The story this summer

August is a particularly important month in the application cycle because it represents such a large share of all applications lodged throughout the year – at least a quarter of the total. More broadly, the summer months plus September comprise about 70% of all applications. This year, applications fell by -17% in August and by -18% across June, July, and August.

These declines are even worse than last summer, when the Dependants Ban deterred many “main” (i.e., student) applicants because they could no longer bring their families. About 99,500 main applicants applied in August 2026 – 20,800 fewer than in August 2025, and the lowest count since tracking began in 2022. The following chart, created by Spencer Withrington for a recent article in his market intelligence newsletter, , shows that the downward trend has characterised all months of 2026 so far.

The Dependants Ban continues its work

The Dependants Ban means that the Home Office will only process applications from a family member of a student if that student is in a research master’s or PhD programme. This has resulted in a cumulative drop of -88% in dependant applications between December 2023 (the last month before the rule took effect) and August 2026. Dependants can only apply when their submission is attached to that of the student they hope to accompany, which means that the fall in dependants’ applications is also a factor in lower applications from students themselves.

Visa refusals will further influence enrolments

Looking for a moment at spring 2026 trends, 31,222 sponsored study visas were granted in Q2 2026, a -43% drop in issuances compared with Q2 2025. While fewer applications were most of that story, a high visa refusal rate of about 8% in that quarter was also influential. Visa rejection rates are variable through the year, and the rate in the second half may prove to be lower than the first half. Still, Q2 trends alone remind us that of the low number of applications received the summer months of 2026 (181,500), several thousand will likely be refused.

Q2 2026 visa data show that refusal rates were especially high for key sending markets including India, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Ghana, and that visa grants were very low for India, Nepal, Nigeria (down by least -50% compared with Q2 2025) and especially Pakistan (-90%).

Contributing factors

In 2025, it was primarily the Dependants Ban that depressed sponsored study visa applications. This factor is still in play, but it is now joined by a host of other ones.

One of these is the UK’s Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) framework and its accompanying Red-Amber-Green (RAG) banding system. As of 1 June 2026, the RAG system obliges UK institutions to maintain a visa refusal rate of less than 5%. Universities whose refusal rates reach above that benchmark can be subject to sanctions or even to the suspension of their license to sponsor international students. This is causing many institutions to apply much greater scrutiny to student applicants. Some are taking it a step further and limiting or pausing recruitment in markets where visa rejections are high.

Pakistan is a good example of the combined effect of high visa refusal rates and the RAG system on applications. Pakistani students don’t want a rejection on their record, and they know they are increasingly likely to receive one if they apply. They are also seeing some UK universities lose confidence in recruiting in their country due to the RAG system. At the same time, Pakistani students are aware of a growing list of compelling alternative destinations.

The spike in withdrawals

Again, we can use Pakistan to illustrate another trend that will affect enrolments in UK universities in 2026 and 2027. As a sending market, Pakistan held up remarkably well after the Dependants Ban, with +13% more Pakistani main applications in 2024 despite an -85% drop in Pakistani dependant applications. But now that Pakistan is more affected by the RAG, visa decision delays, and high rejection rates than many other sending markets, the patience of the market is being tested. In late-2025, only a few hundred Pakistani students withdrew their sponsored study visa applications. In Q1 2026, nearly 3,000 did.

Pakistan is the most striking example of a rising withdrawal rate, but it is not the only one. In Q4 2025, the total number of withdrawals (from all sending markets) was under 2,000. In Q1 2026, withdrawals more than tripled to about 7,000.

Things to think about

In the conclusion to Admit’s Issue 021 newsletter, Mr Withrington leaves university leaders with a few questions they might ask themselves about two key markets as a result of low applications and more visa rejections in the first three quarters of 2026:

• “Do you know your own refusal count for Nigeria for the September 2026 intake? Enroly’s rate is 12% and the Home Office’s for April to June was 25%. If yours is anywhere near either, ask whether one market is enough on its own to carry you over the 5% line.

• What happens to your recruitment plan if Chinese demand falls by a fifth, the fall the Home Office table shows for the summer as a whole? On Day 28 China supplied more than all of the sector’s growth in undergraduate international acceptances.”

In June 2026, Professor Malcolm Press, president of Universities UK, was quoted in a government release announcing the RAG system. Mr Press said the sector committed to partnering with the government on integrity concerns, but he warned:

“What universities need from government is policy stability, transparent visa decision-making, and real-time data to act on emerging concerns. The sector relies on international student income, and recent sharp declines have led to substantial cost-cutting and job losses. It is essential that we build a fair, stable, and transparent system that works in the national interest …. International students bring significant economic and soft power benefits, contributing £37 billion in export earnings.”

For additional background, please see:

• “UK: Visa application withdrawals surpass refusals in Q1 2026”
• “UK: Sponsored study visa issuances down, rejection rates up, and more”
• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment”

The post UK: August’s sponsored study visa applications drop to lowest level since 2022 appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The final rule replacing the Duration of Status mechanism was meant to come into effect on 15 September. However, on 14 September US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV issued an injunction which grants “” in the lawsuit. In other words, the rule is blocked from coming into effect and the existing Duration of Status framework remains in place.

“The court’s nationwide preliminary relief is an important step toward preserving a fair and predictable system for international students and scholars and the institutions that welcome them,” said NAFSA CEO Dr Fanta Aw. “International educators already work diligently with the federal government to ensure compliance with U.S. immigration law. At a time when countries around the world are competing for talent, the United States should be strengthening our ability to attract the best and brightest, not creating new barriers to it.”

Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Education CEO Miriam Feldblum added for the plaintiffs: “We welcome the court’s decision to grant nationwide preliminary relief and block the rule from taking effect. Today’s decision recognises the serious and irreparable harm this rule would cause to international students and scholars, higher education institutions, and communities across the country, as well as to the US economy, research and innovation. We greatly appreciate the court’s clear and careful consideration. While the case continues, this relief preserves the longstanding system that enables our colleges and universities — and our country — to attract, educate, and retain global talent.”

What did the judge decide?

Judge Saylor’s provides some important insights into the court’s thinking and to the legal questions at issue.

“The current system – like any government regulatory framework – is not without its problems. Rather than attempt to improve that system, DHS elected to replace it with a new program that will substantially restrict the overall number of foreign students, researchers, professors, and journalists in the United States.”

“The holder of an F or J visa who requires more than four years to complete his or her studies or work – such as, for example, nearly all students in Ph.D. programs – will need to submit an extension-of-stay request to DHS, using a Form I-539. The rule contains limited guidance, at best, for the exercise of discretion by DHS in considering such a request. The government has provided no indication as to how the immigration system will be expanded, or funded, to accommodate a large influx of such requests. Worse yet, any decision by DHS to deny a request for an extension is entirely discretionary and unappealable, even within DHS itself. In other words, a DHS official – based on limited and vague criteria, and with no possibility of appeal – will have the power to cut short the academic, research, or teaching activities of any non-US citizen for no reason or any reason…That introduces, at a minimum, a high degree of uncertainty into the educational process, which will have an obvious deterrent effect on student enrolment.”

Judge Saylor’s assessment of the likely impact of the rule was equally blunt: “The damage to the higher education system and to the economy of the United States is likely to be catastrophic…In fact, the anticipated harms have begun to materialize, even though the new rule has not yet taken effect. Multiple commenters noted that large numbers of international students have already disenrolled from American university programmes or declined to apply at all. Notwithstanding the scale of the likely harm, the government’s proffered rationales for the rule are exceptionally weak, and the connection between the rule and the problems it purports to address is exceptionally attenuated.”

“The government’s contention that the rule is necessary to safeguard national security borders on the absurd. It is based almost entirely on a small handful of anecdotes, each of which involved incidents that the new rule would do nothing to prevent or even mitigate.”

However, the Judge was also careful to say that the court must assess the legal challenge only on the basis of whether or not the government adhere to the law in establishing the new rule.

“In any event – and to be absolutely clear – this Court does not have the power to block the rule on the ground that it is misguided or ill-advised; that the government’s candor in promulgating the rule is questionable; or that the rule may inflict substantial and long-term damage upon the United States and its educational institutions…The only authority that the Court possesses is to ensure that when the government promulgates a new regulation, it adheres to the law.”

“In this case, the relevant law is the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 705. That statute permits courts to set aside agency actions that are arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.”

And here we arrive at the most important part of the ruling: “The promulgation of the rule clearly failed to comply with the APA in multiple respects,” Judge Saylor determines. “Plaintiffs are therefore likely to succeed on the merits of their claims; immediate irreparable harm will ensue if an injunction does not issue; and the balance of equities and public interest favor the issuance of an injunction. Accordingly, the Final Rule will be postponed pending final resolution of this matter on the merits.”

What’s next?

Leading immigration law firm Fragomen advises: “As a result of the preliminary injunction, for now, DHS is barred from implementing the fixed admission final rule until further court order. However, the agency is likely to appeal the court decision in short order; employers and foreign nationals should be prepared for the possibility of a reversal of the order and perhaps quick implementation of the regulation with little or no notice.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US coalition files lawsuit to challenge rule ending Duration of Status admissions for international students“
• “Updated: US Department of Homeland Security publishes rule to end Duration of Status for international students“

The post US court grants preliminary injunction to block rule that would have ended Duration of Status admissions for international students appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The research found that the government’s investment in foreign students – e.g., supporting them through health services, social security, and financial grants – is less than what students who remain in the country after graduating contribute to the economy.

About 20% of graduates from the European Economic Area (aka the EEA, which is the EU plus Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein) stay for at least some time in the Netherlands. This rises to around 40% of non-EEA students. The overall stay rate is approximately 25% more than 10 years ago.

Non-European students contribute more revenue

The benefits of EEA versus non-EEA students are different. EEA students pay the same tuition as Dutch students – €2,694 in 2026 – and can apply for student finance under certain conditions. Therefore, the costs of hosting them during their studies is higher than for non-EEA students. By contrast, non-EEA students pay full fare and cannot access financing, which means they contribute more revenue to universities while they study.

Even after graduating, non-EEA students who remain to work are more than twice as valuable to the Dutch economy than students from Europe. Over their lifetime in the Netherlands, non-EEA students contribute €243,000 compared with €82,500 for European students.

But what about housing?

CBP found that: “More international students do add to housing pressure in the short term. But over time, the effect is limited, because the market adjusts – and how far it does depends on housing policy, not student numbers.”

The housing situation for students in the Netherlands is so dire that some domestic students give up and either resign themselves to hours-long commutes from their family home or abandon applying to their preferred university because it is too far. As reported in the , “some universities, including the University of Amsterdam and Utrecht University, now officially advise incoming international students to reject their academic admission offers and stay home if they have not secured a verified housing contract prior to the start of the semester.”

A recent survey completed by social policy thinktank of 700 international students found that almost one-third reported searching for more than three months before securing accommodation. That research, and significant media coverage, finds that some students never secure suitable housing, leaving them vulnerable to homelessness and thievery.

Hanna Smit, a housing consultant at Dutch tenant rights firm Stichting WOON, advocates for significant investment in student housing on campuses, explaining that “because student campus projects are specifically zoned, they do not compete for land or resources with regular, high-priority residential housing developments.” This recommendation should be broadly interesting to governments in other major study abroad destinations, where public concern about housing often leads to negative perceptions of immigration levels and/or international students.

Despite the housing crisis, over 80% of international student respondents to the ResearchNed survey said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their experience in Dutch higher education.

A self-imposed cap

Just before the CPB released its research findings on the tangible benefits of international students, 13 Dutch universities signed an agreement on 15 July 2026 with the government to self-regulate their foreign enrolment volumes. The universities have committed to admitting fewer than 17,000 foreign students every year. This volume represents an 11% decrease over allowed enrolments in 2022 and 2023.

Dutch universities’ English-language programmes are a major draw for international students. According to the agreement, the 13 universities will not develop any more of these programmes in the short ter unless they are tied to labour shortages in sectors including STEM, healthcare, and technology. Also exempted are programmes developed within the European Universities framework, which is based on deep institutional cooperation across EU nations.

Some industry experts have criticised the deal, pointing to “random [international enrolment] targets” that fail to consider the sharp contraction of the Dutch working-age population and economic labour shortages. Max van Duijn, chair of the Young Academy of the Netherlands (De Jonge Akademie), told :

“Internationalisation should not be viewed as a problem to be tackled, given that it is a precondition for a well-functioning academic system and for an innovative country with an open economy.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Netherlands reports first-ever decrease in foreign enrolment for 2025/26“
• “Dutch government walks back controversial measures to constrain English-taught degrees“

The post Netherlands: Government-commissioned research finds that international students contribute much more than the public cost of hosting them appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

On 8 September 2026, the Ministry of Education announced a suite of measures that will (1) affect the way universities and agents recruit students and (2) set a higher bar for the experience international students have while in South Korea, both in their studies and in terms of post-graduation outcomes.

In another sign that the South Korean sector is maturing, the ministry plans to increase its support – including scholarships – for the attraction of top students, especially those in STEM and/or choosing programmes linked to regional economic needs and skills gaps.

In an official press release, Education Minister Choi Kyo-jin said: “Surpassing 300,000 international students means Korea is being recognised as a competitive country for global talent. We will focus on attracting and nurturing talented students and support them so they can contribute to our society and communities around the world based on their studies and experiences in Korea.”

Agent and university obligations

In October, universities and recruitment agencies will receive ministerial direction about acceptable codes of conduct in recruiting and hosting students. This will come in the form of a contract both parties need to sign and abide by. Later in the year, the ministry will amend its Higher Education Act to make key provisions in the agreement mandatory and to allow the ministry to issue corrective orders for non-compliance.

Many of the stipulations are basic best practices, as outlined in and comparable practice codes, such as:

• Providing accurate information to students about academic programmes, in-study work rights, and post-study opportunities;
• Avoiding misleading or exaggerated advertising;
• Informing students about tuition refund processes and amounts;
• Refunding the tuition paid by students whose visa is denied.

Agents will also be compelled to provide any information that universities request from them, and universities will need to step up their monitoring of agents’ recruitment practices.

A stricter accreditation process

IEQAS is South Korea’s quality assurance programme that evaluates how well local universities recruit and manage international students. As of March 2026, universities have been required to operate according to new EQAS standards around illegal stay rates, Korean language proficiency, and dropout rates. These new benchmarks are included in what is known as the 4th cycle of IEQAS. If a university makes it into the “Excellent Certified Universities” tier, they are rewarded with streamlined visa processing, top visibility on the official Study in Korea portal, and a government press release profiling the institution as a success story. In addition, “excellent” universities receive priority and preferential quota allocations when selecting recipients for the government’s Global Korea Scholarship (GKS).

The next tier is “General Certified Universities,” which comes with somewhat simplified visa process. If a university fails to be certified, it faces visa restrictions and limits on the recruitment of international students.

The 4th IEQAS cycle will end in 2028 and be replaced with the 5th cycle in 2029, which will come with stricter standards. At present, universities only have to meet one mandatory indicator of proper conduct concerning recruiting and student experience, and then select six other indicators. But in the 5th cycle (2029–2032), key indicators will become mandatory and not up to the universities to choose. Korean and English language proficiency thresholds will move from 40% to 60% by 2030. Institutions that are in financial hardship or performing poorly on mandatory indicators will lose visa issuance rights. This would effectively bar them from recruiting more international students.

Market correction

The background for the government’s tightening of compliance requirements is growing evidence that international students are not always receiving the experience, support, and opportunities they deserve in South Korea. For example:

• Korean media that in the past year, some junior colleges have delayed tuition refunds of up to 1 billion won or (US $745,000) due to financial hardship. One college admitted that it had used around half of the money owed to students for operating expenses amid financial difficulties.

• Insufficient Korean language proficiency has been determined to be an obstacle to international student success, retention, and graduate outcomes. Rezia Usman, regional director of the office of international affairs at Woosong University, said to Korea JoongAng Daily: “Korea has already proven that it is good at attracting international students. The challenge now is making sure those students feel they are truly learning the [local] language and culture while universities also help them build their careers in Korea.”

• Some universities have been admitting students with poor chances of success. “The issue is structural,” explained a report in Korea JoongAng Daily. “Admission decisions are largely left to institutional discretion, and universities face no direct penalties for enrolling students who do not meet the ministry’s guidelines.”

• Agent use is quite common, with 18% of 8,300 surveyed international students agreeing that agency recommendations were a major factor in their choice of university. Regulations and better scrutiny of agents will improve the quality of advice and support that students receive for them, and increase the chances that students are screened properly so only those with a high chance of success are admitted.

For additional background, please see:

• “After years of growth, Korea faces the challenge of better integrating and retaining international students”
• “South Korea hits its 300,000 student target two years ahead of schedule“

The post Korean government introduces new quality controls for universities and agents appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The Studymove analysis – including a forecast for the rest of this year and into 2027 – is based on commencement data from the first six months of 2026 as well as current student visa trends.

Flat or negative growth for higher education

For four consecutive years, there has been no growth in number of new international students in higher education in Australia, and this year the projection is for a -4% decline in commencements.

“It has been four years of basically no growth in commencements,” said Mr Ramirez. “Although we don’t have a cap system technically, obviously the policy framework has been constraining growth. And effectively, we’re actually having a ceiling on the number of commencements of about 210,000 [students per year]. I think this clearly shows that the cake is not growing. In order to grow your piece of the cake, what institutions are probably having to do is just to get market share from competitors.”

Robust onshore progression but declining flows from overseas

Mr Ramirez points out that policy settings are also shaping offshore and onshore enrolment trends. Faced with a AU$2,500 visa application fee and higher visa requirements in general, fewer students are applying from their home countries (about -10%). In contrast, the number of foreign students progressing from one institution or level of study to the next within Australia rose about +9%. Students are making the most of their time and education in Australia by securing more than one visa – but this does not translate into more new international students.

The impact on universities is growing

Onshore flows of students are increasingly determined by price: many students are choosing to progress to private education providers (where annual tuition is about AU$24,000) rather than universities (where students can pay more than AU$40,000).

And while universities received more NOSC allocations in 2026 than in 2025, most did not reach their quota. In fact, only five universities reached 80% of their NOSC allowance. Mr Ramirez points out that government policies are depressing overseas demand, so NOSC allowances are a weak predictor of new enrolments.

Visa rejection rates are high but not for all source markets

Driven by a significant spike in month-by-month rejections from January 2026 on, Australian immigration officials rejected about 21,000 higher education student visa applications from offshore applicants in the first six months of 2026. Refusals during this period were mainly concentrated in three key markets: India, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Should the rejection rates remain high, Mr Ramirez says international commencements could drop off by an additional -8% by the end of the year.

Recommendations for recruitment

With a smaller flow of incoming international students, Australian institutions must distinguish their offer not just from competitors in leading destinations, but also from each other. Market stabilisation means that growth will stem from gains in market share rather than in increasing the volume of new students.

Mr Ramirez advises universities to take a conservative and careful approach to revenue forecasting – fewer international students naturally reduces the tuition line, especially since most institutions are not benefitting from a significant uptick in domestic enrolments to mitigate the trend.

The policy environment is such that Mr Ramirez says that recruitment strategies should be laser-focused and based on a more nuanced understanding of diversification: reducing overreliance on established sources of students – but not by flinging a wide net across the globe hoping that it lands somewhere promising. Market characteristics of countries in emerging regions are unique and dynamic, and policy instruments affect demand differently not just at the regional level, but at the country level. A great deal of research is called for to determine whether a new market makes sense to invest time and money in.

Developing growth markets where institutions have developed brand image and strong relationships is a strategy made for these unpredictable times. Recruitment results will increasingly be determined by those relationships as they allow for more precise student targeting and understanding of outbound drivers.

“This sector has very, very strong roots,” concludes Mr Ramirez. “And those roots are actually based on people-to-people relations. For many, many years, this sector has been building relationships based on trust, based on understanding the needs of students, and at looking what is the best for students…we are not a commodity sector; we are a people sector.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Australia poised to further restrict immigration in bid to drive down net migration figures”
• “Australia: As visa applications from foreign students fall, the government has set the national target for new international students in 2027”
• “Australia: Multiple data indicators signal further declines ahead for international student numbers”

The post Australia: Decline in international higher education commencements projected for 2026 appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

QS describes “a gradual reshaping of Indian student mobility by 2030” where the Big Four destinations remain central but with very different positions on the leaderboard. The UK is projected to overtake Canada and the US as the top destination for Indian students. Otherwise, key destinations in the EU are projected to see the fastest growth in Indian enrolments over the rest of this decade – albeit from a smaller base.

Further: “With transnational education and international branch campuses set to expand and mature in India, we could see further mobility changes,” cautions the report. “By 2030, significant volumes of Indian students may study at the branch campuses of international institutions, rather than travelling overseas.”

The overall picture is one of a broadening and more balanced distribution of Indian students, both within the Big Four and otherwise. While Canada and the US are both projected to see their Indian enrolments decrease through 2030, they continue host significant numbers. Germany is projected to see the largest gains with a forecast to nearly double its Indian enrolment, at which point it will have surpassed Australia as the fourth-largest host of Indian students.

“Demand from Indian students looking to study in the ‘Big Four’ is expected to remain substantial,” says QS. “But students’ choices are likely to be shaped by affordability, visa policy, post-study work opportunities and perceptions of long-term value.”

We recently highlighted the continuing strong growth of India’s middle class, and in particular its expansion outside of the major cities of Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru, Chennai, and Hyderabad as people move to smaller cities to escape high costs of living.

We noted as well that India’s middle-class families are cautious, careful, and looking for value for money. Where the affluent class is able to make decisions based on rankings and other markers of prestige, the middle class is more interested in institutions in destinations with welcoming policies, lower tuition and living costs, and strong post-graduate outcomes.

These are some of the same drivers that we see reflected in the QS analysis which concludes that, “Institutions in established destinations will need to work harder to defend their position, while universities in fast-growing markets have an opportunity to build visibility with Indian students looking for credible alternatives.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Changing landscape for student recruitment in India calls for new strategies“
• “The questions families are actually asking: Inside the student advising conversation in 2026“
• “What is happening to student mobility flows between the Global South and Global North?“

The post The outlook for Indian student mobility through 2030 appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

This naturally leads to another important aspect of the student experience: well-being and pastoral care. When we talk about student well-being in higher education, the conversation often focuses on mental health and access to counselling or other specialist services. These are undoubtedly important, but well-being is much broader. It encompasses a student’s sense of belonging, safety, confidence and connection, as well as the practical, academic, financial, cultural and personal circumstances that can affect their ability to study and thrive.

For TNE students, these considerations can become even more complex. This is something I have seen repeatedly through my own work with TNE programmes and through conversations with students, academics and professional services colleagues across different international contexts. The specific challenges vary considerably, but there are some recurring themes: uncertainty about where to turn for help, differences in expectations around support, cultural barriers to asking for assistance and, sometimes, simply not knowing who is responsible for what.

Well-being starts before the student enters the classroom

For students studying for a foreign qualification outside their home country, the challenges may begin long before they arrive at their institution. Immigration and visa requirements, healthcare arrangements, accommodation, financial pressures, employment restrictions and understanding local legal and administrative systems can all create uncertainty. For students and their families, navigating these unfamiliar systems can be stressful, particularly when they do not know where to find reliable information or who is responsible for helping them.

This is an important distinction in TNE. A student studying for an international qualification in their home country may have many of these practical support networks around them already. A student studying in a third country may have far fewer. For example, a student from one country studying for a qualification awarded by a university in another country, while physically studying in a third, may need to navigate three different national contexts. The academic relationship may be relatively straightforward, but the student’s lived experience can be considerably more complex.

In these circumstances, pastoral support cannot simply be an online counselling service or a contact number buried somewhere within a student portal. Students need clear information, accessible points of contact and confidence that someone understands the context in which they are living and studying.

The well-being challenge is not always where we expect it

Some of the most interesting conversations I have had with TNE students have been about difficulties that institutions may not immediately recognise as well-being issues. A student can have excellent academic results and still feel isolated. They may be living away from their family for the first time, struggling to establish friendships, adjusting to a new culture or feeling uncertain about whether they really belong within an international university community.

Language can add another layer. As I discussed in my previous article, language challenges are not necessarily about formal proficiency. A student may arrive with an excellent IELTS score and still struggle to understand local pronunciation, accents, colloquialisms, professional jargon or cultural references. The same can be true in reverse. Students studying in their own language may find themselves working with international academics or professional services colleagues whose communication style is unfamiliar.

These experiences can be frustrating and, over time, can contribute to anxiety, disengagement or a feeling of being an outsider. This is why well-being in TNE needs to be considered in the context of the whole student experience rather than as a separate service.

Cultural context matters

Well-being is not understood or experienced in exactly the same way everywhere. Attitudes towards mental health, counselling, disability, family involvement and seeking professional help can vary considerably between cultures. A student may recognise that they are struggling but feel uncomfortable disclosing this to an institution or seeking formal support.

There may also be different expectations around the role of academic staff. In some educational cultures, students may be accustomed to discussing personal or academic difficulties directly with teachers. In others, approaching an academic to ask for help may feel inappropriate or intimidating. The existence of a support service therefore does not necessarily mean that students will use it. Institutions need to consider how support is communicated, who delivers it, how approachable it feels and whether students trust the people providing it.

Should TNE students receive more support?

This is an interesting question, and one I think institutions should be willing to ask. I would argue that, in some TNE contexts, students may need more proactive support than students studying on the home campus, rather than simply the same level of support delivered differently.

That view comes partly from conversations I have had with students studying TNE in different parts of the world. What has struck me repeatedly is how much students can be expected to navigate independently when they are physically distant from the awarding institution. What may appear to an institution to be a relatively straightforward online support offer can feel very different from the student’s perspective.

A student on the home campus can often draw on a wide ecosystem of support almost without thinking about it. They may know where the library is, how to contact their academic adviser, where to access health services, who to speak to about accommodation or how to find student societies. A TNE student may not have the same ecosystem around them. Providing an equivalent email address or online portal does not necessarily create an equivalent support experience. In some circumstances, therefore, equity may require additional or more proactive intervention, particularly during transition points or when students show early signs of disengagement.

Who is responsible for pastoral care?

This becomes particularly important in partnership models. The local partner may know students much better and be best placed to identify changes in behaviour, attendance or engagement. The awarding institution may have specialist well-being expertise, established policies and formal escalation procedures. Neither institution should simply assume that the other is responsible.

In my experience, the strongest partnerships tend to establish clear responsibilities and referral pathways while maintaining a shared understanding that student well-being is a collective responsibility. This does not mean that every partner needs to replicate the full well-being infrastructure of the home campus. It means designing an appropriate support ecosystem for the local context and ensuring that students understand how it works.

Supporting the people who support students

There is also a staff dimension to this conversation. Academic and professional services staff are often the first people to notice that a student is struggling. They may see changes in attendance, engagement, academic performance or behaviour before a student ever contacts a formal well-being service.

Staff therefore need more than good intentions. They need appropriate training and development to recognise potential concerns, understand the boundaries of their role and know where and how to refer students for additional support. This is particularly important in TNE, where the person closest to a student may not be the person with access to specialist support.

I have also seen how much difference it can make when local staff and colleagues at the awarding institution have established relationships and understand each other’s roles. When those relationships exist, concerns can be identified and escalated much more quickly. When they do not, students can sometimes find themselves caught between institutions, with each assuming that the other is dealing with the issue.

Staff also need support themselves. International partnership work can involve significant demands, including working across cultures and time zones, managing complex relationships, dealing with difficult student situations and navigating different institutional expectations. Staff well-being matters not only because institutions have responsibilities towards their employees, but because staff who feel supported are better placed to support students. Professional development, peer support, clear escalation processes and regular communication between partner teams can therefore contribute to both staff and student well-being.

Families matter too

Conversations with students have also reminded me that the family dimension should not be overlooked. In many TNE markets, parents and families play a much more significant role in educational decision-making than institutions in some Western countries might expect. For students studying overseas, families may be particularly concerned about safety, accommodation, immigration status, academic progress and employability.

Clear and appropriate communication with families can therefore help build confidence in the institution and the partnership. At the same time, institutions need to balance family engagement with student autonomy, privacy and confidentiality. The role of families should be recognised without undermining the student’s independence.

Beyond the support service

Ultimately, pastoral care is not simply a service that students access when something goes wrong. It is an ecosystem that can involve the lecturer who notices that a student has suddenly withdrawn from class, the administrator who follows up after repeated unexplained absences, the local tutor who knows how to refer a student to specialist support, or a partner institution that understands when a change in behaviour represents a genuine concern rather than simply poor academic engagement.

These everyday interactions can be just as important as formal well-being services. Technology can certainly help. Digital check-ins, online counselling, well-being platforms and early-warning systems can make support more accessible and help institutions identify potential concerns. But technology should complement rather than replace human relationships.

Building environments where students can thrive

As TNE continues to expand globally, institutions will need to think increasingly carefully about what well-being and pastoral care mean across different contexts. The answer will not be identical everywhere. Effective support needs to reflect local cultures, regulatory environments, available services and student expectations while still maintaining clear standards and responsibilities across the partnership.

After speaking with students studying TNE across different countries and partnership models, I increasingly think the most important measure of pastoral support is not how impressive the formal support structure looks on paper, but what happens when a student actually needs help. Does the student know who to contact? Do they feel comfortable asking for help? Does the person they approach know what to do next? And, perhaps most importantly, does the partnership have enough understanding of its students to notice when something is not quite right?

Successful TNE is not only about enabling students to earn an internationally recognised qualification. It is about creating an environment in which they can feel safe, connected, supported and able to thrive while doing so.

In my next article, I will explore another important dimension of the TNE student experience: administrative clarity, and why seemingly small issues around information, processes and responsibility can have a surprisingly significant impact on student confidence and satisfaction.

– Dr Suzanna Tomassi is Executive Director of External Affairs at NCUK, a leading UK pathway provider, and Founder of CoachEd Global, a consultancy specialising in executive coaching and global education advisory.

She is a highly experienced strategic leader and board member with over 20 years’ expertise across UK Government and higher education. Her work focuses on internationalisation, governance, risk oversight, commercial growth, and organisational transformation. Suzanna’s career spans the UK Department for Business and Trade and four major UK universities, where she has shaped national policy, strengthened regulatory and quality frameworks, and led large-scale international expansion initiatives.

An expert in transnational education and global operations, Suzanna has driven multi-country growth strategies, co-authored accreditation guidelines, and facilitated major international investments in UK higher education.

For additional background, please see:

• “Language and communication in TNE: Building bridges across academic and cultural boundaries“
• “Academic support and learning resources in TNE: Delivering student success across borders”
• “Beyond borders: Why student support matters more than ever in transnational education”

The post Well-being and pastoral care in TNE: Supporting students to thrive across borders appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

• Considering a US$100,000+ fee for post-study Optional Practical Training (OPT) placements. The OPT work stream is among US universities’ top competitive strengths when recruiting talented international students, and research shows that more than half of international students would not choose the US if they could not access it.



• Applying greater scrutiny to Curricular Practical Training (CPT) placements, as articulated in two broadcast memos issued by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement department (ICE) on and . CPT allows a student (domestic or international) offered by a sponsoring employer through a co-operative agreement with the student’s school.

In the memos, ICE says that the Student and Visa Exchange Programme (SEVP) is showing an uptick in “CPT authorisations that do not meet regulatory requirements, specifically those not constituting an integral part of an established curriculum.” The insinuation here is that some institutions are promoting CPT as a general work route rather than as an essential curriculum requirement. The department warns: “If SEVP suspects that school officials are abusing CPT to create work opportunities rather than academic studies, they may be subject to additional scrutiny and action from SEVP and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), to include potential withdrawal of the school’s SEVP certification.”

The department cautions: “In any instance where an elective course is optional, making the CPT optional, the integral and required aspects of CPT would not be met … [CPT should be authorised only] if its absence would make the attainment of a degree an impossibility.”

The power of rhetoric

The State Department has neither imposed the US$100,000 OPT fee nor amended the CPT programme through law. However, the department is clearly communicating its concern around both programmes, and this is serving a two-fold rhetorical purpose:

• To warn prospective international students that access to work in the US is far from certain for them;
• To discourage universities from linking academic programmes with work routes in their promotional or operational activities.

Most universities are pausing their authorisation of elective CPT programmes while continuing their curriculum-linked CPT. Even though the memos are, as Carnegie Mellon has called them, “extra-regulatory,” they carry enforceable actions. If a university were be seen to be abusing the CPT system, it could have its SEVP certification removed and would thus be barred from enrolling international students.

Even though the guidance will be a concern for all universities and colleges, the cautions from ICE may be especially aimed at a small group of US institutions that are colloquially known as “” universities, and where the promotion of work-integrated learning via CPT placements is . The critique that attaches to such institutions is essentially that they are over-promoting or overusing CPT, and providing a mechanism for students to bridge visa status while they remain in the US in the hopes of transitioning to an H-1B visa or otherwise preserving their ability to work in the country.

A layered approach

A potential OPT fee and CPT warnings are just two layers of the Trump administration’s mission to limit opportunities for international students in the US. On 15 September, the new rule replacing Duration of Status (D/S) with an Admit-Until-Date (AUD) system comes into force. For those needing background on the importance of this change, we have covered this extensively over the summer, including in this article.  

The imminent end of D/S has created additional uncertainty for US universities attempting to update systems and advise students, and it appears to have already dampened demand for study in the US. International enrolments declined in 2025, especially in graduate programmes.

Graduate programmes “in crisis”

In July 2026, reported on the effects of the Trump administration’s approach to immigration and to higher education and science in general:

• “Cornell University enrolled 209 fewer new grad students last year, with declines across nearly all of its schools.
• Michigan State University paused admissions to most of its advanced programs in the humanities for a year to assess them for “long-term sustainability.”
• Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been shaken by a 20% drop in the federally funded research that made its graduate programs into an innovation powerhouse.”

Bloomberg interviewed Chevelle Newsome, president of the Council of Graduate Schools, who said that graduate schools are in a “crisis response” mode that “will take decades to recover from.”

Perception influences behaviours

For most research universities, restricting CPT as per ICE’s guidance is not a big deal. At prominent institutions such as UCLA, less than a quarter of international students participate in CPT – a fraction compared with the number participating in OPT. But what is a big deal is that international students are hearing that both OPT and CPT are under greater scrutiny. The government is creating a perception that work opportunities in the US are diminishing without even having to pass laws to that effect.

There are important developments on the horizon that aim to counter that perception by curbing the government’s ability to implement more restrictive policy. For example, NAFSA and seven other educational and business organisations have filed a complaint to halt the implementation of the fixed-term admission period for international students and other visitors.

The consortium is challenging the legality of the rule and has also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction that aims to prevent the rule from coming into effect. The request for an injunction will be heard in court in early September.

In addition, the upcoming mid-term elections (3 November 2026) may provide for some further balance in the US system. Amid rapidly deteriorating approval ratings for President Trump, that the mid-terms will return control of the House of Representatives to the Democrats. This would give the House more ability to counter executive action from the White House, including those concerning education and immigration.

Key developments for the new academic year

As of this writing on 3 September 2026:

• CPT: The Department of Homeland Security says, “Nothing about [CPT] regulations has changed. However, schools and employers should consider themselves on notice: under President Trump, abuse of this generous system will no longer be tolerated.”
• OPT: A new rule on OPT was on the agenda for 2026 but is now slated for publication in February 2027. A $100,000 OPT participation fee is under discussion, but it has not transitioned to the proposal phase.
• Duration of Status: Duration of Status (D/S) will be replaced by Admit-Until-Date (AUD) on 15 September unless a preliminary injunction is delivered before then. Current international students who have not returned to the US before that date will be subject to AUD despite first enrolling under Duration of Status terms. 

For additional background, please see:

• “US Department of State issued 23% fewer study visas to international students in 2025”
• “Updated: US Department of Homeland Security publishes rule to end Duration of Status for international students“
• “US coalition files lawsuit to challenge rule ending Duration of Status admissions for international students“
• “Report: US considering a $100,000 fee for Optional Practical Training” 

The post US government warns universities to limit their authorisation of Curricular Practical Training work placements appeared first on şÚÁĎąŮÍř Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.