International Education Leaders Off the Record

Uncertainty related to visa approvals. Funding crises and budget cuts. A backlash against immigration largely driven by one political party. Declining public confidence in higher education. Rising costs that make it more difficult for international students to afford the basics and for domestic students to study abroad. And, above all, uncertainty about what the fall—and beyond—will bring.

You’d expect to hear these concerns from colleagues at any institution in the United States, but this list comes from an international education leader in Australia. It’s a reminder that the challenges the field faces—and the potential solutions—are global.

“Just as the problems transcend boundaries, many of the solutions lie in interpersonal and institutional collaboration,” the leader says.

To capture candid perspectives on the challenges facing the field, International Educator spoke with international education leaders from institutions across the United States and around the world. Their names are being withheld to ensure they could speak openly, something one international leader says is necessary now more than ever.

“What people say at the microphone in a panel session [during a conference] is often different from what they say at the bar,” says the leader. “We’re in vulnerable positions politically.”

Navigating a Period of “Polycrisis”

These conversations revealed a few areas of consensus. First, despite the impossible-to-ignore political climate, the challenges facing higher education writ large, and broader global trends that one leader dubbed a “polycrisis,” the impact on institutions to date has varied widely based on local context. A second and more concerning point of consensus is the universal anticipation of sharp drops in inbound students at both the graduate and undergraduate levels this fall.

“Most universities didn’t feel the decline as much last year,” one leader says. “But [they] definitely [will] this year.”

“We had seen growth from Africa, and now [many African students] can’t come,” another adds.

The unpredictability of visa policy changes, wait times, and other uncontrollable factors poses a challenge for offices whose projections have historically been based on “a bit of truth and a lot of hope,” as one leader puts it. But despite these stressors, things are “stable in an unstable way,” another leader says.

“There’s a lot we didn’t know was coming, and some things we knew were,” one leader says.

Day to day, leaders are spending more time on compliance-related issues, including translating news about changes in visa and immigration policy and visa approvals for institutional leaders. They are also closely watching overall enrollment figures and the impact on their offices.

“Money, Money, Money”: Financial Pressure and Hard Decisions

The so-called “enrollment cliff” has affected some institutions more than others, but additional shifts are also having an impact. For example, rising costs have contributed to increased in-state enrollment at some public institutions as domestic students opt to stay closer to home—a dynamic that has exacerbated certain budget pressures that were once ameliorated by out-of-state and international student enrollment.

Some institutions are focused on mitigating enrollment losses, while others are still focused on increasing enrollment and look to international recruitment as a key component of growth. In the current climate, institutions must be realistic about viable student flows, as well as what regions have the lowest visa approval rates.

At all institutions, these trends point to an overarching concern: “money, money, money,” as one leader puts it. And it’s not just enrollment: Research activities have also been imperiled, adding to budgetary pressures.

“All of the primary revenue [streams] into institutions are being harmed,” one leader says. “Institutions have to make difficult decisions with respect to resource allocation. They will try to invest in faculty and teaching, and staff positions are particularly vulnerable.”

Indeed, some of the leaders interviewed for this article had already experienced unfilled staff vacancies and curtailed programs. Some institutions have moved key functions of international offices to other departments following staff departures. “It’s saddening to see programs [being] dismantled because we don’t have the resources to continue to support everything,” one leader says, noting that some things once seen as “needs” in international offices are no longer viable given the funding challenges.

And while internationalization and global learning initiatives are enshrined in many institutions’ strategic plans, financial realities are leading to less emphasis on these areas at some institutions, one leader explains: “You see mixed messaging happening.”

Student Stressors

Leaders say that international students on their campuses are concerned about their ability to stay in the country through programs such as Optional Practical Training (OPT). The program currently remains in place, but policy experts expect the Trump administration to propose changes to OPT that would be detrimental to international student interests.

“There is a lot of fear,” one leader says. “I think our students are sensing that things are tougher and [they] are having a harder time getting employers to hire them. Who wants to hire a student who may not be able to work?”

This uncertainty is having an even greater effect on potential students, who are increasingly rethinking the return on investment and considering lower-cost options closer to home. “I had students last spring telling me their friends in India are questioning if they want to come to the States,” one leader says. “For a long time, they were willing to invest [in coming to the United States] because the return was the promise of employment.” This promise isn’t as likely to be fulfilled today, however.

Even so, the leader adds, “students still want to come.”

Demographic and attitudinal changes among domestic students are also challenging international leaders. The current generation—closely supervised by parents and having missed certain key life experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic—requires more support than most students from previous generations did, one leader argues.

For today’s students, the higher education experience can often be a “crash landing into adulthood,” the leader says. This shift has led to an emphasis on providing robust student support, both at an institutional level and during students’ time abroad. For many students, “study abroad is the first time [they have] to figure out something for themselves because it’s 3:00 a.m. at home,” the leader continues.

In states such as Texas and Florida, educational content restrictions related to diversity, equity, and inclusion also affect student experiences. In some cases, simple changes to names and descriptions of international programming have been sufficient to satisfy new regulations—as long as “you’re not putting a value proposition” on intercultural perspectives, says the leader of one provider that works with institutions across the country.

But when it comes to programs that explicitly focus on gender or other identity issues, institutions have had to make more difficult decisions.

“There are certain things that are intrinsic to international education, and no [amount of] shape-shifting can work around whatever the scrutiny of the day might be,” one leader says. “It’s a balance of remaining true to our values with the things in our control while minimizing the [negative] impact for as many students as possible.”

The View from Inside

Within international offices, continuing turnover in the years since the pandemic has created “a bit of a vacuum between the elder professionals and incoming ones,” one leader comments. “A lot of knowledge transfer has not happened, and it’s going to be very hard to manage the same standard of programming if we’re not careful.”

Even so, not all of the news is bad. Leaders speak of strong interest in study abroad, as well as continued faculty interest in global engagement and partnerships, driven in part by the need to seek new resources for research. The growth of transnational education initiatives has also helped mitigate barriers to travel. “If we can’t get students into the country, we can bring the content to them,” one leader says.

The fear, as one leader puts it, is that these overlapping challenges could make international education leaders more risk adverse, particularly as they try to preserve their programs and the global reputations of their institutions. And this fear of retrenchment is seen at all levels of higher education. “It has an impact on the overall planning of the university,” the leader says.

What’s Working

One leader coined a term to describe the dilemma facing international leaders: “defiance vs. compliance.” And the solution, they say, often involves both.

“The driving idea is how we remain flexible and support students,” the leader says. “We’re going keep [students] in compliance [and also] defy the spirit that they are not welcome here.”

Leaders offer several suggestions on how to accomplish these goals:

Support students in practical ways.

Some institutions are reacting to delays in visa processing by offering more flexible late-arrival policies, creating quarterly start dates, or allowing students to attend virtual classes until they can arrive on campus. Others are holding webinars and increasing one-to-one advising with prospective students about topics such as social media vetting. “My message to students is that we as an institution are still very much committed to supporting your journey,” one leader says.

Given students’ fears of being unable to work, one leader makes a point of asking counterparts throughout their institution to hire international students, particularly those who need jobs to stay in compliance. “It’s not ideal, but there’s a sense of support there,” the leader says.

Tighten alignment with institutional plans.

Internationalization plans must align much more closely with strategic initiatives, and in ways that are more practical and visible—a theme reiterated in many interviews with senior international office leaders.

“[Independently] creating an internationalization plan you sell to institutional leadership and [trying] to get resources to advance those goals? This is not the day for that approach. There are no resources or appetite to drive additional priorities,” one leader says. “We are all part of a broader institution, and at the end of the day, we have to advance the institution’s priorities.”

For example, given the sectorwide focus on career readiness and public skepticism about the value of higher education, more international programs are centered on professional development such as internships and job-shadowing opportunities. “We can’t just focus on where students want to go or what [classes] they want to take,” one leader says. “Students aren’t interested in extending their time to graduation or may not have that margin of error. We have to help people figure out who they are and what they want to become in a more expedient way than what we used to provide.”

Develop independent revenue streams.

Given volatile enrollments and dwindling institutional budgets, some leaders are pushing for more entrepreneurial activities, such as supporting language instruction for employers within their communities. Others are instituting fees that directly support international office budgets.

Rebuild lasting campus alliances.

One second-order effect—or, arguably, one cause—of higher education’s crises is ever-shorter presidential tenures. That means institutional leaders must build alliances horizontally as well as vertically, with the long term in mind.

“Your sticky relationships with faculty, department heads, deans, and vice presidents matter as much—and maybe even more—than your relationship with the president and provost,” one leader says. “If you’re [in] a senior leadership role in an international office, [you should] spend 50 to 80 percent of [your] time building relationships beyond your own org chart. You have to invest a lot of time and space.”

Support existing staff—and hire in new ways.

Recognize that international office staff “are scared and frustrated and anxious about the state of the world…what their career looks like, and whether they feel safe,” one leader says, stressing the importance of speaking honestly, clearly, and candidly. “There are no easy answers; there will be disruption.”

Meanwhile, turnover in the field requires rethinking hiring criteria. “Do you need lived study abroad experience to do these jobs?” one leader says. “We need to be less precious about things we used to be precious about.”

Build visibility.

Ensure that institutional leaders see the impact of the office’s work beyond enrollment. “Don’t minimize the impact of [your work] on students and staff,” one leader says. “We are more than our fall enrollment numbers as a field, and if we’re not telling the story of other things we’re doing to advance our institutional priorities? Shame on us.”

For example, some institutions are working to expand partnerships and engagement in areas identified by institutions or policymakers as key workforce needs, such as education and health care. International offices have a role to play in these efforts, but the challenge will be to make the case for the areas or programs of study not perceived as workforce priorities, one leader cautions.

Collaborate with peers.

One leader holds regular meetings with counterparts at institutions of all types across their state—public, private, and two- and four-year institutions. “It’s been a really amazing place to share ideas so that we are ahead of these things coming at us,” the leader notes.

Even in the absence of these structures, seek informal conversations with peers. One leader suggests finding someone you can have coffee with on a weekly basis to discuss areas of overlap and strategies that are working for other institutions.

Developing a ‘Lens of Change’

Given the ongoing waves of crisis and change, international leaders should anticipate continued volatility. “Operate from a lens of change,” one leader recommends.

Pointing to past crises—which have dominated international education since the field’s inception—many leaders invoked a common refrain: “This, too, shall pass.”

“This is not the end of higher education or international student enrollment or campus internationalization,” one leader says. “You show up, do your work, and support the students in front of you as best you can.”

“We need to ask who we want to be,” one leader adds. “We can uplift our spirits a bit by remembering what we can make this field.” •