MIT and Harvard file suit against new ICE regulations - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2020/mit-and-harvard-file-suit-against-new-ice-regulations-0708 <comment><USER3> I spent 45 minutes this morning trying to get to the bottom of this whole thing - as usual there is more nuance to this than presented.

\- For as far back as I could find, students that wanted to qualify for a student visa to study in the US could take at most one online course per semester. The rest of the coursework had to be in-person.

\- Starting in the spring of this year, the SEVP program (part of ICE) created exemptions so students could continue to stay in the US even though universities had moved entirely online. These exemptions were for Spring and Summer and universities were awaiting the rules for Fall.

\- As of Monday, they are changing the exemptions. They are allowing any number of online classes, but with the caveat you have to have at least one in-person class.

\- If you are already in the US you have to leave if your university is online-only. [This is the part that feels punitive and particularly onerous to me]

What is interesting to me is the framing of this. The new exemptions are still more flexible than the pre-existing student visa policy (which has been around through both Democratic and Republican administrations as far as I can tell). So on the one hand it's actually an improvement. On the other hand I think most of these universities were hoping the full exemption would continue as COVID is still very much a thing.

<comment><USER4> It is not an improvement, it's a punishment for universities being responsible. The outcome is worse for everyone involved, including anyone who lives near a college.

"At least one in-person class" doesn't make any sense. Either in-person classes are safe, and the rules can go back to pre-pandemic, or they aren't, and forcing students and professors to attend them is dangerous and cruel.

There is no legitimate justification for this. There's no slippery slope issue or anything, everybody accepts that these rules will go back to normal once it's safe to do so.

<comment><USER5> The perspective of ICE is that there's no legitimate justification for someone to be in the US if they're only taking online courses.

<comment><USER4> Well, I can give one. These students fully expected to attend in-person classes, paid for them in full, paid to get to America and get housing for that purpose, will attend in person again as soon as it is possible.

Why can't they go home for one semester?

1) It's expensive. Flight home, rent for a US apartment they no longer occupy, potential rent for a new apartment at home, flight back here next semester. Where is a student supposed to get $5000+ to deal with this?

2) They need good internet access (and a laptop) wherever they're going. Not guaranteed, and not something the university can easily provide.

3) Timezones. Many classes are synchronous and discussion-based. Not only do you need internet good enough to support video calls, but you need to be awake at the same time as 15 other people in however many timezones.

4) It might be illegal. What if you're from China or Iran and your school uses G Suite for Education? Or they use Zoom, which is banned in 6 countries. Participating in your classes would be illegal. Can the university switch their entire infrastructure to a new platform in a couple months to support a few students for one semester for arbitrary reasons?

5) It might be unsafe. Not all students have a safe and stable place to go.

6) It achieves nothing. Literally no benefit for anyone. If you expect these students to come back in a semester or two, there is no point.

<comment><USER6> Also, it might not be actually possible -- or at least be quite risky for the student. Whenever you enter the US, border agents have almost unlimited authority as to whether you are allowed in, especially as a student. Speaking as someone who's spent years going through this process, every time you have to enter the states, even if all your paperwork is in order and there are zero rational reasons for you to be denied entry, you're still worried about it. Some border agents are friendly and let you through quickly, and some grill you like you're trying to forcefully invade their country. I had a friend (who was on a work visa, not even a student one) who taught English as a Second Language at a US high school, who was told by a border agent that she's lucky he's letting her through this time, because they shouldn't allow foreigners to teach English at American schools.

That's not to even mention that when you're on an F-1 student visa, you can legally renew it while remaining in the US even while the visa stamp in your passport has already expired. But once you _leave_ the US, you have to have a valid visa stamp in your passport in order to reenter, _even if you already have a valid F-1 visa document approved and signed by all the right people_. This means that, in your home country, you'll need to make an appointment, spend hours lining up at the US embassy (if they're even open due to COVID), then go through the interview process (which you have to repeat every single time you renew your passport visa stamp) in order to get that stamp reissued.

Once, after already having spent years in the US on a student visa, I was actually turned back during that interview because the particular consular officer on duty that day decided that I needed to provide a detailed printed transcript of my American high school experience. I had to leave the interview, schedule a second appointment, and have the printed transcript ready at that time. All of this is to say that not only would requiring students to go through this process simply because their universities aren't offering physical classes during COVID will not only cause intense stress, but also will probably result in some students not making it back into the country for arbitrary reasons.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, its funny how people think they can understand the nuance of other people situation by just spending 45 minutes "digging" into it.

I see this same thing everywhere. From race issues to out of touch boomer tech managers and PM's.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's incredibly unfair for the the administration to target international students like this.

However Harvard and MIT aren't all about caring about their international students here. They are also thinking heavily about the money they might be losing. International students usually pay a much higher effective tuition rate. The higher the % of international students the school takes in the more money they take in. If these schools had to replace international students with domestic ones (even if they could) they wouldn't be able to get away with selecting only the highest paying students.

I'm from Boston, we have an incredibly high number of international students, and a lot of the interest in keeping them is about getting their money.

The Boston Globe estimates they are worth $3.6 billion dollars to the area... lots of money, lots of tuition, lots of apartment rentals, lots of bar & restaurant revenue.

<comment><USER9> Yea but they are also afraid of loosing out on a generation of professors, post docs, academics, value generators, "job creators".

It is very risky to cut out a generation of top students because the value is not just to the local Boston economy, but nationally. It's not just cheap labor. It's apprenticeship by the smartest in the world who will pay dividends for not only our lives but for generations.

I came as a student. I pay 6 figures in taxes. Some of my intl friends pay 7 figures and employ hundreds. I'll have kids here that will generate enough value to do that as well.

Right now, there is a significant risk that a lot of economic value is going to be lost due to these immigration policies. That is not good for america.

It's like a sports team: you have the ability to draft the top players from around the world for cheap. Why would you decide to boycott the draft itself and let the competitors (India, China) take those players? Especially some players that you have already trained (graduated students, post docs)

<comment><USER10> >It's like a sports team: you have the ability to draft the top players from around the world for cheap. Why would you decide to boycott the draft itself and let the competitors (India, China) take those players? Especially some players that you have already trained (graduated students, post docs)

You're thinking about it from the wrong perspective. The people who are anti- immigration are anti-immigration because they personally might be negatively impacted (in terms of losing jobs or getting lower wages), even if it means the country as a whole is better off. Seeing the US GDP grow 30% faster is little consolation to you when you've lost your job to immigrants (or at least, you thought that you did). Going back to the sports team analogy, it'd be great if your team drafted the best international players and won, but what if that resulted in you getting kicked off the team, or sidelined most of the season?

<comment><USER9> If that's the case, then why not have teams draft from the region they represent? For example, maybe the Patriots should not have had a foreign Michigander as their QB for 20 years, that spot could have been given to some up and coming Boston College graduate.

To address your point a bit more directly: can you show me studies where native born Americans have lost jobs to immigrants in the US? I know that many jobs got moved to China and Mexico, but that's not what I am wondering about.

<comment><USER11> It's not just lost jobs. It's also depressed wages.

<comment><USER12> Immigrants are overrepresented when it comes to founding companies. They are better at _creating_ jobs compared to their non-immigrant counterparts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This link was posted here yesterday:

[https://www.statista.com/statistics/233880/international- stu...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/233880/international-students-in- the-us-by-country-of-origin/)

370.000 students from China, 200.000 from India, 52.000 from South Korea.

This policy change affects hundreds of thousands students and must generate a massive loss in economic terms.

<comment><USER14> The institutions are there primarily to educate our workforce. There are thousands of locally deserving students who don't have opportunity, either went to wrong schools or don't know how to navigate the system that's geared toward connections or wealth.

These institutions could fill their student bodies with thousands upon thousands of our own students who get overlooked.

On the other hand they've grown used to foreign money filling their coffers.

<comment><USER15> I got into an Ivy on merit. White male, not legacy, not an athlete, not rich. Just good grades, good SAT score, and luck. I promise you the _vast_ majority of students I met who didn't deserve to be at my school (academically speaking) were domestic legacies or athletes.

Can't imagine my undergrad, first job out, or grad school without the many international students I made friends and worked with. Part of educating a successful workforce is teaching us how to work and collaborate with people from other backgrounds. Hard to do that if everyone's from Newton or Westchester

<comment><USER14> I agree. We have tons of kids in the San Joaquin Valley , Montana plains, Eastern Washington, inner LA, etc who should have a chance... but they don't bring the same money.

<comment><USER15> It's complicated. The kids whose parents pay for full tuition (or for a new building) subsidize the cost of attendance for the rest of us. I definitely couldn't have afforded to go without my financial aid package.

And that's supposedly part of the value proposition of elite schools - <USER2> wealthy and connected students with bright students with ideas.

There's plenty of international students on financial aid too, I think it's doing them a disservice to say they're only being admitted for the revenue. Maybe at larger public institutions with tens of thousands of students, but I don't think that's generally the case at the smaller elite schools we're talking about

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The actual complaint is here:

[http://orgchart.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20200708...](http://orgchart.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20200708-Harvard- MIT-Complaint-Injunctive-Relief.pdf)

My very short summary:

\- there is a rule in place whereby international students who don't take most classes in person will lose their visa status

\- this rule was suspended by ICE on March 13 for the duration of the Covid19 emergency

\- ICE now has changed their mind for the Fall semester

\- the core part of the complaint is in paragraph 10. It has 2 parts: the ICE u-turn is "arbitrary and capricious and an abuse of discretion", and it did not follow the Administrative Procedure Act.

Now, IANAL, but here's my take: for the first part of the complaint, it's very likely ICE will be able to produce some "analysis" so they can claim their decision was not arbitrary and capricious, but rather made after careful consideration. The second part of the complaint has probably better odds of success. If Harvard and MIT can pinpoint the exact part of the Administrative Procedure Act that ICE did not follow, a judge could issue the injunction. Just recently the Supreme Court overturned Trump administration's decision to revoke DACA based on this Administrative Procedure Act.

In the end though, even if this injunction is issued, it may take months, and it may arrive too late to be of any help for the international students who will lose their visa.

It would be fantastic though if someone with legal expertise were to opine on this in this forum.

<comment><USER17> Not a lawyer, but I think the recent Supreme Court decision on DACA - [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf) \- is telling:

        To be clear, DHS was not required to do any of this or to
        "consider all policy alternatives in reaching [its] decision."
        State Farm, 463 U. S., at 51. Agencies are not compelled to
        explore "every alternative device and thought conceivable
        by the mind of man." Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp.
        v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U. S. 519,
        551 (1978). But, because DHS was "not writing on a blank
        slate," post, at 22, n. 14 (opinion of THOMAS, J.), it was required
        to assess whether there were reliance interests, determine
        whether they were significant, and weigh any such
        interests against competing policy concerns.

The issue of reliance, I think, is important here - did ICE actually internally discuss the extent to which international students and their families were _relying_ on the _previous_ guidance, and did they actually do any kind of analysis that the _benefit_ to society and economy would outweigh those reliance interests, even for non-citizens? Given that societal benefits are practically nonexistent and that many university systems economically rely on continuity of their matriculated student bodies, particularly international students paying non-subsidized tuition, it seems unlikely that such an analysis was done in good faith.

<comment><USER18> Yeah, we have a concept in common law called legitimate expectation that is quite similar to the point you're getting at. Don't know about the U.S.

Having recently been on the right side of a judicial challenge, I must say that in my non-lawyer view, it is quite a powerful check on a decision-maker's discretion.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimate_expectation)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Here's the email I got from Faculty this morning:

 _Dear members of the FAS community,

Shortly after Monday's announcement about our plans for the fall semester, we learned that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced new regulations that imperil the lives and academic progress of our international students and scholars. These new guidelines directly undermine the careful planning and approach we have taken for fall, specifically our plans to deliver all graduate and undergraduate instruction online. This plan was put forth to reconcile the health and safety needs of our community and the vitality of our academic mission, including accounting for the needs of our diverse, global community of students and scholars who face a host of limitations and complications brought about by the pandemic. This reckless reversal by ICE hurts our students and it hurts us as an institution. The FAS is an international community and that is a source of pride and inspiration. That we bring together the voices and perspectives of some of the brightest minds from across the world is fundamental to our intellectual strength and ambitions and must be protected.

While there is still much we don't know, we are working quickly to respond to the needs of our international students and scholars impacted by this news. To that end, early this morning, President Bacow announced that Harvard, together with MIT, has filed pleadings in the US District Court in Boston to seek a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of this order. In doing so, we continue to be guided by our core principles to protect our academic enterprise and preserve access and affordability for all our students. The new ICE order is a direct threat to that institutional imperative. But we are committed to doing all we can to enable our students and scholars to continue their studies without further disruption to their lives and academic progress in an already uncertain and challenging time.

Many of you have reached out to express your concern about these new regulations and what they will mean for our students. I share your deep distress over this new order, and I assure you that the FAS and the University are working tirelessly to fight on behalf of our international students and scholars. We will explore all avenues and exhaust all options to chart a path forward that protects their place as valued members of the FAS community.

Sincerely,

Claudine_

It's the most strongly worded email I've ever seen from Harvard. It seems like they believe that the Trump Administration is trying to manipulate them into opening prematurely, and that they are very cognizant of this.

<comment><USER20> > It seems like they believe that the Trump Administration is trying to > manipulate them into opening prematurely, and that they are very cognizant > of this.

You're right, and the court filing addresses this explicitly; see 75) in [http://orgchart.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20200708...](http://orgchart.mit.edu/sites/default/files/reports/20200708-Harvard- MIT-Complaint-Injunctive-Relief.pdf)

<comment><USER21> Oh it gets worse, he's threatening to cut federal funding to schools that don't reopen: [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/08/trump-schools- reope...](https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/08/trump-schools-reopening- federal-funding-352311)

<comment><USER22> Just imagine, SCOTUS decided that limiting access to voting places is OK during COVID. This means that COVID can legally be used to restrict voting an, presumably, do all kind of wierd things come November.

A smart would-be dictator would now use COVID as strategy to win reelection or post-pone the election. Ideally in a way that doesn't result in public uproar. Instead Trump still tries to ignore COVID into oblivion.

But as Napoleon said, don't interupt your enemy when he's hurting himself.

<comment><USER23> Covid could have been used to win reelection by simply accepting that it was a problem and leading everyone through the challenging time. The wartime president boost. Something else is going on here, like foreign interference (I hadn't bought into this theory before Covid) or neurodegenerative disease.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This appears to be an appropriate response, rather than hacking around the edict by creating pro-forma trivial in-person classes.

<comment><USER25> I think a trivial in-person classes may be an intentional loophole. It stops online-only universities from being a gateway to an easy long-term Visa.

<comment><USER26> There is no such thing as an easy long term visa for these schools to be a gateway for.

<comment><USER25> I meant longer term visas rather than semipermanent visas. You could pay a few thousand a year for an online college to stay in the US wherever you want. I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that, but it's probably easier to work under the table this way when you don't have to worry about being deported.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> During the Vietnam war, colleges stopped grading so that it was impossible for anyone to fail out and get drafted. Why can't these colleges just create in- person classes that meet once a semester with optional attendance?

<comment><USER28> They could try.

But this completely misunderstands how scary it is to be trying to follow the rules as somebody on a visa. "Let me try this weird loophole and hope that no agent comes to me and says 'get out of the country by the end of the week' for violating the spirit of the law" is not a compelling option.

US Immigration is already a Kafkaesque nightmare of confusion and uncertainty. Creating the equivalent of a green card marriage in an almost completely transparent and obvious manner isn't going to put people at ease.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Serious question: can the schools just have a required course that's like, walk around campus for an hour with a mask and describe your feelings? Pass/fail, 1 credit.

<comment><USER30> Normally, international students cannot take more than 3 credits of online classes to keep their visas. This rule was temporarily suspended in March, but is being reverted by ICE while the schools are not ready to fully reopen.

<comment><USER31> No it's not. They're still allowing an exception that allows any number of online classes. They're just requiring at least one in-person credit, and for the university to say it is at least partially open.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> The lawsuit will be strong if they say online classes are temporary in order to not to violate governor order and will be in-person as soon as governor allows. I don't see any reason ICE can argue against that.

</comment><comment><USER33> Lots of the comments are talking about this as an MIT/Harvard issue. To be clear, MIT and Harvard are the first to file suit, but this radical policy by ICE dramatically affects every college and university, and every international student, in the country. And the suit seeks to strike down the policy altogether, not get an exemption for these two schools.

This is not about Harvard and MIT at all, except insofar as they wound up being the ones with the position and deep pockets to most quickly file a strong suit to stop it.

</comment><comment><USER34> Higher education is due for a massive price correction. The cost of education has outstripped market ability and the movement to online while still asking top dollar tuition is going to make those education institutions increasingly pressured. Going online increases international ability to compete for students as well as professors, and this will also increase pressure on tuition pricing.

Higher ed tuition pricing is bound for a massive correction.

</comment><comment><USER35> I think this is a first step in kicking out Chinese students. If you're from France, South Korea, Nigeria, etc. you'll be invited back soon enough. This is not a judgement on that plan, just a prediction.

<comment><USER36> Why do you think that?

<comment><USER35> There has been multiple stories in the news recently about crackdowns on Chinese "spies" in the universities. I'm using the word spy loosely there, that's not the word that has been in the news. They talk about it more in the sense of secretly getting funding from China and not claiming it or whatever. My perception is that the belief is that this is a major avenue through which US tech is "stolen".

The administration recently hinted that they will be blocking Chinese apps such as TikTok from being used in the US.

The administration also hinted at breaking the currency peg to the dollar.

A cold war is ongoing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Right decision and all universities should follow suit to help the students.

Imagine us being students and having to go through the pain, while Covid is all over the map.

</comment><comment><USER38> Imagine playing politics over people's education and location of current residence.

What a world.

</comment><comment><USER39> I firmly believe this is being done to damage the reputation of the USA as an immigrant friendly country in order to induce a major brain drain while also stemming the flow of Chinese students away from the mainland.

<comment><USER40> > in order to induce a major brain drain

What is the motivation for desiring this, in your view?

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Northeastern University (in Boston) has announced that they're joining MIT and Harvard's lawsuit: [https://twitter.com/Northeastern/status/1280961230233100297](https://twitter.com/Northeastern/status/1280961230233100297)

</comment><comment><USER42> It sounds like these ICE regulations are not new, they are just removing some temporary exemptions they put in to place due to COVID. So the suit is against the removal of this exemption, there are no new restrictions in place that did not exist before COVID.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is cruel and wicked. Hopefully the courts stop this madness.

</comment><comment><USER44> It looks like ICE has no better things to do in this pandemic...

</comment><comment><USER45> My stance is typically anti-immigration, but I do not support this decision of ICE. I am likely missing big chunk of the story, but could anyone explain the motives behind ICE decision? (without blind hateful virtue-signaling please)

<comment><USER46> it's weird, this administration has been almost vindictive against some groups, like non white asylum seekers, non white students, non white Puerto Ricans, non white athletes, and non white protesters, but it is very supportive of other groups like white protesters, white farmers, white business owners ... where is the common thread? It's a complete mystery and impossible to figure out.

<comment><USER47> >non white students

I didn't see the exemption for white students in this. Because there isn't one?

<comment><USER22> It targets a group, foreign students, that is mostly non-white. I guess some colleteral amage is OK when it makes discrimination a little less obvious.

<comment><USER48> "White" people are a minority worldwide, any blanket foreign policy will disproportionately target non-white people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I suppose MIT and HArvard could allow students on campus but locked into their dorm rooms. They could have the bathroom police unlock doors individually so the kids could take showers, etc. Then they could have the cafeteria deliver meals the same way prisoners are fed in their cells. Trump could extend this edict to the workplace as well - any VISA holders working remotely get deported. Somewhere in the mists of history I remember isolationism not working out too well for us. I wonder why we are going back there?

</comment><comment><USER50> Regardless of the regulation. What is the difference of being in the US or anywhere else if you can't go on campus and only work /study from home. The quality of learning is low in both cases.

<comment><USER51> For one, it's unreasonable to assume that all of these students have home environments conducive to do high-def teleconferencing on American time zones.

<comment><USER52> Would that not also apply to domestic students, even the international students as America has very very spotty broadband access even in cities one section may have great service and go 2 streets over and you get crap...

I know locally that has been one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the local schools, dealing with students that did not have good internet.

<comment><USER7> Very spotty is different from non-existent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'd hate to be "forced" to return to my home country, but why can't these students just study online back in their own country, then come back for in- person classes sometime next year once covid is under control?

The reason for excluding all-online classes is that historically it's been associated with much greater immigration fraud.

If this really becomes a big issue for students, it's pretty trivial for the universities to turn their online classes into "hybrid" classes that require people to physically come to campus in a safe way - e.g. "residency course requirement: at some point in the week, every week you must come into the university and sign the attendance log website from a device logged into the campus wifi" .

</comment><comment><USER54> I am skeptical of shutdowns as a policy, and if I worked in a strategic role at a university, I would push for reopening in person.

However, the administration using federal visa policy as a bludgeon to get universities to implement their preferred policies (even policies that I personally agree with) makes me really uneasy.

</comment><comment><USER55> The decision of ICE essentially was to not change anything. A student on F1 is only permitted to take certain number of online classes and must maintain his status with in person classes. The change to online classes means this affects ones status and the ICE notice meant they will not make any changes to these rules even in this situation. What people are saying is that this affects ones work status if he leaves the US post study but ideally a student is a student not seeking work or immigration into the US especially given that the H1B is suspended and OPT is not work it's training. If the university says class is online then it means there is no reason for a student to live in the US. People confuse students with long term immigration even if that maybe the intention of the student. They are just students who are paying tuition and living in the US as far as anyone is concerned.

<comment><USER56> Doesn't the US hope that those highly educated students stay in the US afterwards? I was always under impression that this was the main goal of those programs. Get the smartest from other countries, show them how good it is in your country, and hope for them stay and contribute to the economy.

<comment><USER57> > Doesn't the US hope that those highly educated students stay in the US > afterwards?

I'd say the average American does not hope this, no. Foreign students are driving up the cost of tuition as they're usually quite wealthy and displace seats for underprivileged Americans, especially in state-run schools.

I don't know why someone would come to the US to study other than the hopes of immigrating. There are better schools in Europe and elsewhere that are much cheaper or even free.

On the off chance we _actually_ face some sort of shortage of critical skills, there are other visas for that.

<comment><USER43> That's not true. Almost all state universities charge a much higher tuition fee to foreign and out-of-state students (sometimes two to three times higher). That higher fee is used to subsidize the fee of in-state students. Sorry to be crass, but please do some research before spewing your bullshit online.

<comment><USER57> > That higher fee is used to subsidize the fee of in-state students

An uncited, flimsy excuse. Most universities could function just fine without out of state students, but that might result in a cutback of some of the wasteful spending these institutions create.

In any case, the seats are a finite quantity. Most public universities in the US have competitive admissions. Guess who's not getting admitted in place of students on visas? That's right, the most underprivileged parts of our society, which is why I said _seats_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Undoing the mess that was H1B was probably a good thing (provided an alternative path for professionals to immigrate without forcing them into indentured servitude becomes available) but this just seems stupid.

The only good thing about is that it could change the way universities think about tuition? I don't even understand the argument for why the students are being sent home. It spreads the virus around (people crossing borders is pretty bad for that) and if they were allowed here in the first place why are they being sent home now?

</comment><comment><USER59> MIT and Harvard being rather dishonest here. Seems like this is reverting back to what was before?

"Due to COVID-19, SEVP instituted a temporary exemption regarding online courses for the spring and summer semesters. This policy permitted nonimmigrant students to take more online courses than normally permitted by federal regulation to maintain their nonimmigrant status during the COVID-19 emergency."

<comment><USER60> I don't think they're being dishonest. This is indeed reverting back to what was before. The thing is, students who normally study onsite are still studying remotely due to the pandemic. The original law presumably was targeted at permanently remote classes. One can of course argue whether the exception is still reasonable, xamuel made a fair case that it's not. But the opposite case really does not seem dishonest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I'm sure this will be super unpopular, but I think universities are on the wrong side here.

First: If the classes are online anyway, then there's no reason students need to be on U.S. soil to take them. If the schools have policies requiring the students to be on U.S. soil, the schools should waive those policies.

Second: It's subjective whether COVID is still an "emergency". We've been locked down for many months now, there is nothing "emergent" about the situation any more. When your car crashes, that's an emergency. Three months later when you're having trouble getting to work because of your car being wrecked, that is no longer an emergency. It still sucks, but it isn't an emergency any more at that point.

Granted, though, it would have been better if ICE had given the schools more advance notice.

<comment><USER20> One big issue here is that F-1 students must maintain residency in order to be eligible for OPT.

This is secondary to the fact that if you're a PhD student on an F-1, you literally live in the US; you aren't just popping over for a few weeks now and then. The current situation basically forces people who have lived in the US for nearly 10 years to suddenly leave the country.

<comment><USER61> Thanks for pointing out Optional Practical Training (OPT), that's a good point. That might be a good thing for the feds to waive (once things go back to normal).

On the second point, usually PhD students with that much seniority aren't taking a lot of regular classes anyway; by 10 years, you should definitely be post-candidacy. By that point you should be working on your dissertation and "classes" should mostly consist of 1-on-1s with your advisor.

<comment><USER20> > by 10 years, you should definitely be post-candidacy.

Yes sure, 10 years was perhaps a stretch. But anyone who has lived in the US pretty much continuously for 5 or 6 years (undergrad plus the first couple of years of grad school, or possibly at the end of an MIT MEng, which is often 4+2) is likely as integrated as they're ever going to be at that point.

5 years or 10 years doesn't really make that much of a difference: it's still going to have a huge impact on students who consider the US their home.

<comment><USER61> These students should not be considering the college their longterm home anyway. They aren't supposed to be putting down roots. They are students. It's supposed to be a temporary thing where you earn the degree and then move on to the next chapter of your life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> I'm sure this will be downvoted into oblivion, but short of these regulations being illegal they are actually in the national interest IMHO. From a national security standpoint the universities have been a big trojan horse. At many state schools international students are also nothing but large cash cows and a source for cheap research labor. For years I was a pro-education person, but most of the US institutions have been hijacked by political activists who have significantly watered down the curriculums. We need a massive reset of the entire system and significantly limiting foreign students needs to be part of that.

<comment><USER63> > I was a pro-education person

I must say: I'm genuinely surprised reading this sentence in HN. It's very disappointing.

<comment><USER62> Let me clarify this. I'm a pro-enlightenment education, which is pro-science. But, todays system has become a postmodernist indoctrination mill which is anti-science. Unfortunately, while public education, stressing university education etc. sounded great in theory, and I supported that for years, looking at the results of that effort, the academic standards have gone down. Thus, time to look into doing something different because todays system is no longer effective and in some aspects could be called a net negative.</comment></comment></comment>


SLEEF Vectorized Math Library - <AUTHOR> https://sleef.org/ <comment><USER2> Interesting, but a bit weird that the benchmark doesn't include the standard math functions - the question most potential users would ask is, how much performance could I gain from this?

Personally I do a lot of approximations of math functions, which usually give me about a 10x speed increase relative to <math.h>. From the looks of it, this isn't quite that fast.

<comment><USER3> Recent versions of GCC as well as the Intel compilers can autovectorize with the right flags (-ffast-math with GCC, -fast with Intel), and yield better performance with the <math.h> functions than you'll get from SLEEF on x86_64.

LLVM doesn't have a vector math library, so SLEEF could help you there.

If you're using single precision and AVX512, a >10x speed increase is likely. Otherwise, you'll probably get less than that. These functions are very accurate, most to withing 1 ULP of least precision. That is, if the answer they provide isn't the correctly rounded floating point answer, then it'll be either the next or previous representable floating point number.

There is a lot of room for giving up accuracy in the name of speed (eg, using less terms in the polynomials).

<comment><USER2> Do you have a benchmark showing that gcc is faster than sleef?

Sorry I wasn't clear, by "10x" I meant 10x faster than the standard library with the fastest compiler options (-O3 -ffast-math -avx512), but I've only tested with clang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> i use this library as an optional feature in simdeez. it was a relief to find it, and a rust wrapper for it. its hard stuff to port it is so arcane. big thanks to sleef!

<comment><USER3> I've been relying on a Julia port of version 2 (version 3 is out now). Version 3 added a lot of new functions, and I believe it improved performance on many of the old ones.

It is much faster (when vectorized) than what you get in base Julia, but lags behind gcc (glibc) and the Intel compiler's vectorized math libraries in performance.

<comment><USER5> Curious whether you've compared it to [https://github.com/chriselrod/LoopVectorization.jl](https://github.com/chriselrod/LoopVectorization.jl) ? Which if I understand right is a pure-Julia attempt to use many of the same tricks.

<comment><USER3> Compare my username with that of the author of that library ;).

For special functions, LoopVectorization relies on SLEEFPirates.jl, which is a fork of SLEEF.jl, a Julia port of version 2 of SLEEF. Most of the changes in SLEEFPirates are so that it works when you use llvm-vectors as arguments, but I also switched to using Estrin's rather than Horner's method of evaluating polynomials for a few functions (which more recent SLEEF versions did as well).

The code is pure Julia (or Julia + LLVM call; either way it does not need any external dependencies aside from Julia itself). It does need performance work, but I have many higher priorities at the moment.

<comment><USER5> Hah! Sorry, didn't cross my mind. And thanks for the details.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


An Assessment of the Connection Machine (1990) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/thinkingMachines/CM2/An_Assessment_of_the_Connection_Machine_Jun1990.pdf <comment><USER2> I've been fascinated with this machine since it came out and one of my secret hopes with the advent of really cheap mobile processors and microcontrollers is that eventually someone will make one which is suitable for recreating some sort of modern Connection Machine analogue that's reasonably affordable.

<comment><USER3> Modern GPUs are in a very real sense the spiritual successors of the Connection Machine. So in some sense the "sort of analogue" has already arrived.

<comment><USER2> At one point there some deeply discounted Intel Phi PCIe boards on the grey market which I presume were either taken out of scale build-out during an upgrade or perhaps part of an abandoned project.

For a while I considered getting a few for a simulation hobby project I had at the time but the stars never really came into alignment for that.

<comment><USER4> I looked into that myself, but the number of cores didn't compare to that of GPUs - the cost was right, though. I don't know if those boards were better than a GPU or what? Maybe they were more optimized for compute than what a GPU is? I was kinda looking at them for playing more with ML (I've gotten tensorflow with CUDA working well on my 750 ti GPU and it wasn't bad - but the cost for something better beyond a 900 series was crazy at the time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have such fond memories of the CM-2. As a high school student during a summer science program I got to write genetic algorithms on it C*. I am always sad I became a Lisp fanboy decades later and missed the chance to hack in Star-Lisp the way that machine was meant to be handled.</comment>


Why White School Districts Have So Much More Money - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2019/02/26/696794821/why-white-school-districts-have-so-much-more-money <comment><USER2> Property Taxes is the simple two word answer. White School Districts come from proportionally wealthier tax bases.</comment>


Deco IDE for React Native: Now Free and Open Source - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/decosoftware/deco-ide <comment><USER2> This appears to be only for OS X. I use to be a big OS X user, but have come to find Linux is a far superior development platform for me.

From a comment on reddit: Most developers who use OSX do not develop for OSX/iPhone, but instead deploy 100% of their code to Linux VMs on EC2 or Digital Ocean. Their toolchain is usually 100% OSS terminal-based tools such as Vim/Emacs, tmux, clang/gcc, PHP/Python/Ruby, zsh/bash; all of which are available via Linux package managers (and have better support on Linux). While homebrew is nice, it's package selection is much smaller than APT/DNF/Pacman, and it's source-based so have fun waiting for LLVM to compile...

Eventually I realized I was basically a Linux user and I was trying to make OS X work like Linux. According to stack overflow dev surveys they show Linux experiences a 10-fold increase in usage amongst developers compared to it's typical rate of usage on the desktop. This also drew me toward Linux. OSX only experiences a two-fold increase in usage amongst developers and Windows actually experiences a large decrease in users compared to their desktop monopoly. Right now I'm developing React native applications completely in vim.

If this application ever comes out for Linux I'll definitely install it and give it a try. Only being on OS X makes it inaccessible for most developers.

<comment><USER3> This is actually a pretty interesting perspective. I hadn't really thought about how I basically use my Mac like a shiny silver Linux box. But it is so very nice and shiny... well anyway...

Deco is an Electron app, so it should build for Linux without too much trouble. None of us are Linux experts, so we'd be very happy to take any pull requests for Linux support if you have the expertise. As an indicator of demand, we have 2x the beta signups for Windows as Linux though, so we're currently prioritizing Windows support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you don't mind, would you share the reasons for making Deco open source ? This obviously looks high quality and I guess developers would be open to pay for it.Was open sourcing the project always the intention? Not that I am complaining :)

<comment><USER3> From the beginning, we always wanted it to be free for developers. Mainly because we, as developers, want our tools to be free and open source. And an IDE is such a difficult problem that it really needs the community to make it successful.

We plan on having a commercial license for companies that want to make closed- source modifications. We like the idea of charging companies much more than charging individual developers :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's a long road ahead, but I've already managed to get a good deal working in Linux: [https://twitter.com/louroboros/status/735569370886217728](https://twitter.com/louroboros/status/735569370886217728)

</comment><comment><USER6> It's pretty good and the team is pretty fun BTW :) <3

</comment><comment><USER7> Mac only :(

<comment><USER3> It's an Electron app, so it _should_ build for Windows without too much trouble. If you're interested, give it a shot and let us know how it goes :) None of us are Windows experts, so happy to take any pull requests for Windows support. (Or even Linux)

<comment><USER8> I'm guessing he meant Linux.

<comment><USER3> Linux support would be awesome too. Based on our beta, we got twice as many signups for Windows as Linux, so we're probably gonna prioritize Windows support unless we get a lot of sudden Linux interest.

<comment><USER9> +1 for Linux interest

<comment><USER10> Tracking :) [https://github.com/decosoftware/deco- ide/issues/10](https://github.com/decosoftware/deco-ide/issues/10)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Late to the party, how does this compare to [https://nuclide.io/](https://nuclide.io/)?

</comment><comment><USER12> Yeah! I'm very excited about this.

</comment><comment><USER13> Why are you guys using Slack for team comms? Wouldn't it be easier for all involved to be a channel on Reactiflux's Discord?

<comment><USER14> Does it matter? Slack is free and most (all?) people I know only use the free edition. No different from using GitHub. People will always use free stuff if it's there and of good quality.

<comment><USER13> It's usually a good idea to lower friction and meet your users where they are. In the case of the React community, most have Discord accounts because Reactiflux was kicked off Slack for having too many non-commercial members. (Supporting open-source projects is an explicit non-goal for Slack.)

Discord welcomes open-source communities and is quite popular in the React community. If you are adding an open-source tool to the React ecosystem, those are both good reasons to prefer Discord. I certainly wouldn't want to build an open-source community on Slack after the way they handled Reactiflux.

<comment><USER14> I haven't used Discord but it says "It's time to ditch Skype and TeamSpeak." Skype is primarily 1-1 and not for irc. I have not heard of teamspeak but a quick google suggests it's for gamers. I don't quiet get how it replaces slack if it's replacing skype.

edit: looked into discord closer now. discord has no pricing information whatsoever. thanks, i prefer something where i pay for and hope will last.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cost to Develop New Pharmaceutical Drug Now Exceeds $2.5B? - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/ <comment><USER2> This article is a reprint of a summary of a press release based on a study, with no link to the actual study. Recent experience has lead me to be very mistrusting of things like that, so I poked around. I didn't find the actual study, but I did find some slides ([http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/Tufts_CSDD_briefing_on_R...](http://csdd.tufts.edu/files/uploads/Tufts_CSDD_briefing_on_RD_cost_study_- _Nov_18,_2014..pdf)) about it.

$1.2B of this reported cost is "opportunity cost", based on the fact that you could have taken the money you would've used for drug development and invested it elsewhere... at a 10.5% real rate of return. Which is a rather questionable assumption.

Practice epistemic self defense: go to the primary sources!

<comment><USER3> It's not that far off.

[http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/T12.2.pdf](http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/T12.2.pdf)

<comment><USER2> First result I came up with was [http://www.thornburginvestments.com/pdfs/TH1401.pdf](http://www.thornburginvestments.com/pdfs/TH1401.pdf) which states a 6% real rate of return on the S&P 500.

<comment><USER3> That's well known. But if you have >$1B you don't simply put them into an S&P tracking index fund in the same way that if I had $1K I would not even be permitted to buy into some of the better performing index/mutual funds but if I had $25K I could.

<comment><USER4> There is a lot of evidence that nothing consistently beats S&P 500 index funds after accounting for risks. However, if you have >$1B there are a lot of snake-oil salesman out there.

Note: Saying Fund X beat the average is meaningless you have to actually investigate their risk profile which takes a lot of effort.

<comment><USER5> The endowments of the elite private universities beg to differ. Harvard's has earned an average annual return of 12.9% over the past _20 years_ , and there are many others with similar growth (although not similar size).

<comment><USER4> Harvard like many such institutions use leverage (loans totaled 5.9 Billion) which is generally safe at low levels but not actually risk free. Like most methods of producing steady returns above market rates they trade a small risk of catastrophic loss vs steady above market rates. [http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/liquidity- leverage](http://harvardmagazine.com/2009/07/liquidity-leverage)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Interesting, in the comments is a link to this Doctors Without Borders response, arguing that this figure is grossly overstated. They claim a number closer to $186M (taking into account cost of failures) [http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/rd-cost- estimat...](http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/article/rd-cost-estimates- msf-response-tufts-csdd-study-cost-develop-new-drug)

I don't know anything about this area, but would love to know whose figure is closer to right on this.

<comment><USER7> What a screed. I went to factcheck their _first_ claim, on an Andrew Witty quote, and here's what I found: [http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/03/18/glaxosmithkl...](http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2013/03/18/glaxosmithklines_ceo_on_the_price_of_new_drugs.php)

Oh, so it's only less than $1b if your drugs _never fail in clinical trials_. Well gee, it's a good thing everyone in the drug industry knows how to have a 100% approval rate!

I stopped there. It's pretty clear what level of thinking and intellectual honesty went into that rebuttal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> >In 2012, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $27 billion on drug promotion— more than $24 billion on marketing to physicians and over $3 billion on advertising to consumers (mainly through television commercials). This approach is designed to promote drug companies' products by influencing doctors' prescribing practices.

[http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact- sheet...](http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/fact- sheets/2013/11/11/persuading-the-prescribers-pharmaceutical-industry- marketing-and-its-influence-on-physicians-and-patients)

<comment><USER9> Take a look at the graph in your link.

Almost 75% of that budget is on sales reps and free drugs. Having face-to-face conversations with physicians doesn't come cheap.

Also, don't forget that drug companies are only allowed to promote to FDA approved indications.

I don't see why drug companies advertising is such an issue. Despite what most people think, great drugs don't sell themselves.

<comment><USER10> > drug companies are only allowed to promote to FDA approved indications.

Ever heard of Forteo? It's an osteoporosis drug and not one you want to find out you need. It's got some nasty side effects (like cancer) and is a pain to take (it's a daily injection.) Drug reps push it _hard_ because it works in a novel fashion actually causing bone regrowth rather than slowing bone loss. That said the very very specific circumstances of who should be on it are almost never mentioned (in in person discussions, the FDA mandates the website mentions everything). It is talked about as a treatment for osteoporosis generally. It's talked about as a treatment to prevent fracture. Both of those are technically true, but the slope here is so slippery that the concept of 'approved indications' is like an open window to a fly. There's a lot of room to maneuver.

People are susceptible to advertising. Doctors are people. And when an attractive 26 year old in a tight skirt walks into your office to talk about writing just a few more prescriptions a month of something you already do, well that's going to have an impact.

The distinguishing factor here though is that the consumer is left out of the loop, the person who has to suffer the side effects is not part of the marketplace. This is not your standard free market exercise where caveat- emptor is an appropriate response. This is behind the scenes manipulation of people who are often trusted blindly by their patients.

I pay good money to have access to people with the experience and expertise to diagnose and treat my ailments. However if I find out that they are being asked to be invulnerable to cognitive errors like the recency fallacy then I'm screwed. It's unreasonable to ask people to be immune to manipulation and so the only reasonable course is to limit manipulation as much as possible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> See also this (opinion) piece in the NY Times, which disputes this calculation: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the- rea...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/upshot/calculating-the-real-costs- of-developing-a-new-drug.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Relevant: Eroom's law: [http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v11/n3/fig_tab/nrd3681_F1....](http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v11/n3/fig_tab/nrd3681_F1.html)

So what do we do here? We're not just underfunding basic biology research, it's rolling down hill and affecting the efficacy of our products oriented pharma R&D investments.

Best proposal I've heard to pull out of this trend? Computational biology: simulate different tissue types and organ systems (their dynamics, metabolic pathways, flow of matter/energy/information) and expose the simulated tissues to potential drugs in high-throughput simulations. Test exponentially more compounds and prune obvious failure from the chemical structure tree early and often. What you're left with is a restricted set of compounds to try synthesizing and taking to trial.

<comment><USER13> They've been doing that (and other comp bio techniques) for decades so it's already factored into the price. It's also a lot harder and less reliable than it sounds, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Costs are so high as these become more challenging, seems like Socialization with subsidy of incentive-based private funding (bonds, VCs) would be a better model.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a huge problem (even if this number is grossly inflated) - imagine the quantity of drugs that could exist if something like this could be bootstrapped.

I realize clinical trials are really important, because accidentally killing lots of people isn't particularly desirable, but is there a way we could lower this cost? What would need to happen?

<comment><USER16> Get government out of the way.

Why couldn't independent labs certify and insure products, a la Underwriters Laboratories?

We could have drugs vetted by these respected medical organizations and be labeled as such, think 'mayo clinic certified', 'johns hopkins certified', etc.

<comment><USER17> This model sounds a lot like the Moody's/S&P ratings-agency game. The failure of the ratings system is one of the critical components identified as causing the 2008 financial crisis.

I strongly dislike the mis-alignment of incentives, where the ratings / approval group is paid by the company seeking approval. It has proven disastrous in high-money systems, and I wouldn't trust it for pharma, which has shown similar ethical outlooks as finance (that is to say, little matters except profits).

<comment><USER16> The financial ratings agencies have government monopolies essentially, they have special status (NSRSO's). Not easy to compete with government monopolies. If more agencies could be ratings agencies maybe some would have thrown the bullshit flag in time to prevent what happen.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if you remember the mortgage crisis was due the government incentivizing subprime lending and having fed rate too low for too long; creating a bubble in housing. The ratings agencies themselves were accomplices, but not the sole problem by any stretch.

<comment><USER18> Yes but an even larger problem was commoditizing mortgage bundles to such an extent that even an honest rating company would not be able to figure the risk.

<comment><USER16> That's what I don't understand. If the auditor couldn't understand the investment then they should absolutely not give it a stamp of approval.

When in doubt, throw it out.

<comment><USER17> Agreed, they _should_ throw it out, but they're also throwing out a paycheck.

FWIW, I was just parroting Nate Silver's section on the financial crisis. He identifies the ratings agencies as one of the several groups responsible for the downfall. In S&N, Silver discusses how the ratings agencies gave their ratings software to the banks, so the banks could "dry-run" their tranches to get the best ratings available.

They were more than just complicit -- they actively enabled the financial groups to game the ratings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Marketing is a pretty big part of the pie compared to R + D

[http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr131n.htm](http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/twr131n.htm)

</comment><comment><USER7> Some positive discussion: [http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/11/24/the_cost_of_...](http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2014/11/24/the_cost_of_developing_a_new_drug.php) [http://lifescivc.com/2014/11/a-billion-here-a-billion- there-...](http://lifescivc.com/2014/11/a-billion-here-a-billion-there-the- cost-of-making-a-drug-revisited/)

<comment><USER20> Those are quite good articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > LaMattina counters that pricing should be based not on R&D costs but on the > value a drug delivers to patients.

I love this line. We should do it for oxygen. Your bill is pretty high because oxygen delivers a lot of value.

Pricing should be based on cost of provision. Because if it is higher in a market economy someone else can enter the market and provide at a lower cost.

<comment><USER22> The economics of drugs are different. The probability of two different labs inventing the exact same drug are pretty small. But when they do invent a drug they have a limited monopoly to make their money back. Which is a good thing, since it encourages more investment in drug development then there otherwise would be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This article is citing a study funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

</comment><comment><USER24> The $1.5 billion average cost is an average, and includes a lot of stupid ideas that should never have made it past the drawing board, but when you're a rich big pharma with tons of money to throw around, why not.

If you are smart (and quite lucky) it's an order of magnitude less.

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmunos/2014/11/20/the- ugly...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmunos/2014/11/20/the-ugly-cost-of- developing-new-drugs-can-we-make-it-prettier/)

</comment><comment><USER25> Nature Reviews Drug Discovery published a good overview of the factors contributing to the high costs of drug development in 2010, along with some suggestions of how to mitigate cost increases. It's a good read for anyone interested in the subject.

[http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v9/n3/abs/nrd3078.html](http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v9/n3/abs/nrd3078.html)

</comment><comment><USER26> That's on the order of the cost to buid new Intel fab.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabricati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants)</comment>


Founder Control - <AUTHOR> http://paulgraham.com/control.html <comment><USER2> A few observations:

1\. I would say that, even as of 5 years ago, it was rare for a startup to go through a Series A VC round without the VCs taking at least shared control.

2\. Founders of reasonably strong startups can usually do angel rounds, also denominated Series A, without giving up board control and have been able to do so for some years now. These rounds used to be for smaller dollar amounts, often capped at $500K or so, but this has changed today in an era where founders can often turn to angels and superangels for larger fundings. VCs want to stay competitive with the angels at this early stage because, if they lose out at that level, they find themselves sitting on the sidelines as their deal-flow shrinks and they lose out on potentially strong investments made at an optimum stage in promising ventures. To stay competitive, therefore, the VCs must perforce bend a little on their traditional terms, including their former obsession with gaining board control right out the gate.

3\. Founders themselves are far more savvy today, on average, than was the case a decade ago. In the bygone days, only a relatively few serial entrepreneurs had the sophistication to sit on a reputable board and still add value to it as founders. Today, the average founder is far better versed on what it takes to drive a company than was the case before. Thus, it is easier for VCs (and other investors) to accept the idea of a "founder-driven company" than it used to be. (Over the years, I have seen all too many "control-freak" founders and other variations that could only be labeled an embarrassment to sound management; based on this, I can understand the historic VC attitude, though of course this all must be counter-balanced by the many ills that the VCs themselves brought to the process when they would sometimes abuse the founders in whose startups they invested.)

4\. Founders today have far more control over timing on when to do their Series A rounds. The cost of launching is far reduced today and the options for deferring larger rounds are greater, as for example by taking bridge funding from angels or F&F to allow the company to build value and minimize dilution before it goes for larger forms of funding.

When all these factors are combined, it seems clear from the trenches that a profound change is occurring by which founders have more control than ever before over their ventures. Of course, having this validated by someone such as PG, who is at the heart of this activity in Silicon Valley, goes a long way to letting the VCs themselves see it as respectable to accept as a _fait accompli_ as they move forward.

<comment><USER3> > "3. Founders themselves are far more savvy today, on average, than was the > case a decade ago."

I've heard this a bunch of times. Why is this the case? Is it the information available to founders, the quality of people choosing to do startups, or something else?

<comment><USER4> In part because of YC, but in general because of, well... the internet. Stories spread.

<comment><USER5> YC is the way it is because of the people who apply to it - not the other way around.

<comment><USER6> It goes both ways...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> On the flip side, I've seen founders cling too tightly to control. Sometimes the guy that is really good at getting a version 1 out of the garage is not the same guy that is good at calling the shots once it's a 60 person company. Taking the stance that "I want to retain control," is obstinate and egotistical. The proper stance is, "I want to retain control until someone better comes along." That may be never. But it's the right attitude to have. In the end, it's not about who controls what, it's about who's more likely to make all the time and money that's gone into the company worth more.

<comment><USER8> Is it really possible to get VC funding when all you have is a version 1 out of the garage? I was under the impression that investors wanted to see traction before putting in serious money.

<comment><USER7> It is, but it's less likely. I should have phrased that better. What I meant by out "of the garage" was the end of the really dynamic period of the company. You can be physically out of the garage with an angel investment but still be constantly changing your mind on macro decisions. By the time you're at a series A, you're generally more certain of your direction.

From what I've seen, the person who is good at the really dynamic thinking part is not necessarily good at the focus and execute part and vice versa. Being a CEO of a larger company can actually be really boring for a dynamic, hyper-inventive type. I used to fancy myself as a technical CEO until I got a better understanding of the role. A great CEO is priceless and a great inventor is priceless. If it's the same person, then great. But there is no need to force it if it's not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 10 years ago, we had a "2 VC, 2 founders, tiebreaker CEO" board structure that I think was probably more common than simply "conceding the board to the VC". (I'm aware of the pitfalls in that structure, too).

My sense of it --- and someone with more recent experience please correct me if I'm wrong --- is that the shareholders agreements matter as much as the board structure does. Point being, you wouldn't want to see "founder control" becoming cosmetic, a fig leaf around the real power the VCs wield.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wish PG would go into the details of structuring a board control. Perhaps that's an essay for a another day.

Some context: Founder of Magna International, Frank Stronach, who started his business some 30 years ago made a lot headlines this past summer due to the sale of his "special" founder-class shares. I found it remarkable that even though the company is public, he still had majority interest over the board due to his share structure. EDIT: Every 1 of his B shares converted to 100 Common Stock (and he had over 700 Class B shares, before he decided to give up control and convert)

Wikipidia explains:

      Stronach, who is currently the non-executive chairman of
      Magna International, holds multiple-voting shares of the
      company, which gives him majority voting power over
      issues brought to shareholder vote. Although he controls
      the voting power among Magna's shareholders, Stronach
      owns only 4% of Magna's equity.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this happening because start-ups are getting series A financing later in the life of the company? It used to be that you needed VC just to build and launch a business, but these days the business can be much more real and the founders more proven by the time they're ready for VC.

Startups are getting further and further on seed and angel funding due to advancing technology.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wish PG would write more about painting and hacking and education and lisp and history and psychology and philosophy and literature and politics and a bit less about investments. Seriously, quite a dry topic..

<comment><USER13> So do I. But you have to write about what you're thinking about, and this is what I end up thinking about lately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Zynga Founder Mark Pincus - Control Your Board <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0lUNFHD-iM>

(from Startup School 2009)

<comment><USER15> Great video -- but how exactly did the Marks (Pincus and Zuckerberg) manage to retain control of their boards? What are the specific things that need to be done in the negotiation phase that will lead to that outcome?

<comment><USER16> This Venture Hacks article explains how to go about it: <http://venturehacks.com/articles/board-structure>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Perhaps the ycfounders list is a selected sample: it produces or selects above-average quality founders that are more likely to get a good Series A price (in terms of both control and pre$). I suspect that YCombinator's focus on founders for investment decisions also results in start-ups with assets closely tied to the individuals who run things (rather than say a patent). This leaves future VCs with less bargaining power when forming boards.

<comment><USER13> While I would like to believe it's because YC-funded startups are better, the fact is that for any startup to raise Series A, the VCs have to believe they're so good they could one day go public. So my guess is that the reason so many YC alumni have been able to retain control is that they are so well connected. They have the other alumni (many of whom are very sophisticated about fundraising) to give them advice, they get hooked up with the best lawyers, etc.

<comment><USER17> Now that is one area the academic literature on venture capital and entrepreneurship hasn't studied: the social networks of entrepreneurs and bargaining power. Putting that on my list.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Can someone explain the power dynamics of a board, vs that of the shareholders? I always assumed that retaining a majority of shares between the founders would keep them in control of the company, but is it the case that the board has more actual power.

For instance; 2 founders hold 60% of the shares of their company collectively after a Series A. The investors hold 40% (lets ignore option pools etc). Now if each side had 2 board seats (plus a 5th seat held by a brought in CEO), does that mean the founders can in fact be outvoted?

<comment><USER19> Yup. Shareholdership only matters in so much as your shareholders agreement dictates that it does. I could have 1 share of your company and control a hundred board seats, it doesn't matter. There are some things in law that make ownership of a certain % of shares important, but really its all about the shareholders agreement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As I'm reading this article and nodding my head, I realized that I don't understand what _controlling_ a board actually means.

It sounds like its written in the term sheet somewhere--what does that look like? _Joe Startup will maintain control of the board..._? Would it be correct for a founder to say "I have control of the board so..." or is it more of a perceived power as a result of other negotiated terms?

<comment><USER21> Usually, important decisions in a company require a majority vote of the board of directors to approve them.

Control of the board is then defined as a majority voting ability for an individual or aligned group of individuals. For example, 2 founders with equal equity stake will _usually_ have the same incentives. Therefore, a board that has 2 founders and 1 investor is "founder controlled".

Between being completely founder controlled and completely investor controlled, there is a "split board". That means equal number of founders to investors, and one mutually agreed upon independent party that could technically vote either way -- often times a person previously very successful in business with insight into the startup's market.

In practice, a split board usually means investor-controlled, for a couple reasons: \- The independent board member is usually suggested by the investor \- The independent board member usually has a stronger incentive to side with a powerful investor

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This essay makes VC's seem like a necessary evil that founders have to tolerate through gritted teeth, as opposed to something more benevolent like, say, YC.

Do I have the wrong impression?

<comment><USER13> A lot of VCs are good guys. The difference between us is largely that we're in different situations. VCs invest 100x as much as us. Larger amounts of money will inevitably have more constraints attached.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> _In a dozen companies we've funded, the founders still had a majority of the board seats after the series A round._

Out of how many series As total?

<comment><USER23> Answered here, he says "around half":

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1976417>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Isn't a dozen a small percentage of total YC companies?

<comment><USER13> It's a large percentage of those who've done series A rounds though. Around half.

And practically all the pre series A companies still have board control, because most startups do at that stage.

<comment><USER25> Two dozen is only about 10% of the 208 YC startups to date. I'm surprised that that few have done a Series A. I would have thought it would be a much higher percentage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Minor typo: resort of compulsion --> resort to compulsion

<comment><USER13> thanks; fixed

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> With an equal number of founder elected Directors and VC elected Directors, if your outside tiebreaker director is brought in by the VC's you will be in danger of losing control because you cannot control the situation.

Especially if the tie breaker is planning on doing some additional business with the VC in the future, you may not have a truly neutral person casting the vote.

So, how is founder control typically structured?

For instance, do founder Stockholders get 2 votes per share to elect Directors with, and VC's get 1 vote per share with a guaranteed VC director seat on the board? Or are Directors elected by founders getting 2 votes on a particular decision item A and 1 vote on decision item B, and VC Directors get 1 vote on A and B?

Does anyone know what is currently going on with this?

</comment><comment><USER28> 2 Questions:

Are there cases where a non-CEO founder controls the board?

What are the mechanics whereby the minority stake founder(s) control the board? Some sort of skewed voting system? If so, what sort of legal entities allow this structure?

<comment><USER10> Yes, there is precedent. I mentioned Frank Stronach in the comments, See <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1976711>

I'm not sure if this is universal, but Stronach (a non-executive chairman of Magna Int.) had control over the board because of his Class B share structure. Every 1 of his B share converted to 100 Common Stock (and he had over 700 Class B shares, before he decided to give up control and convert)

That's quite remarkable, considering Magna is a publicly traded company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think one of the main factors pushing the trend in the direction of more founders retaining control is the increased availability of angel money.

If it came down to my cofounders and I having to give up control to raise a Series A (or any series for that matter) I'm sure we'd turn to Angel List to raise a similar amount from well connected and useful investors, without having to give up control - if that were a viable option.

Increasingly it seems like raising a large angel round is an option, which is great for entrepreneurs.

</comment><comment><USER30> "VCs will still be able to convince; they just won't be able to compel. And the startups where they have to resort of compulsion are not the ones that matter anyway. "

I excepted some sort of footnote for this one. It's not immediately obvious to me this is true.

Hypothetically, the founders are the ones that know their business the best, and hence tend to have a longer term vision. Given that the founder executes on the long term vision, those are the companies that matter. Is that the line of thinking?

<comment><USER31> If an investor disagrees with a founder so much that they are willing to take actions that force that founder to act against his/her own will, then things must be in pretty bad shape. When a company is doing great, nobody picks fights with its leaders.

On the other hand, there may be cases where a generally positive opportunity, such as a possible sale, is valued very differently by a founder and VCs. I'm not sure how common these cases are, or whether there are existing rules about the board's obligations to shareholders that reduce the likelihood of conflict.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I definitely would like to control my own company.

That said, my philosophy is simple: Your first company should SUCCEED. You should be prepare to give up control, equity, etc. as long as it succeeds.

That gives you a track record AND money. Think about it. If you had $10 million dollars 2 years from now, and a 5% stake in your first venture, contacts lots of happy people and a reputation for succeeding with your first venture, don't you think you could own the shit out of your next company? Like 100% ownership in pretty much anything you want, with $5 million of your own money in it. You could try 30 different ideas or set up a nice lab.

Wanting to own your first venture is kind of like saying this will be your only idea, ever.

It might sound unproductive, but my advice to fellow entrepreneurs would be: listen to what investors want, and then give it to them. Put together a great team. Find VC firms who like to invest in your kind of thing. Develop just enough to get them interested. Set up appointments. Get funded. Exit with $10m or more in the bank. Do your own thing. Your first business can be all about the $$ exit.

It seems I myself am going a different route, though.

</comment><comment><USER33> "Founders retaining control after a series A is clearly heard-of. And barring financial catastrophe, I think in the coming year it will become the norm."

Would a financial catastrophe simply stop new series A rounds, or would it rather change their terms? Are there any examples of changes related to the adventures in 2007--2008?

</comment><comment><USER34> _The switch to the new norm may be surprisingly fast, because the startups that can retain control tend to be the best ones. They're the ones that set the trends, both for other startups and for VCs._

Are they the best ones because they can retain control or can they retain control because they are the best ones?

</comment><comment><USER35> Good insight information, thanks !</comment>