Tag: Approval

  • Study visa applications to NZ dip, approval rate jumps nearly 7%

    Study visa applications to NZ dip, approval rate jumps nearly 7%

    According to data highlighted by Immigration New Zealand (INZ), the government agency responsible for managing the country’s immigration system, the first 10 months of 2025 saw 55,251 study visa applications, down from 58,361 in the same period last year.

    However, approval rates have risen sharply. In 2024, INZ approved 42,724 of 58,361 applications (81.5%) and declined 9,161 (17.5%). Meanwhile, in 2025, despite fewer applications at 55,251, approvals rose to 43,203 (88.2%) with 5,317 declined (10.9%).

    NZ sets itself apart from other key study destinations

    Even as major anglophone study destinations take a cautious approach to international education policy, New Zealand is aiming to be an outlier in the market.

    The country is looking to boost international student enrolments from 83,700 to 119,000 by 2034 and double the sector’s value to NZD$7.2 billion (GBP £3.2bn) under the recently launched International Education Going for Growth plan.

    This month, new rules came into effect allowing eligible international tertiary and secondary students with visas from November 3 to work up to 25 hours a week, up from 20, while a new short-term work visa for some vocational graduates is also expected to be introduced soon.

    “As part of the International Education Going for Growth Plan, changes were announced to immigration settings to support sustainable growth and enhance New Zealand’s appeal as a study destination. These changes aim to maintain education quality while managing immigration risk,” Celia Coombes, director of visas for INZ, told The PIE.

    “Immigration New Zealand (INZ) and Education New Zealand (ENZ) work in close partnership to achieve these goals.”

    We have more students applying for Pathway Visas year on year, which means more visas granted for longer periods, and less ‘year by year’ applications
    Celia Coombes, Immigration New Zealand

    Why the drop in study visa applications?

    While study visa approval rates have skyrocketed over the past year — a stark contrast to the Covid period, when universities across New Zealand faced massive revenue losses owing to declining numbers — stakeholders point to a mix of factors behind the drop in new applications.

    “There has been an increase in approvals, but overall, a slight decrease in the number of students applying for a visa. However, interest in New Zealand continues to grow,” stated Coombes, who added that the number of individuals holding a valid study visa rose to 58,192 in August 2025, up from 45,512 a year earlier.

    “We have more students applying for Pathway Visas year on year, which means more visas granted for longer periods, and less ‘year by year’ applications.”

    While multi-year pathway visas can cover a full planned study path, reducing the need for repeated applications, Richard Kensington, an NZ-based international education consultant, says refinements could make the route more effective in attracting international students.

    “The Pathway Visa, introduced nearly a decade ago as a trial, has never been fully expanded. Although reviews are complete and the scheme is set to become permanent, no additional providers have been given access,” stated Kensington.

    “Simple refinements — such as allowing pathways to a broad university degree rather than a specific named programme — would encourage more students to utilise this route.”

    The drop could also be linked to the underdeveloped school sector and the slower recovery of New Zealand’s vocational education sector, as noted by Kensington.

    “The school sector remains one of New Zealand’s most untapped international education markets. Demand is growing, especially from families where a parent wishes to accompany the student. The Guardian Parent Visa makes that a viable option,” stated Kensington.

    “Vocational education hasn’t rebounded in the same way. The loss of work rights for sub-degree diplomas has significantly reduced demand from traditional migration markets.”

    New Zealand’s vocational education woes

    Just this year, the New Zealand government announced the disestablishment of Te Pūkenga, the country’s largest vocational education provider, formed through the merger of 16 Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics.

    It is being replaced by 10 standalone polytechnics, following concerns that the model had become too costly and centralised.

    “Te Pūkenga’s rise and fall created real confusion offshore. With standalone polytechnics returning, we should see greater stability from 2026 onwards,” Kensington added.

    “Many polytechnics are now relying on degree and master’s programmes, putting them in more direct competition with universities.”

    Applications fall in China, climb in India

    As per data shared by INZ on decided applications across both 2024 and 2025 — including on ones submitted in earlier years — countries like India (+2.7%), Nepal (+26.8%), Germany (+5.2%), and the Philippines (+7.8%) have seen growth in the number of study visas approved.

    Meanwhile, many East and Southeast Asian markets have recorded year-on-year declines, most notably the largest sending market, China, which dropped by 9.9%.

    The data shows that while 16,568 study visas were approved for China in January–October 2024, this fell to 14,929 in 2025 though it remains the largest source country.

    Other markets such as Japan (-9.7%), South Korea ( -24.8%), and Thailand (-33.7%) also saw significant declines.

    According to Frank Xing, director of marketing and operations at Novo Education Consulting, the slowdown from China is clear, with weaker student interest reflected in both their enquiries and feedback from partners, and echoed by some New Zealand institutions.

    “It’s a mixed picture — a few schools, particularly in the secondary sector, are still doing well, but many providers are starting to feel the impact,” stated Xing, who believes several factors are driving the slowdown.

    “The first is the weaker Chinese economy — many families have been affected by job losses or lower business income. In the past, property assets often helped families fund overseas study, but the real estate downturn has reduced that flexibility,” he added, also noting New Zealand’s own unemployment challenges and competition from lower-cost destinations.

    “We’ve actually seen some students abandon their New Zealand study plans or switch to more affordable destinations such as Malaysia or parts of Europe.”

    According to Xing, while China remains one of New Zealand schools’ strongest markets, this could change as Chinese families place greater emphasis on career outcomes — an area where New Zealand’s slower job market remains a challenge.

    He added that New Zealand’s role as the 2025 Country of Honour at China’s premier education expo could help raise awareness among prospective students.

    False applications remain a major concern

    For Education New Zealand and INZ, the more immediate challenge now lies in addressing fraudulent applications, according to Coombes.

    “New Zealand sees a lot of false financial documents. To address this and help ensure students have the money they need to live and study in New Zealand, we are improving processes to maintain integrity and streamline processing,” stated Coombes.

    “This includes expanding the Funds Transfer Scheme, where students deposit their living costs in New Zealand, and they are released monthly.”

    According to Kensington, some agencies across South Asia and likely parts of Africa, where New Zealand has limited representation may not meet required standards, creating challenges. However, he believes improved processing is reducing the impact.

    “INZ only accepts financial evidence from specific banks in some jurisdictions. Student loans must be secured; unsecured loans aren’t accepted even from major banks,” stated Kensington.

    “It’s hard to say whether fraud is increasing, but the rise in high-quality applications means INZ can process many files quickly and devote more time to forensic checks where needed.”

    Source link

  • Texas A&M Requires Approval for Courses That “Advocate” Certain Ideologies

    Texas A&M Requires Approval for Courses That “Advocate” Certain Ideologies

    Courses that “advocate race or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity” now require presidential approval at Texas A&M system campuses, the system Board of Regents decided Thursday.

    Faculty members and external advocacy groups say the new rules violate academic freedom, and for many professors, questions remain about how the policies will be implemented and enforced. Approved in a unanimous vote after a lengthy public comment period, the policy changes fit a pattern of censorship at Texas A&M that escalated after a video of a student challenging an instructor about a lesson on gender identity went viral, leading to the instructor’s firing and the resignation of then-president Mark Welsh.

    Dan Braaten, an associate professor of political science at Texas A&M San Antonio and president of the campus American Association of University Professors chapter, said he was shocked “at the egregiousness” of the policies, but not surprised by them.

    “Faculty are extremely worried,” Braaten said. “They’re wondering, can they teach the classes they’re scheduled to teach in the spring? Who’s going to be looking at their syllabi? … Is the president of each A&M university going to have to approve every syllabus? Are there penalties for any of this? It’s just a complete … serious violation of academic freedom.”

    The board approved the new rules as revisions to existing system policies. A policy on “Civil Rights Protections and Compliance” will be amended to state that “no system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity unless the course is approved by the member CEO.” It will also define “gender ideology” as “a concept of self-assessed gender identity replacing, and disconnected from, the biological category of sex.”

    Similarly, “race ideology” is defined as “a concept that attempts to shame a particular race or ethnicity, accuse them of being oppressors in a racial hierarchy or conspiracy, ascribe to them less value as contributors to society and public discourse because of their race or ethnicity, or assign them intrinsic guilt based on the actions of their presumed ancestors or relatives in other areas of the world. This also includes course content that promotes activism on issues related to race or ethnicity, rather than academic instruction.”

    Teaching Versus Advocacy

    A previous version of the revision proposed that no system academic course will “teach” race or gender ideology, but the verb was changed to “advocate” before the policies were presented formally to the full board. It’s unclear how the system will differentiate between advocacy and regular instruction on these topics. Representatives for the board on Wednesday declined to comment on the policies ahead of the board vote. They did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s questions after the policies were approved.

    A second policy on “Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure” previously stated that “each faculty member is entitled to full freedom in the classroom in discussing the subject that the faculty member teaches, but a faculty member should not introduce a controversial matter that has no relation to the classroom subject.” The approved amendment adds that faculty members may not “teach material that is inconsistent with the approved syllabus for the course.”

    In a partially redacted Nov. 10 email obtained by Inside Higher Ed, a Texas A&M faculty leader said that administrators at several universities were already discussing implementation plans ahead of the board vote. An administrator also told the faculty leader that the changes to the policy would not likely lead to a formal syllabus-approval process and instead are intended to keep course content aligned with learning outcomes.

    The board received 142 written comments ahead of Thursday’s vote, and eight faculty members spoke out against the policy changes during the meeting’s public comment period. Several of them also called for Melissa McCoul, the professor fired in September, to be reinstated.

    “This is not university-level education, it is cruelty and political indoctrination in wolf’s clothing,” said Leonard Bright, a professor of government and public service and president of the Texas A&M College Station AAUP chapter. “I would need to tell my students that ‘What you came here to learn, I’m unable to tell you, because I’m restricted to tell you that information, even though such knowledge is available at every major university in this world.’”

    Sonia Hernandez, a liberal arts professor who teaches about Latin American history, shared a past example that highlighted the pitfalls of the new policies.

    “I had a student once who took issue with my discussion of the importance of military history. He was against war and felt strongly about war’s damaging effects on society, yet it was full academic freedom—not cherry-picking of topics, not advocacy, not ideology—that allowed me to share research on the intersections of war and identity with my class,” Hernandez said.

    Two faculty members—finance professor Adam Kolasinski and biomedical engineering professor John Criscione—spoke in favor of the policy changes.

    “I don’t think somebody should be able to say that Germans born two generations after the Holocaust somehow bear guilt for the Holocaust, because that’s really what’s being prohibited here,” Kolasinski said. “My colleagues seem to think that the policy says something it doesn’t.” Kolasinski also suggested the board change the language back from “advocate” to “teach.”

    AAUP president Todd Wolfson urged the board to reject the proposed policy changes in a statement Tuesday. So did Brian Evans, president of the Texas Conference of the AAUP, which includes faculty at Texas A&M campuses.

    “By considering these policy changes, the Texas A&M University System Board of Regents is telling faculty, ‘Shut up and teach—and we’ll tell you what to teach,’” Evans said in the statement. “This language and the censorship it imposes will cause irreparable harm to the reputation of the university, and impede faculty and students from their main mission on campus: to teach, learn, think critically, and create and share new knowledge.”

    In a Monday statement, FIRE officials wrote, “Hiring professors with PhDs is meaningless if administrators are the ones deciding what gets taught … Faculty would need permission to teach students about not just modern controversies, but also civil rights, the Civil War, or even ancient Greek comedies. This is not just bad policy. It invites unlawful censorship, chills academic freedom, and undermines the core purpose of a university. Faculty will start asking not ‘Is this accurate?’ but ‘Will this get me in trouble?’ That’s not education, it’s risk management.”

    AI-Driven Course Review

    Also on Thursday, the board discussed a detailed, systemwide review of all courses using an artificial intelligence–driven process. The system has already piloted the review process at its Tarleton State University campus, where most of the courses that were flagged are housed in the College of Education, which includes the sociology and psychology departments, the Nov. 10 email from a faculty leader stated. Board members said they intend to complete the course review regularly, as often as once per semester.

    “The Texas A&M system is stepping up first, setting the model that others will follow,” Regent Sam Torn said about the course review at Thursday’s meeting.

    The system will also use EthicsPoint, an online system that will allow students to report inaccurate, misleading or inappropriate course content that diverges from the course descriptions. System staff will be alerted when a student submits an EthicsPoint complaint, and if the complaint is determined to be valid, it will be passed along to the relevant university.

    Source link

  • FIRE statement on FCC approval of Skydance-Paramount acquisition

    FIRE statement on FCC approval of Skydance-Paramount acquisition

    On July 25, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission approved Skydance’s $8 billion acquisition of Paramount Global and its subsidiaries, including CBS. The agency allowed the deal to move forward after receiving assurances the new company would provide “fair, unbiased, and fact-based coverage” and would not establish programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion. The deal had previously come under scrutiny from the Trump administration over his disputes with CBS about its coverage of the 2024 election.

    The following statement is from FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley.


    This has been an unconstitutional shakedown from start to finish. Per the First Amendment, federal law, and longstanding precedent, the FCC has no business dictating the editorial choices of media outlets or conditioning merger approval on the viewpoints a network chooses to air. 

    But yesterday, Chairman Carr crowed over his shameful success doing just that. No federal bureaucrat should ever be allowed to play-act as our nation’s editor-in-chief.

    The chairman’s hypocrisy is staggering.

    Less than a year ago, Brendan Carr, if you could take him at his word, seemed to understand that the First Amendment bars the FCC from operating as “the nation’s speech police.” But he’s more than happy to wear that badge now.

    Source link

  • Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

    Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Comment Request; Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms

    A Notice by the Education Department on 05/19/2025

    Department of Education[Docket No.: ED-2025-SCC-0002]

    AGENCY:

    Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).

    ACTION:

    Notice.

    SUMMARY:

    In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

    DATES:

    Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before June 18, 2025.

    ADDRESSES:

    Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link www.reginfo.gov/​public/​do/​PRAMain to access the site. Find this information collection request (ICR) by selecting “Department of Education” under “Currently Under Review,” then check the “Only Show ICR for Public Comment” checkbox. Reginfo.gov provides two links to view documents related to this information collection request. Information collection forms and instructions may be found by clicking on the “View Information Collection (IC) List” link. Supporting statements and other supporting documentation may be found by clicking on the “View Supporting Statement and Other Documents” link.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

    For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carolyn Rose, 202-453-5967.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

    Title of Collection: Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms.

    OMB Control Number: 1845-0163.

    Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals and Households.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 83,750.

    Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 217,750.

    Abstract: On April 4, 2024 the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit granted a preliminary injunction against 34 CFR 685.400 et seq. (“2023 Regulation”) enjoining the rule and postponing the effective date of the regular pending final judgment in the case. The current Borrower Defense to Repayment application and related Request for Reconsideration are drafted to conform to the enjoined provisions of the 2023 Regulation. This request is to revise the currently approved information collection 1845-0163 to comply with the regulatory requirements of the borrower defense regulations that are still in effect, 34 CFR 685.206(e) (“2020 Regulation”), 34 CFR 685.222 (“2016 Regulation”), and 34 CFR 685.206(c) (“1995 Regulation”) (together, the “current regulations”). These regulatory requirements are distinct from the 2023 Regulation’s provisions. The revision is part of contingency planning in case the 2023 Regulation is permanently struck down. The Department of Education (“the Department”) is attaching an updated Borrower Defense Application and application for Request for Reconsideration. The forms will be available in paper and electronic forms on studentaid.gov and will provide borrowers with an easily accessible and clear method to provide the information necessary for the Department to review and process claim applications. Also, under the current regulations, the Department will no longer require a group application nor group reconsideration application.

    Dated: May 13, 2025.

    Brian Fu,

    Program and Management Analyst, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

    [FR Doc. 2025-08857 Filed 5-16-25; 8:45 am]

    BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
    Published Document: 2025-08857 (90 FR 21296)

    Source link