Nothing obligates Michigan or US taxpayers to pay for the scholarships of international students. However, what is perhaps Ansari's subtle argument is that international students contribute a lot to the UM campus - they bring opinions and exposure from shores far away from the US, which most American students know little about. This, in turn, greatly benefit US students whose opinions and knowledge or world affairs are great accentuated. In an increasingly globalized world, this is extremely important.

For example: In the 80's or 90's Students from Japan or Korea, could have perhaps given students in the US a perspective of how to run an efficient automotive industry. Perhaps, they would have mentioned a focus on small, environmentally focused cars ,sold on a global scale. In turn, the Michigan student would have gone on to work at GM/ Chrysler and implement these measures and perhaps they would have been a reasonably healthy automotive industry rather than the state of bankruptcy and unemployment which defines the state Michigan around the world. This, no doubt, would help the taxpayer and the taxpayers children, in turn.

I say "perhaps" because obviously this didn't happen and Michigan remains the sick man of the United States with unemployment close to 15%. If you look at the very best universities in the United States like Harvard. Harvard has a 25% population of foreign students! And Harvard offers need and merit based students to all of them! No wonder their students become so globally minded and do well, with so many governmental and commerical leaders. Look at President Obama - he's a global thinker who had Pakistani and Indian roommates, at college. Who, I'm sure were at Harvard on a scholarhsip!

If you look at the colleges offering aid to internationall students - they are among the best in the nation. Their students are all leaders in the US and in countries across the world. Why can't we at Micihgan cultivate this global mindset by attracting more international students which betters the Michigan students college experience is beyond me.

Why doesn't Michigan come to terms with this reality: The world is globalizing so fast that exposure to all things international is absolutely vital in these impressionable college years. Michigan would do well to heed Ansari's proposition and begin a financial aid program to students from around the world.

The article highlights a problem, but the solution is flawed. I am an international student who borrowed $48K in 2002 and still see a big part of my paycheck dissapear every month.

However, I partially agree with Wolfe's view: International Students should not get priority for American Taxpayer paid money.

Partially, because tax-payers in this country are not just American born. So, it is not completely wrong for taxpayer money to go to some foreign students.

One way to decide is to see if the graduate student's work is benefiting this country or his. If the student is involved in reducing driver deaths at UMTRI, he/she should be considered on par.

If a foriegn student is getting an MBA, with no active contribution to public well being, there is a poor case for tax-payer paid aid.

Also, a University is "universal" by definition. Universities of Alexandria in Egypt, Nalanda in India accepted scholars from all over when those countries were prosperous. If the States wants to do justice to its status as a true world leader in thought, Xenophobic attitudes do no good.

I was here for a Masters, with no immediate impact on public good. I did not deserve tax-funded aid.

If Ansari's conjecture is true, that foreign students who attend UM are rich enough, I am very saddened, coming from middle class of the subcontinent. I have managed to pay off an insignificant part of the $50k loan, working for five years in a dead end low paying job. Thanks to the collapse of the Auto industry starting in the early 2000s.

"High-interest loans, in turn, are hardly viable options for already-burdened students. Repaying loans restricts options for graduates — international students must work in the U.S. rather than return home to contribute in their own countries."

So instead of you paying for your education and being forced to contribute to the U.S., you propose that we pay for your tuition so you can contribute to your country? Why have you offered to petition to your own country of origin to provide these 5 scholarships, and suggested that the University should offer 5 scholarships to U.S. citizens to study abroad and bring what they learn over seas back to the U.S.? Wouldn't this do more to promote diversity?

Anyway here's a valuable lesson I offer you for free. Life isn't fair.