September/October 2025
By Debra W. Stewart and Tiffany Waits
Research consistently demonstrates the contribution of international students to the U.S. research enterprise. These students enhance research productivity at U.S. universities and disproportionately contribute to driving innovation, filling gaps in specific STEM fields that simply cannot be met by the available supply of domestic U.S. students. This is particularly evident in fields like computer science and engineering, where international talent has become essential for the United States to maintain a competitive edge.
In a recent presentation at a National Academies workshop, economist Michael Clemens described the risk of current efforts to constrain international participation in stark terms (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2025). His research shows that high-skilled immigrants accounted for 30–50 percent of aggregate productivity growth in the United States from 1990 to 2010. The numbers are noteworthy: a one-third reduction in foreign STEM graduates could result in a loss of $22–$43.9 billion annually in U.S. GDP growth. Data affiliated with the NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool (NAFSA 2025) similarly predicts a potential loss of $7 billion and 60,000 jobs that could result from restrictive policies.
While macroeconomic analysis effectively highlights the impact labor force composition has on productivity, innovation, and growth, behind these broader economic trends are real stories of students navigating the STEM graduate education experience. The human side of this economic picture emerges when students describe their career choices themselves, and part of why we see this disproportionate impact from international students lies in how they view their careers in STEM.
Human Dimensions of Career Navigation
A recent NORC at the University of Chicago study of career pathways of 2,097 PhD STEM students at three research universities located in the southeast region of the United States illuminates this human dimension. (These data were collected as part of a National Science Foundation project [Neumeister et al. 2022–24]). While the research project was primarily oriented toward understanding the career navigation of U.S. domestic graduate students, international students were included in the sample. This inclusion gave voice to the macroeconomic findings and shed light on how a highly talented cohort of international students view and identify with their STEM careers.
For purposes of exploring the career navigation of international students, our analysis focuses specifically on doctoral students in the engineering and computer science fields, both because international involvement in those fields is high at research universities across the country and results directly relate to the productivity claims suggested in the macroeconomic analysis. Five findings particularly stand out when contrasting career perspectives of international students versus domestic students that illuminate the disproportionate participation of international students in the STEM research and innovation workforce. All differences were deemed statistically significant.
First, international students show significantly greater attraction to research faculty positions.
When doctoral students in engineering and computer science were asked about job attractiveness at the time they began their PhD programs, research-intensive faculty positions were viewed as very attractive by 45 percent of international students but only 28 percent of domestic students. As time progressed from the period of initial enrollment, career interest in research-intensive faculty positions diminished for both groups, yet it remained significantly higher for international respondents, with 26 percent indicating those roles were very attractive compared to just 12 percent of domestic students. Filling the ranks of faculty in research-intensive institutions is critical, as these institutions conduct much of the basic and applied research in STEM fields; this disproportionate interest of international students in accepting the challenges of those jobs represents a fundamental piece of U.S. higher education’s research infrastructure.
Second, notable differences emerged in the types of employers these students found attractive at the time of starting their PhDs.
A higher proportion of international students found college or university employers to be very attractive compared with their domestic counterparts (42 percent versus 33 percent), established for-profit businesses or firms as being very attractive (48 percent versus 38 percent), and start-up businesses or firms to be very attractive (23 percent versus 16 percent). These findings are consistent with results from a working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (Roach, Sauermann, and Skrentny 2019) which found that compared with their domestic peers, international STEM PhD students showed characteristics associated with entrepreneurial aspirations, including greater risk tolerance, a stronger preference for working autonomously, and more interest in commercialization activities. The authors reference prior studies that suggest international students may face barriers to other types of employment, including discrimination (Oreopoulos 2011, as cited in Roach, Sauermann, and Skrentny 2019) or language requirements (Hunt 2011, as cited in Roach, Sauermann, and Skrentny 2019).
Together, these factors help explain why international students may be more drawn to positions in academic institutions, established firms, and start-ups. These results do not suggest that domestic students are less ambitious than international students when it comes to interest in these three domains, they instead highlight how the two populations navigate career pathways based on a complex combination of characteristics, opportunities, and challenges. In all three domains, these international students are positioned to make significant contributions to the macro trends previously discussed.
Third, field identity—how individuals see themselves in relationship to their field—serves as an important measure of "stickiness" and likelihood to sustain interest and engagement over time (Stets et al. 2017; Kim and Sinatra 2018).
In our sample of students from the NORC study, 51 percent of international students reported that "being a researcher or expert in my academic field is an important part of my self-image" was a very true statement, compared with 28 percent of domestic students. Similarly, 69 percent of international students reported that "striving to be a better researcher or expert in my field of study" was very true for them, compared with 60 percent of domestic students. Additionally, 67 percent of international students valued recognition from established experts in their field, compared with 58 percent of domestic students. Strong field identity is a key indicator of students’ likelihood to persist in STEM and pursue career advancement, leading to international students contributing to their field as a part of the U.S. research workforce, including job creation (American Association of Universities & Business Roundtable 2022), and playing a pivotal role in maintaining U.S. global leadership in science and research (Wu et al. 2022).
Fourth, career conviction—another measure suggesting likelihood of staying in a STEM field—showed international students with a somewhat higher commitment.
Forty-seven percent of international engineering and computer science students strongly agreed with the statement, "I am strongly committed to working in a career that is highly related to my PhD program," compared to 34 percent of domestic students.
And fifth, motivation plays a vital role in career pathway navigation.
Among motivations that were extremely important to international students compared with their domestic counterparts, two stood out significantly. Fifty-two percent of international students versus 41 percent of domestic students reported that "improving my prospects for career advancement" was extremely important. Similarly, 47 percent of international students versus 30 percent of domestic students found "demonstrating my expertise and abilities in my field" to be extremely important. Recognizing the limitations of our study sample, these findings offer directionally meaningful insight.
Finally, we note two caveats. First, the conclusion that international students appear more focused on research-intensive careers does not dismiss or denigrate the career aspirations of U.S. students. U.S. domestic students have more options to pursue a wider range of careers outside of science and are often less financially and legally constrained than international students. Perhaps most significantly, they are also not bound by the same limitations imposed by Optional Practical Training requirements and other federal regulations on postgraduation work options.
Second, we recognize that the perspectives of a sample of international computer science and engineering students is not determinative. But it does provide possible insight into the disproportionate role played by international talent in the U.S. STEM workforce. The career orientation of international STEM students may be a key factor contributing to their greater likelihood of remaining within STEM fields as well as working in university, corporate, or start-up environments to produce new knowledge, technology, and innovations necessary to drive the United States forward.
Conclusion
In the current debate about the fate of international students, policymakers must consider both the macroeconomic data and this human perspective. Early findings on career aspirations of international students in one critical STEM field provide clear evidence: international students bring talent and commitment to their work. They demonstrate stronger field identity, greater career conviction, and more sustained interest in research-intensive positions that drive U.S. innovation.
As the United States faces mounting global competition in science and technology, restricting international student participation could hinder U.S. competitiveness with its global peers. Decline in enrollment will have ripple effects across the STEM talent pipeline in the United States and may possibly slow innovation and negatively impact the economic contributions international students make.
References
American Association of Universities and Business Roundtable. 2022. International Students and American Competitiveness. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Universities and Business Roundtable. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Immigration/International%20Students%20%26%20American%20Competitiveness%20.%20AAU%20BRT%20Report%20.%20October%202022.pdf.
Kim, Angela Y., and Gale M. Sinatra. 2018. "Science Identity Development: An Interactionist Approach." International Journal of STEM Education 5: 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0149-9.
NAFSA: Association of International Educators. 2025. NAFSA International Student Economic Value Tool. Washington, D.C.: NAFSA. https://www.nafsa.org/policy-and-advocacy/policy-resources/nafsa-international-student-economic-value-tool-v2.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Reimagining STEMM Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Career Development: A Summit. Washington, D.C.: National Academies. https://events.nationalacademies.org/44967_07-2025_reimagining-stemm-graduate-education-and-postdoctoral-career-development-a-summit.
Neumeister, James R., Debra Stewart, Lisa Davidson, and Erin Knepler. 2022–24. National Science Foundation (NSF) project, DGE #2226007, “Studying STEM PhD Students’ Career Trajectories Using Culturally Responsive Measures and Methods.” https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2226007.
Roach, Michael, Henry Sauermann, and John Skrentny. 2019. Are Foreign STEM PhDs More Entrepreneurial? Entrepreneurial Characteristics, Preferences and Employment Outcomes of Native and Foreign Science & Engineering PhD Students. NBER Working Paper No. 26225. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w26225.
Stets, Jan E., Philip S. Brenner, Peter J. Burke, and Richard T. Serpe. 2017. "The Science Identity and Entering a Science Occupation." Social Science Research 61: 1–16. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/06m4c1w9.
Wu, Jamie, Jacob Boyd, Issam Eddine Abail, Ariel Higuchi, and Amritha Jayanti. 2022. International Students & Scholars in STEM in the U.S. Boston Tech Hub Faculty Working Group Report Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Kennedy School Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/2024-10/STEM%20in%20the%20US.pdf.
Debra W. Stewart, PhD, a senior fellow at NORC at the University of Chicago and president emerita of the Council of Graduate Schools, has written on a wide array of higher education issues and lectures on higher education, research, and global competitiveness at major universities and education organizations around the world. Throughout her career as a researcher and administrator, Stewart has championed the integration and transfer of knowledge within graduate education systems globally, advancing evidence-based approaches to doctoral training and institutional capacity building.
Tiffany Waits, PhD, is a senior research director at NORC at the University of Chicago with more than 25 years of experience in survey and qualitative research. She leads large-scale, multimodal surveys, focus groups, and cognitive interviews in the education field, gathering data from stakeholders such as state education agencies, school districts, administrators, teachers, parents, and students, with a focus on improving data quality and minimizing errors throughout all phases of research.