Professor Lu when he won a Queensland Great award in 2013. Picture: Mark Calleja
Professor Max Lu will move to Australia to be the University of Wollongong’s (UOW) sixth vice-chancellor in May next year.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
by CUPA-HR | December 10, 2024
Over the past few weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has announced several nominations for leads at federal agencies. Of relevance to CUPA-HR members, Trump has nominated Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) to serve as secretary at the Department of Labor (DOL) and Linda McMahon to serve as the Department of Education (ED) secretary. The following analysis dives into how Chavez-DeRemer and McMahon may lead each agency’s regulatory action on a few of the most pressing policy issues.
FLSA
Chavez-DeRemer was nominated to serve as labor secretary on November 22. Chavez-DeRemer was viewed as a surprising pick for many in the labor and employment policy space given her Congressional record and support from labor unions. Her nomination raises questions about the direction in which DOL will go under the Trump administration with respect to certain policies and regulations, such as the overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), joint employer regulations, and independent contractor regulations.
As a reminder, the Biden administration’s overtime regulations were struck down in federal court on November 15. The ruling strikes down all components of the Biden administration’s rule, including the July 2024 and January 2025 salary thresholds and the triennial automatic updates. On November 26, however, the Biden administration filed a notice of appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of reinstating the rule before their term ends.
Chavez-DeRemer has not publicly supported or opposed the Biden administration’s overtime rule, but labor unions have supported the rule through regulatory comments and public statements. Many anticipated that a second Trump administration’s DOL would stop defending the Biden rule in court if the Biden administration chose to appeal. Given organized labor’s support of Chavez-DeRemer, there is a chance that DOL under her authority would continue to defend the rule in court. However, it appears unlikely that the rule in its entirety would be defended, and it is more likely that DOL would attempt to defend the July salary threshold only. As a reminder, the salary threshold increase that took effect on July 1, 2024, used the Trump administration’s 2019 overtime rule methodology to determine the level, which could lead to a possible reasoning for defending the July salary threshold level.
Joint Employer and Independent Contractor Rules
Similar to the overtime regulations, the future of other labor and employment regulations relevant to higher ed HR appears uncertain in the face of Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination. Two DOL regulations — the joint employer and independent contractor rules — seem certain to swing back in favor of policies like those implemented under the first Trump administration, but Chavez-DeRemer’s inconsistent record in Congress on both issues makes it unclear how DOL under Trump will regulate them.
Notably, Chavez-DeRemer is one of three Republican cosponsors of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a Democrat-backed bill that would expand organized labor’s power over workers and employers. There are provisions in the PRO Act that a second Trump DOL is not anticipated to implement, including provisions to apply a controversial “ABC” test for worker classification under the National Labor Relations Act and to adopt a broader joint employer standard under the NLRA than the standard implemented by the Trump administration. Given her support for the PRO Act, Chavez-DeRemer could change direction from the anticipated actions expected from the Trump administration with respect to joint employment and independent contractor status, along with other labor policies.
Linda McMahon was nominated to serve as ED secretary on November 19. McMahon’s nomination was also considered a surprise, but for reasons surrounding her previous experience. During Trump’s first term, McMahon served as the administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, and most recently, she served as co-chair of Trump’s transition team. She was previously an executive for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). With respect to education, McMahon served as a trustee for Sacred Heart University for over a decade, and she also briefly served on the Connecticut Board of Education.
Title IX
McMahon’s previous positions and experience do not provide much insight into her stance on higher education policy. That being said, we expect that McMahon will largely follow the education policy direction of President-elect Trump if she is confirmed. With respect to Title IX, it is expected that Trump will seek to reimplement his administration’s 2020 Title IX regulations nationwide, which we anticipate McMahon will follow. It remains to be seen if McMahon and the Trump administration’s ED will attempt to issue new Title IX regulations that may be more conservative than those issued in 2020 to address concerns regarding rights and protections for transgender students.
Both Chavez-DeRemer and McMahon will face Senate confirmation hearings by relevant oversight committees and votes by the full Senate. During confirmation hearings, more information about the nominees’ priorities at their respective agencies will be revealed. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates related to the confirmation process of Chavez-DeRemer and McMahon as well as regulatory updates from DOL and ED.
by CUPA-HR | December 10, 2024
Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.
A former Boston University professor may anonymously pursue his Title IX claim that the university’s sexual harassment investigation leading to his termination was itself biased against males. The court noted that the use of pseudonyms is strongly disfavored in civil litigation. The judge nonetheless allowed it in this case for the following reasons: the plaintiff’s strong and realistic fear of reputational damage, the chilling effect that name disclosure could have on future litigants, the public interest in disclosing Doe’s identity does not appear significant, and the use of a pseudonym will not prejudice the university’s defense. The case will move forward without disclosure of the professor’s name (Doe v. Trustees of Boston University (2024 Bl 399572 D. Mass. No. 1:24-cv-10619, 11/6/24)).
A Division I tennis player at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has narrowed her class action complaint against the NCAA a month after her request for an injunction was denied. The federal judge did not view her claim as being ultimately successful because of its breadth. The plaintiff made it to the third round of the U.S. Open tennis tournament in 2021 and was entitled to $48,913 in prize money. NCAA rules allowed her to accept only $10,000 in prize money from all competitions that year. Accepting more would have jeopardized her ability to play on the women’s tennis team at UNC. She was also forced to forfeit other prize money she won in 2021.
Her initial complaint sought to represent a class of all Division I student-athletes in all individual sports, including swimming and golf. Her amended complaint limits the class to Division I tennis players (Brantmeier v. NCAA (M.D. N.C. No. 1:24-cv-00238, 11/8/24)).
A plaintiff’s claims that a university’s required DEI statement on its initial applicant screening process made his application futile or put him a disadvantage to other parties have been dismissed. A California federal trial court dismissed the claims for lack of standing, as the plaintiff professor never actually applied for the position in question. The court concluded that the professor, who had amended his complaint three times, did not include an actual allegation that he applied for the position.
In dismissing the case against the University of California, Santa Cruz, the court concluded that the professor’s “futility” claim failed because he may well have passed the initial screening stage notwithstanding the DEI statement (Haltigan v. Drake (N.D. Cal. No. 5:23-cv-02437, 11/15/24)).
Republicans on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have called upon the Department of Labor’s inspector general to investigate the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) after it shared confidential material with a law firm suing a company that had been the target of a prior agency audit. The material was provided to the plaintiff’s law firm Cohen Milstein Sellars & Toll PLLC under a DOL “information sharing agreement” between the department’s division and the law firm.
Common interest agreements are standard in litigation when two parties in active litigation share plaintiff or defense interest on the same side of the litigation. In this case, however, the DOL was not a party to the litigation nor had it filed a lawsuit against the defendant involved in this private litigation. The request to the DOL’s inspector general also asks how many other common interest agreements the EBSA has with other plaintiff law firms.
A high school coach who filed a First Amendment lawsuit against his school district is denied a court-ordered injunction reinstating him while he litigates the propriety of his alleged statements. The coach claims his First Amendment rights were violated when he was terminated following his email critical of the school district’s position on transgender athletes. The school district defended, stating that he would have been terminated regardless of the email because another coach reported that he used a slur in referring to transgender athletes.
In denying the coach’s request for an injunction, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not show irreparable harm that could not be compensated by monetary damages. The court ruled that the school district’s responsibility to ensure that all students feel safe and are not harassed outweighs the coach’s personal interests in this matter (Parks v. Lake Oswego School District (D. Or., No.3:24-cv-0119, 11/25/24)).
Bryce Loo, Associate Director of Higher Education Research
International students navigate a landscape of uncertainty and opportunity, as the 2024 IIE Open Doors Report highlights shifting trends in U.S. enrollment and global migration.
The Institute of International Education’s (IIE) annual Open Doors Report on International Education Exchange (Open Doors, for short),[1] along with its companion Fall Enrollment Snapshot Survey (Fall Snapshot Survey, for short),[2] was released only a few weeks after a consequential presidential election in which former president Donald Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris. Trump’s win will significantly shift the landscape around international students in the U.S.
Open Doors is a retrospective report on international enrollment and other student data in the U.S., focused on the previous full academic year—in this case 2023-24.[3] The Fall Snapshot Survey provides insights into the current fall term. But uncertainty abounds in this new environment with the return of Trump, known for his tough stances on immigration, which may affect non-immigrant residents such as international students and temporary workers. This is happening against a backdrop of global uncertainty, in a year with a tremendous number of important elections around the world, many armed conflicts, and growing climate change. At the same time, there are bright spots for the U.S. as a host of international students and for global student migration in general.
In this article, I also compare results from Open Doors and the Fall Snapshot Survey against recently released data from SEVIS (the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System), maintained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for Fall 2024.[4] This dataset captures all students with a record in SEVIS, the U.S. government database in which all international students are required to be registered by their hosting U.S. institution. Data are organized monthly, with the most recently released is for November 2024, and they vary little month-to-month within a given term, such as a fall semester. For consistency, I compare November 2024 with November 2023. Such data help us to gain a fuller picture of current international enrollment trends this fall.
Total international student enrollment in the U.S. hit an all-time high of 1,126,690 in 2023–24, a growth rate of 6.6 percent from the previous year. This has followed a few years of recovery following the dramatic enrollment decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic. The post-pandemic growth rate peaked in 2022-23 at 11.5 percent.
However, growth is slowing. While this year’s Fall Snapshot Survey indicates a 3 percent growth rate in fall 2024, analysis of the SEVIS data indicates a drop in overall enrollment. International enrollment is down to 1,091,190 students in November 2024, a 10 percent decrease from the previous November, according to SEVIS records.[5] IIE’s data confirms slowing growth, too. New international student enrollment slowed to only 0.1 percent in 2023-24. Additionally, the Fall Snapshot Survey indicates a 5 percent decrease in new students this fall.
This recent slowdown, which happened prior to the presidential election results, is tricky to diagnose. One likely culprit, though certainly not the only one, is economics: An education in the U.S. has become particularly expensive, due largely to a combination of inflation and a strong U.S. dollar. A more expensive U.S. education particularly impacts many students from South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, the two regions showing the strongest rise in U.S. international enrollment in recent years, who are particularly price sensitive.
International enrollments in the U.S. from South Asia, driven dominantly by India, continued growing at a rapid rate in 2023–24. In 2023–24, India became the top country of origin among international students in the U.S. and by a substantial margin, at 331, 602 students. There was about a 23 percent increase in Indian students from the previous year, accounting for almost 30 percent of all international students in the U.S.
In 2023-24, South Asia firmly dominated among regions of origin for U.S. international students and its numbers continue to rise. South and Central Asia (which IIE groups together as one[6]) account for one-third (34.3 percent) of all U.S. international students, just ahead of East Asia. South and Central Asia’s sending numbers grew 22 percent over the last year, more than those of any other region. Beyond India, there continues to be robust enrollment growth from Bangladesh (26 percent), Nepal (11 percent), Sri Lanka (10 percent), and Pakistan (8 percent). Bangladesh and Nepal broke into the top 10 countries of origin in 2023-24.
By contrast, the number of Chinese students in the U.S. declined more than 4 percent to 277,398 during the same period and accounted for less than 25 percent of all U.S. international students. Overall, numbers from East Asia are declining steadily (by nearly 4 percent last academic year). Numbers from South Korea (-2 percent) and Japan (-13 percent) continued to drop. The one bright spot among major East Asian nations was Taiwan, which saw a 6 percent rise from the previous year and was the fifth largest sending country. Students from East Asia have been decreasing in the last few years, and forecasts suggest further steady decline.
For many East Asian students, the calculus about studying in the U.S. and in Western countries has changed in recent years. Holding a degree from a highly ranked U.S. or Western institution holds less cachet than it once did. In both China and South Korea, local universities have become more prestigious and offer students the opportunity to connect directly with the local job market, putting those studying far afield at a disadvantage. For Chinese students, geopolitical tensions and strict policies against Chinese students and scholars largely enacted by the first Trump Administration, many of which were continued by the Biden Administration, may make studying in the U.S. feel riskier. There has also been growing intra-regional mobility, with many East Asian students choosing to go to another country in the region. According to the British Council, for example, there are more Japanese students in China than in any anglophone country.
Despite the recent increases in enrollment from South Asia, the SEVIS data show a rapid reversal of trends heading in Fall 2024. Indian enrollment in the U.S. this fall has declined by 24 percent, and overall South Asian enrollment has fallen at a similar rate. Meanwhile, Chinese and overall East Asian enrollment has flatlined, each with a barely perceptible decrease. As a result, however, China has become the top country of origin once again, with 263,523 students in the U.S., followed by India (25,5443), in Fall 2024. Likewise, East Asia has returned to the top spot among region of origin, with modest enrollment increases from Japan and South Korea.
A slowdown of enrollment growth from South Asia likely is attributable to rising costs in the U.S., particularly given currency exchange rates, as noted earlier. Safety, a frequent concern for Indian students and their families, could also be a factor. Many Indian media outlets, such as The Economic Times and The Indian Express, have recently reported on increasing safety issues for Indian students in the U.S.
That said, these declines from India and South Asia do not necessarily foretell a long-term trend. Many prominent models, notably that of HolonIQ, predict growth from India into 2030.
International student growth in the U.S. continues to be driven at the graduate level, particularly among master’s degree students. Graduate students made up almost 45 percent of all U.S. international enrollment in 2023-24. Total international student graduate enrollment increased by 7.6 percent in 2023-24, while undergraduate enrollment fell by 1.4 percent and non-degree enrollment fell by 11.5 percent. These trends are somewhat parallel with new international student enrollment. India has driven much of this growth in grad students, as have South and Central Asian students in general. More Chinese students came to study at the graduate level that year, too.
This growth of international graduate students does not appear to be holding into 2024-25, however. The Fall Snapshot Survey indicates a slight decrease of about 2 percent in international grad students this fall and an increase (6 percent) in international undergrad students. The SEVIS numbers show decreases for both, including a significant decrease of 15 percent among international grad students. (International undergrad enrollment declined by 3 percent.) However, international graduate enrollment is still greater than undergraduate enrollment currently.
The decrease in international graduate students appears to be driven by Indian students and South Asian students overall. Indian students account for about 40 percent of all U.S. international student graduate students, and 60 percent of Indian students in the U.S. are studying at the graduate level, according to Open Doors. Per the SEVIS data, Indian graduate enrollment in the U.S. declined by almost 26 percent in Fall 2024. Additionally, South and Central Asian and East Asian student together account for nearly three-quarters of all international graduate students. Chinese graduate enrollment in the U.S. decreased about 4 percent this fall, according to the data from SEVIS.
U.S. universities and colleges continue to focus heavily on India and to a lesser extent China for their international student recruitment, according to the Fall Snapshot Survey. India is the top country of focus for both graduate students (81 percent of respondents) and undergrads (65 percent). China was second top country of focus for grad students and third for undergrads (just after Vietnam). Given the volatility of enrollment from India and steady declines from China, U.S. institutions may wish to ensure diversity of countries from which they recruit.
When it comes to potential impacts on international student enrollment in the U.S., a primary factor will be the incoming Trump administration. Donald Trump will take office with a decisive agenda, having campaigned and won with a tough-on-immigration stance. This stance seemed to resonate with many voters, along with concerns about the economy and inflation.
The first Trump administration may provide a useful look at what could happen in the second one. Trump’s first term brought a decline in international student enrollment, due in part to policies like the 2017 travel ban and a slowdown in visa processing. This trend reversed somewhat during the Biden administration but could resume under the policies of a second Trump term.
Going forward, much will depend on the incoming administration’s policies as well as rhetoric. Trump’s immigration agenda is mostly focused on asylum, primarily at the U.S.-Mexico border, and on undocumented immigrants, whom he has pledged to deport at unprecedented rates. The extent that he will focus on international students and immigrants with specialty occupations, notably the H1-B visa program under which some international students seek to remain in the U.S., is unclear. In June 2024, Trump, known for making offhand comments, proposed on a podcast hosted by Silicon Valley investors that international students who graduate from U.S. institutions, including community colleges, should receive a green card (permanent residency). He and his team later walked back that remark, and many commentators see such policy as highly unlikely given Trump’s overall immigration stance. In fact, reports suggest the administration is likely to limit pathways to H1-B visas, international students’ primary means of staying in the U.S. beyond Optional Practical Training (OPT), effectively making such visas virtually inaccessible.
Policy changes under Trump’s second administration could also affect OPT and “duration of status,” the length of time students with visas have been allowed to stay in the U.S. without needing to renew. Such changes were attempted in the first Trump administration but did not succeed. His first administration also tried to eliminate STEM OPT, the 24-month extension of OPT for those graduating with a degree in fields related to science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. Indian students in particular may be concerned about such changes if they are proposed again, as they are often drawn to the U.S. by opportunities to gain work experience. Toward the end of that term the administration also put forward a rule to limit duration of status to a finite period of two or four years, rather than allow the time needed to finish earning a degree, after which a student would be required to pay a fee and renew.
Still, it is possible to overestimate the attitudinal impact of a presidential administration, and recent survey research by Intead and Studyportals found a majority of prospective international students this fall were “indifferent” to the election outcome and how it might affect their plans to study in the U.S., according to The PIE News. There is certainly no monolithic view of President-elect Trump or U.S. politics among international students. If any declines in numbers happen again under Trump, it will likely be in response to policies that specifically impact international students or rhetoric aimed at individuals from their home country or region of origin. It may also be driven in part by visa delays and denials caused by administration policies.
One other major factor is current policy changes in other major host countries, driven largely by politics and public opinion, which might actually boost the attractiveness of the U.S. The other three Big Four predominantly anglophone destinations—Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom—have had massive international student enrollment in recent years, particularly as a percentage of total higher education enrollment. According to IIE’s Project Atlas, Canada’s international enrollment rate in 2023 was 30 percent, Australia’s was 24 percent, and the U.K.’s was 22 percent. (By contrast, only 6 percent of U.S. higher education students were international, although overall size of its system makes the U.S. numerically the top enroller of international students.) Canada’s enrollment in particular has seen explosive growth, a rise of nearly 70 percent from 2019 to 2023. Many Canadian locales have struggled to accommodate such an influx, often viewed as a way to fill provincial funding gaps yet sometimes lacking steps to ensure students’ well-being.
Additionally, international students have been ensnared in broader immigration debates within these three countries, often being unfairly blamed for systemic housing and employment challenges, among other issues. As in the U.S., immigration has been a major political topic in many Western countries and in recent elections in France and the U.K.
As a result, the other three Big Four countries have begun implementing policies designed to rein in international enrollment growth and limit access to opportunities to work and stay after graduation. Canada, which according to IIE’s recent Open Doors briefing just overtook the U.K. to become the second most popular international student destination, adopted new policies in rapid-fire succession from late 2023 to fall 2024. The most consequential is a cap on the number of study permits (required in Canada for international students) granted per province, particularly meant to limit growth in higher-enrollment provinces, in 2024 and 2025. Other new policies include a significant hike in the financial resources international students are required to demonstrate, restrictions on work permits for spouses, limits on permission to work during study, and stricter requirements for obtaining the popular post-graduation work permit (PGWP), which allows graduated students to work in Canada and often transition to permanent residency.
The Australian government is strongly considering similar caps on international student enrollment in an attempt to reduce overall migration to the country. Already it has stricter visa regulations for international students, including stronger “tests” to ensure that prospective students are coming with the intention of studying, not working, as well as a significant increase in the visa fee. In the U.K. a new regulation enacted by the Conservative Party prohibits international students at all levels except postgraduate from bringing family members starting in 2024, in order to “slash migration and curb abuse of the immigration system,” according to the U.K, government. The new Labour government has opted not to reverse the policy.
The effects of these changes are already evident. The three other Big Four countries are all seeing declining applications for relevant visas and permits. Preliminary analysis of Canadian study permit application data shows the number of approved study permits will likely come in below the actual caps for 2024. The U.K. reported a 16 percent drop in student visa applications in summer 2024 compared to the same time period in 2023, and in Australia, the decrease in such applications has been particularly steep, nearly 40 percent from October 2023 to August 2024.
So far, the prospective beneficiary of these changes has been the U.S., according to both prospective student surveys and media reports. For example, in IDP Education’s Emerging Futures Report for 2024, a prominent series based on prospective student survey data, the U.S. came in second place (at 23 percent) as destination of choice for survey takers, just behind Australia (24 percent). Interest in the U.S. increased four percentage points; Australia’s percentage point declined by one. By contrast, interest in the U.K. and Canada decreased 1 percent and 9 percent respectively, dropping them to third and fourth places. In media coverage of the restrictions, Indian outlets such as Business Standard and The Indian Express note that many Indian students are switching focus to the U.S, although some, including the Express, also report students are looking beyond the Big Four to other study destinations entirely.
Still, President-elect Trump may introduce cuts or caps of his own, which, depending on their scope, may cause the U.S. to lose its developing enrollment edge. If all Big Four destinations have policies significantly cutting student influx, that could alter the student mobility landscape, shifting enrollments to other countries—notably, smaller anglophone destinations such as Ireland, New Zealand, and Singapore and non-predominantly anglophone countries in continental Europe and Asia—where English-taught programs have increased greatly in recent years.
The incoming Trump administration and policy changes in other countries are only two factors apt to impact movement to the U.S.; internal issues in other countries and regions also come into play. For example, while U.S. policies and tensions with China have affected the number of Chinese students coming to the U.S., factors within China also played a role, as we examined in a recent series in WENR.
Worldwide, uncertainty and systemic challenges lie ahead. Several major conflicts, notably Russia’s war in Ukraine and escalated fighting in the Middle East, threaten to spiral into bigger geopolitical crises. Authoritarianism is rising around the globe, creating more potential crises, as is the threat of climate change, with 2024 recently declared the hottest year on record. Among its many effects, climate change will likely continue spurring global migration, including, increasingly, the forcibly displaced. In fact, all these factors will likely increase global migration. Luckily, U.S. institutions are well-placed to take in students from affected regions and offer them pathways for academic and professional growth.
In general terms, there is reason for optimism. Global student migration will continue and most likely rise, increasing economic and social opportunities for many globally mobile young people. International students also benefit their host societies, communities, and institutions, including domestic students, by bringing diverse international perspectives as well as economic benefits. By some estimates, international students will increase worldwide from about 6 million in 2023 to 10 million in 2030. The U.S. could host as many as 2 million, a still significant capacity compared to other destinations.
Despite domestic and international pressures, U.S. institutions can continue to demonstrate the value of a U.S. education and what unique value they in particular offer. They can continue to make clear, through channels like the #youarewelcomehere campaign, that international students are both accepted and embraced. Institutions can continue to show that international education benefits not only students and institutions but communities and the nation. For example, huge numbers of U.S.-based entrepreneurs and STEM professionals came to the U.S. as international students and have been an asset for U.S. business and research and development. And international educators can advocate for policies at local, state, and federal levels (for example, via NAFSA: Association of International Educators) that continue to make the U.S. a hospitable place for students from abroad.
Most important, U.S. institutions can and should take proactive steps to ensure inclusion and integration of their international students. This means initial support in everything from securing good housing to culturally sensitive mental health resources to campus career services that recognize international students’ unique needs. It may mean assisting students with financing in any way possible. It also means more efforts toward academic and social integration, which involves educating faculty, staff, and domestic students as well.
Looking to the future, U.S. policymakers, educators, and institutions must work together to create an environment that remains welcoming, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of international students. By doing so, the U.S. can maintain its position as a global leader in higher education and continue to benefit from the diverse perspectives and talents that international students bring.
[1] Open Doors is an annual census of international students (those on a nonimmigrant student visa) enrollment in U.S. higher education institutions, as well as U.S. students who studied abroad two academic years prior.
[2] The Fall Snapshot Survey is sent to all institutions that report data to IIE for Open Doors. This year, IIE collected 693 valid responses.
[3] Open Doors always tracks data from the previous full academic year.
[4] The SEVIS data released by DHS is usually the most up-to-date data available. Open Doors, however, provides more analysis and a greater breakdown of data compared with what is provided by SEVIS.
[5] Usually, IIE’s Fall Snapshot Survey aligns with current data trends from SEVIS and is a strong predictor of numbers that appear in the following year’s Open Doors Report. This year, however, the data between the Fall Snapshot Survey and SEVIS are quite different, though both indicate slowing growth in international enrollment in the U.S.
[6] Central Asia, which includes mostly former Soviet republics in Asia (such as Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan), only accounts for about 1 percent of total enrollment from the overall South and Central Asia region, according to my analysis of IIE Open Doors data.
Report Title: Building a Better Pipeline: Enrollment Funnel Needs and Perspectives from Potential Post Baccalaureate Students
Author: Collegis Education + UPCEA
Published: December 2024
Key points addressed
In this ebook, you’ll learn more about prospective graduate students’ needs and expectations as they move through the enrollment funnel, including:
Overview
While higher education institutions face tightening budgets, demographic cliffs, and other market headwinds, many schools see graduate enrollment growth as a critical strategy despite the increasingly competitive landscape. Strategic investments in outreach have never been more vital.
With more and more programs sharing similarities in their structure than differences, one way schools can win is by delivering frictionless and exceptional student experiences, using prospective graduate students’ preferences, behaviors, and other insights to personalize engagements and outreach.
By understanding these preferences, institutions can better tailor their recruitment strategies and allocate resources more effectively in an increasingly competitive landscape.
Fall and Rise
The question I am getting more often than any other these days is: “what are you hearing about cuts at colleges and universities?” And my answer for the most part has been: “damned if I know.”
The reason for my confusion is that publicly available details are few and far between. The HESA Towers team has been scouring the public record for details on institutional budget announcements; by our count, only 34 universities or colleges have so far announced anything concrete about their 25-26 budget plans and/or any planned cuts as a result of changing international student numbers. It’s possible more have been announced internally but just not caught the notice of the local press; we’ll be doing a lot more digging over the next couple of weeks. My guess is that many institutions are trying to avoid bad headlines by simply not going public about any plans to cut…but of course in the process, they are making it harder to convey to the public the magnitude of the downsizing being forced on the sector.
(This is a really interesting version of the Tragedy of the Commons!).
Some additional problems with the data: such information as one can glean from public sources is often skimpy and inconsistent: sometimes you get a figure for “loss of anticipated revenue,” sometimes you get a “projected deficit” (which sometimes is for 24-25, and other times for 25-26, and whether the figure is for operating budget or total budget take a bit of digging). Sometimes the numbers of programs being cut are announced but the identity of the programs is secret. Often you see that there will be budget cuts of $X million but there is no clarity about where those cuts will come from or the timeframe for the return to budget balance. In terms of job “cuts” as near as we can tell only five institutions have announced specific numbers for layoffs which have actually so far occurred, for a total of 214 lost jobs. You may have seen higher estimates from other sources, but these seem to include data on jobs which “will be affected” and it’s not 100% clear how many of these are permanent jobs which will be eliminated vs. permanent posts which will not be filled, or contract jobs which will not be renewed. All of these nuances may sound petty, but it’s really hard to get meaningful numbers unless you get this stuff right.
The story of how universities and colleges deal with the sudden loss of international student income (and the long-term consequences of provincial disinvestment) is the biggest and most consequential story in Canadian postsecondary education this century. How we deal with this collectively will shape the sector for over a decade, maybe even out to 2050. The HESA Towers team is working hard to document what is happening and help the sector make sense of fast-moving events and respond appropriately. So today I want to tell you about two initiatives we’re launching.
The first is a Retrenchment Watch, which will follow developments in institutional cutbacks not just in Canada, but around the world (albeit with a particular focus on the anglosphere). Higher education probably hit peak public funding around the globe over a decade ago, but what we’re now seeing is an actual contraction of the sector as a whole, happening via an un-coordinated set of decisions made by individual institutions according to local imperatives. Understanding how this is happening is of great importance, not just for posterity but for present-day decision makers. And we’ll be making this information freely available to all via Retrenchment Watch.
For the moment, the Retrenchment Watch is extremely bare bones, but we’ll be filling it out very quickly over the next few weeks, with the Canadian institutions first. If you want regular updates on who is cutting what as well as some basic pattern analysis, please fill out this form, and we’ll get you signed up to our newsletter so you’re always up-to-date.
The second is what we are calling “The Recovery Project.” We know that institutional leaders aren’t just thinking about surviving cuts, they’re also thinking about how to position their organizations to thrive in the aftermath. To help them, we’re launching a subscription research project looking at universities and colleges around the world who have faced serious financial sustainability problems over the past three decades and examining how they turned their fortunes around. In a crisis, there’s no time to re-invent the wheel: with this research institutions can understand better what works, when and why. By spreading the cost of research collectively across many institutions, we can offer this premium product—which involves monthly reports and webinar sessions for all members—at a huge discount to individual schools (and if your school is a member of the University Vice-President’s Network, we’ll be offering an even bigger discount).
If you’re interested in joining this project, my colleague Tiffany MacLennan has been working to bring this information together. Email her at [email protected] and we’ll get back to you ASAP with a prospectus.
There’s no disguising how the sector is taking a beating right now. It will recover. The only question is how quickly, and which institutions will be at the forefront.
by Ibrar Bhatt
On Monday 2 December 2024, during the online segment of the 2024 SRHE annual conference, Professor Farid Alatas delivered a thought-provoking keynote address in which he emphasised an urgent need for the decolonisation of knowledge within higher education. His lecture was titled ‘The captive mind and anti-colonial thought’ and drew from the themes of his numerous works including Sociological Theory Beyond the Canon (Alatas, 2017).
Alatas called for a broader, more inclusive framework for teaching sociological theory and the importance of doing so for contemporary higher education. For Alatas, this framework should move beyond a Eurocentric and androcentric focus of traditional curricula, and integrate framings and concepts from non-Western thinkers (including women) to establish a genuinely international perspective.
In particular, he discussed his detailed engagement with the neglected social theories of Ibn Khaldun, his efforts to develop a ‘neo-Khaldunian theory of sociology’. He also highlighted another exemplar of non-Western thought, the Filipino theorist José Rizal (see Alatas, 2009, 2017). Alatas discussed how such modes sort of non-Western social theory should be incorporated into social science textbooks and teaching curricula.
Professor Alatas further argued that continuing to rely on theories and concepts from a limited group of countries—primarily Western European and North American—imposes intellectual constraints that are both limiting and potentially harmful for higher education. Using historical examples, such as the divergent interpretations of the Crusades (viewed as religious wars from a European perspective but as colonial invasions from a Middle Eastern perspective), he illustrated how perspectives confined to the European experience often fail to account for the nuanced framing of such events in other regions. Such epistemic blind spots stress the need for higher education to embrace diverse ways of knowing that have long existed across global traditions.
Beyond critiquing Eurocentrism, Professor Alatas acknowledged the systemic challenges within institutions in the Global South, which also inhibit knowledge production. He urged for inward critical reflection within these contexts, addressing issues like resource constraints, institutional biases, racism, ethnocentrism, and the undervaluing of indigenous epistemologies through the internalisation of a ‘captive mindset’. Only by addressing these intertwined challenges, he concluded, can universities foster a more equitable and inclusive intellectual environment, and one that is more practically relevant and applicable to higher education in former colonised settings.
This keynote was a call to action for educators, researchers, and institutions to rethink and restructure the ways in which sociological and other academic canons are constructed and taught. But first, there is an important reflection that must be undertaken, and an acknowledgement, grounded in epistemic humility, that there is more to social theory than Eurocentrism.
There was not enough time to deeply engage with some of the concepts in his keynote; therefore, I hope to invite Professor Farid Alatas for an in-person conversation on these topics during his visit to the UK in 2025. Please look out for this event advertisement.
The recording of this keynote address is now available from https://youtu.be/4Cf6C9wP6Ac?list=PLZN6b5AbqH3BnyGcdvF5wLCmbQn37cFgr
Ibrar Bhatt is Senior Lecturer at the School of Social Sciences, Education & Social Work at Queen’s University Belfast (Northern Ireland). His research interests encompass applied linguistics, higher education, and digital humanities. He is also an Executive Editor for the journal ‘Teaching in Higher Education: Critical Perspective’s, and on the Editorial Board for the journal ‘Postdigital Science & Education’.
His recent books include ‘Critical Perspectives on Teaching in the Multilingual University’ (Routledge), ‘A Semiotics of Muslimness in China’ (with Cambridge University Press), and he is currently writing his next book ‘Heritage Literacy in the Lives of Chinese Muslim’, which will be published next year with Bloomsbury.
He was a member of the Governing Council of the Society for Research into Higher Education between 2018-2024, convened its Digital University Network between 2015-2022, and is currently the founding convener of the Society’s Multilingual University Network.
References
Alatas SF (2009) ‘Religion and reform: Two exemplars for autonomous sociology in the non-Western context’ In: Sujata P (ed) The International Handbook of Diverse Sociological Traditions London: Sage pp 29–39
Alatas SF (2017) ‘Jose Rizal (1861–1896)’ in Alatas SF and Sinha V (eds) Sociological Theory Beyond the Canon London: Palgrave Macmillan pp 143–170
In 2022, 36.8 million students under the age of 65 fell into the category of Some College, No Credential (SCNC)–a population that grew by nearly 3% year-over-year by 2024. These learners, who started but did not complete a credential, represent a growing population with significant potential for re-enrollment. Understanding their needs is essential to support their return to higher education.
For SCNC students, one key factor can significantly influence their decision to re-enroll—transfer credit policies. The Education Reengagement Report, conducted in collaboration with DegreeSight, provides a comprehensive overview of this subset of modern learners, uncovering key strategies to re-engage these students by addressing their unique needs, particularly surrounding maximization of previously earned credits and awareness of credit transfer policies. Explore the report’s findings to gain deeper insights into how institutions can effectively engage and support SCNC students on their path to completion.
SCNC students represent a noteworthy portion of the Modern Learner population, and their unique profile merits deep consideration when developing approaches to re-engagement. For more insights into the challenges faced by stopped-out students and strategies to support their return, read our previous article on addressing their barriers. In the context of the Education Reengagment Report, SCNC students are defined as those seeking reenrollment or who have already reenrolled elsewhere. Their experiences and motivations reflect diverse life experiences, making them a unique yet significant audience for higher education institutions.
SCNC students comprise of diverse demographic and professional profiles. Most are aged between 25-29 (66%), and a significant portion (33%) identify as first-generation college students. Their employment status also varies, with 59% working full-time, 20% employed part-time, and 16% not currently employed. Many SCNC students were previously enrolled in associate degree programs (43%), while others sought bachelor’s degrees (57%), reflecting a broad range of academic aspirations.
SCNC students pursue a wide range of academic interests, with certain fields emerging as particularly popular. The areas of study with the highest levels of enrollment for SCNC students include Business (24%), IT, Computers, and Technology (20%), and Health-related fields (13%). Additionally, learning format preferences reveal a demand for flexibility, with 47% favoring on-campus programs, 29% opting for hybrid options, and 20% preferring fully online programs. These findings emphasize the need for flexible program offerings to meet SCNC students’ varying needs and schedules.
Career advancement is a primary motivation for SCNC students when initially enrolling. Sixty percent enrolled in an undergraduate program to improve their earning potential or launch a new career, while 40% sought careers better aligned with their interests. Additionally, 30% pursued a degree as a next step following high school or technical school.
However, financial challenges, competing responsibilities, and various program limitations are common reasons for stopping out. Survey results show that the main barrier to continuing education for SCNC students is cost, with 32% citing it as their primary reason for stopping out. Other reasons include Covid-19 related reasoning (20%), lack of flexibility in the program (19%), and inability to use federal financial aid (15%). Understanding these critical factors is essential for institutions looking to reengage this population. By addressing the root causes of their stop-outs, institutions can better connect with SCNC students and deliver personalized solutions to them.
The report surveyed both SCNC and transfer students. While these groups differ in some ways, they share similarities in their focus on career outcomes and expectations for the enrollment process.
The key difference to keep in mind include:
Despite these differences, both groups share a unifying goal to leverage their existing credits to further their higher education career and achieve their personal and professional goals, making them a significant opportunity for higher education institutions.
Many SCNC students have already earned a decent number of college credits, with 32% having completed 16 to 30 credits, indicating that they have completed at least one semester of coursework. This progress underscores the importance of transfer credit policies easing their return to higher education. With the many notable reasons for stopping out, the barrier to re-entry only rises without clear credit transfer or support systems in place. For these students, the financial burden of repeating coursework and the desire for swift completion of their degrees are top priorities.
Survey data highlights the overwhelming importance students place on credit transfer policies. Ninety-three percent of SCNC students say that the number of transferrable credits impacts their enrollment decision, with 55% indicating it as a primary factor. Additionally, 36% of students rank credit acceptance as a key consideration in their reenrollment decision, second only to tuition cost (44%) and closely followed by the availability of online programs (35%).
Clear and favorable transfer credit policies not only can alleviate the financial pressures of reenrollment but can also expedite the path to graduation. However, navigating these policies is not a simple process for many students. Thirty-five percent of students report that understanding transfer credit policies is the most difficult part of the enrollment process, followed by getting previous credits transferred (34%) and completing financial aid forms (34%). Institutions should view this as a call to action to refine their policies and streamline processes, addressing these critical pain points to better meet student needs and enhance both enrollment and retention outcomes.
Supporting SCNC students requires institutions to prioritize transparency, personalized support, and flexibility—particularly where transfer credits are concerned. Many SCNC students face unnecessarily complicated processes during their reenrollment processes, making it imperative for institutions to make their policies accessible.
To better meet this demographics’ varied needs, institutions can implement the following strategies to support SCNC students:
Institutions should make transfer credit policies easy to understand and accessible across websites, marketing materials, and additional platforms. Clearly communicating how previous credits apply to degree requirements empowers students to make informed decisions. Online tools like credit transfer calculators, chatbots for common inquiries, and infographics can further empower students to understand their credit situation and feel confident making enrollment decisions.
To address cost barriers, institutions should clearly communicate how credit transfers reduce tuition expenses and emphasize available financial aid options. Offering flexible payment plans helps students manage their finances more readily, allowing them to focus on their education without financial stress.
Having a dedicated credit transfer advisor can make a pivotal difference in the SCNC enrollment experience. These advisors can help guide students in navigating complex processes, equipping them with vital information on financial aid options, available transferrable credits, and program pathways. Support can be offered through online channels, advising, and assistance with application and registration processes. Partnering with EducationDynamics’ Enrollment Management Team can help institutions scale this support effectively.
Expanding online and hybrid program offerings is crucial to supporting the growing SCNC population. These flexible formats can better serve SCNC lifestyles, as these students often juggle work and family responsibilities in addition to their course load. Flexible online and hybrid-based programs are imperative to be promoted to this population, as many have changed their learning modality from classroom-based to online or hybrid. By assessing current offerings and identifying areas of expansion, institutions can better support the needs of Modern Learners.
SCNC students have spoken—there is a clear need for institutions to adapt their policies and support services to meet their unique needs. By prioritizing clear transfer credit policies, personalized support, and flexible learning options, universities can attract this demographic while helping them achieve their academic goals. As institutions continue to navigate evolving enrollment challenges, adapting to the needs of SCNC students will be instrumental in building success and shaping the future of higher education.
Ready to reengage SCNC students? Explore how EDDY’s market research services help your institution effectively reach SCNC students and create successful pathways from re-enrollment to graduation.
Let’s set the stage. You’re a sharp, focused higher education leader staring down the realities of expanding your online and hybrid learning programs. You’ve got big goals: running your online operations in-house, owning the process, and driving growth on your terms.
This is where Online Growth Enablement comes in. This isn’t a fancy buzzword. It’s the real work behind sustainable change. It’s the boots-on-the-ground understanding of exactly where you are today so you can figure out how to move forward tomorrow.
At Archer, we do this every day — rolling up our sleeves and digging deep to map out the real picture of an institution’s online learning infrastructure. Because, let’s be honest. The only way to grow is to start with the truth about your current state and your place within the landscape of the communities you serve with your programs.
Success doesn’t happen in a vacuum — especially not in online learning. Enabling the growth of your online learning infrastructure takes coordination, collaboration, and a whole lot of buy-in from every corner of your university. Marketing, tech, enrollment, financial aid, the registrar, faculty, leadership — if they’re not on the same page as you, you can’t successfully move forward. Period.
Driving real growth starts with taking an unflinching look at where you stand today. Questions you should be asking about your online operations include:
This isn’t about a vague, feel-good assessment from 50,000 feet up. It’s about getting into the weeds. Because, until you understand the inner workings of your current infrastructure, you’re not going to build anything sustainable. You’ll just be putting a fresh coat of paint on a crumbling foundation. And that’s not going to cut it in the long run.
Let’s take a look at a real-world example of why a close examination of your current online learning infrastructure matters. One of our partner universities was taking 14 days to review and process the transcripts of students applying to their online programs. This might work fine for a traditional on-campus program with two or three big start dates a year, but for an online program, the game changes. To stay competitive, you need five or six start dates annually. And that 14-day turnaround? For our partner, it meant missing out on dozens of potential enrollments.
Fixing this issue wasn’t about throwing money at the problem. It was about setting a clear benchmark and making it happen. We worked with the institution to rethink its processes, reassign its teams’ responsibilities, and streamline every single step of its transcript review.
The effectiveness of every touchpoint you have with a potential student and every handoff between your admissions, financial aid, and academic advising teams affects your ability to deliver an overall positive student experience. Deep operational insights aren’t just nice to have; they’re the key to uncovering bottlenecks so you can clear the way for real, measurable growth.
At Archer, we don’t do guesswork. We help our partners make sense of the current state of their online learning infrastructure through our Growth Enablement Assessment — a no-stone-left-unturned look at every department and operational variable. From enrollment workflows to marketing execution, we get into the details that others overlook to help you figure out where you are and make a plan for where you want to be.
Our approach is anchored in our Good, Better, Best methodology:
This isn’t just an audit. It’s a road map. By pinpointing exactly where you stand and where you need to go, we equip you with the insights and strategies to move your online learning operations from functional to thriving.
Yes, this takes time. Yes, it’s hard work. But the payoff is undeniable.
Fully understanding the current state of your online learning infrastructure isn’t just a box to check — it’s the foundation for every initiative that follows. It gives you the clarity to enhance not only your online learning programs but also the overall health and effectiveness of your institution.
When you commit to this process, you’re building something bigger than just operational efficiency. You’re creating alignment across departments, fostering innovation, and embedding collaboration and continuous improvement into your institution’s culture. When every team is in sync, bottlenecks disappear, every touchpoint matters, and your processes deliver on the promise of a strong student experience.
It’s not just worth it. It’s transformative. If you’re ready to take the first step toward long-term success and scalability, contact Archer Education. Let’s build the online learning infrastructure your institution deserves, together.
John Goodwin is Archer Education’s EVP of Online Growth Enablement. Archer revolutionizes the student experience by supporting partners through change, helping institutions achieve sustainable growth while fostering self-sufficiency.
This now-annual post is one that boggles and befuddles people, especially those who think that your yield rate is something you control by flipping switches. In reality, yield rate is controlled by something much more powerful: Algebra.
First, let’s review what yield rate is: Colleges get applications, and they admit a certain percentage of them. In aggregate colleges admit the vast majority of applicants. Even though this visualization shows an aggregate admit rate of 58.3% in 2023 (the red line at bottom left), the set of colleges in the data only include colleges required to report to IPEDS; this excludes community colleges and any other institution that considers itself an Open Admissions institution.
Of that 58%, some percentage enroll, and that’s called the yield rate. As you can see, the yield rate (the purple line at bottom center) has been falling every single year since 2001. This is a function of math. Applications (the orange bars at top left) have risen 211%, while the total enrolled has increased by only 43%. If you do the mental math, you can tell that more students are applying to more institutions, and getting more offers of admission. In this scenario, yield rate goes down based on simple algebra.
Which is not to say, of course, that some colleges haven’t shown increases in yield rates. More on that in a moment.
There is one more calculation of interest, called the Draw Rate. I did not invent the Draw Rate figure, and I do not know who did. I only remember hearing it referred to sometime in the mid-1980s as I was a young admission officer. It’s the college’s yield rate divided by the admit rate, and it is in some sense the best measure of market power and position. It only became interesting to me when colleges started trying to pump up applications in order to appear to be more selective, believing that selectivity was what students and parents wanted.
When you drive up applications artificially via things like Fast Apps, Smart Apps, VIP Apps, massive fee waivers, and other things, you generate applications from students who are far less likely to enroll (or yield). And even though you might get nominally more selective, you lose that value when your yield rate goes down as a result. Draw Rate accounts for that, in some measure, although it too, can be manipulated by taking half (or more) of your class via Early Decision or Restrictive Early Action. Draw rate goes up when your yield rate increases and/or your admit rate falls.
The blue line shows what has happened to our collective fascination with application increases: We’re working harder, and spinning our wheels faster, all in vain. To be sure, you have to do this because your competitors are. But it would be great if we never would have started down this path.
Remember what I said about some colleges increasing yield even when collectively the rate has gone down? Use the control at top right to put only the 12 Ivy Plus institutions into the visualization, and see what happens. Note the Draw Rate, and remember that the collective average is 0.36.
That’s why I like that measure: It helps separate the market’s most powerful entities from all the rest.
Stay tuned: We’ll have the 2024 data in about a year!
