1163 



Dr. John C. Shearer, Director, Manpower Research and Training 

 Center at Oklahoma State University, the figure for 1964—66 was "an 

 alarming 51 percent." Further investigation revealed that 55 percent 

 intended to remain in the United States.^*^ Xo doubt, the ease with 

 which foreign graduates with advanced degrees can obtain employ- 

 ment in complex economic systems of advanced countries accounts for 

 their high rate of immigration. But this tendency is quickened by the 

 pressures of acculturation which have ample time to take effect during 

 the many years of study required to be awarded a Ph. D. 



Also vulnerable to these pressures of acculturation are the very 

 young foreign students, particularly the undergraduates. What Habib 

 Naficy, Minister for Cultural Affairs at the Iranian Embassy in 

 Washington, said of Iranian students in America could well apply to 

 other students, especially from the LDCs. He attributed the cause of 

 brain drain to the "high adaptability" of youth: "the younger they 

 are when they come, the greater the possibility of their remaining." ^*^ 

 Prof. Eli Ginzberg, Director of Columbia University's Program for 

 Conservation of Human Resources, expressed similar misgivings: 

 "There is no question in my mind that if a young person is separated 

 from his homeland for a long number of years for study in a totally 

 different environment, the probabilities are strong that he will not re- 

 turn to his native land." ^^° 



Mismatch in Education and Training. — Another contributor to tlie 

 "permanent draw" of professional manpower to the United States 

 and other advanced countries of the West is the mismatch in education 

 and training of foreign students and scholars. A persistent theme in 

 brain drain literature, mismatched education probably produces one 

 of the strongest "pull" forces in brain drain. 



The LDCs are most affected by the problem of mismatched training 

 mainly because the source of the problem is underdevelopment. Educa- 

 tion in the United States, or any other advanced country, is designed 

 for the needs of a developed country. Values and unique methodol- 

 ogies, priorities, and goals of the advanced countries permeate both 

 the curricula and the spirit of the educational process. Success is de- 

 termined according to adaptation to and the achievement of these 

 attitudes. An American chemist, engineer, or physicist is trained 

 to fit into the larger corporate structure of American life whether in 

 the service of academia, private enterprise, or Government-related 

 research. American medicine is designed to serve a society whose physi- 

 cal and psychological ills are unique to an advanced industrial 

 civilization. 



A graduate student or scholar from Nigeria or the Philippines en- 

 ters this educational structure with an entirely different set of values 

 and goals. Coming from a developing nation, his needs and those of his 

 country differ from those of the United States. Yet in the reality of 

 things these needs are not taken into account. Furthermore, the gap 

 between the level of knowledge in science, technology, and medicine 

 in the United States and that of the LDCs is so wide that irrelevance 

 in training results is inescapable. Freedom of choice in studies seems 



*** Hearings, House Government Operations Committee, Brain Drain, 1968, d. 22. 

 »*» Naficy, op. clt., p. 67. > > f 



*^ Hearings, House, Government Operations Committee, Brain Drain, p. 89. 



