I. Introduction

This chapter explores factors that lead students and postdoctoral scholars who train outside their native countries to come to the United States rather than go to a third country for study. The question is of importance given the role that the foreign born play in science, the apparent growing competition outside the United States for foreign students and postdocs, and the limited amount of research that has been done to date—largely because of the absence of data—concerning what leads mobile PhD students and postdoctoral scholars to choose one country over another. We use data collected by the authors in 2011 as part of the GlobSci project (Franzoni, Scellato, and Stephan 2012), which cover research-active scientists currently working or training in 16 core countries. The data are also used to address three related questions: (1) how core countries compare in terms of the percent of scientists and engineers working in-country who are foreign and received a PhD and/or postdoc training in-country; (2) how countries vary in the proclivity of citizens to study abroad and how this proclivity relates to educational and scientific characteristics of the country; and (3) how country patterns have changed over time. Throughout the paper, country of origin is defined as the country where the scientist resided at age 18.

Major findings include wide variation by country in the proclivity of foreign students to come for training as well as the probability that citizens train abroad. We also find that the percent of mobile students and postdoctoral scholars who choose to study in the United States has declined in recent years, consistent with initiatives of other countries to attract foreign talent. Our research suggests that public policy plays an important role in attracting the foreign born to study in a country. Mobile researchers score measures of the quality of the research environment in the country of training as highly important in their decision to study abroad. They also score the availability of financial assistance from the host country as playing an important role in their decision. Respondents also report that career opportunities outside their home country are an extremely important factor (if not the most important factor) in their decision to study abroad. Finally, our research suggests that the United States is a magnet for foreign students and postdocs precisely because the United States has excelled in creating a strong educational and research environment and providing financial support for study. Students who come to the United States appreciate these strengths, scoring factors that are proxies for the research environment and financial assistance higher than mobile students and postdocs who go to most other countries for training.

The plan of the paper is as follows: section II examines the role that foreign-born graduate students and postdoctoral scholars play, section III discusses factors that contribute to students studying outside their native country, and section IV sets out policies that countries pursue to attract foreign students and postdocs. Section V briefly summarizes the presence of foreign students and postdocs in the United States and elsewhere. The GlobSci data are briefly described in section VI and analyzed in section VII. The paper closes with conclusions and discussion (section VIII).

II. The Role of Foreign-Born Students and Postdoctoral Scholars

Foreign-born students and postdoctoral scholars contribute to the educational system and, more generally, to the country where they are trained, in several ways. As students, they populate graduate programs, contributing to the intellectual life and quality of programs and help to build programs, particularly those that are lower ranked.¹ They also provide a source of assistance in research. In this regard, foreign-born graduate students are more likely to serve as research assistants than are US citizens, as can be inferred from the fact that 49% of temporary residents report that their primary support mechanism while in graduate school was a research assistantship, while only 21% of US citizens report that their primary means of support was a research assistant ship.²

Postdoctoral scholars, by definition, work on research (Black and Stephan 2010). At some US campuses postdocs are preferred over graduate students, not only because they have more advanced training but also because they can be a “relative bargain” compared to graduate students, for whom tuition must be paid (Stephan 2012). Moreover, the ad hoc nature of the postdoctoral labor market—especially for the foreign born who are educated outside the United States—can lead to instances where faculty compensate foreign-born postdocs at rates below the (already low) rate prescribed by government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH).³ A chemist at a research university, by way of example, recounted at a 2013 meeting how faculty on his campus hired foreign postdocs at less than $25,000 per year.

Another way in which foreign students contribute to the country where they train is that they can be a source of revenue (Hawthorne 2009). Although revenue data for foreign students are difficult to parse at the graduate level, there is some indication that foreign graduate students are seen as a revenue source. In the United States, for example, 13% of the temporary residents report that their primary source of support while in their PhD program was a fellowship⁴ and master’s students often pay full tuition. The revenue incentive has grown in recent years, especially as public research universities, such as the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Michigan increasingly receive less of their funding from the state. While the revenue incentive is most heavily focused on recruiting foreign undergraduates, there is anecdotal evidence that the revenue model is spreading to graduate programs in science and engineering in the United States.⁵

Outside the United States, revenue can be a major reason that countries recruit international students. In Australia, for example, education has replaced tourism as the country’s number one service export (Verbik and Lasanowski 2007), although it is difficult to know the extent to which foreign students contribute to revenue at the doctoral level. Universities in Europe often host foreign students from Asian countries whose tuition is paid in full by programs in the home country. Revenue from foreign students in the United Kingdom reportedly grew by 28% between 2002 and 2003 and 2004 and 2005, going from 1.09 billion pounds to 1.4 billion pounds.⁶

Foreign students and postdocs also contribute to the international collaborative capacity of a country, thereby facilitating joint research projects and knowledge flows. Scellato, Franzoni, and Stephan, for example, find the foreign born to have larger international networks than do natives. The network effect is particularly strong for those who come with PhD in hand for a postdoctoral position (Scellato, Franzoni, and Stephan 2014).⁷

Foreign students also contribute to the workforce of a country, having a high likelihood of staying in the country where they train. The tenyear stay rate for PhDs in science and engineering in the United States, for example, was over 60% when last measured in 2009 (Finn, 2012, p. 9). Although no comparable data have been collected for postdocs in the United States or for PhD students or postdocs in other countries, the GlobSci survey finds the PhD as well as the postdoc position to be a major entry point among immigrant scientists working in-country. It is exactly for recruitment reasons that many countries now actively pursue policies to attract international students and scholars, whom governments see as a “tried and tested” source of skilled labor (Hawthorne 2009).

There is some evidence to suggest that the foreign-born doctoral educated are more productive than the native born and thus contribute disproportionately to scientific outcomes and indirectly to the economy. Levin and Stephan, for example, show that authors of exceptional contributions are disproportionately distributed among the foreign born and foreign educated in the United States (Levin and Stephan 1999). Gaule and Piacentini find Chinese chemistry students in PhD programs in the United States to be more productive and to experience a more rapid surge in productivity over time than non-Chinese PhD students in the United States (Gaule and Piacentini 2013). Grogger and Hanson find evidence that the foreign born who intend to stay in the United States after receiving a PhD are more able than those who do not intend to stay, suggesting that stayers are positively selected in terms of quality (Grogger and Hanson 2013). Franzoni, Scellato, and Stephan find, after controlling for selection, that mobile scientists, many of whom moved for PhD study, are more productive, consistent with the concept that mobility enhances productivity by generating efficient matches (Franzoni, Scellato, and Stephan 2014).

Finally, foreign-born doctoral students who stay can contribute to a country by addressing shortages in certain labor markets, such as information technology. The extent to which these shortages are “real” in the United States is debatable (Teitelbaum 2014) and in certain fields there is strong evidence that they do not exist (Stephan 2012).

Given the number of positive contributions of the foreign born and the constant, although not necessarily accurate claims that the United States faces a shortage of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-trained individuals (New York Times 2013),⁸ it is not surprising that President Obama, as well as congressional leaders, have called for stapling a green card to diplomas of temporary residents who receive PhD training in science and engineering in the United States. Related policies have already been adopted in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.

III. Factors Encouraging Students to Study Outside Their Country of Origin

Factors that lead students to study outside their native country are often described in terms of “push” or “pull” (Mazzarol and Soutar 2002). On the push side, students are more likely to leave their native countries when they are unable to find quality graduate programs in their area of interest and/or they perceive job prospects after receiving a degree to be poor (Van Bouwel and Veugelers 2012).⁹ On the “pull” side, students are attracted by desirable properties, such as the prestige and quality of programs outside their native country (Perkins and Neumayer 2011; Beine, Noel, and Ragot 2012), the infrastructure and availability of support for research, the opportunity to experience a different lifestyle, and the possibility of long-term employment in the country where they study. Doctoral training in the United States, for example, places one in a relatively good position to receive an H-1B visa (Bound, Turner, and Walsh 2009), especially for those who find employment in academe and at nonprofits, which are exempt from the H-1B binding cap.¹⁰ The possibility of migration is also a factor in attracting foreign scholars to take a postdoctoral position in the United States, partly in hopes of eventually becoming a permanent resident with a permanent job (Stephan and Ma 2005). This appears to be less of a factor in attracting Europeans to take a postdoctoral position outside of the country, whether in the United States or in Europe.¹¹

The possibility of migration plays an important role in attracting graduate students to other countries as well as to the United States. A 1995 study of foreign students enrolled in Australia found migration to be the primary motivation for studying in Australia for 78% of international students from China, 6% from Hong Kong, 48% from the Philippines, 46% from Fiji/Pacific Islands, and 43% from Malaysia and Singapore (Hawthorne 2009).¹²

The availability of financial support, either in the form of a fellowship or an assistantship, also plays a key role in the decision of where a foreign student will train (Aslanbeogio and Monticinos 1998). Some countries, such as Switzerland, offer handsome stipends to PhD students coming from abroad. In the United States, research assistantships are readily available to the foreign born (Stephan 2012).¹³ Tuition costs, as well as costs of living, also play a role in the decision of where students study. In this regard, the Nordic countries of Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, which charge no fees for higher education, regardless of nationality, have a distinct advantage (Verbik and Lasanowski 2007) as do assistantships in the United States, which generally come with a tuition waiver.¹⁴

Other factors that encourage students to study outside their native country are the availability of exchange programs that make it easier to study abroad as well as fellowships that encourage mobility. The European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (ERASMUS) program, for example, has greatly facilitated mobility among European students since it was initiated in 1987; the Marie Curie program encourages study at the postdoctoral level outside one’s country.¹⁵

Financial support plays an important role in attracting postdoctoral scholars to study outside their country of nativity as well as in attracting doctoral students. Fellowships, such as those provided by the home country, can encourage students to do postdoctoral work outside their country of nativity. The Swiss National Science Foundation, for example, provides funds for PhD recipients to do postdoctoral training abroad and the Marie Curie program of the EU Commission sponsors postdoc training outside of country.¹⁶ Stipends offered by the host country also play a large role in attracting scholars to take a postdoctoral position in a foreign country, as does the number of positions available (Cantwell and Taylor 2013). When the NIH budget doubled in the late 1990s and early in the first decade of the twenty-first century, many faculty recruited foreign-born postdocs to take new postdoc positions in their labs funded from NIH grants (Garrison, Stith, and Gerbi 2005). More generally, Cantwell and Taylor find a 1% increase in federally supported research and development expenditures in the United States to be associated with a 0.5% increase in the employment of foreign postdocs (Cantwell and Taylor 2013).

The availability (or unavailability) of fringe benefits can also be a factor in the decision of where to study abroad, especially for postdoctoral study, when students are older. Historically, postdocs in the United States have received few fringe benefits and shared few of the working conditions enjoyed by faculty or staff. Over time, and partly in response to pressure from the National Postdoctoral Association (NPA), founded in 2003, the presence and availability of fringe benefits has grown and working conditions have improved. A survey of programs in the fall of 2011 conducted by the NPA found that 79% of the responding institutions provided health insurance to postdocs and 76% provided insurance to the postdoc’s family.¹⁷ In terms of family leave, 39% of the institutions offered paid maternity leave and 27.6% offered paid paternity leave. The availability of other benefits depended upon whether the postdoc was classified as a university employee. Regardless of status, however, a sizable proportion received neither paid vacation days, holidays, nor sick days (National Postdoctoral Association 2012).¹⁸

Fringe benefits and working conditions for postdocs, especially in Europe, are generally more generous than in the United States, although there is no systematic study of postdoc compensation across countries. In Switzerland, for example, a citizen of the European Union working as a postdoc is covered by Swiss unemployment insurance after working a minimum of two years. A postdoctoral fellow in Italy has five months of mandatory leave for the birth of a child during which she receives a full salary and can take up to three additional months at no pay. Postdocs in Germany receive a monthly family allowance of 150 euros if married and 154 euros per month for each of the first two children, for the third and subsequent children the family allowance increases substantially.

IV. Policies Countries Pursue to Attract Foreign Students and Postdoctoral Scholars

Countries have several arrows in their quivers to encourage foreign students and postdoctoral scholars to come for study. Some of these have been alluded to above. Policies included in the list are:

V. Foreign Students and Postdocs in the United States and Elsewhere

The percent of foreign-born students receiving PhD training in the United States in the natural sciences and engineering has increased consistently since the late 1970s, with two exceptions (figure 1). The last dip began in 2006 and largely reflects visa restrictions put in place after 9/11 (Alden 2008). It had begun to reverse itself by 2010 as a result of changes to these policies in the mid-2000s. In 2011, more than 45% of PhD recipients in science and engineering were either temporary or permanent residents, down from a high of slightly over 50% in 2006.¹⁹

Fields vary considerably in terms of how foreign they are. Engineering has the largest tradition; since the late 1970s, the number of engineering PhD degrees going to foreigners has exceeded the number going to US citizens. The physical sciences are also heavily populated by students from abroad, with slightly over 40% of the degrees in the field going to temporary residents. The field least populated by the foreign born is the life sciences, but even in this field in 2012 slightly over a quarter of degrees were awarded to temporary residents (NSF 2013, table 17).

Almost half of the noncitizens receiving a PhD in the United States currently come from three countries: China, India, and South Korea. Their importance is illustrated by the fact that three of the top five undergraduate “feeder” programs for PhD programs in the United States are outside the United States: Tsinghua University, Peking University, and Seoul National University (Mervis 2008).²⁰

The number of foreign postdoctoral scholars working in the United States grew rapidly between the mid-1980s and early in this century, hitting a high of 61% in 2001 (figure 2). Since 2006 it has been slightly below 60%, reflecting the hiring of more citizens and permanent residents as postdocs. The increase in permanent residents and citizens likely reflects deteriorating job market conditions for PhDs, especially since 2007, and the availability of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds in 2009 and 2010 to hire postdocs.

While many foreign postdocs receive their PhD training in the United States, a not insignificant number arrive after completion of their PhDs. Exact estimates, however, are difficult to make because the primary survey of PhDs working in the United States (Survey of Doctorate Recipients [SDR]) only collects information on those receiving their PhDs in the United States. However, at least one researcher estimates that as many as 50% of all postdocs working in the United States received their PhD outside the United States (Regets 2005).

The vast majority of postdoctoral appointments are in the life sciences, and the largest increase in the absolute number of postdoctoral positions held by temporary residents in recent years has been in the life sciences (Garrison, Stith, and Gerbi 2005). In 2008, for example, 56% of postdocs working in the life sciences were temporary residents. The percentage of foreign postdocs is even higher in other fields. In engineering, for example, nearly two out of three postdocs are foreign; the proportion is almost the same in the physical sciences.

The United States plays a leading role in educating foreign-born doctoral researchers, training more than four times as many foreign doctoral students as the United Kingdom, 10 times more than Spain, 10 times more than Switzerland and Sweden combined, and 12 times more than Australia. Nonetheless, and as these data show, the United States is not the only country that trains the foreign born. In 2004, for example, 22.4% of all doctoral candidates in the European Union were training in a country in which they were not a citizen. Three-fourths of these came from non-European Union countries (IISER 2007). More importantly, in recent years the number of PhD degrees awarded to foreigners has grown considerably in Europe, as well as in Canada, Japan, and Australia. For example, in 1999 only 14.8% of students enrolled in graduate programs in the natural sciences and engineering in Canada was foreign; by 2008 the number had increased to 25.6% (NSB 2012, table 2–42). In the United Kingdom the percent of foreign students in graduate programs in the natural sciences and engineering increased from 28.8% in 1998–1999 to 51.2% in 2008–2009 (NSB 2012, table 2–40). Even Japan, which has a reputation for being somewhat insular when it comes to educating foreign students and poses serious language challenges for many, has experienced an increase. In 2004, foreign students represented 8.4% of those enrolled in graduate school in the natural sciences and in engineering and in 2010 they represented 10.9% (NSB 2012, table 2–41).

In recent years the postdoctoral position has gained in popularity outside the United States, although data on the actual number of postdoctoral scholars working outside the United States is sketchy and even sketchier when it comes to information concerning the proportion who are foreign born or foreign educated. But what we do know suggests that the presence of the foreign born is substantial among the postdoc population. For example, one study found that 43% of the 19,000 postdoctoral fellows in the life sciences in Europe are working outside their country of citizenship. Of these, 44% are from another European country and 56% are from outside the EU (IISER 2007).

Despite these facts, because of a lack of consistent data it is difficult if not impossible to compare countries in terms of the proclivity to train the foreign born in science and engineering and the proclivity of residents to go abroad for training. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data, for example, are generally not available by level of tertiary training, field of training, and proportion of the foreign born, although statistics on the foreign born are available at a more aggregated level, such as for all tertiary students (OECD 2009). Moreover, and again because of data limitations, virtually nothing is known about what leads PhD students who go abroad to choose one country over another or what factors lead newly minted PhDs to take a postdoctoral position in one country rather than another. The GlobSci survey allows us to address a number of these issues.

VI. GlobSci Survey

We surveyed 47,304 active researchers in the four scientific disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth and environmental sciences, and materials science working or studying in 16 countries during February–June 2011. Researchers were randomly selected on the basis of being a corresponding author of an article published in 2009 in a journal related to one of the four fields. Countries included are: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. In the subsequent sections we refer to this set of countries as “core.” Collectively, the 16 core countries produce about 70% of all articles published in these fields.

Panelists were invited to participate by e-mail. The overall response rate is 40.6%. The response rate, conditional on completing the survey, is 35.6%.²¹ Response rate bias is discussed in Supporting Information in Franzoni, Scellato, and Stephan (2012), as well as the sampling strategy and procedure. China was initially included in the survey; however, a low response rate of less than 5% for a test sample of Chinese addresses suggested that respondents were either not receiving the invitation or had problems responding to the invitation. We encountered somewhat similar problems in a later effort to survey scientists in South Korea. Thus, we decided not to survey researchers based in China or South Korea.

For purposes of analysis we consider two samples of the foreign born (table 1). The first includes the foreign born who reside in a core country in 2011 and received their PhDs in 2000 or later, or, for a small handful, were enrolled in a PhD program in a core country at the time they responded to the survey. We refer to this group as the recent cohort sample. Included are all individuals living in a core country in 2011, regardless of country of origin. Of these, 1,165 studied or are studying for a PhD in a country different from where they lived when they were age 18 and 2,098 trained or are training as a postdoc in a country different from where they lived at age 18. The recentness of the sample minimizes censoring effects that arise when the foreign born who train in one of the core countries relocate to a country (such as China) that is not included in our survey. The second sample, with no time constraints, is restricted to those who resided in a core country at age 18. We refer to this as the core country sample of whom 1,348 were mobile for PhD training and 5,448 were mobile for postdoctoral training. We construct the second sample in this way in order to capture individuals who may have trained abroad but subsequently returned to their home country.

VII. Analysis of GlobSci Data

B. Reasons for Studying Abroad

A strength of the GlobSci survey is that it asked mobile researchers to asses on a five-point scale the importance each of ten factors played in the decision to study abroad for their PhDs, with a score of “1” being “totally unimportant,” a score of “3” being “neither important nor unimportant,” and a score of “5” being “extremely important.” Although responses may suffer from recall bias, there is little reason to believe that biases are country specific, either in terms of country of origin or country of destination. On the other hand, responses undoubtedly relate to preferences and circumstances of the respondents and these may vary across country of origin and/or country of destination.

The ten factors are given in table 3. Three of the variables reflect policies and the level of resources in the home country that can affect emigration for advanced study: fellowship_origin, home career, and no program. The first is specifically designed to encourage study abroad; the third, reflecting the absence of resources, encourages study abroad by default. The home career variable reflects labor market policies and practices in the home country that place a high value on study outside the country. Three variables reflect policies and resources of the host country that either directly or indirectly encourage emigration for advanced study: prestige, fellowship_host, and career. The third, which is differentiated from career opportunities in the home country, reflects the labor market for scientists in the host country (as well as other third countries) and visa policies in the host country. Two of the variables involve relationships between either individuals or institutions in the home and host country: exchange program and contact. Finally, two reflect personal situations and preferences and how these align with conditions in the host country. The “lifestyle” available at a Midwest university, for example, may not be highly valued by someone coming from a European urban environment; the lack of a substantial community of one’s ethnic peers may discourage migration to certain countries. Family reasons may make it difficult to study abroad because of ties to the home country or because of problems in getting visas for family members. While both factors can be affected by policies of the host country, they are not directly affected by science policy in the host country.

Variable Name	Factor	Mean
Career	Opportunity to improve my future career prospects	4.4
Prestige	Prestige/research excellence of the institution	4.2
Lifestyle	Appeal of the lifestyle or international experience	3.9
Fellowship_host	Fellowship that I obtained from the host country/institution	3.6
Home career	Opportunity to improve my future career prospects in the country where I lived when I was 18	3.4
Contact	Contact with somebody (a professor, colleague, friend) in the host country	3.2
No program	Few if any good PhD programs in the country where I lived when I was 18	2.7
Family	Family or personal reasons	2.5
Exchange program	Availability of an exchange or joint program between institutions	2.4
Fellowship_origin	Fellowship that I obtained from the country where I lived when I was 18	2.2

View Table Image

There is considerable variation in mean scores across the ten factors. Two that relate to science policy in the host country (career and prestige) have mean scores above “4.0.” Two others have mean scores between 3.5 and 4.0: fellowship_host and lifestyle. The first of these relates to active science policies on the part of the host country, the second does not. Four have mean scores below 3.0, indicating that respondents on average score the factors as lying between “totally unimportant” and “neither important nor unimportant.” The four are family, exchange_program, fellowship_origin, and no_program. The latter three depend in part on policies and resources of the home country.

Column (2) of table 4 provides mean answers to the “no program” for respondents from the recent cohort sample from 28 countries with 16 or more respondents working or training in a core country. Columns (3–5) provide summary data by country for the three educational and research characteristics discussed above.²⁹ We find substantial variation across countries in the degree to which students score the “no program available” statement as a factor leading them to go outside their country for training. Students who leave the Netherlands give the lowest mean score (1.63) to the factor with those from the United Kingdom being a close second. (Recall that a “1” means “totally unimportant.”) Those who leave Columbia give the highest mean score to the factor (3.27), with those from India giving it only a slightly lower (3.2) score. Simple correlations between the mean score and country characteristics suggest that push factors are at work. They are, respectively, –.3196 (p = .115); –.4363 (p = .0374); and =.–4490 (p = .0165).

	No Program+	N. Top Institutions in QS400 Ranking	HERD as % GDP	H-Index
Argentina	1.92	2	14.3	222
Australia	2.02	21	48.7	378
Austria	2.08	4	63.3	378
Belgium	1.87	7	42.0	454
Brazil	2.55	3	n/a	305
Canada	1.91	20	65.9	658
China	1.78	8	n/a	569
Colombia	3.27	n/a	n/a	133
Denmark	2.43	4	65.1	427
France	2.22	15	42.3	681
Germany	2.22	35	43.3	740
India	3.20	5	n/a	301
Iran	2.85	1	n/a	135
Italy	3.20	7	35.5	588
Japan	3.02	22	43.2	635
Korea	2.65	8	30.7	333
Mexico	1.87	2	12.1	232
Netherlands	1.63	12	65.9	576
Portugal	2.18	1	36.5	234
Romania	3.00	n/a	8.0	135
Russia	2.77	2	7.0	325
Spain	2.61	6	32.8	476
Sweden	2.03	8	81.5	635
Switzerland	1.78	8	n/a	511
Taiwan	2.92	5	29.6	93
Turkey	3.13	1	33.6	210
United Kingdom	1.71	45	44.4	851
United States	1.95	91	36.6	1,380

^n/a Not available at source.

⁺ weighted by probability of response.

View Table Image

Figure 3 compares the mean scores for the recent cohort of mobile PhD recipients of those coming to the United States versus those going elsewhere for PhD study. Although some variation exists among the scores given by the two groups, overall the means lie reasonably close together, suggesting that in general the same factors either matter or do not matter to individuals doing doctoral training abroad. Despite this, some significant differences exist. These are designated by an asterisk for those significantly different at the .05 or better level.

Consistent with the large number of highly rated universities in the United States, prestige of programs plays a more important role in drawing foreign students to study in the United States than drawing them elsewhere, as do career reasons. Financial assistance also plays a more important role, reflecting the wide availability of graduate research assistantships for foreign students in the United States. Taken together, these findings suggest that factors influenced by science policy in the United States play a role in attracting students to study here versus elsewhere. Lifestyle and exchange programs, on the other hand, play a larger role in drawing students to study elsewhere than in the United States. While science policy can affect the latter, it cannot affect the former. There is no significant difference in the scores for the two groups for the “contact” reason or the “family” reason and no evidence to suggest that mobile PhD students who receive financial support from their home country are more likely to come to the United States than go to a third country. The unavailability of programs in the country where the respondent was living at age 18 plays a larger role in drawing foreign students to the United States than elsewhere. The implication is those who get “pushed” out of their home country come to the United States versus going elsewhere.

Table 5 compares the mean scores given to the ten factors by individuals coming to the United States for study to those given by individuals going to one of six other countries. The one factor that is consistently and significantly scored higher by the US students is prestige of programs. Financial support is scored significantly higher by those coming to the United States versus those going to the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, and Germany, but there is no significant difference for those going to Australia or Canada, suggesting that stipends are competitive between these countries and the United States. Career factors play a larger role in drawing people to the United States versus those going to most other countries. Again, these findings suggest that science policy, as practiced in the United States, plays a role in attracting students to study here. Lifestyle factors are scored significantly lower as a reason for coming to the United States than going to the six other countries, with the one exception of Australia. The availability of exchange programs leads individuals to study in countries other than the United States.

Factors	United States	Elsewhere	United Kingdom	France	Canada	Australia	Switzerland	Germany
Prestige	4.44	4.05***	4.09***	4.03***	4.20**	3.74***	4.14***	4.26**
Career	4.56	4.37***	4.42*	4.39*	4.26**	4.18***	4.40	4.52
Career_home	3.40	3.32	3.43	3.43	3.14	3.21	3.14	3.34
Contact	3.21	3.20	2.98*	3.34	3.45	3.43	2.63***	3.21
Lifestyle	3.70	3.96***	3.96**	4.08**	4.16***	3.82	4.15***	3.94**
Family	2.39	2.53*	2.34	2.17	2.83**	2.83***	2.38	2.58
Exchange_prog	1.97	2.50***	2.24**	2.93***	2.26*	2.33**	1.85	2.73***
Fellowship_host	3.92	3.54***	3.32***	3.29***	4.06	3.80	3.22***	3.52***
Fellowship_origin	2.03	2.18	2.29**	2.45**	1.99	2.23	1.86	2.05
No_program	2.93	2.69***	2.90	2.54**	2.36***	2.61*	2.60**	2.90

^*** .01 level of significance.

^** .05 level of significance.

^* .10 level of significance.

View Table Image

Figure 4 compares the mean scores by foreigners who came for study to the United States to the mean scores given to the same factors by foreigners who went to another country for study in the core country sample. It thus excludes respondents from countries such as China and South Korea, but covers individuals receiving a PhD both before and after the year 2000. The results are similar to those for the recent PhD sample with the exception that “family” reasons are scored significantly higher by those getting a PhD elsewhere than by those getting a PhD in the United States. This may reflect the heavy European composition of the core country sample.

Table 6 compares mean scores for the ten factors given by individuals coming to the United States for study to the mean scores given by individuals going to the same six other countries for the core country sample. The results are consistent with those for the recent cohort. Conditions directly related to science policy clearly matter in bringing people to study in the United States versus elsewhere. Prestige is scored significantly higher for those coming to the United States than for those going to all other countries except Switzerland, although the level of significance in two cases is at the 10% level rather than at the 1% level as it was for the recent sample. Career factors play a larger role in bringing individuals to the United States than in bringing them to four of the other countries. Financial assistance from the host country is more important in attracting graduate students to the United States than to the United Kingdom or France. The availability of exchange programs plays a larger role in bringing students to study in Europe than in the United States, consistent with the widespread availability of exchange programs in Europe. The United Kingdom, France, and Switzerland hold an edge when it comes to lifestyle. Family factors play a modest but more important role in attracting students to study in most other countries compared to the United States. Although these factors are clearly affected by government policy, they are largely outside the scope of active science policy.

	United States	Elsewhere	United Kingdom	France	Canada	Australia	Switzerland	Germany
Prestige	4.22	3.92***	4.11*	3.97***	3.61***	3.32***	4.13	4.06*
Career	4.38	4.18***	4.32	4.06***	3.67***	3.85***	4.18**	4.36
Career home	3.43	3.24*	3.51	3.58	2.69***	2.81***	2.94***	3.36
Contact	3.30	3.20	3.17	3.44	3.34	3.08	3.09*	3.17
Lifestyle	3.64	3.95***	4.02***	4.18***	3.74	3.83	3.94**	3.78
Family	2.22	2.42***	2.33	2.24	2.73***	2.92***	2.44*	2.63***
Exchange_prof	1.93	2.28***	2.25***	2.97***	1.78	1.81	1.72*	2.55***
Fellowship_host	3.48	3.27**	3.13***	3.02***	3.45	3.64	3.47	3.27
Fellowship_origin	2.19	2.23	2.43**	2.71***	1.80***	1.96	1.66***	2.21
No_program	2.61	2.44**	2.55	2.48	1.85***	2.23***	2.34**	2.49

^*** .01 level of significance.

^** .05 level of significance.

^* .10 level of significance.

View Table Image

The GlobSci study also asked those who either did or were currently doing postdoctoral training abroad to assess on a five-point scale the importance played by a larger set of factors than those scored by the PhD sample. Six variables specifically reflect conditions in the host country: faculty, funds, infrastructure, salary, fringe benefits, and working conditions. The life quality variable reflects the match between preferences of the respondent and conditions in the host country. The 14 are defined in table 7. Again we find considerable variation in the mean scores given individual factors. Career, faculty, prestige, and expand network are all scored “4” or above. Three of these reflect policies and resources of the host country in relation to the research enterprise. Few jobs at home, working conditions, fringe benefits, and family are all scored below the neutral “3.”

	Variable Name	Mean
Career	Opportunity to improve my future career prospects	4.4
Faculty	Outstanding faculty, colleagues, or research team	4.3
Prestige	Excellence/prestige of the foreign institution in my area of research	4.2
Expand network	Opportunity to extend my network of international relationships	4.0
Infrastructure	Better research infrastructures and facilities	3.9
Funds	Greater availability of research funds	3.8
Lifestyle	Appeal of the lifestyle or international experience	3.8
Career_home	Opportunity to improve my future job prospects in the country where I lived when I was 18	3.7
Salary	Better wage/monetary compensation	3.2
Life quality	Better quality of life	3.2
Few jobs at home	Few or poor job opportunities in the country where I lived when I was 18	2.9
Working conditions	Better working conditions (vacations, hours of work, etc.)	2.7
Fringe benefts	Better fringe benefts (parental leaves, pension, insurance, etc.)	2.6
Family	Family or personal reasons	2.6

View Table Image

Figure 5 compares the scores given the 14 factors by foreigners who did postdoctoral study in the United States to the scores given the same factors by foreigners who did postdoctoral study in another core country for the recent cohort sample. Again, we find that the United States and “elsewhere” means lie reasonably close together, suggesting that the same factors either do or do not matter for individuals who go abroad for postdoctoral training. Despite this, there are notable differences between those coming to the United States versus those going to another country. For example, the research environment, as measured by faculty, prestige, and infrastructure is scored significantly higher by those who did a postdoc in the United States, as are career reasons, suggesting that science policy plays an important role in where individuals come to train. We also find that, although salary is not scored significantly differently, working conditions and fringe benefits are scored significantly higher for those doing postdoctoral training outside the United States than in the United States. This is consistent with the (low) level of benefits and quality of working conditions available to many postdocs in the United States, especially at the time many of the respondents did their postdoctoral study. As in the case of PhD recipients, lifestyle is scored significantly higher by those doing postdoctoral work outside the United States than in the United States. The life quality factor, which was only asked of those doing postdoctoral work abroad, is also scored significantly higher.

Table 8 compares mean scores on the factors given by postdocs coming to the United States versus those going to the six comparison countries. Again, we find that conditions affected by science policy play a role in bringing individuals to study in the United States, although the findings are more nuanced. Uniformly, respondents who do a postdoc in the United States give significantly higher scores to faculty as a reason for coming than do those who did a postdoc in any of the other countries. This is not the case, however, for prestige, nor is it the case for infrastructure. These findings suggest that while the US research environment is scored as significantly more important by those doing postdoctoral study in the United States versus elsewhere, with the exception of faculty quality the differences are not consistently observed when we winnow the comparison down to this largely European set of countries. We also find that working conditions and fringe benefits play a larger role in the decision to train in Australia and Germany compared to in the United States, although in neither case are the factors scored above neutral on the five-point scale. Those who go to Switzerland for postdoctoral study appear to appreciate the relatively high salaries the Swiss offer. It is worth noting that although working conditions, fringe benefits, and the salary of postdocs are affected by science policy, they have been largely neglected by policymakers in the United States. Life quality draws postdocs to Switzerland, France, and Australia, relative to the United States; it discourages individuals from doing postdoctoral work in The United Kingdom.

	United States	Elsewhere	United Kingdom	France	Canada	Australia	Switzerland	Germany
Faculty	4.49	4.20***	4.32***	4.14***	4.18***	4.06***	4.30**	4.35**
Career	4.49	4.39**	4.52	4.37	4.29**	4.32	4.39	4.46
Prestige	4.38	4.16***	4.28	4.25	4.11***	3.94***	4.25	4.29
Expand network	4.01	4.09**	4.16**	4.19*	4.06	4.12	3.97	4.13
Infrastructure	4.00	3.87***	3.91	3.88	3.90	3.67***	4.11	4.12
Funds	3.81	3.75	3.74	3.65*	3.94	3.62	3.97	3.93*
Career_home	3.78	3.75	3.85	3.79	3.61	3.55	3.46***	3.91
Lifestyle	3.65	3.83***	3.77	3.65	3.70	4.29***	3.86*	3.83**
Salary	3.16	3.24	3.18	3.02	3.21	3.36	3.63***	3.33*
Life quality	3.09	3.23**	2.74***	3.32**	3.35**	3.83***	3.43**	3.24*
Few jobs at home	2.87	2.96*	3.19***	3.02	2.84	3.00	2.97	2.91
Working conditions	2.54	2.78***	2.54	2.73	2.77*	3.00***	2.75	2.74**
Family	2.46	2.56*	2.24**	2.40	2 77**	2.74*	2.62	2.63**
Fringe benefits	2.43	2.63***	2.33*	2.62	2.63	2.82***	2.62*	2.81***

^*** .01 level of significance.

^** .05 level of significance.

^* .10 level of significance.

View Table Image

Figure 6 compares the scores given to the 14 factors for foreigners doing postdoctoral study in the United States to the scores given the same factors by foreigners who postdoc elsewhere for the core country sample. For this sample, which draws individuals from a more restricted set of countries of origin, but includes individuals who received their doctoral training before and after 2000, we find six of the factors to receive a score below that of a neutral “3.” They are life quality, salary, few jobs at home, working conditions, family, and fringe benefits. The other eight are scored above 3.5.

Again we find some variation among the scores given by foreigners studying in the United States versus elsewhere, although overall the means lie closely together. The differences that do exist once again suggest that science policy plays a role in bringing individuals to the United States for postdoctoral training. To wit, the research environment, as measured by faculty, prestige, infrastructure, and funds is scored significantly higher by those doing postdoctoral training in the United States than elsewhere. Career outcomes—both at home and in general—are scored significantly higher by those doing a postdoc in the United States versus elsewhere. Working conditions and fringe benefits, however, which have been largely neglected by policymakers in the United States, are scored significantly lower by those doing postdoc work in the United States than by those doing a postdoc outside the United States, although in neither case are they scored above the neutral “3.” Life quality and lifestyle once again are scored higher by those going elsewhere.

Table 9 compares mean scores for the core sample of postdocs between the United States and the same six countries. There are few surprises. Measures of the research environment and career outcomes, both affected by science policy, are generally scored higher by those training in the United States. Working conditions and fringe benefits, which are also affected by science policy, are scored significantly lower. Quality of life pulls trainees to most other countries rather than to the United States.

	United States	Elsewhere	United Kingdom	France	Canada	Australia	Switzerland	Germany
Faculty	4.44	4.20***	4.31***	4.14***	4.16***	4.03***	4.41	4.37*
Career	4.37	4.26***	4.35	4.24***	4.25***	4.11***	4.30*	4.25***
Prestige	4.33	4.15***	4.30	4.11***	3.93***	3.83***	4.34	4.34
Expand network	3.96	3.98	4.06**	3.99	3.83**	3.98	3.93	4.04*
Career_home	3.93	3.85***	3.94	3.80**	3.59***	3.47***	3.58***	3.89
Infrastructure	3.91	3.75***	3.77***	3.76***	3.67***	3.34***	4.06**	3.95
Lifestyle	3.72	3.81***	3.81**	3.72	3.79	4.29***	3.82	3.81
Funds	3.69	3.49***	3.38***	3.48***	3.54**	3.22***	3.83*	3.66
Life quality	2.88	2.94***	2.61***	3.01***	3.10***	3.67***	3.15***	2.91
Salary	2.79	2.84	2.70*	2.81	2.70	2.97	3.25***	2.96***
Few jobs at home	2.52	2.58	2.52	2.68*	2.64	2.84**	2.63	2.46
Working conditions	2.27	2.47***	2.25	2.43**	2.38**	2.66***	2.51***	2.54***
Family	2.27	2.42***	2.21	2.39**	2.60***	2.66***	2.42**	2.42***
Fringe benefits	2.16	2.32***	2.09**	2.37***	2.29**	2.61***	2.37***	2.40***

^*** .01 level of significance.

^** .05 level of significance.

^* .10 level of significance.

View Table Image

VIII. Discussion and Conclusion

The GlobSci survey provides a snapshot, taken in 2011, of foreign-born scientists working or training in 16 core countries. The data provide a rare look, given the lack of comparable country-level data, at how countries compare in terms of the proclivity to train the foreign born in science and the proclivity of residents to go abroad for training. It also provides insight into factors associated with PhD and postdoctoral scholars’ choice of one country over another for study abroad. Given the snapshot nature of our data, we cannot establish causality between these various factors and the choices trainees make. In this regard, we do not know the degree to which respondents value ex post characteristics of the institution and country where they trained more than they did ex ante. Nor do we have measures of the choice set that scientists faced at the time they made their decision of where to study.

Major findings from our analysis of the GlobSci data include wide variation by country in the proclivity of foreign students to train incountry. In this respect, and measured in terms of percent of those incountry who are foreign, the United States leads in being a destination country for PhD training, but Switzerland and the United Kingdom are close on its heels, and Switzerland leads the pack when it comes to postdoctoral training. Countries at the other extreme are India, Italy, and Brazil with less than 4% of the doctoral or postdoctoral-trained workforce being foreign born. Countries also vary considerably in the proclivity of residents to study abroad. Indians have the highest propensity to leave for PhD study, the Swiss have the highest for postdoctoral training, followed closely by the French. The most insular, when it comes to leaving either for doctoral or postdoctoral training, are US residents. For doctoral training, the distinction is shared with residents of Japan.

Our survey finds that the probability of training in the United States versus a third country has decreased over time. For example, while close to half of all mobile PhD recipients from core countries came to the United States versus a third country before 1980, in the last decade the percent has been cut almost in half. The percent of mobile postdoctoral scholars coming to the United States has also decreased, although not as dramatically. Countries that appear to have attracted PhD students away from the United States are Australia, Germany, and Switzerland. At the postdoctoral level, Canada is the only one of the six countries we specifically examine that has not nibbled at the US share.

Our research suggests that science policy plays an important role in attracting the foreign born to study in a country. The public policy case rests on several findings:

Our research suggests that those who go elsewhere than the United States for study weigh lifestyle and life quality as more important in their decision to go abroad than do those coming to the United States. While public policy clearly affects lifestyle and life quality, they are largely outside the domain of science policy. They also suggest that the presence of exchange programs plays a role in leading individuals to go to a third country rather than to the United States for doctoral training.

What do our results suggest concerning the ability of the United States to continue to attract the foreign born for PhD study and postdoctoral training?