<p>Maybe if all the internationals looking to come to the US for college – whether they are looking for financial aid or not – didn’t want to come to the US for college, Americans would have a different view of themselves, but dang it, the internationals keep on comin’, so what else is an American supposed to think?!</p>
<p>first of all none of you people are TRUE americans. The only TRUE americans that belong to this country are the native americans. So dont even start that arguement.lol</p>
<p>^^^Everyone’s entitled to their opinion sstewart. Actually, I’m glad you aren’t interested in applying to any of our universities here in the US. Only people who appreciate them should attend. Since you aren’t really interested in US universities, which of the many other fine international universities will you be applying to?</p>
<p>hahaha^when did I ever said I wasn’t going to apply to any US schools. Wow why dont you sit down and try to understand what I was saying in my posts before you run your mouth bovertine?</p>
<p>uhhh sstewart how do you know all of us are not american indian? hint I live in Montana.</p>
<p>You assume much and your post was way off topic anyway</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Oh please, don’t start trying to deflect a losing point by arguing where our ancestors came from. Because then NOBODY are true Americans including Native Americans. In the sense of ancestral origin we are all native Africans that spread out into Europe, Asia, and the Americas.</p>
<p>What is under discussion here are universities located within the United States of America. They are largely populated with citizens of that country, but there is no shortage of foreign students clamoring to get in. Owlice’s point was that if perhaps internationals were not trying to so hard to get into US universities, American citizens wouldn’t be so convinced that their schools are so wonderful.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a pretty flawed statement. I would think Native Americans and non-“native” Americans are equally American. Because they were here first they are the true Americans? They didn’t start here, either. If you carry that statement forward, you’re negating practically every country’s nationality. Science says humanity started in the African/Middle-East area, so any country that isn’t ruled by its initial arriving population isn’t legitimate, in your opinion. Sounds fishy to me.</p>
<p>I know it’s irrelevant to the thread, but I can’t condone such blanket statements. </p>
<p>Carry on…</p>
<p>I have not said that any particular university is the best in the world. I have cited a survey conducted by… a British outfit which found that 13 of the top 20 universities in the world are American.</p>
<p>This is a free country. No one has told RML to shut up. But if he is free to express his opinions, so are we.</p>
<p>tk:
We already have those in place. We may not like their advice but brilliant? Think Larry Summers. And let’s not forget where the “best and the brightest” under JFK: McGeorge Bundy (Harvard dean) McNamara (whizz kid), and so on.
But why should the pool of advisors be limited to a single university? It makes absolutely no sense to me. And why should it be possible to know who,among the 18 years old, will be most brilliant and decide that only those will qualify to be part of the governing elite?</p>
<p>This is the most undemocratic proposal I’ve read. If implemented, it would lead to groupthink. Just think of the impact of ENA on the French political system. One of the beauties of the US higher education system is its diversity as well as its geographical coverage.</p>
<p>I didn’t say US universities were the best in the world. I explained why Americans, in general, would be less likely to support a national university. Now, other posters have repeatedly mentioned the flagship state university of my state as a top university – I didn’t say it, they did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This pains me to say this (lol); but Oxford is pretty strong across the board and would easily rival HYPSM or Berkeley & Caltech as a university offering advanced curricula. Its prestige is rivaled only by Harvard.</p>
<p>Indeed, Oxford is pretty strong across the board. It is, however, not best across the board. For that matter, Harvard is definitely well behind MIT in engineering. In other words, and to repeat myself, no single university is best at everything.</p>
<p>[Times</a> Higher Education - From Dr Who to Star Wars](<a href=“From Dr Who to Star Wars | Times Higher Education (THE)”>From Dr Who to Star Wars | Times Higher Education (THE))</p>
<p>A big problem, I’ve heard from British profs in the US, is the limited funding for post-graduate studies.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe when you get out of middle school you’ll have a better idea of what you want to do with your life.
But you did manage to get through this post without a misspelling or a “LOL”. Congratulations.</p>
<p>
He who assumes much and knows little. That could be sstewart’s “Native American” name. He (or she) is a little kid who wandered onto the grown-ups page.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? Only the US government can take the easiest tasks, do them wrong, and make it cost 5 times as much. I’m sure if the US had a national university, the quality of the professors would be terrible, it wouldn’t produce any good research and would constantly be in the red, even with it charging $200k a year.</p>
<p>^^^^^
But no, it’s not charging. It is freeeeee.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They seem to run an awfully fine military, though. It’s amusing to me that the same people who often say that the govt can’t do anything right are also justifiably proud of our military, which is … after all … run by the govt. Obviously they can do something right.</p>
<p>Military is not run by the goverment. Military is run by the military.</p>
<p>^ The U.S. military answers to the civilian U.S. government. The D.O.D. is managed by a civilian cabinet officer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. Since ancient times, ambitious leaders have been tempted to cultivate an elite cadre of advisers and protectors devoted to the central government. Whether it is military or civilian, I agree, it’s an undemocratic, dangerous idea. Our civilian brain trusts come and go with our Presidents. They are not unified under a single perpetual institution.</p>
<p>^^Fine. I mean to say “give me one agency that is run correctly that’s run by congress.” DoD doesn’t count.</p>
<p>No agencies are run by Congress. But it’s an American trait to think that the government is incompetent. Perhaps it’s healthy, even though it’s exaggerated.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The military is an example of a unique organization that is run without real regard to cost. I don’t think anybody would look at the military as the paradigm of economic efficiency. Remember the “$1000 toilet seat.” Although we obstensibly try to keep the military budget down, nobody really cares as long as they keep us safe from harm.</p>