Tag: International

  • Making higher education work for international student carers

    Making higher education work for international student carers

    Student carers – those juggling unpaid caring for family or friends, as well as student parents – can often feel invisible to their higher education provider. Their needs cut across multiple areas, including attendance, assessment, finances and mental health, with many (quietly) facing the complicated arithmetic of balancing time, money and labour.

    It is not only UK-domiciled students that face these challenges. Little addressed in the academic literature, international student carers face challenges both similar to and distinct from those experienced by UK home students.

    Similar and distinct

    Student carers of all nationalities describe disrupted attendance when emergencies arise, lost concentration, as well as difficult trade-offs between paid work and academic engagement.

    Uncertainty amplifies these pressures: some students simply choose not to disclose information about their caregiving because of fear of stigma; others do not trust staff to handle with care what is a personal and sensitive dimension of their lives; still others do not know where to seek support.

    Identifying carers, therefore, is a necessary first step to providing support. However, it is not always straightforward – institutions commonly lack routine, reliable data on caring status, making targeted support ad hoc rather than systemic.

    Yet international student carers face additional, distinctive barriers that make the same problems harder to resolve. Visa rules are an illustrative example. These restrict when dependants can accompany students and cap the number of hours most international students can work during term-time.

    For instance, students on degree-level courses can generally work up to 20 hours per week, while those on foundation and pre-sessional English routes are limited to ten hours. Self-employment is not permitted, and internships or placements must be approved by the sponsor.

    For those caring for family overseas, emotional load and logistical complexity are high: families divide care across borders, rely on remittances, and use digital tools to coordinate support at distance. For those caring for dependants present in the UK, the absence of recourse to public funds combined with the limitations set on working hours further intensify financial challenges. These are not abstract constraints – students I have spoken to flagged the restriction on working hours as a core stressor that diverted their attention from study.

    Making it work

    The UK policy context matters as it shapes what universities can and cannot do. While recent changes have tightened dependant rules for international students, universities still retain a significant degree of agency. These include proactive identification of student carers, flexible design of learning and assessment, targeted financial and career advice, as well as culturally sensitive outreach.

    What does this look like in practice? First, it is time that institutions recognise that disclosure is not a single moment, but a process requiring trust. Rather than a “pray-and-hope” approach where students are asked to declare their caring status on a single form, universities should try to normalise conversations across the student lifecycle: in admissions, enrolment, welcome activities, academic tutorials and welfare checks. Staff training plays an important role here. Academic and professional services teams need concise guidance on how to spot signs of caring, how to ask sensitively, and how to go about making reasonable adjustments, be that through a Carer Passport or other means. This helps reduce the pressure on student carers to self-advocate.

    Next, administrative burden needs to be reduced as much as possible – student carers are often acutely time poor. Tools like the just mentioned Carer Passport can help here by making informal agreements more formal and removing the need (and burden) of repeated disclosure.

    Reasonable adjustments might include extended deadlines, alternative attendance arrangements, priority access to recorded lectures or seminar times. The design of such initiatives should not blindside carers, they should be involved in the development process. This co-production may also help tackle the trust deficit.

    Third, financial and careers support must be tailored to visa realities. Generic money advice may be helpful, but is likely insufficient for international student carers’ needs, given the restrictions on working hours and access to benefits. One support route, if budgets allow, could be targeted bursaries, hardship funding that consider caring costs, and career advice that specifically addresses visa limits and limits of working hours. Partnerships with external funds and local community organisations could also be beneficial.

    And finally, community can provide another support mechanism. Peer networks, carers’ groups and targeted social spaces allow student carers, particularly international ones who may be far from family networks, to share coping strategies and practical tips. These groups also provide powerful evidence to inform policy change within universities: student testimony should feed directly into institutional planning, not sit in a file.

    The effort required

    None of the above requires revolutionary or even radical institutional reinvention – though it does demand time and allocation of resources. That said, I would contend that the efforts are worth it for a couple of reasons.

    The first is that supporting international student carers is simply a matter of fairness. Secondly, but of equal importance, universities that make study feasible for (international) student carers will stand a better chance of attracting and retaining talent that might otherwise never apply or withdraw.

    The absence of international student carers means a loss of enriching perspectives in the classroom – and conversely their presence entails a stronger evidence base from which to build inclusive practice.

    Source link

  • Why international education must be central to the Square Mile’s success

    Why international education must be central to the Square Mile’s success

    Earlier this month, the City of London staged one of its most time-honoured traditions: the annual parade marking the inauguration of its new civic leader. But this year’s event was historic for more than its pageantry.

    For the first time in 697 years, the Lord Mayor’s Show became the Lady Mayor’s Show, as Dame Susan Langley DBE took office under a title that signals both continuity and change.

    The Lady Mayor’s pledge to “un-square the Square Mile” – to make the City more open, inclusive and innovative – could also not be more timely. If she is serious about modernising the mayoralty, then championing international education must be at the heart of her agenda.

    Education as trade and investment

    The City of London is not just a major global financial centre; it is a thoroughly international student city. As well as being home to the large multi-faculty institution of City St George’s, University of London, the City also boasts the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and has historic links to several prestigious further and higher education providers across the capital.

    The overseas students that these institutions collectively attract feed a talent pipeline underpinning every sector of the City’s economy. According to research by the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI), just one year’s cohort of international students in the Cities of London and Westminster brings in £352 million of net benefits annually, equating to £2,940 per resident.

    London’s businesses understand this importance. New research from London Higher shows 90% of firms in the capital say global graduates are essential for filling skills gaps and driving innovation, and more than half admit they would consider relocating if access to this talent were curtailed.

    From financial services to tech companies and the creative industries, London’s employers value the language skills, cultural awareness and global networks that international graduates provide. These are the assets that give the Square Mile its competitive edge in a fiercely global marketplace.

    Storm clouds ahead

    However, these assets are under threat. Headwinds facing UK higher education are stiffening: financial pressures, rising operating costs and ongoing policy uncertainty around visas and an international fee levy are all working to lessen London’s overseas appeal. Universities are continually being asked to do more with less, while negative rhetoric around immigration risks deterring the very global talent that the City needs to thrive.

    Universities are continually being asked to do more with less, while negative rhetoric around immigration risks deterring the very global talent that the City needs to thrive

    Should the City of London’s higher education institutions start losing ground in the international education export market then the ripple effects will be felt far beyond their campuses – from student housing markets, restaurants and local coffee shops to the big city businesses that rely on a steady flow of skilled graduates with the nous to operate in a globally connected world.

    Convening power

    This is where the Lady Mayor’s convening power matters. Her role is not merely ceremonial. As the elected head of the City of London Corporation, she is a global ambassador for the UK’s financial and professional services sector, tasked with driving growth and innovation through diplomacy and engagement.

    In an era when rival financial centres such as New York, Singapore and Dubai are doubling down on talent attraction, London cannot afford to be complacent. A modern mayoralty should see universities and colleges as strategic assets in the City’s success, not peripheral players around its financial prowess. Opening the doors of Mansion House for events that champion education as a cornerstone of competitiveness would send a powerful signal of support.

    Advocacy for higher education is not a fringe issue. It is ultimately about future-proofing the City for the challenges that lie ahead. Higher education fuels innovation, entrepreneurship and cultural capital – all the qualities that the City prizes in its pursuit of growth and prosperity. Alumni of London’s institutions go on to become global decision-makers in a variety of sectors and industries and carry with them an affinity for the City that often translates into investment and influence later down the line.

    A new narrative for growth

    At a time when the City’s economy is crying out for high-level skills – and the UK government is doubling down on local responsiveness through a civic policy lens – the Square Mile has a golden opportunity to lead by example under its new Lady Mayor: forging partnerships between business and education, supporting pathways into high-demand sectors and amplifying the City of London’s message as a welcoming destination for learners and workers from all backgrounds – particularly women inspired by their new figurehead.

    The Lady Mayor has said herself that, “The City is not about walls to keep people out, but about welcoming people in.” That ethos should extend to students as much as to investors because, if we fail to keep London open to global talent, we risk diminishing the City’s universities and weakening the very foundations of the Square Mile’s success.

    The Lady Mayor’s tenure in Mansion House offers a chance for the City to reset its narrative and show that international education is a strategic lever for the City’s growth. By championing international students and forging stronger ties between academia and industry, the City can secure its place as the world’s most connected financial hub – thriving on openness, talent and ideas.

    If the City of London wants to remain the beating heart of global commerce, then it must also be the beating heart of global learning.

    Source link

  • London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    As the UK prepares for the Graduate Route to be shortened from two years to 18 months, London’s business leaders have had their say on international graduates in the workforce, with 90% showing support.

    The results of London Higher‘s recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that international talent is highly valued across London businesses – 62% of respondents view international talent as essential and a further 28% say it is important. Only 10% say foreign talent is not very important or not at all important.

    “Global graduates give London its competitive edge. Every sector of our economy benefits from the talent and energy they bring. This research shows that they don’t take opportunities away – they help create them,” said Liz Hutchinson, chief executive of London Higher – the membership organisation that promotes and acts as an advocate for higher education in the city.

    The majority of those surveyed believe that international talent plugs skills gaps (93%), drives innovation (89%) and supports London’s global competitiveness, while only a small minority of business leaders felt it reduced scope for domestic talent and innovation.

    Some 93% of respondents say that international talent helps address skills gaps in their industry, with only 4% saying that international workers reduce opportunities for UK talent.

    “By helping businesses expand, [global graduates] generate more jobs and opportunities for everyone. As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors,” added Hutchinson.

    As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors
    Liz Hutchinson, London Higher

    Elsewhere, 91% of those surveyed view international workers as essential or helpful for the city’s competitiveness against global cities such as New York, Singapore or Paris, with only 7% saying that their relevance is limited or non-existent.

    The survey shows that support for international talent is strongest in larger, growth sector companies – and in those that think they are outperforming their competitors.

    The survey comes as anti-immigration rhetoric in the UK intensifies and the government pushes ahead with stricter immigration rules.

    As domestic politics play out in headlines overseas and concerns grow around the UK’s stance as a welcoming destination for international talent, Harry Coath, head of the talent and skills programme at London’s growth agency, London & Partners, said he sees an opportunity for London to position itself as a city that truly embraces diversity – a factor he noted is central to why so many businesses choose to be here.

    Speaking at London Higher’s conference this week, alongside Coath, Ruth Arnold, executive director of external affairs at Study Group, said the latest research is arguably the most important report London Higher has ever produced, taking into consideration this political context and the importance of employability and post-study work to today’s international students.

    The UK government’s decision to cut the Graduate Route visa from two years to 18 months was first announced in May in the UK government’s white paper on immigration, and the change is set to to take effect from January 2027.

    The survey showed that business leaders think international students should be able to access work visas – 59% want to see easier access for international students to stay in the country 28% feel the current system works, while only 10% are vying for tighter controls.

    John Dickie, CEO of BusinessLDN, commented on the report’s findings, highlighting the importance that the UK “does all it can to remain attractive to highly skilled individuals from across the globe, particularly at a time when some of our rivals are closing their doors to international students”.

    Dickie noted the government’s proposed levy on international student fees, and urged ministers to scrap these “misguided plans” that he said would “hit growth, exacerbate the sector’s financial challenges and undermine [the UK’s] soft power”.

    Source link

  • Which UK regional economies are most reliant on international students?

    Which UK regional economies are most reliant on international students?

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog was kindly authored by Emma Prodromou, Global Business Expansion and Immigration Manager, the Mauve Group.

    The quiet engine driving local prosperity

    Across the United Kingdom, international students have quietly become a vital source of regional economic strength. Those who come to the UK to further their education go on to bolster local economies and public services.

    In fact, recent research reveals that UK regions now depend on international talent to a degree few policymakers fully appreciate.

    The growing economic footprint of international students

    The economic impact of international students in the UK surged from £31.3 billion in 2018/19 to £41.9 billion by 2021/22. On average, every parliamentary constituency in Britain benefits by £58 million.

    Some regions rely more heavily than others on this influx of global talent. In Sheffield, for example, international students contribute around £770 million annually to the city’s economy, while across Yorkshire and the Humber, that total exceeds £2.9 billion. In cities such as Leicester, Exeter, Nottingham, and Dundee, universities are among the leading exporters, accounting for up to 15% of total local exports.

    These figures show how universities serve as economic anchors, especially outside the Southeast. International students contribute through tuition, housing, local spending, and by supporting jobs in retail and hospitality.

    Policy pressures and looming challenges

    However, this success story faces rising challenges. Recent government policy changes, including visa restrictions and caps on dependents, threaten to undermine the financial stability of regional institutions. Such measures may disproportionately impact towns where universities are at the heart of the economic life.

    At the same time, course closures are accelerating — nearly a fifth in agriculture and food studies, and around 10–12% in sciences and social sciences. These cuts expose a structural issue: as universities adapt to funding pressures and shifting demand, they risk losing expertise vital to regional and national priorities.

    Competing for global talent

    Faced with financial uncertainty and increasing global competition, UK universities are adopting new strategies to attract international students. Many of these initiatives draw inspiration from the government’s broader Industrial Strategy.

    At the University of Southampton, a £4.35 million investment was secured through the Global Talent Fund, part of a £54 million initiative by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). The aim is to recruit top global researchers to strengthen the UK’s research base and reinforce its global reputation for excellence.

    Building regional innovation hubs

    Other regions are leveraging academic expertise to foster innovation ecosystems. Swansea University has played a central role in developing a semiconductor cluster in South Wales. This reflects Wales’s growing profile on the global stage. In 2022, just 21% of prospective international students noted familiarity with Wales as a study destination. By 2025, that figure had more than doubled to 44%, especially in key markets such as India and the United States.

    To help close skills gaps and boost innovation, Wales has opted to pass on the UK’s new 6% levy to international students. Welsh institutions are well-positioned to attract global talent, though graduates must still navigate the post-graduate visa landscape and local compliance rules when it comes to employment.

    The rise of ‘dynamic pricing’ and scholarships

    In an increasingly competitive global education market, British universities are also adopting more flexible pricing models to attract international students.

    The University of Birmingham, Birmingham City University, and Sheffield Hallam University offer regional discounts targeted at applicants from India and Southeast Asia. Keele University automatically awards £5,000 scholarships to undergraduates who exceed entry requirements, while the University of the West of England (UWE) provides a £3,000 annual Global Success Scholarship for students who complete a set number of ambassador duties throughout the academic year.

    These initiatives reflect a more entrepreneurial approach to recruitment, focused on affordability and global reach.

    Education as soft power

    Beyond economics, international education remains one of the UK’s most effective instruments of soft power. By attracting students from across the world, British universities build lasting global networks of alumni who go on to hold influential positions in business, government, and academia.

    Amid mounting financial pressures, many universities are expanding overseas through international branch campuses, exporting British education while diversifying income. In India, institutions like York, Aberdeen, and Bristol plan local campuses, aligning with the UK–India Free Trade Agreement expected to add $34 billion in annual trade.

    A delicate balance ahead

    As the UK reshapes its immigration and higher education policies, it must balance fiscal restraint with global engagement. Excessive restrictions could damage universities and the regional economies that depend on international students.

    International education is crucial to economic resilience, both locally and nationally, as well as to regional regeneration and global influence. As the data show, from Sheffield to Swansea, Leicester to Dundee, the UK’s prosperity is deeply intertwined with its ability to attract and retain top global talent.

    Source link

  • International Students Deserve Better (opinion)

    International Students Deserve Better (opinion)

    I recently caught up with a former student pursuing her doctorate. Her project is timely. She is Cameroonian and a legal resident in the United States studying how pro-democracy movements succeed or how and when they fail. Students like her benefit our nation’s economy and our global ability to promote democracy and peace at home and abroad.

    As she and I chatted, I detected exhaustion in her voice. I asked her how she is holding up. She replied with unmistakable sadness: “In Cameroon, I felt like my voice was stifled. I thought I could finally use my voice in the United States. I no longer feel that way.”

    As a current international student, she lives in constant fear. Campus administrators have cautioned her against speeding or driving with a broken taillight. Her faculty adviser serves as her emergency contact if she is detained by federal immigration authorities.

    The extraordinary crackdown on international students enrolled at U.S. universities, including the more than 400 students in my state of Texas alone who learned that their visa status had been canceled in spring of 2025, has little precedent in recent history. While officials in Washington restored students’ visa statuses in response to court rulings, the Department of State has begun reviewing visa applicants’ social media accounts “for any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States.”

    As a university instructor, my classes have been enriched by the perspectives of international students. But their benefit to this country extends beyond their academic participation. Each year, upwards of 150,000 college-age youth participate in the little-known low-wage employment-based categories of the J-1 visa, including the Summer Work Travel, trainee, intern and au pair programs. Participants work in low-wage jobs at restaurants, in hotels and in homes providing live-in day care for thousands of American families.

    The J-1 Exchange Visitor Program began with modest enrollment in the 1960s to promote Cold War–era public diplomacy. But numbers have grown in recent decades, transforming these employment-based categories into a significant stream of temporary foreign workers. A major draw is the low cost of employing them. Employers avoid most payroll taxes and sidestep bureaucratic red tape. Since the State Department oversees the program, there is no labor market testing or commitment to public data as is standard with Department of Labor foreign worker programs.

    My multiyear findings and those of others—including the findings from a recent investigation by The New York Times—illuminate several J-1 program shortcomings: fraud in recruitment, inadequate and overpriced housing, and a failure of the State Department and designated cultural sponsors to address reports of abuse. In practice, sponsors amount to labor brokers who collect $1,000 to $5,000 to match a J-1 participant with an employer. I will never forget the Peruvian Summer Work Travel participant who wept as he described losing his job and housing amid COVID shutdowns. Neither his employer nor sponsor came to his aid. Instead, the Peruvian consulate sheltered and fed him until he found a way home. What his experience made clear to me was how weak J-1 protections are and how, amid a crisis like COVID, instead of building bonds of international friendship and goodwill, his J-1 cultural sponsor host and employer abandoned him in a crucial time of need.

    Similarly, the demand for work authorization through the Optional Practical Training program, available to international students here on the F-1 visa, has skyrocketed, growing from 154,522 in 2007 to 418,781 in 2024. Like for J-1 visas, the Labor Department has no formal regulatory role over the OPT program, which instead is administered by the Department of Homeland Security. The OPT program originated in 1992 as a pilot initiative, and after intensive corporate lobbying, the government tripled the maximum duration of the program.

    The resulting problems with the OPT program are obvious and preventable. Journalists and scholars have documented unchecked and underregulated growth, sham employment offers, and systematic underpayment, along with the proliferation of so-called body shops, staffing agencies that hire foreign workers and then rent them out to big-name tech firms—often at bargain-basement rates.

    Undoubtedly, the risks faced by international students on campus versus at work differ substantially. So do their causes: The threat to international students on campus results from a hard political turn against immigration in rhetoric and policy and an effort to censor free speech in higher education. The risks faced by J-1 and F-1/OPT workers stem from the ongoing demand among U.S. employers for cheap, compliant migrant workers. Yet, Congress legislated pathways for both to promote democracy and global understanding between U.S. and foreign citizens, aims from which we have drastically strayed.

    Prohibiting J-1 recruitment fees, shifting oversight of J-1 and OPT programs to the Labor Department, and making available comprehensive labor data for both would result in far better treatment and stewardship of international youth and more fairness to U.S. workers. It would also shed light on the opaque inner workings of U.S. temporary migrant worker policy at a time when mass deportation and the gutting of temporary protected status and refugee programs only heighten demand for new sources of low-priced and flexible labor, labor that immigrant populations have long been called upon by U.S. employers to do.

    Cate Bowman is an associate professor of sociology at Austin College, specializing in immigration and labor issues.

    Source link

  • Fewer International Students Came to the U.S. This Fall

    Fewer International Students Came to the U.S. This Fall

    One week after President Donald Trump contradicted his own policies by stressing how important international students are to sustaining university finances, there’s new evidence that his administration’s crackdown on visas and immigration is hurting international student enrollment and the American economy.

    While overall international student enrollment has declined only 1 percent since fall 2024, new enrollment has declined 17 percent, according to fall 2025 snapshot data in the annual Open Doors report, published Monday by the Institute for International Education. The 825 U.S.-based higher learning institutions that responded to the fall snapshot survey host more than half of all international students in the country.

    “It gives us good insight into what is happening on campuses as of this fall,” Mirka Martel, head of research, evaluation and learning at IIE, said on a press call last week. “Some of the changes we’re seeing in new enrollment may be related to some of the more recent factors related to international students.”

    Fewer New Graduate Students

    Those factors include cuts to federal research funding, which has historically helped support graduate students. Although graduate students made up roughly 40 percent of the 1.2 million total international students studying in the U.S during the 2024–25 academic year, they’re now driving the enrollment decline—a trend that started before Trump retook the White House.

    While the total number of new international students fell by 7 percent last academic year, new graduate enrollment dropped by 15 percent, according to the Open Doors report—a decline that was partially offset by new undergraduate enrollment, which grew by 5 percent.

    The fall 2025 snapshot data shows that pattern continuing.

    Colleges and universities reported a 2 percent increase in undergraduate students, a 14 percent increase in Optional Practical Training students and a 12 percent decrease in graduate students.

    The 2024–25 Open Doors report also includes more details about international students during the last academic year—broken down by country of origin, field of study and primary funding sources—though that data reflects trends from last fall, before Trump took office and initiated restrictions that experts believe have deterred some international students.

    It shows that international enrollment in the United States jumped 5 percent between fall 2023 and fall 2024, continuing to rebound from a 15 percent pandemic-induced drop during the 2020–21 academic year. That’s in line with the fall 2024 snapshot data, which indicated 3 percent growth in international student totals.

    However, the majority (57 percent) of colleges and universities that responded to IIE’s fall 2025 snapshot survey reported a decline in new international enrollment. And 96 percent of them cited visa concerns, while 68 percent named travel restrictions as the reason for the drop.

    Meanwhile, 29 percent of institutions reported an increase in new international enrollment and 14 percent reported stable enrollment. For those institutions that saw an uptick this fall, 71 percent attributed the growth to active recruitment initiatives, and 54 percent cited outreach to admitted students.

    The Open Doors data also confirms earlier projections from NAFSA: Association of International Educators and recent analyses from The New York Times and Inside Higher Ed about the Trump administration’s immigration policies leading to falling international student enrollment, as well as hardship for university budgets and the broader national economy.

    According to the report, international students accounted for 6 percent of the total population enrolled in a higher education institution last academic year and contributed nearly $55 billion to the U.S. economy in 2024.

    “International students come to the United States to advance their education and contribute to U.S. colleges and communities,” Jason Czyz, president and CEO of IIE, said in a news release. “This data highlights the impact international students have in driving innovation, advancing scholarship, and strengthening cross-cultural understanding.”

    Trump’s Changing Stance

    But since Trump took office in January, his administration has cast international students—the majority (57 percent) of whom come to the U.S. to study in high-demand STEM fields—as threats to national security and opportunity for American-born students rather than economic stimulants.

    International university students attending wealthy, selective universities are “not just bad for national security,” Vice President JD Vance said in March. “[They’re] bad for the American dream for a lot of kids who want to go to a nice university and can’t because their spot was taken by a foreign student.”

    But as the Open Doors data shows, it’s not just wealthy, private institutions that host international students. During the 2024–25 academic year, 59 percent attended public institutions. Meanwhile, among all institution types, community colleges experienced the fastest rate of international student growth, at 8 percent.

    And that’s despite the Trump administration’s concerted effort to deter them. So far this year, the federal government has detained foreign student activists, stripped students’ SEVIS statuses and visas, implemented social media vetting processes, paused new visa issuances, and moved to limit how long students can stay in the country.

    In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened to “aggressively revoke” Chinese students’ visas, including those “with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

    Although the Open Doors report shows that enrollment among Chinese students declined 4 percent between the 2023–24 and 2024–25 academic years, China is still the second-most-popular country of origin for international students, making up 23 percent of all international students; India—which surpassed China as the No. 1 source in 2023—produced 31 percent of all international students living in the U.S. during the 2024–25 academic year.

    But as of late, Trump has walked back some of his hostility toward international students. Over the summer, he proposed allowing 600,000 Chinese students into the country. And last week, he defended the economic benefit of international students during an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham.

    “We take in trillions of dollars from students,” he said. “You know, the students pay more than double when they come in from most foreign countries. I want to see our school system thrive. And it’s not that I want them, but I view it as a business.”

    Economic Consequences

    According to the Open Doors Report, roughly half (52 percent) of international students funded their education primarily with their own money during the 2024–25 academic year. And the 17 percent drop in new international enrollment this fall translates into more than $1.1 billion in lost revenue and nearly 23,000 fewer jobs, according to a new analysis from NAFSA, also published Monday.

    The report explained that the reasons for that vary but may be tied in part to the disproportionate decline in international graduate student enrollment and uptick in OPT students.

    The decline in graduate students on college campuses is “cutting into higher-spending populations that typically contribute more through tuition, living costs, and accompanying dependents,” the report said. Meanwhile, “the increased share of students pursuing OPT (up 14 percent) reduced the amount of campus-based spending [on] tuition, housing and dining.”

    Source link

  • The surprising pragmatism of Reform UK voters towards international education

    The surprising pragmatism of Reform UK voters towards international education

    In polls and focus groups across the country, Reform voters have been singing from the same hymn sheet. They share a deep sense of national and local decline. They view the country through a lens of crumbling high streets, strained public services, and an economy seemingly trapped in a doom loop.

    In this environment, they have developed a corrosive scepticism towards the modern university model, judging it a failed investment that saddles their children with debt for a degree that is only good for getting through graduate recruiters’ first sift of CVs. They demand contraction, utility, and accountability for a system they believe serves neither the student nor the economy.

    To delve into these views, Public First conducted focus groups with those who currently intend to vote Reform UK in university towns in England. This revealed a surprising chink of light in an otherwise very gloomy outlook on universities: focus group participants were broadly very positive about international students.

    Foreign subsidy as necessary evil

    This needs to come with a heavy caveat: when we polled Reform voters, we found that 63 per cent agree that the UK government should restrict international student numbers in order to cut net migration. Cutting net migration remains a top priority for these voters, and for many, it appears that this should be done by any means necessary.

    However, when confronted with the economics, Reform voters we have spoken to reveal a sophisticated and transactional view of international student recruitment. For them, students from overseas are not a problem to be solved, but a “great business.”

    As polling has consistently demonstrated, the typical Reform voter is highly sceptical of mass, unmanaged immigration. Yet, when asked about foreign students, the response of those who live in university towns was not hostility, but economic pragmatism.

    They see international recruitment as a clear, contained, and mutually beneficial transaction: the UK offers a world-class education (a product) and, in return, receives a higher rate of tuition fee (a profitable revenue stream). The students come to study, they contribute economically, and then – the crucial expectation – they either contribute to the UK economy or they leave.

    This isn’t merely tolerance; it’s a qualified acceptance rooted in financial necessity. In these voters’ minds, these lucrative international fees act as the foreign subsidy that keeps the entire system afloat. As one participant noted, “If universities can’t stay open because they haven’t got any foreign students, then that is a detriment to UK students.” The implication is clear: to maintain a domestic higher education offering, the international revenue stream must be protected.

    The conditions for goodwill

    This surprising goodwill, however, is fragile and rests on extremely strict conditions. Voters grant the sector a licence to recruit internationally only as long as two core boundaries are strictly maintained.

    No back doors: The arrangement must remain a transactional exchange, not a migration loophole. Support instantly evaporates when student visas are perceived as a “back door” into the country, particularly when students bring dependents or “disappear” into the country during the degree programme, or after graduation. The transaction is valid only if the purpose is learning, not permanent residency. “If you’re coming to learn, then you come to learn. You don’t bring your family, your dog, your cat and your goldfish,” argued one voter.

    No crowding out: Crucially, if voters feel that their children are being denied places in favour of higher-paying overseas customers, the economic argument collapses under the weight of perceived injustice.

    Despite the conditional acceptance of international fees, the core challenge for universities remains their perceived lack of utility to their students, and in their local communities. While Reform voters are pragmatic about international revenue streams, they are profoundly sceptical about the value of many domestic degrees that this income subsidises, and they see very little economic spillover in their towns: “…the areas outside of the city centre, I can’t see what benefit [universities] have.”

    The sector cannot win over these key voters – and thus cannot escape the threat of cuts from political parties who want their support – by simply defending the status quo. Making the case to this influential group of voters requires clearly showing how international students are paying for local resources and subsidising domestic places, while demonstrating robust checks that ensure the system is not abused.

    More widely, universities need to move beyond abstract civic rhetoric and show tangible value, taking concerted action to ensure and evidence that all degree courses benefit the student, the community and/or the country at large.

    The support for international students presents a unique opportunity. It is the one pillar of the current HE model that Reform voters’ economic logic allows them to broadly accept, even if this acceptance is currently secondary to the desire to cut net migration.

    The sector must leverage this pragmatic lifeline to pave the way to a secure future, while not telling but showing voters that their domestic offering is part of the solution to the UK’s economic doom loop.

    Source link

  • International enrolments at UK business schools on the mend

    International enrolments at UK business schools on the mend

    UK business schools continue to be buffeted by hostile immigration policies, with some institutions noting two consecutive years of declining overseas enrolments, according to 2025/26 results from the 2025 Chartered Association of Business Schools (ABS) annual membership survey of 48 members.

    But the picture seems to be improving. Almost half of the schools surveyed (46%) reported an increase in international enrolments, up from just 11% the previous year. At undergraduate level, 45% reported rising numbers, compared with 64% at postgraduate level.

    Nevertheless, the association has pointed to policies affecting international students in the UK as continuing causes for concern for business schools as promises made in Keir Starmer’s immigration white paper become a reality.

    While international enrolments at the undergraduate level were down on 2024/25 for 14% of respondents, this is far lower than the 39% who reported the same trend in 2024/25.

    Similarly, while a sizeable chunk of respondents (39%) said overseas enrolments for postgraduate students were down year on year, this is still a noticeable improvement than over three quarters of respondents the year before.

    But the Chartered ABS noted that international enrolments will still be lower than before 2024/25, with some schools reporting two years of decline in a row.

    The Chartered ABS pointed to hostile policies in the UK as a potential reason for declining international enrolments. The UK government’s decision to reduce the Graduate Route by six months is already having an effect, it said, with 60% of survey respondents saying the incoming policy has had a negative impact.

    “The shortening of the Graduate Route, the ban on student dependants, and the proposals for the international student levy will continue to have a damaging impact on business school finances, and by extension, their parent institutions,” warned Stewart Robinson, chair of the Chartered ABS and dean of Newcastle University Business School.

    “These results reveal that while some institutions are seeing student numbers grow and finances stabilise, many institutions continue to face significant challenges. Budget cuts, restructuring, and redundancies will continue, and many business schools will face another year of declining student numbers and income,” he added. 

    The survey revealed that many UK business schools are feeling the pinch, with an increasing number (48%) reporting a drop in year-on-year income in 2025/26 compared to 36% in 2024/25.

    Budget cuts, restructuring, and redundancies will continue, and many business schools will face another year of declining student numbers and income
    Stewart Robinson, Chartered ABS and Newcastle University Business School

    However, more than half of the schools surveyed (58%) said they expected income to increase in 2025/26 – an improvement on the previous year, when more than half expected further decline.

    A slew of policies affecting the international education sector were announced as part of the immigration white paper, with stakeholders concerned that each could have a serious impact on overseas enrolments.

    The government has decided to cut the Graduate Route from two years to just 18 months, shaving six months off the visa route for international graduates from UK institutions.

    A levy on the income institutions make from international student fees was also announced as part of the changes, with a later decision to ringfence this cash to spend on maintenance grants for domestic students. Critics have warned that the move could decimate international enrolments if students are put off by the higher fees many institutions will have to set to cover the cost of the tax.

    An earlier decision to ban almost all international students from bringing their dependants to the country with them on a student visa. Since 2024, when the policy was announced, net migration numbers in the UK have seen a steep decline.

    Source link

  • International Archives Congress Feels Like the Olympics for Archivists – SJSU

    International Archives Congress Feels Like the Olympics for Archivists – SJSU

    Published: November 13, 2025
    by Kelly Famuliner

    Attending and presenting at the International Archives Congress
    in Barcelona, Spain––an event that feels like the Olympics for
    archivists!––was a transformative experience. I am incredibly
    honored to have had the opportunity to represent Team Ukraine and
    the SJSU iSchool, bringing awareness about the impactful
    partnership between the Ukrainian Library Association and library
    and information science professionals and scholars from around
    the U.S., united in solidarity towards the creation of a digital
    archives documenting the destruction of Ukrainian libraries
    during the ongoing war.

    The archives, Ukrainian Libraries During Wartime, will
    offer insight into how damage to libraries and the materials they
    hold transcend their physical nature to contribute to the loss of
    collective memory and cultural identity. Towards this end, in
    addition to providing access to the hundreds of images and
    descriptions of destruction we have received from the Ukrainian
    Library Association, the archives will contribute to cementing
    each library’s legacy within their communities; bearing witness
    to what was lost and the resilience of Ukrainian librarians as
    they continue to diligently serve their communities during
    wartime. In this way, it is our hope that the archives can
    contribute to the collective memory of the nation of Ukraine.

    Kelly Famuliner at the International Archives Conference

    In addition to presenting, I was afforded the incredible
    opportunity to attend numerous impactful sessions and workshops
    and meet archivists from around the world. From learning about
    archiving initiatives in Palestine, the application of
    decolonization principles within archival processes (from
    appraisal to exhibition), real world examples of archival
    repatriation, and recent developments regarding rules for
    describing photographic and audiovisual archives (as created by
    the Photographic and Audiovisual Expert Group of the
    International Council on Archives    ), I can honestly say that
    I left the Congress with an expanded view of the archival
    profession, as well as my future role as archivist.

    Opening Session at the International Archives Conference

    I would like to express my gratitude to the Ukrainian Library
    Association (ULA) for providing the U.S.-based team with the
    opportunity to partner with your vital organization and
    librarians across Ukraine on this impactful project; to Dr. Ulia
    Gossart (SJSU) for encouraging me to attend the ICA Congress (and
    for serving as my mentor!); to the ULA and Team Ukraine for
    trusting me to represent this project at the Congress, including
    Oksana Brui (Deputy Director General at Yaroslav Mudryi National
    Library of Ukraine and ULA President); Dr. Rhonda Clark (PennWest
    Clarion), Emily Brennen (Rocky Vista University), Claire Williams
    (SJSU), Rebecca Short (SJSU), and Sarah Schwartz (SJSU); and to
    the SJSU School of Information for their provision of a travel
    grant that enabled me to present at and attend the ICA Congress.

    For more information about the Ukrainian Libraries During
    Wartime archives project, please visit our website:
    https://ischoolblogs.sjsu.edu/community-engagement/ukrainian-libraries-in-wartime/

    Editor’s Note: The SJSU iSchool highly encourages students to
    attend professional conferences but also realizes that it can be
    cost prohibitive. Travel grants are
    available to eligible students to help lessen the financial
    burden and increase conference participation. iSchool student
    Kelly Famuliner​​​ received one of these travel
    grants.

    Source link

  • Trump Defends Enrolling International Students

    Trump Defends Enrolling International Students

    President Donald Trump stressed the value of international students in the U.S. during an interview aired on Fox News Monday.  

    Fox News host Laura Ingraham pressed Trump on why he wouldn’t curb international student enrollments, particularly from China. Trump told her doing so would “perhaps make people happy” but colleges and universities would “go out of business.”

    “You don’t want to cut half of the people, half of the students from all over the world that are coming into our country—destroy our entire university and college system—I don’t want to do that,” Trump said. He also claimed historically Black colleges and universities would “all be out of business.”

    “Look, I want to be able to get along with the world,” Trump added.

    Ingraham pushed back, raising concerns about Chinese spying and intellectual property theft. But Trump framed welcoming international students as an economic decision.

    “We take in trillions of dollars from students,” he said. “You know, the students pay more than double when they come in from most foreign countries. I want to see our school system thrive. And it’s not that I want them, but I view it as a business.”

    The annual Open Doors report from the Institute of International Education estimates the economic value of foreign students in the U.S. to be about $50 billion per year.

    In May, Secretary of State Marco Rubio threatened to “aggressively revoke” Chinese students’ visas and intensify vetting for Chinese visa applications. But Trump reversed course this summer and proposed the U.S. allow 600,000 Chinese students into the country, prompting backlash from some members of his base, the Associated Press reported.

    The move, and Trump’s reiterated support for it on Fox this week, seem to contradict other actions his administration has taken, such as revoking international students’ visas, arresting international students for First Amendment–protected protests and ramping up scrutiny of international student visa applicants. Some campuses have experienced steep declines in international student enrollments this semester.

    Source link