree with you, but I do think it is a serious issue.

Releasing tax returns is just a show of good faith and trust. Nobody cares how much Bill Clinton bought/sold a boat for in 1986. If Mr. Romney decides to forgo that, then that is his choice, but I think it shows a serious misjudgement. He thinks the public knowing that he made 10 million dollars, instead of only 5 million dollars, or used accounting trick "x" to lower his tax bill in 2002 will get people riled up. But I don't really give a damn about his finances, or legal loopholes he may have jumped through. I expect most people don't. On this type of issue, people are generally forgiving as long as it appears everything is more or less on the up-and-up, and no laws were openly flaunted.

The nation isn't going to be shocked to find out he made millions of dollars each year, or may have paid less tax (by %) than most. We already know that. The issue is that, while he is asking the people for unparalleled power, he doesn't trust the people enough to look at them all in the eye and say, "Here is who I am. You should know everything about me before you entrust this power in me. I may be wealthy, but I am an upstanding citizen just like you." If he gets criticized for paying too little in tax, he can just say "I followed the same rules as you, and came out ahead. What you don't like is the ruleset. I'm a politician, we can talk about that."

He refuses to do that. It's his right, but I do think it is a major flaw.

But for an entirely different reason. I simply like not having it around sometimes. It forces me to have a distinct plan when I leave the house. I must know exactly where I am going, who I am meeting, what I am buying from the store, etc. Minor issues, for sure, but the psychological impact is important. I immediately feel "off the grid" somewhat, and it provides a nice freedom. Never had an "emergency" that was so important it didn't wait till I got back.

Security/privacy is a real issue, but I don't see how taking it to the store/not taking it to the store makes any real difference. So they know you went to the store/movies? I'm not really okay with that, but stop and think about it for a moment. Whether or not you took it with you, they could probably gather most of the same info from your texts and phone calls anyhow. So unless you never use your cell phone to make any plans, and never take it with you anywhere, they can pretty well figure out what you are up to. If you are that paranoid, you should be primarily communicating by carrier pigeon. As a corollary, if you use your cell phone to make plans to do something illegal, you're an idiot.

Wow, lots of company here. I was obsessed by outer spaceas a kid. I knew all about pulsars, black holes, dark matter, different classes of galaxies, planets, stars, etc, by the age of 12. Then I went to a Christian summer camp, where one of the counselors actually told me that all of that was malarkey. I remember insisting that there were in fact other galaxies, that you could see them with a telescope, and the counselor responded, "There are holes in all of those theories the size of this cabin". Dude dIdn't even believe the other stars were just like our sun, just far away. I don't know what he thought the stars were, but no doubt it was one of two ideas: God put them there for decoration, or Satan put them there to confuse us. That's what he said dinosaur bones were. They were put there by Satan, who is trying to confuse us.

I wish I made any of that up, because that was tough to deal with at age 12, when isolated from my parents/teachers. I would sleep better at night if I didn't know such willfully ignorant people existed. Watch the movie "Jesus Camp", and know that those people/places are real, and some parents (like mine) will send their kid off to camp, not realizing the full extent of the lunacy they are subjecting their children to. Farked me up good for a little while. (Didn't go to that exact camp, but it wasn't much different)

It wasn't a technical article... It's mostly an opinion piece. I think the author very effectively used the somewhat juvenile connotation to convey how silly she thinks the whole deal is.

Agree with that thesis or not, but it's not bad writing.

I guess it's not too much of a consideration anymore, but I still drive a stick. Talking on a cell phone is markedly dangerous for me, at least in the city. An open highway is alright though.

I left a job once, and the exit interviw was a word document that they requested back. I filled it out, and was honest. Some good, but some pointed bad. I left voluntarily for a lower paying gig, so obviously I had a couple issues with them.

Anyways, I emailed it back to my boss, who then forwarded it to HR, and upper management. He cc'ed me on it. I happened to download the attachment, and realized he had editted most of what I said. So yeah, I go with pointless.

THIS!

This is why I finally got around to deleting my account. I've had an account for 8 years. I graduated college, and it was just a place to keep track of what my college buddies were up to, but I pretty much stopped using it. Then, they opened it to the public and I started getting emails from all kinds of people "friending" me that I hadn't heard from in years. I started logging in and actively resetting my security/privacy settings every 6 months or so because facebook changed them without my approval. Still, it was alright, because it was a nice convenient place I could go if I forgot when my Aunt's birthday was, or wanted to get my cousin's/old friend's current email address, etc. A glorified rolodex.

But the email thing. That was the last straw. I had my email set up as private. Only friends could see it, and mainly it was for me to give out my latest contact info to family/friends. Then they removed my visible email address, and put up a new one without notifying me. I had also just lost access to viable email addresses from friends and family as well, because it only shows their facebook one, and most aren't proactive enough to change it back. It shocks me still that they set up email in the way they did. It's just your account number/username@facebook. So now, essentially, my email was now global, when I did not want it available to anyone but my friends. I finally realized they really, truly, did not give a shit. Should have realized it years ago, but I guess I'm a slow learner.

Let me just ask, because there seems to be an inconsistency in thought here. Do you support the free education for advanced technical degrees for foreigners? Because, if you do, I have to ask... why would you knowingly and willingly do that, and then send them home? Spend maybe 150k on their advanced education, and then send them home to innovate in their home countries? You do know this entire article is about the SHORTAGE in American scientists and engineers, right?

If you are against their very education, then at least I would consider your argument consistent, if xenophobic.