- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 38,491
- Reaction score
- 75,447
Your ignorance of the way in which both economics and educational policy function and why they do so is both painful and amusing all at once. Painful because your entitlement is inherently un-American, amusing because you're so misguided.No. The issue is that PDs need to be cognizant of the American public interest when making their decisions since their programs are being funded by federal money. These measures are here to protect the public tax payer interest. It's very similar to the instate vs outstage status when it comes to med school admission. Nobody is whining about it. I don't understand why we can't outline measures that prioritize competitively US med grads. Continuing with the status quo by doing nothing is straight up ignorant.
The American public interest is having skilled doctors that work in America.
State schools have such policies because there's statistical evidence showing that if you go to school in your home state, you'll stay, and keep your degree there, boosting economic activity. People from out of state tend to get a degree then leave the state, resulting in your state losing that invested cash. It isn't about educating citizens of your state because they are citizens of your state, it is about educating citizens of your state so that they stay in your state, allowing you to keep the educational gains that you paid for.
Doctors educated in the United States almost universally stay, regardless of their country of origin. It doesn't matter if they're foreign or domestic. That talented Pakistani doctor we invested in isn't running back to his home with all that training- he's staying here, saving the lives of our elderly, better than the near-washout that barely scraped by in a US MD school could. So who's the better deal: the talented guy who's helping your citizens, or the buffoon that happens to be a citizen whom you gave a position not out of merit, but out of entitlement?