What is fundamentally wrong, if anything, with people with less education being more valuable? Would you rather have three engineers with an undergrad degree or one with a master's? Where do you draw the line?
In my experience advanced degrees do not equate expertise -- if anything, professionally, it's the opposite.
> Would you rather have three engineers with an undergrad degree or one with a master's? Where do you draw the line?
We are comparing 1 to 1, not 3 to 1.
In the context of this conversation, we are taking about whether it is a bad thing for someone with more education to receive priority access to the H1B visa.
And my opinion is that this is at worst a neutral thing.
The person I was responding to thinks that giving masters students priority is somehow negative.
In order for it to be negative, he would have to prove that these masters students are somehow worse, on average, than the non-masters students.
I think a high school drop out with 5 years of work experience coding can beat a masters from silicon valley university. In tech jobs degrees are in no way indicator of skill.
This is not comparing a person with 5 years if experience to a person without 5 years experience.
Instead, related to the H1B question, this is comparing the "average" person applying to the H1B program who has a bachelor's degree, and comparing that to the "average" person applying to the program with a master's degree.
It is not about perfect correlation. It is instead about imperfect correlation of the averages among these 2 groups.
Even in the worst case scenario of there being no correlation, it still benefits the US to give priority to masters students, as at the very least it means that they have spent more money on an American business (IE, the univerity).
I don't see anything wrong with priorizing more money to US businesses, all else being equal.
> s at the very least it means that they have spent more money on an American business (IE, the univerity).
I am not sure why it matters. Good chance the university is a visa mill and setup specifically for f1 to h1b transition like the recent DHS sting revealed. Such businesses needlessly muddle edu-sector and destroy capital on things that solely exist to bypass government red tape. It adds to economic inefficiency of the society.
Also, that is not the reason USCIS has given. "They spent money on USA business" is the criteria than the law should explicitly state that and everyone can then compete. My wife arrived on H4 and lost to H1B lottery twice. In that time she converted to F1 and then got her OPT is a small college. The degree was worthless and we spent $25K on her education. That enabled her to win H1B lottery in her third attempt in master's cap. Technically beneft to US society was significantly more if she had got her H1B in first attempt.
But that is not the point I am making. My central point is that USCIS policy clearly (I am not sure how much more clear it can get than that text) violates the law passed by Congress. USCIS at the very least need to provide credible evidence as to why this new system is better, why someone with US masters degree be automatically assumed to be higher skilled and based on what evidence and how it links to BAHA executive order whose pretext is being used for such changes. H1B visa is not meant for "high skilled" any ways. It is meant for specialized skill that is in short supply in USA. So there is a violation of far basic principles there too.
In my experience advanced degrees do not equate expertise -- if anything, professionally, it's the opposite.