Porter  1  

Indian “Brain Drain” Trends in STEM Fields and Influence on American Immigration Policy

Sean Porter Prof. Bruhn

International Policy Seminar 6 December 2012

  Porter  2  

In this paper I would like to follow the notions of both the positive and negative aspects

of the “brain drain” and the effects that this phenomena has on some aspects of policy,

especially in terms of immigration policy. Specifically, I want to follow the path of India

in its sending of STEM students and professionals to the United States, noting the scale

on which these foreign nationals came and the degree at which they stayed. From this

information I will follow the growth and subsequent decline of these Indian STEM

students looking for advanced schooling and employment in the U.S. as compared to the

development of their home country in regard to education. Further, I will make the case

that the combination of previous lack of attention by Western states and the positive

impact of this “brain drain” on countries out of which these professional individuals have

come have led to less interest to attend Western schools as opposed to schools in the

country of origin, especially when the country of origin has made great developmental

strides in education as India has done. In some senses “brain drain” has had the capacity

to be beneficial in certain situations, as seen in India as of late. I will argue that the

United States has noticed these failings and, as a result, is making strides towards re-

gaining an edge in the “brain drain” arena by working toward more accommodating

immigration policy for these STEM foreign nationals. From this line of logic, I will argue

that India has served as a marker for this progression of growth and advancement. And

that as the number of Indian students tapers off from Western States, the U.S. becomes

more aware of the necessity of foreign STEM students and is making strides to stay

competitive with foreign education and, subsequently, economic markets by changing or

shifting policy.  

  Porter  3  

Over the last few decades many people have seen “brain drain” as a phenomena that has

yielded negative consequences on either side of the issue. These individuals cite the

rising rate of immigration from the host country as negative, further making the case that

it is causing a deep dependence of the host on foreign human capital. In addition, with

this “brain drain” there has been a decrease, at least in the case of the U.S., in the viability

of employing American citizens relative to the preferential treatment of foreign nationals

who, in many cases, are in the host country solely for the purpose of that particular

occupation. This argument is subsequently buttressed by the fact that at, least in the case

of India with 26.7% (IIE, 2012), there is a large number of foreign nationals involved in

Optional Practical Training, or OPT, which allow these individuals to stay in country and

work within their fields of study on a special visa. By doing this, the argument assumes

that notion those employment opportunities would otherwise be open to citizens of the

United States. These individuals further make the case that there is an influx in the

foreign nationals by citing the high numbers of estimated unauthorized immigrants in the

United States with the data provided by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of

Immigration Statistics. The assertion is that, as a result of entrance into the country and

the overstaying of their visas, many of those involved in this “brain drain” have become

unauthorized immigrants. Similarly skeptics assume that many foreign nationals simply

use education as a means of immigration to these Western countries, citing the estimated

high of numbers unauthorized immigrants, including people with Chinese and Indian

origins, into U.S. states which are coincidentally noted as amongst the most desirable

places for study by foreign nationals when studying abroad in the United States. Using

the DHS data, it can be noted that both China and India increased their number of

  Porter  4  

estimated unauthorized immigrants from 2000 to 2011, China by nearly half and India by

almost 100%(Hoefer et al, 2012, pg 5). The argument further goes on to substantiate

these arguments by making the case that nearly a third of those unauthorized immigrants

were between the ages of 25 and 34, an average age for many people enrolled in or

finishing masters and doctorate programs. From this, the final part of the argument is that

of the proportion of these unauthorized immigrants in states in the U.S. that have been

noted as centers for higher education, notably California, Texas, and New York which

host nearly a third of foreign students enrolled in this country. In these cases of the

complex and usually ineffective immigration policies of the U.S. that are supposed to

monitor foreign nationals for study and subsequently work are often seen as an

intensifying part of the “brain drain”, most notably when referring to STEM fields, and in

reducing the number of host country citizens involved in the work in these STEM fields.

Many of those with negative views on STEM fields and many of the foreign nationals

that come to the U.S. to study use the notion that “foreign students tend to major in

expensive, technical fields and high proportions are in graduate study.”(Agarwal &

Winkler, 1985, pg. 520) and that in this way these students are siphoning off resources

that could be better put to use in other areas of study, or that the expense of these persons

in these fields is outweighing the usefulness of the fields themselves.  

To contrast with some of the ideas previously presented and to draw attention to some of

the fallacies, including the fact that the negative assertion of Indian foreign nationals are

coming into to U.S. simply to live and to stay as unauthorized is not an argument of

causation, it is an argument of correlation at best. Simply because a group of foreign

nationals are estimated to live in places that correspond to noted university hubs for

  Porter  5  

STEM fields and graduate study in general does not mean that the group is the sole cause

for the rates of estimated unauthorized immigration. In addition to this notion there are

further contrasts to the proposed negative notions illustrated earlier including ideas that

the phenomena of “brain drain” promotes consequences of a positive nature and that this

phenomena needs to be examined, at least on some scale, by both the host and the

sending countries. The most obvious reason which presents a different perspective than

prevented before, is the fact that there is a slowing of the interest in STEM fields overall

in the U.S. as many students and professionals have shifted from those fields to areas

associated with economics and management. In this regard, it would behoove any country

in this situation to make any effort to prevent an unnecessary decline in fields so

important to staying economically competitive as more and more people outside of the

U.S. have made greater efforts in STEM fields, most notably the Swiss with the Large

Hadron Collider, leaving the particle collider in the U.S., which was the largest of its

kind, a relic. In this sense, we are seeing that the “brain drain” and subsequent

competition for these persons and resources straddles the lines of the intellectual and the

economic, as education and resources therein have been linked to long-term economic

success of many countries. Similarly, the idea that “brain drain” can provide necessary

human capital for the growth of the economy by bringing the people with the most

ingenuity and wherewithal by offering those persons to have a better opportunity in a

more developed country as opposed to a less developed country. Even moving beyond

the good possibly done for the host country, there is the point that many of the more

motivated persons within these developing countries, because of seeing their fellow

countrymen making these strides and succeeding on some scale, might also make a

  Porter  6  

greater investment in knowledge, a long-term engine for a country’s growth. In his article

examining this very subject Mountford finds that the country of origin can benefit from

“brain drain” when “educational decisions are endogenous and if successful emigration is

not a certainty”(Mountford, 1997, 288), meaning that when the country has control over

its own educational system in terms of the structures needed for success in that particular

country relative to the economy and the capability to leave that country through

education or otherwise is stifled by immigration policies in either the country of origin or

the country desired to travel to there can be an overall increase in production from the

country of origin in many cases. Combining some of the ideas presented earlier in this

section, Mountford goes on to assert more deeply that the sheer fact that there is a

possibility of migration to a country with higher wages there could be more of a focus on

education, and even if there is a portion number of persons are “drained”, if that number

of is not particularly large the overall growth of human capital can outweigh this “brain

drain”(Mountford, 1997, 288). In this sense Mountford is making the case that even

within the negative effects of “brain drain” there can be this silver lining of a slower,

more deeply seated growth within the country of origin.  

With all of this talk of the positive and negative consequences and aspects of “brain

drain” there has been a surprising lack of definition of the subject. “Brain Drain” in its

simplest form is the migration of human capital from one place to another. Human capital

in this situation refers to people with professionals and those with an education past 12

years, especially those in the STEM fields. When speaking about this “brain drain”, the

usual flow of human capital is from less developed countries to more developed countries

because of the greater advantages the more developed country may have in terms of

  Porter  7  

training and employment. This outflow of these persons is largely seen from places such

as China, India, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Canada and into many Western countries

including the U.S., U.K., France, and other Western European countries. For the purposes

of this research paper I will focus on some of the consequences of “brain drain” on the

relationship between India and the United States with special regard to STEM fields. The

reason for choosing these two countries is the fact that they have had an exceedingly long

history in terms of international relations. As alluded to earlier, the U.S. is one larger

trading partners with India. In terms of percentages, the CIA world factbook places the

United States within India’s top 5 trading partners with both imports and exports as of

2011. The U.S. in terms of imports makes up 4.9% of India’s partners in that. Further,

when describing India’s export percentages to the U.S., it can be seen that a tenth of

overall exports from India are consumed by the U.S. These economic factors combined

with the fact that India has been amongst the largest contributors of foreign students to

the United States over the last quarter-century, make this an effective and apt relationship

to observe within the parameters of this research paper.  

In order to further clarify any preconceptions it is necessary to define what is included in

the STEM fields. These fields have historically have been defined by their parts, of which

the brunt includes sciences, technologies, engineering, and mathematics. These defining

fields have been, over the years, loosened to be more inclusive of certain sections of the

more empirical humanities, which includes some types of psychology, and overtly health-

related fields. Widely, this definition does not include fields such as political science and

the growing field of sociology despite each of their largely empirically data-driven

aspects. Essentially, the definition of what constitutes a STEM field is a task in itself. The

  Porter  8  

single unifying force in the field that I have found is the fact that each of these has some

empirical aspect to it. Each can be tested and re-created in some way or form. The

difficulty is that the differences in how these fields explore their subjects bar them from

inclusion into the grouping of STEM in the perspective of certain institutions. Where the

Department of Homeland Security may use one set of standards of defining STEM fields

for particular data-collecting purposes, the National Science Foundation may have a

wider, more inclusive set of standards in order to define the parameters of particular

projects.  

Taking a deeper look into the STEM field and some of the statistics therein, it may be

effortless to assume that the United States has a relatively good standing in terms of

receiving students in those fields and in most fields overall— this, however, is a fallacy.

Yes the U.S. has quite high number of international students enrolled. In fact, according

to the Institution of International Education in their most recent briefing on international

education, in 2011/2012 the international student enrollment rose 6% to a record high of

764,495 students. This may seem like a strong move forward for the United States’

higher education system in terms of inclusion of international persons, which it is, but

when those numbers are compared to total U.S. higher education numbers they seem

miniscule at less than 4%. Even so, within this group of students the largest single

grouping in terms of field is that of STEM. This field is followed in popularity by

Management and Business, illustrating the slow but imminent move towards fields with a

greater emphasis on the economy. However, with 41% of students majoring in STEM

fields it is a likely result that much of the funding for foreign nationals would be aimed at

this particularly fruitful set of majors with its long-term economic viability in terms of

  Porter  9  

large-scale competition on the global market, especially considering the growth of

demand for many STEM graduates with special regard to engineers and computer

scientists. The IIE further made the case that many of the trends in growth for these

STEM fields and international enrollment on the whole will continue into the next year.  

From the viewpoint of Export-Import Bank President and Chair Fred Hochberg, “brain

drain” is a necessary component of an effective, developed economy. He further noted

that with his position at the Ex-Im Bank one of the ideas they worked towards is that

“We’d like to import entrepreneurs and then export their products”(Hochberg, The

Atlantic, March 2012) in essence creating a situation beneficial to the U.S. as a host

country. At the Atlantic’s Economic Summit in March 2012, he made the point of

explaining how, as a result of the archaic immigration policies in place, there is a slowing

of interest of foreign nationals in the opportunities possible in Western nations, the U.S.

notably, when those possibilities are weighed against the difficulties of migration, and

possible immigration, to those nations. With this in mind Hochberg suggested that it

would be economically advantageous for the U.S. to relax some restrictions immigration

policies have on these desirable foreign nationals. From his perspective on this matter

Hochberg seems to be aiming to persuade his audience that despite the short-term pain of

an increased foreign national population and the work it would take in Congress to pass

necessary reform in this area, the long-term benefits would far outweigh any of these

difficulties for the U.S.  

Watching the noted author and theoretical physicist Michio Kaku describe his knowledge

on the subject of “brain drain” allowed for essentially a ground floor look at some of the

reasons for it and the long-term consequences if things continue as they are. The co-

  Porter  10  

founder of string theory had this to say about the subject “50% of all Ph.D physicist

students in graduate school are foreign-born. At State University in New York it is 100%

foreign-born. What we are witnessing is a hemorrhaging of our scientific elite,

compensated for by foreigners who then populate our Ph.D. institutions. Now, however,

China is saying ‘Come on back. We’ll give you a laboratory. We’ll give you anything

you want.’” (Kaku, BookTV, 3 Oct. 2010) In this way Kaku is making the point that as

less and less resources are put into STEM fields in the United States, other developed and

developing countries, India and China included, are taking it upon themselves to drain

some of the human capital back and create more opportunities for their respective

countries. He goes on to explain that the retention of these individuals is becoming part of

the equation as well; when looking at the fact that much of the funding for projects and

programs in the United States has become stagnant, not growing, and with that retention

of individuals is a problem because the other countries vying for these persons have more

to offer and per person than the United States. All of this taken into account, Kaku makes

the case that there is a slowing of the “brain drain” which he feels could erode the

scientific base in the United States and, eventually, the economy.  

As an immediate representation of the efforts Kaku suggested and some of the

consequences he predicted, the National Journal released an article on 28 November 2012

following the progress and difficulty of passing a newly revised STEM immigration bill

through the House of Representatives. In her article “House Poised to Pass STEM

Immigration Bill”, Juliana Gruenwald follows the context of and details surrounding

Lamar Smith’s, R-Texas, newly drafted version of this bill. As it stands the proposed bill

would “allow more foreign students who graduated from U.S. schools with advanced

  Porter  11  

technical degrees to stay in the country” (Gruenwald, National Journal), effectively

attempting to resolve some of the problems the U.S. has had with retention in this area as

the global competition to acquire this human capital increases. Gruenwald makes the

assertion that during this lame-duck period in Congress, this bill will pass through the

House with a majority vote if the closeness of the failed two-thirds vote on this issue

earlier has any influence on the impending debates and vote on this issue. Portions of this

particular policy are very much striking, including the fact that this bill would make

efforts to make it easier for immediate family members of STEM green card holders to

stay in the U.S. I find this an especially effective means of retention as many of the

graduated STEM field students have spouses and children that would otherwise be onset

with the difficulties of the existing immigration policies. In this way, retaining a family as

a whole would likely be more effective than simply allowing the STEM field student to

stay in a foreign country alone. A further significant portion of this bill is the fact that it

allows for the rolling over of unused STEM green cards in the fiscal years of 2013-2016.

With this addendum, it seems as though the bill is attempting not to waste any single

resource in terms of gaining professionals in the STEM field. If there is a decline in one

of the years included, the excess can simply be transferred to a pool for the possible

influx the next year; effectively, the idea of “waste not, want not” applied to foreign

intellectuals. In addition to these components of this bill is the elimination of the

Diversity Visa program that uses a lottery on 55,000 green cards to people from countries

with low immigration rates to the U.S. (Gruenwald, National Journal). This has been a

point of contention between the Democrats and Republicans, as the Democrats are

proposing wide-spanning immigration reform involving the Diversity Visa program

  Porter  12  

whereas the Republicans see this particular policy as ineffective in this day and age. The

irony of this all is that “Both Democrats and Republicans support the goal of allowing

more skilled foreign students who graduate with advanced STEM degrees to remain in

the country” (Gruenwald, National Journal). The common ground shared by these groups,

the problem is how and to what degree either group plans on implementing their strategy.

This is an especially difficult process in this case seeing as Republicans control the House

and the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to pass this bill. On a wider scale, the

White House and other Democratic leadership has spoken out on the perceived short-

sighted and limited scope of the proposed bill that “ ‘allocate immigrant visas for

advanced graduates of a limited set of STEM degree programs’ “(Gruenwald, National

Journal)  

In the situation presented, the STEM immigration bill aptly represents some of the ideas

presented earlier about the consequences and turns of policy and ideology when it came

to “brain drain” in the United States. As seen overall, neither political party wants to

move away from accommodating foreign nationals into the American society and

economy, the difference is the blunt way the Republicans posed their policy in trying to

retain as many STEM students from around the world as possible while the Democrats

are attempting to create an overall change in policy to spur growth in multiple sectors

without any more special regard to those persons in STEM fields. Both sides of the aisle

in the United States have recognized the necessity of retaining these STEM persons who

have been brought in for particular projects and who have already had expansive

experience with the subject as a result of American schooling, otherwise it would be

simply a waste of resources to bring these persons and their families in to have them

  Porter  13  

move back to their countries of origin to do similar work after receiving so much U.S.

training.  

India has for the longest time been the rule when it came to both foreign students in

STEM fields and foreign students in general in higher education in the United States. As

noted by the IIE, until recently India has been the country with the largest number of

students studying abroad in the United States, undergraduate or otherwise. As of late

India has become the second leading place of origin for students coming to the U.S., with

the interesting addition that more than half of students coming are doing so as graduate

students in some of these more technical, STEM fields. The distribution of Indian

students in American institutions of higher educational spreads in a way worth noting

when it is seen that over a third, 36.7%, of students are in engineering fields, 21.7% in

math/computer fields, 14% in business/management, and 11.4% in physical/life sciences.

From this data it can taken that the Indian foreign nationals enrolled in American higher

education institutions are exceedingly important both for their sheer size and presence in

these institutions, in addition to their overall focus towards fields which are becoming

more and more important on a world stage all of this is in terms of STEM fields, their

expansion and usefulness, and the way in which the United States holds itself in regard to

economic and technological advancement.

  Porter  14  

 

In recent years, however, India has fallen behind China in the number of students sent to

these American institutions for a combination of reasons. First, it is necessary to look at

the exponential growth of the number of Chinese people being sent to these places of

higher education as the number of Indians is large, but has tapered off within the last few

years. The sheer proportions of China over the last decade in terms of population and

expansion rate therein may have served as a factor in the exponential growth within the

last 5 years. From this idea it is a simple jump to the fact that China has become an

economic powerhouse and is massaging some STEM fields while into the fields of

business/management. This is simply an aside to describe a more global shift and how

some countries are allocating resources based on world markets, with some focusing

more on the technical and others focusing more on the economic.  

Overall India has over the last half-century been amongst the most adamant countries in

sending students to the United States. In fact, from Wasem’s work with the

Congressional Research Service it was found that “India was the top sending country for

STEM graduates enrolled in masters’ degree programs and represented 56% of all STEM

  Porter  15  

students seeking masters’ degrees in 2009.”(Wasem, 2012, pg 5) Examining this

statement, it is simple to see how this particular set of people in this rapidly growing field

could have such a great impact, negative or positive. In more recent times the numbers

have only changed slightly but have, as trends have shown, begun to show signs of

stagnation. From the Institution of International Education’s research this year I found

that as of late the trends in Indian student enrollment increased from the fiscal year

2000/2001-2008/2009 when the numbers stabilized and ever since that the rate of growth

has slowed, even declining a bit. The chart, as seen above, does seem to make the

allusion that these numbers of students of Indian origin will hold stable, possibly only

declining slightly more in the upcoming fiscal years. This decline may have been an

effect of the immigration policy of the United States that has created a situation in which

it is especially difficult for foreign nationals to stay and work within the host country

after graduation, thus reducing interest, at least on a small scale, to make the effort to

study in the U.S. at all because of the lack of post-graduate opportunities. Another likely

possibility, supported in some ways by Mountford’s work, is the fact that things are

improving in terms of education in the country of origin as a result of the investment of

Indian citizens into education and training after observing the possibility of moving

toward higher wages and subsequently not emigrating to the U.S. for one reason or

another. According to India’s Department of Higher Education, there has been an

expansion of the number of university/university-level institutions by nearly 20 times

over the last 60 years. With this in mind, it would seem more apt, because of the

investment in human capital in India and in spite of some “brain drain” for India’s

students to stay within their country and save both effort and funds by doing so. Some of

  Porter  16  

the assumptions made by Beine et al are demonstrated with the growth of the higher

education institutions in India, when they make the point that education has been seen as

a major determinant of long-term growth. I mean this statement in that with the increase

in human capital as a result of possible opportunities abroad, those persons who did not

partake in migration to Western States such as the U.S. made greater efforts within their

own country and gained new opportunities therein. As Agarwal and Winkler noted, “The

number of students attending U.S. colleges as a proportion of students attending colleges

anywhere…has declined”(Agarwal and Winkler, 1985, pg 512) which I take to mean that

opportunities to attend college in their home countries has improved. This notion is very

much observable in the case of India with the increase in higher education institutions

and the decline/stagnation of individuals from India attending higher education

institutions in the United States.  

It is an oddity however that these grand decisions are being made surrounding a relatively

small population of people, but have an exceedingly large set of possible consequences.

Wasem contends, “Some researchers warn of a ‘reverse brain drain’ because the United

States does not allocate what they consider to be a sufficient number of visas for high-

skilled immigrants to fuel the economy.”(Wasem, 2012, pg 2). In this way Wasem is

strengthening the arguments made by Kaku and Hochberg regarding the deficiency of

resources fueling highly skilled persons, especially those in fields that need both people

and capital like STEM to keep programs viable for the future. India is, and has been,

showing signs of this ‘reverse brain drain’ especially when looking at the 2009 decline

and stagnation of students from that country to the U.S. Such declines combined with

India’s increase in higher education institutions and the constantly expanding market for

  Porter  17  

STEM students and graduates are making the United States seem less attractive an option

in terms of education and work, especially when thinking about the frustrating

immigration policies.  

Further, when looking more in depth into these consequences and phenomena on an

economic level, the size of the policy decisions and shifts from country to country, the

cost of the “brain drain” can be imagined with a better point of reference. Despite the

amount of funds required to run many of these STEM programs, the U.S. Department of

Commerce noted that “growth in STEM jobs was three times as fast as growth in non-

STEM jobs over the past 10 years” (Wasem, 2012, pg 2) With this observation the idea of

the importance that STEM investment is paramount in keeping up with not only technical

advances, but also economic trends. And with the recent political shifts towards

addressing some of the issues of STEM immigration, it can be seen that the U.S.

government has finally come to understand magnitude of what the STEM field can

provide to the state economically. Imbued with this knowledge it would seem like the

recent and fervent work toward legislation to retain foreign STEM students and to expand

the program to be more inclusive of foreign nationals in STEM fields is simply an effort

to protect the economy from what could be a STEM-based recession. With the continued

growth of the STEM field and its impact on the economy it seems almost comical that the

growth of funding necessary to keep this field as advanced as it needs to be in order to

compete on the world stage has come to a semi-vegetative state. And as the funding has

stayed the same while demand has risen, there has been an aforementioned stagnation of

these STEM students from one of the largest providers of these students in India.  

  Porter  18  

As shown, the negative effects of “brain drain” in the case of STEM fields is very much

outweighed by the necessity of persons in those fields in cases of both the country of

origin and the host country. From the host country’s perspective, there may be a growth

in the population of students from India, and as a result there may be an increase in

foreign nationals with visas as shown by the stay rates of doctorate recipients observed by

Finn which included India as a country with above average stay rates compared with

other countries (Finn, 2010, ii). Noting this fact but not taking it for a more than an

observation of trends, the idea that unauthorized immigration increased as a result of

increases in STEM students and graduates as part of “brain drain” seems a bit far-fetched.

And from this the positive effects on the United States are quickly being realized as this

new Technological Revolution is being fueled by the STEM students that the U.S. is

teaching and training, but which are quickly returning to their countries of origin for less

immigration difficulty and greater long-term opportunities than are offered in the United

States. India has been noticed in this regard when looking at recent pushes in American

politics to ameliorate the immigration problems for STEM students and re-gain a “brain

drain” edge.  

 

 

 

 

 

  Porter  19  

Bibliography

Wasem, Ruth Ellen, Immigration of Foreign Nationals with STEM Degrees. Congressional Research Service, 18 September 2012.

Finn, Michael G., Stay Rates of Foreign Doctorate Recipients from U.S. Universities. Oak Ridge Institution for Science and Education. January 2012

Chiswick, Barry R., The Economics of Immigration: Selected Papers of Barry R. Chiswick. Policy Analysis of Foreign Student visas.

Carrington, William J., and Detragiache, Enrica, How Extensive is the Brain Drain, Finance and Development, June 1999

Carrington, William J. and Detragiache, Enrica, How Big Is the Brain Drain? (July 1998). IMF Working Paper, Vol. , pp. 1-27, 1998. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=882624 Stark, Oded, Helmenstein, Christian, and Prskawetz, Alexia. A brain gain with a brain drain. Economic Letters, Volume 55, issue 2, 29 August 1997, pg 227-234. Mountford, Andrew, Can Brain drain be good for the growth of the source economy? Journal of Development Economics, Volume 53, issue 2, August 1997, pg 287-303. Beine, Michel, Docquier, Frederic, and Rapoport, Hillel. Brain drain and economic growth; theory and evidence. Journal of Development Economics, Volume 64, issue 1, February 2001, pg 275-289.

Hochberg, Fred, The Atlantic’s Economy Summit, 14 Mar. 2012. The Atlantic. C-SPAN 3, http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/304905-11

“Michio Kaku.” In Depth. C-SPAN: BookTV. 3 Oct. 2010. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/295788-1

Open Doors 2012: Report on International Educational Exchange, International Education Week, 13 Nov. 2012, Institute of International Education, Washington, D.C. Gruenwald, Juliana, House Poised to Pass STEM Immigration Bill, The National Journal, 28 November 2012. http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/house-poised-to-pass-stem-immigration-bill-20121128?mrefid=mostViewed