Category: Latest on WENR

International Student Mobility Data Sources: A Primer
Bryce Loo, Associate Director of Higher Education Research

Part 1: Understanding the Types of Sources and Their Differences

There has perhaps never been more of a need for data on globally mobile students than now. In 2024, there were about 6.9 million international students studying outside their home countries, a record high, and the number is projected to grow to more than 10 million by 2030. Nations all around the world count on global student mobility for a number of reasons: Sending nations benefit by sending some of their young people abroad for education, particularly when there is less capacity at home to absorb all demand. Many of those young people return to the benefit of the local job market with new skills and knowledge and with global experience, while others remain abroad and are able to contribute in other ways, including sending remittances. Host nations benefit in numerous ways, from the economic contributions of international students (in everything from tuition payments to spending in the local economy) to social and political benefits, including building soft power.

At the same time, economic, political, and social trends worldwide challenge the current ecosystem of global educational mobility. Many top destinations of international students, including Canada and the United States, have developed heavily restrictive policies toward such students and toward migrants overall. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that one global challenge can upend international education, even if temporarily.

Data plays a key role in helping those who work in or touch upon international education. All players in the space—from institutional officials and service providers to policymakers and researchers—can use global and national data sources to see trends in student flows, as well as potential changes and disruptions.

This article is the first in a two-part series exploring global student mobility data. In this first article, I will delve into considerations that apply in examining any international student data source. In the second, forthcoming article, we will examine some of the major data sources in global student mobility, both global and national, with the latter focused on the “Big Four” host countries: the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia.

In utilizing any global student mobility data source, it is crucial to understand some basics about each source. Here are some key questions to ask about any source and how to understand what each provides.

Who collects the data?

There are three main types of entities that collect student mobility data at a national level:
- Government ministries or agencies: These entities are generally mandated by law or statute to collect international student data for specific purposes. Depending on the entity’s purview, such data could include student visa or permit applications and issuances, students arriving at ports of entry (such as an airport or border crossing), enrollment in an educational institution, or students registered as working during or after completing coursework.
- Non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Non-profit entities focused on international education or related fields such as higher education or immigration may collect international student data, sometimes with funding or support from relevant government ministries. One good example is the Institute of International Education (IIE) in the U.S., which has collected data on international students and scholars since 1948, much of that time with funding and support from the U.S. Department of State.
- Individual institutions: Of course, individual universities and colleges usually collect data on all their students, usually with specific information on international students, sometimes by government mandate. In countries such as the U.S. and Canada, these institutions must report such data to governmental ministries. They may also choose to report to non-governmental agencies, such as IIE. Such data may or may not otherwise be publicly available.
At the international level, the main data sources are generally an aggregation of data from national sources. There are three main efforts:

How are the data collected?

The method in which mobility data are collected affects the level of accuracy of such data. The sources that collect data internationally or on multiple countries, such as UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) and IIE’s Project Atlas, are primarily aggregators. They collect the data from national sources, either government ministries or international education organizations, such as the British Council or the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE).

For primary data collection, there are three main methods:
- Mandatory reporting: Certain government entities collect data by law or regulation. Data are naturally collected as part of processing and granting student visas or permits, as the S. State Department and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) do. In other cases, postsecondary institutions are required to track and report on their international students—from application to graduation and sometimes on to post-graduation work programs. This is the case in the U.S. through SEVIS (the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System), overseen by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through which deputized institutional officials track all international students. The data from this system are reported regularly by DHS. In other cases, data are collected annually, often through a survey form, as Statistics Canada does through its Postsecondary Student Information System (PSIS).
- Census: Some non-profit organizations attempt to have all postsecondary institutions report their data, often through an online questionnaire. This is the method by which IIE obtains data for its annual Open Doors Report, which tracks both international students in the U.S. and students enrolled in U.S. institutions studying abroad short-term in other countries.
- Survey: A survey gathers data from a sample, preferably representative, of the overall population—in this case, higher education institutions—to form inferences about the international student population. (This should not be confused with the “surveys” issued by government agencies, usually referring to a questionnaire form, typically online nowadays, through which institutions are required to report data.) This method is used in IIE’s snapshot surveys in the fall and spring of each year, intended to provide an up-to-date picture of international student enrollment as a complement to Open Doors, which reflects information on international students from the previous academic year.
When are the data collected and reported?

In considering data sources, it is important to know when the data were collected and what time periods they reflect. Government data sources are typically the most up-to-date due to their mandatory nature. Data are often collected continuously in real time, such as when a student visa is approved or when an international student officially starts a course of study. However, each ministry releases data at differing intervals. Australia’s Department of Education, for example, is well known for releasing new data almost every month. USCIS and IRCC tend to release data roughly quarterly, though both provide monthly breakdowns of their data in some cases.

Non-governmental entities generally do not collect data continuously. Instead, they may collect data annually, semiannually, or even less frequently. IIE’s Open Doors collects data annually for the previous academic year on international students and two years prior on U.S. study abroad students. The results for both are released every November.

The international aggregated sources receive data from national sources at widely varying times. As a result, there can be gaps in data, making comparison between or among countries challenging. Some countries don’t send data at all, often due to lack of resources for doing so. Even major host countries, notably China, send little if any data to UNESCO.

What type of student mobility data are included in the source?

Sources collect different types of student mobility data. One such breakdown is between inbound and outbound students—that is, those whom a country hosts versus those who leave the country to go study in other countries. Most government sources, such as IRCC, focus solely on inbound students—the international students hosted within the country— due to the organizations’ mandate and ability to collect data. Non-governmental organizations, such as IIE, often attempt to capture information on outbound (or “study abroad”) students. Many international sources, such as UNESCO UIS, capture both.

Another important breakdown addresses whether the data included degree-seekers, students studying abroad for credit back home, or those going abroad not explicitly for study but for a related purpose, such as research or internships:
- Degree mobility: captures data on students coming into a country or going abroad for pursuit of a full degree.
- Credit mobility: captures information on those abroad studying short-term for academic credit with their home institution, an arrangement often called “study abroad” (particularly in the U.S. and Canada) or “educational exchange.” The length of the study abroad opportunity typically can last anywhere from one year to as little as one week. Short-duration programs, such as faculty-led study tours, have become an increasingly popular option among students looking for an international experience. In most cases, the home institution is in the student’s country of origin, but that is not always the case. For example, a Vietnamese international student might be studying for a full degree in the U.S. but as part of the coursework studies in Costa Rica for one semester.
- Non-credit mobility: captures information on those who go abroad not for credit-earning coursework but for something highly related to a degree program, such as research, fieldwork, non-credit language study, an internship, or a volunteer opportunity. This may or may not be organized through the student’s education institution, and the parameters around this type of mobility can be blurry.
It’s important to know what each data source includes. Most governmental data sources will include both degree and credit mobility—students coming to study for a full degree or only as part of a short-term educational exchange. The dataset may or may not distinguish between these students, which is important to know if the distinction between such students is important for the data user’s purposes.

For outbound (“study abroad”) mobility, it’s easier for organizations to track credit mobility rather than degree mobility. IIE’s Open Doors, for example, examines only credit mobility for outbound students because it collects data through U.S. institutions, which track their outbound study abroad students and help them receive appropriate credits for their work abroad once they return. There is not a similar mechanism for U.S. degree-seekers going to other countries. That said, organizations such as IIE have attempted such research in the past, even if it is not an ongoing effort. Typically, the best way to find numbers on students from a particular country seeking full degrees abroad is to use UNESCO and sort the full global data by country of origin. UNESCO can also be used to find the numbers in a specific host country, or, in some cases, it may be better to go directly to the country’s national data source if available.

Non-credit mobility has been the least studied form of student mobility, largely because it is difficult to capture due to its amorphous nature. Nevertheless, some organizations, like IIE, have made one-off or periodic attempts to capture it.

Who is captured in the data source? How is “international student” defined?

Each data source may define the type of globally mobile student within the dataset differently. Chiefly, it’s important to recognize whether the source captures only data on international students in the strictest sense (based on that specific legal status) or on others who are not citizens of the host country. The latter could include permanent immigrants (such as permanent residents), temporary workers, and refugees or asylum seekers. The terms used can vary, from “foreign student” to a “nonresident” (sometimes “nonresident alien”), as some U.S. government sources use. It’s important to check the specific definition of the students for whom information is captured.

Most of the major student mobility data sources capture only data on international students as strictly defined by the host country. Here are the definitions of “international student” for the Big Four:
- United States: A non-immigrant resident holding an F-1, M-1, or certain types of J-1 (The J-1 visa is an exchange visa that includes but is not limited to students and can include individuals working in youth summer programs or working as au pairs, for example.)
- Canada: A temporary resident holding a study permit from a designated learning institution (DLI)
- United Kingdom: An individual on a Student visa
- Australia: An individual who is not an Australian citizen or permanent resident or who is not a citizen of New Zealand, studying in Australia on a temporary visa
Some countries make a distinction between international students enrolled in academic programs, such as at a university, versus those studying a trade or in a vocational school; there might also be distinct categorization for those attending language training. For example, in the U.S., M-1 visas are for international students studying in vocational education programs and may not be captured in some data sources, notably Open Doors.

Understanding the terminology used for international students helps in obtaining the right type of data. For example, one of the primary methods of obtaining data on international students in Canada is through IRCC data held on the Government of Canada’s Open Government Portal. But you won’t find any such dataset on “international students.” Instead, you need to search for “study permit holders.”

Does the data source include students studying online or at a branch campus abroad, or who are otherwise physically residing outside the host country?

Some universities and colleges have robust online programs that include significant numbers of students studying physically in other countries. (This was also true for many institutions during the pandemic. As a result, in the U.S., IIE temporarily included non-U.S. students studying at a U.S. institution online from elsewhere.) Other institutions have branch campuses or other such transnational programs that blur the line between international and domestic students. So, it’s important to ask: Does the data source include those not physically present in the institution’s country? The terminology for each country can vary. For example, in Australia, where such practices are very prominent, the term usually used to refer to students studying in Australian institutions but not physically in Australia is “offshore students.”

What levels of study are included in the dataset?

The focus of this article is postsecondary education, but some data sources do include primary and secondary students (“K-12 students” in the U.S. and Canada). IRCC’s study permit holder data includes students at all levels, including K-12 students. The ministry does provide some data broken down by level of study and other variables, such as country of citizenship and province or territory.

What about data on international students who are working?

Many host countries collect data and report on international students who are employed or participating in paid or unpaid internships during or immediately after their coursework. The specifics vary from country to country depending on how such opportunities for international students are structured and which government agencies are charged with overseeing such efforts. For example, in the U.S., the main work opportunities for most international students both during study (under Curricular Practical Training, or CPT) and after study (usually under Optional Practical Training, or OPT) are overseen by the student’s institution and reported via SEVIS. IIE’s Open Doors tracks students specifically for OPT but not CPT. By contrast, the main opportunity for international students to work in Canada after graduating from a Canadian institution is through the post-graduation work permit (PGWP). Students transfer to a new legal status in Canada, in contrast with U.S.-based international students under OPT, who remain on their student visa until their work opportunity ends. As a result, IRCC reports separate data on graduate students working under the PGWP, though data are relatively scant.

At some point, students who are able to and make the choice to stay and work beyond such opportunities in their new country transition to new legal statuses, such as the H-1B visa (a specialty-occupation temporary work visa) in the U.S., or directly to permanent residency in many countries. The data required to examine these individuals varies.

What about data beyond demographics?

While most international student datasets focus on numbers and demographic breakdowns, some datasets and other related research focus on such topics as the contributions of international students to national and local economies. For example, NAFSA: Association of International Educators, the main professional association for international educators in the U.S., maintains the International Student Economic Value Tool, which quantifies the dollar amounts that international students contribute to the U.S. at large, individual states, and congressional districts. Part of the intention behind this is to provide a tool for policy advocacy in Washington, D.C., and in state and local governments.

How can I contextualize international student numbers within the broader higher education context of a country?

Many countries collect and publish higher education data and other research. Each country assigns this function to different ministries or agencies. For example, in Canada, most such data are collected and published by Statistics Canada (StatCan), which is charged with data collection and research broadly for the country. In the U.S., this function falls under the Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which runs a major higher education data bank known as IPEDS, the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. StatCan does provide some data on international students, while IPEDS in the U.S. reports numbers of “nonresident” students, defined as “a person who is not a citizen or national of the United States and who is in this country on a visa or temporary basis and does not have the right to remain indefinitely.” This term likely encompasses mostly those on international student visas.

I will discuss some of these higher education data sources in Part 2 of this series.

How do I learn what I need to know about each individual dataset?

Each major data source typically provides a glossary, methodology section, and/or appendix that helps users understand the dataset. In Part 2 of this series, we will examine some of the major international and national data sources, including where to locate further such information for each.

It’s critical for users of student mobility data sources to understand these nuances in order to accurately and appropriately utilize the data. In the second part of this series, we will examine several prominent data sources.
Source link
August 22, 2025
Rebuilding Syria’s Education System: Navigating Challenges and Embracing Opportunities

Rasha Faek, Managing Editor, WENR

Rebuilding Syria’s education system is not just about restoring classrooms, but about offering a chance for a lost generation to rebuild their lives and secure a better future for the country.

For over a decade, the Syrian conflict has cast a shadow over the future of an entire generation. The conflict began in 2011 as part of a wider wave of uprisings in the Arab world, with Syrians protesting the oppressive rule of President Bashar al-Assad. What started as peaceful demonstrations quickly escalated into a brutal war, pitting opposition groups, including extremist organizations like the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and foreign powers against the Assad regime and its supporters in Russia and Iran. The ensuing violence and destruction has resulted in one of the largest refugee displacements since World War II, with over 5.6 million Syrians seeking refuge in neighboring countries and beyond, and over 7.4 million displaced internally.

Syrian children—once filled with dreams of careers in medicine, science, and the arts—have had their education upended. The war destroyed or severely damaged nearly 50 percent of the country’s schools, leaving millions of children without access to education. Deprived of their right to learn, grow, and prepare for a better future, these children are at risk of becoming a “lost generation,” aid groups have worried.

Although finally over, the conflict has left the entire nation fractured and struggling to rebuild. Still, with the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, a unique opportunity now exists to rebuild not just Syria’s infrastructure and political systems, but the very foundation of its future: education.

“The deterioration of education in Syria stands as one of the most profound consequences of the prolonged 14-year conflict,” Radwan Ziadeh believes. A senior analyst at the Arab Center in Washington, D.C., Ziadeh is also founder of the Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies. “Addressing and prioritizing the restoration and reform of the education system is essential for the country’s recovery and long-term stability.”

However, this opportunity is fraught with challenges. Despite the tremendous potential for Syria now, there are critical concerns about the country’s future. The emergence of new power dynamics and competing interests could influence the direction of educational reforms. Amid these complexities, rebuilding an education system that meets the needs of displaced youth and others who have spent years in uncertainty will require careful planning and coordination among all stakeholders.

Syria’s Education System: A Snapshot Before the War

To rebuild successfully, Syria will need to learn from the strengths and weaknesses of its pre-war education system. Before the war, Syria’s education system was considered one of the most developed in the Arab world, marked by significant investment and broad access. In 2009, Syria allocated 5.1 percent of its GDP to education, considerably more than most other Arab countries even in 2022, reflecting the government’s focus on strengthening its educational infrastructure.

Elementary education, which spanned grades 1 to 6, was free and compulsory in pre-war Syria, and enrollment at that level reached nearly 100 percent by the time the conflict began. Secondary education, where pre-war enrollment reached 70 percent, was largely public and free, although students could pay fees to access certain programs based on academic performance. By 2014, over 2.5 million students were enrolled in elementary education, with nearly 3 million in secondary education. (To learn more, read “Education in Syria.”)

Higher education was also state funded, with seven public universities and 20 private. One of the most prominent institutions in the region, Damascus University, founded in 1923, attracted students from across the Arab world. By the 2012/13 academic year, about 659,000 students were enrolled in both public and private higher education institutions.

Despite its many successes, Syria’s education system faced a number of widely acknowledged challenges. For example, a defining feature of Syria’s pre-war education system was the use of Arabic as the language of instruction at all levels, not only elementary and secondary education but also higher education. All disciplines—including medicine, engineering, and the sciences—were taught in Arabic. While this policy was intended to promote the national language, it also faced criticism, particularly in higher education, as many Arab countries use English in scientific disciplines. Some critics argued that reliance on Arabic limited students’ access to global academic research and hindered their ability to participate in international academic and professional communities, where English or other languages were commonly used.

In Syria’s highly centralized higher education system, political interference, including political control over admissions and staff appointments, was also commonplace. “The education system was heavily influenced by the ideological preferences of the ruling regime, often resulting in an approach that focused more on indoctrination than critical thinking,” said Talal al-Shihabi, an engineering professor at Damascus University who obtained a doctoral degree from Northeastern University, in the United States.

The system also faced structural problems, such as overcrowded classrooms, outdated curricula, and limited research capacity. “The university admission policy, which aimed to accommodate a large number of students, contributed to a decline in the overall quality of education,” according to Al-Shihabi. “This challenge was further exacerbated by insufficient infrastructure and limited human resources, hindering the ability to provide quality education for all students.”

Finally, although public higher education was nominally free, the rise of private universities and paid pathways into public universities, such as parallel and open learning, led to greater numbers of students paying fees. By 2009, 44 percent of students were paying fees. This shift deepened social inequalities, as access to education became increasingly dependent on one’s financial resources, with only those who could afford to pay higher fees gaining enrollment.

“In reality, the success of education in Syria was largely driven by the individual efforts of Syrians to learn and develop skills, rather than by the education system itself,” al-Shihabi said.

Destruction of Educational Infrastructure Due to War

The conflict changed Syria’s education system profoundly. Across the country, fighting severely damaged infrastructure, including schools, universities, and educational facilities. Educational institutions were targeted, either directly by bombings or indirectly through the breakdown of local security and governance. UNICEF and other international bodies have reported that more than 7,000 schools have been damaged or destroyed by the fighting, with many located in the most affected areas: Aleppo, Idlib, and Daraa.

The war caused massive displacement of students and teachers, both within Syria and to neighboring countries. More than 7.4 million Syrians were internally displaced, while 5.6 million sought refuge abroad, according to the UNHCR. As a result, millions of children and young adults have been cut off from the opportunity to obtain an education.

Refugee children, especially in countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and Türkiye, faced overcrowded classrooms and a shortage of educational resources, exacerbating the difficulties involved in continuing their studies. In many cases, refugee children had to deal with language barriers, lack of qualified teachers, and shoddy facilities.

Continuing or accessing university education has proven even more difficult for Syrian refugees, especially for those lacking adequate documentation, such as birth certificates, identification, and academic records, which are often lost or unavailable. (Read two related articles: “The Importance of Higher Education for Syrian Refugees” and “The Refugee Crisis and Higher Education: Access Is One Issue. Credentials Are Another.”)

Furthermore, in some countries, like Lebanon and Türkiye, Arabic is not the medium of instruction. In these countries, students are required to demonstrate proficiency in the language of instruction before enrolling, creating yet another barrier to higher education.

Financing is also a common hurdle. Countries like Jordan and Lebanon treat refugees as if they are international students and charge them high tuition fees. Since 2015, a wave of scholarships from European organizations has offered some financial relief, but the funding has not been sufficient to meet the needs of all refugees. And as philanthropic support declined over the following years, the interest in university education among Syrian refugee students also waned. Many Syrian refugees in neighboring countries, where job opportunities after graduation were limited, began to question the value of a degree and to redirect their limited resources towards finding a way to migrate to Europe instead. Although educational opportunities for refugees in European countries, for those who reached one, were better, university education remained costly and unattainable for many.

“Education was merely focused on access at the expense of quality and continuity while being approached in a clustered manner rather than being holistic and integrated with protection, psychosocial support, and parents’ engagement,” said Massa Al-Mufti, founder and president of the Sonbola Group for Education and Development, which supports refugee education in Lebanon. “This limited view overlooked the fact that education in emergencies is not just about literacy and numeracy, it requires an understanding of the broader needs of the children, needs that encompass social, emotional, and family engagement,” she explained.

Children who remained in Syria throughout the war faced their own difficulties. The fragmentation of the country’s education system into regime-controlled and opposition-held areas further complicated matters, resulting in a disjointed sector with varying levels of access and quality.

In areas under opposition control, school closures were widespread. Teachers, facing threats from both government forces and armed opposition groups, struggled to teach. In some areas, opposition groups, including ISIS, imposed their own education policies, restricting or altering curricula to align with their ideology.

Still, new universities did emerge in non-regime-controlled areas, but they faced difficulties, including a lack of recognition, insufficient resources, and a shortage of qualified academic staff. This has further fractured the educational system in Syria, leaving large portions of the student population without access to an accredited education.

In areas controlled by the Assad regime, officials increasingly militarized the higher education sector, using it as a tool to control and suppress opposition movements. The regime intensified its control over universities, with security apparatuses, including Assad’s Ba’ath Party and the National Security Bureau, increasing their influence. Students and faculty members opposing the government were subjected to violence, purges, and imprisonment, while academic freedom was stifled.

The war also led to a rise in corruption within the education sector. Reports of forged certificates, bribery for grade manipulation, and favoritism in university admissions were common, especially with the government’s increasing reliance on loyalty to the regime as a condition for access to education and job opportunities. This deepened social inequalities, particularly for students who did not have the financial means or political connections to secure places at universities.

Despite the destruction and displacement, the number of students enrolling in higher education increased in government-controlled areas, partly because of relaxed entrance policies aimed at keeping students occupied and delaying their potential military conscription. In recent years, the number of enrolled students reached approximately 600,000, even though education quality had plummeted.

Brain drain, with many qualified academics fleeing the country, has further deteriorated the educational environment, leaving universities understaffed and underfunded. The ongoing political isolation of Syria, compounded by Western sanctions, has shifted the country’s academic relationships to other allies, such as Russia and Iran.

“The increase in the number of students coincided with a shortage of qualified teachers. A significant number of those sent abroad for doctoral studies before the war did not return, and the limited availability of scholarship opportunities, exacerbated by sanctions and the country’s isolation, has further reduced the pool of qualified new candidates,” said al-Shihabi. “As a result, some specialized fields, such as engineering and health disciplines, are left with very few teaching staff members over the last decade,” he noted.

“Over the past 14 years, continuing education inside Syria has been a constant struggle for both students and teachers. The ongoing lack of security, deteriorating living conditions, and the collapse of infrastructure have led to an unprecedented decline in the quality of education, resulting in a crisis of immeasurable proportions,” he said.

Rebuilding Syria’s Education Post-Assad

On December 8, 2024, opposition rebels advanced on Damascus and forced the collapse of the Assad regime. The Assad family fled to Russia. The rebels have since been in the process of attempting to take leadership of the country and form a new government.

The fall of the Assad regime presents Syria with a unique opportunity to rebuild after over a decade of conflict. Despite widespread destruction, schools and universities resumed operations shortly after the regime’s collapse, highlighting the resilience of Syria’s education sector. The government has also reinstated students expelled for political reasons, signaling a commitment to reconciliation.

Additionally, the new government has taken steps to remove any vestiges of the Assad rule. It has already begun revising the national curriculum, removing content tied to the former regime. Universities, such as Tishreen University in Latakia and Al-Baath University in Homs, have been renamed, to Latakia University and Homs University, respectively, to distance themselves from the Assad regime’s Ba’athist ideology. At the same time, the new government, composed largely of Islamist groups, has sparked controversy due to the increasing influence of Islamist themes in the new curriculum.

Significant work remains to fully capitalize on the opportunity to rebuild the country’s education system. A critical challenge in the rebuilding process is addressing the millions of children who missed years of schooling during the conflict. The return of refugees, many of whom have spent years in exile, further complicates this task. Many of these children are academically behind, having missed vital years of education. Specialized support will be necessary to help these returnees catch up academically, culturally, and psychosocially. Trauma-informed teaching and mental health support will be essential to ensure effective reintegration into classrooms. Language barriers also pose a significant challenge, as many returnee students are now fluent in languages such as English, French, or Turkish, making it difficult for them to adapt to the local curriculum in Arabic. Addressing these gaps through targeted language programs will be crucial for the returnees’ successful reintegration.

Al-Shahabi emphasizes the need for a comprehensive survey to assess both material damage in the education sector and human losses, highlighting the significant shortage of teaching staff due to emigration during the war, the suspension of foreign missions, and the return of those who went abroad.

Al-Shahabi also believes that meeting the immediate needs of Syria’s youth should be prioritized. This includes the development of alternative educational pathways, like vocational training and online learning platforms. Establishing training centers, funding e-learning initiatives, and offering sector-specific workshops will equip students with the practical skills necessary for Syria’s recovery, particularly in key sectors such as health care, construction, technology, and infrastructure repair.

Others echo his thoughts. “As we work toward Syria’s recovery, it is critical to focus on building practical skills for youth and offering them opportunities for real-world training,” Firas Deeb, executive director of Hermon Team, wrote in an email.

Deeb was a moderator at the IGNITE Syria: Rise & Rebuild conference held in Damascus on February 15. The conference highlighted other challenges, including regional disparities that complicate rebuilding efforts across the country. Urban centers like Damascus, Aleppo, and Latakia have more universities still standing, but the institutions still rely on outdated curricula. Access to private sector internships is limited, particularly in certain fields. Regions like Hasakah, Tartous, and Qamishli, which enjoy some economic stability, show potential in sectors like agriculture and renewable energy, but lack sufficient vocational training programs. In contrast, conflict-affected and rural areas such as Idlib, Raqqa, Deir ez-Zor, and Southern Syria face severely damaged educational infrastructure, a shortage of trained teachers and materials, and security risks that hinder students’ ability to pursue higher education.

“Many regions still lack vital resources such as electricity, clean water, and reliable internet, all of which are essential for effective education. Restoring these basic utilities must be prioritized to ensure that rebuilt schools can function effectively,” said Deeb. Still, he noted, “Rebuilding Syria’s educational infrastructure is crucial, but so too is reshaping curricula and teaching methods to create a modern, inclusive system.”

Others agree. “One of the most crucial areas for intervention is the professional development of teachers, which has been neglected in the past but is now a top priority,” said Al-Mufti. “Empowering teachers with advanced skills is vital for driving meaningful change in the education sector.”

Syria’s future depends on rebuilding an education system capable of preparing its youth to meet the challenges ahead. In the long term, the system must focus on developing its students’ critical thinking, problem-solving, and practical skills—key elements necessary for the country’s reconstruction and for preparing a generation to lead Syria’s recovery. Universities will play a key role in training future professional engineers, doctors, scientists, and teachers who will help restore the country’s infrastructure and economy. Additionally, specialized fields such as medical care for war victims (including burn treatment and prosthetics), construction, urban planning, and technology will be essential in addressing the aftermath of the war.

“Rebuilding Syria’s education system goes beyond restoring institutions—it requires a fundamental redesign to align education with economic recovery,” Deeb said.

Collaborating for Syria’s Educational Recovery

The impact of rebuilding Syria’s education system could extend beyond the country’s borders. It could be a catalyst for stability and peace, offering hope not only for Syria’s future but also for the broader region and the world.

“Education should be prioritized alongside other urgent issues such as security and infrastructure, as it holds the potential to serve as a pathway to peacebuilding and reconciliation,” said Al-Mufti. “Education can play a transformative role in rebuilding Syria and providing its children with the skills needed for a peaceful future.”

This means that the international community also has a pivotal role to play in Syria’s recovery, particularly in rebuilding its educational infrastructure. “After years of isolation, it’s time for Syria to build partnerships with global universities and education systems to modernize curricula, emphasizing problem-solving and critical thinking. The support of the international community is essential to strengthening the education system,” Ziadeh said.

Lifting sanctions imposed on the former government will be vital to enabling investment to create a stable environment conducive to long-term educational reforms. This will open avenues for partnerships between Syrian and international universities, allowing for the development of programs tailored to the country’s educational needs, including curriculum reform and teacher training.

International organizations like UNESCO and the United Nations will play a pivotal role in providing technical expertise and resources to rebuild Syria’s education system. Collaboration with NGOs focused on education will also be essential in implementing localized programs for displaced populations and affected communities.

International cooperation will also be vital when addressing the needs of Syrians who were forced to flee during the war. While many advocate the return of refugees to Syria, it is important to recognize that the country is not yet fully stable. Many regions remain insecure, lacking essential services for a safe return. Refugees who have built lives in other countries also need continued local support, such as scholarships and other means of access to educational program. This will help ensure that Syria’s next generation is equipped to contribute to the country’s recovery. The focus should be on providing opportunities for refugees to acquire valuable skills abroad which they can bring back to Syria when conditions improve.

Ultimately, Syria’s education system will be central to the country’s long-term recovery. An educated, empowered youth will play a key role in rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure, revitalizing its economy, and ensuring its long-term stability. Investing in scholarships, vocational training, and international exchange programs will help rebuild Syria’s educational identity and equip the next generation to lead the country forward.

Rebuilding Syria’s education system is not just about restoring schools; it’s about empowering the next generation with the tools to rebuild a better, more united Syria. The support of the international community is essential to make this process inclusive, forward-thinking, and sustainable, ensuring that Syria heals and thrives once again.

Source link

March 14, 2025
Slowing Growth and Uncertainty: A Look at IIE’s Open Doors Report 2024 and What the Future Might Hold

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.

What the data tell us: Continued but leveling growth

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.

Changing trends in South Asia and East Asia

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.

Graduate students continue to dominate. For now.

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.

What could impact international enrollment in the near future?

The Trump Administration

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.

Policies and politics in other major host countries

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.

Student mobility in an uncertain world

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.

Source link

December 10, 2024