As expected by US international education experts, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made only minor revisions to its August 2025 proposal to end Duration of Status (D/S) for F and J students and their dependants despite vigorous lobbying across scientific, business, and higher education sectors. The government published , and it will go into effect on 15 September 2026.

Duration of Status will be replaced with fixed periods of stay for F and J students – four years – unless students are in language programmes, the admission duration for which will be maxed at 24 months. (For detailed background on the policy, please refer to our earlier reporting.)

To stay in the US for longer than the end date marked on their I-94 form, international students need to apply and be approved for an extension by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). If they do not receive that extension, they will have to leave the US or be identified as unlawful and subject to a three-to-ten-year ban on re-entering the US.

There is no grace period for four-year F and J students after an extension of status denial at the end of the initial admission period: students and any dependents who may have come to the US with them are required to depart immediately. If not, the next day marks the official beginning of their unlawful presence in the US.

Commenting on the new rule, NAFSA Executive Director and CEO Dr Fanta Aw said:

“DHS’s decision to end Duration of Status is a misguided and unnecessary policy shift that injects uncertainty, bureaucracy, and fear into a system that has long worked effectively. It is a solution in search of a problem. International students and exchange visitors are already the most monitored nonimmigrant populations in the United States. SEVIS and the partnership between institutions and the federal government already provide a rigorous and highly effective system of oversight, compliance, and accountability.

“This rule introduces unnecessary government intrusion into academic decision-making. Requiring students and scholars to seek approval to extend their academic program, change majors, or pursue the next level of study places life-changing educational decisions in the hands of an already overburdened immigration system rather than educators and institutions.

“At a time when global competition for talent is intensifying, this policy sends exactly the wrong message. It tells the world’s brightest students and scholars that the United States is becoming less welcoming, less predictable, and less committed. This is not just bad for higher education, it is bad for American innovation, economic growth, workforce development, and global leadership.”

What will the new rule mean for universities, agents, and students?

Universities and agents: The incoming rule will raise many questions for educators and agents who will be pressed to advise students properly. NAFSA explains:

“There are��transition provisions��for F and J nonimmigrants who were admitted for D/S on their Form I-94 and are inside the United States on September 15, 2026, the final rule effective date. These individuals will not have to immediately apply for a date-certain I-94, but they must still apply for an extension of stay in order to remain in status beyond the program end date on their current Form I-20 or DS-2019, or four years from the final rule effective date, whichever is shorter, and will also be subject to the new academic restrictions in varied ways. If someone in this transition group exits the United States and reenters on or after September 15, 2026, CBP will readmit them with a Form I-94 with a date-specific AUD.”

New international students who had planned to begin programmes this fall may now decide not to. Two segments are at particular risk of reconsidering their decision to study in the US:

• Those for whom the opportunity to pursue Optional Practical training (OPT) after their studies was central to their decision to choose the US as a destination. They now know that the maximum period of admission on an F or J visa is about to be four years, which means they would need to apply for an extension to go on to OPT – an extension that might be rejected.
• Graduate-level students, who will realise that four years may not even cover the length of their programme, let alone OPT.

The OPT and STEM OPT post-study work streams are vital to US institutions’ ability to compete for international students (especially those in STEM and at the graduate level). A 2025 survey conducted by NAFSA and the Institute for Progress found that 54% of current international students would not have chosen the US if there was no OPT option.

Current international students: Current F and J students will live in a climate of uncertainty: many will be required to apply for a visa extension before graduation, knowing that they could be denied that extension. This would mean that their studies in the US would be over the day after they were refused an extension. They would not be able to finish their degree in the US.

Additional components of the new rule bar F and J students from changing academic programmes, and graduates who complete one academic programme will only be able to enrol in a new one if it is at a higher educational level.

What is the context for the introduction of fixed admission periods?

At present, USCIS’s processing of immigration requests has never been more backlogged. Adding international students’ requests for extensions to the backlog will only worsen the situation. Many students will face a long wait to see if their extension is approved. 


��
The granting of extensions will be in the hands of immigration officials at a time when the US government is eager to reduce the flow of foreigners into the country.

How best to advise students and brief student advisors?

The immediate priorities for many US institutions and stakeholders leading up to the September effective date will include:

• Retraining staff on the rule’s key concepts and new terminology (e.g., “admit until date” [AUD])
• Reviewing all programme types for better understand how the new rule will impact each (e.g., pathway programmes, dual degrees, certificates, two-plus-two arrangements, intensive English programmes, undeclared majors)
• Communicating with current students and scholars, especially those approaching their program end dates

Stakeholder groups have already produced a number of explainers and background docs on the new rule, and this process of analysing the details of the rule and developing clear and effective guidance for students and advisors will no doubt continue for some time.

NAFSA, for example, has prepared a detailed set of on its duration of status page (login required). And a number of detailed background docs are already available, including the following:

• 
  ��
  For additional background, please see:

• “US to end ‘Duration of Status’ for F, J, and I visas and limit the time international students can study in the US”

The post Updated: US Department of Homeland Security publishes rule to end Duration of Status for international students appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

There is some overlap between the two in that they jointly regulate institutions that provide programming across higher education and VET, and they share jurisdiction over CRICOS-registered providers (the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students) delivering courses to international students.

The interests of the two regulators are naturally aligned in some ways, but TEQSA and ASQA rarely issue joint statements. However, earlier this month, they did just that, that they are watching how providers and agents are behaving with regards to onshore student transfers.

The joint message says:

“TEQSA and ASQA are aware of concerns that some advertising by registered providers appears inconsistent with the intent of the ban on the payment of education agent commissions in relation to onshore transfers.

“Both agencies view any attempts by providers or education agents to bypass this restriction as unacceptable and providers who are not adequately managing these risks or not meeting the relevant Standards may be subject to a compliance assessment and/or regulatory action.”

The caution speaks directly to a new rule that was introduced in January 2026, and that came into force on 31 March 2026. Under the new rule, education agents are no longer permitted to receive commissions from Australian schools and universities when an international student already in Australia (an “onshore student”) transfers from one institution to another without having completed their course with the previous provider.

The rule appears in revisions to the National Code of Practice – formally, – and it was part of a package of amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act (ESOS) passed in November 2025.

The joint TEQSA-ASQA alert goes on to say that the two regulators have specific concerns in the following areas:

• Recruitment or incentive arrangements that preserve commission-based behaviour (for onshore transfers);
• Practices that encourage and facilitate unnecessary transfers of students from other providers;
• Insufficient provider oversight of education agents;
• Providers failing to declare their arrangements with third parties facilitating student transfers;
• Improper management of data around agent activities and student enrolment, including inaccurate or delayed reporting;
• Weak governance, controls, monitoring or record-keeping practices around recruitment and student enrolment;
• Providers with poor risk management practices in respect of accepting higher risk students who have transferred from another provider and do not appear to be academically prepared for their new course.

The alert then outlines the compliance expectations the regulators have for providers working with agents on onshore transfers:

“Providers need to be able to demonstrate, through robust governance oversight, that their arrangements, practices and controls are consistent with the recent changes to the National Code preventing the payment of education agent commissions in relation to onshore overseas student transfers.”

TEQSA and ASQA expect all providers to undertake a check of their current processes and practices, including:

• Reviewing agreements with education agents and other third parties;
• Checking what education agents are promoting in-market;
• Reviewing admissions and transfer practices to ensure they do not contravene the ban on onshore transfers;
• Demonstrating compliance through clear policies, monitoring, and record-keeping.

The instruction concludes with a more specific warning: “Providers who are not adequately managing these risks or not meeting the relevant Standards may be subject to a compliance assessment and/or regulatory action.”

The joint alert makes it clear that TEQSA and ASQA are concerned about onshore transfers; that they expect providers to take any actions needed to address these concerns; and that they may ramp up compliance checks or other interventions going forward.

Regular readers will appreciate that this is not strictly an Australian story. Rather, the direction of travel is clear across destinations: providers should expect greater scrutiny of their international recruitment activities by governments and regulators. Implementing effective quality checks and oversight of recruitment programmes is key to compliance.

For additional background, please see:

• “Australia introduces new rules restricting agent commissions for onshore student transfers“
• “Narrowing bands of compliance: How the UK’s new RAG system will impact international student recruitment“
• “Who decides about quality? Education agents and the question of increased regulation“

The post Joint sector alert sends a clear compliance message to Australian higher education and VET providers appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

For students studying through TNE, academic support is often one of the most significant factors shaping their confidence, engagement, and ultimately their success. Yet it is also one of the most complex aspects of international partnership delivery.

I believe that the question is not whether students have access to support. Most partnerships can rightly point to virtual learning environments, online libraries, academic skills resources, and local teaching teams. The more important question is whether students studying thousands of miles away experience the same opportunity to succeed as their peers on the home campus. And that distinction matters.

Academic equivalence does not necessarily require identical experiences, but it should require equivalent opportunities to achieve learning outcomes. As TNE continues to diversify across franchise arrangements, validations, joint programmes, international branch campuses, articulation pathways, and increasingly flexible digital delivery models, ensuring that equivalence becomes both more challenging and more important.

Academic support is more than providing resources

It is tempting to think about academic support as a collection of services: access to journals, study skills workshops, writing centres or library inductions. But in reality, academic support is an ecosystem. Students need access not only to resources, but also to guidance on how to use them effectively. They need timely feedback, opportunities to ask questions, confidence in academic expectations, and clear pathways to seek help when difficulties arise. Many students entering TNE programmes are also navigating unfamiliar approaches to learning. Expectations around independent study, critical thinking, referencing, group work or academic integrity may differ considerably from previous educational experiences. What appears straightforward to academic staff may represent a significant transition for students.

Supporting that transition should not be viewed as remedial work. Rather, it is an essential component of helping students succeed within a different academic culture.

The challenge of delivering consistency across multiple locations

While one of the greatest strengths of TNE is its ability to bring internationally recognised qualifications closer to students, it also creates one of the sector’s greatest operational challenges.

Unlike a single campus, TNE partnerships operate across different educational cultures, regulatory systems, technological infrastructures, languages, and institutional environments. A student studying the same programme in Kuala Lumpur, Cairo, or Tashkent may technically be enrolled on the same degree, but their day-to-day academic experience can look remarkably different.

Some partnerships benefit from sophisticated digital infrastructure, extensive local library collections, and highly experienced academic support teams. Others operate in environments where internet connectivity is less reliable, access to licensed databases may be more limited, or students balance full-time employment alongside their studies. These differences do not necessarily indicate lower quality, but they do require thoughtful adaptation.

Successful partnerships recognise local realities while remaining focused on achieving equivalent academic outcomes.

Technology has transformed access, but not necessarily engagement

Digital technologies have undoubtedly reduced many of the barriers that once separated TNE students from their home institutions. Virtual learning environments, online library collections, recorded lectures, AI-enabled learning tools, digital assessment platforms, and virtual academic advising have significantly expanded access. However, access alone does not guarantee engagement.

Institutions often monitor whether students have been given access to online resources, but far fewer examine how confidently those resources are being used. Students may have thousands of electronic journals available to them while remaining uncertain about where to begin their literature search. Similarly, an extensive online study skills repository has little value if students are unaware it exists or find it difficult to navigate.

Academic support therefore requires active engagement rather than passive availability.

Partnership working makes the difference

Perhaps more than any other aspect of TNE delivery, academic support illustrates why successful partnerships depend upon genuine collaboration rather than contractual compliance alone, as responsibility for supporting students rarely sits neatly with one institution.

Home universities typically retain responsibility for academic standards, while local partners often provide much of the day-to-day teaching and student support. This shared responsibility requires strong communication, mutual trust, and clearly defined expectations. The most successful partnerships I have encountered tend to move beyond simply dividing responsibilities. Instead, they invest in joint approaches to staff development, regular dialogue between academic teams, and shared ownership of the student experience. As a result, academic support becomes something both institutions continuously refine together rather than something either side simply delivers.

Listening to students

One of the most valuable sources of insight is often the students themselves. Student surveys frequently measure overall satisfaction, but they may not always reveal the practical barriers students encounter during their academic journey. Questions such as these can often generate more meaningful conversations:

• Do students know where to seek academic help?
• Are support services available when students actually need them?
• Do students feel comfortable asking questions?
• Are learning resources accessible within local contexts?
• Do students understand what academic success looks like?

Listening to these experiences allows institutions to identify relatively small improvements that can have significant impacts on student confidence and achievement.

Moving beyond compliance

Quality assurance frameworks rightly examine whether institutions provide appropriate academic support. Increasingly, however, universities are recognising that compliance should represent the starting point rather than the destination. As competition within international education intensifies, the quality of the student experience is becoming an increasingly important differentiator.

Students are unlikely to judge their university primarily on the wording of partnership agreements or the sophistication of governance structures. Instead, they will remember whether they felt supported when they struggled with an assignment, whether feedback helped them improve, whether they could easily access learning materials, and whether they felt genuinely connected to their university. Those everyday experiences often shape perceptions of institutional quality far more than the organisational arrangements operating behind the scenes.

Looking ahead

As TNE continues to evolve, academic support will become increasingly important. Artificial intelligence, personalised learning technologies, hybrid delivery models, and expanding global partnerships will all create new opportunities to support students more effectively. At the same time, these developments will require institutions to think carefully about digital inclusion, staff capability, academic integrity, and equitable access across diverse international contexts.

Perhaps the most important question institutions that are serious about TNE and their student experience can ask themselves is not whether overseas students receive the same support as students on the home campus. Instead, they should ask themselves whether they are “giving every student, wherever they study, an equivalent opportunity to succeed?”

The answer is unlikely to be found in a single policy or platform. It will emerge from thoughtful partnership working, continuous dialogue, and a shared commitment to placing students at the centre of international education.

In my next article, I will explore another important dimension of the TNE student experience: language and communication, and how institutions can help students navigate both academic expectations and intercultural learning across increasingly diverse partnership environments.

–��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:

• “Beyond borders: Why student support matters more than ever in transnational education“

The post Academic support and learning resources in TNE: Delivering student success across borders appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Now, on 13 July 2026, the Department of Education (DfE) has released its response to the 91 submissions filed during a technical consultation that had been open from November 2025 through February 2026.

Despite considerable opposition from institutions, peak bodies, and other stakeholders, the government has affirmed that . It provides the following details:

• The levy will apply to all institutions registered in the Office for Students’ registry of English higher education providers;
• The levy will apply only to international students – that is, to students who do not qualify for home fee status;
• Each provider will receive an exemption for the first 220 students in a reporting year, for which no levy fees will be charged;
• Student counts will be based on an existing reporting mechanism: the Jisc Student Record for higher education institutions and, for further education providers of higher education courses, the Individualised Learner Record (ILR).

The Department of Education explains that the following student groups will be exempt from the levy:

• Students who withdraw within two weeks of a course start;
• Those enrolled in transnational education (TNE) programmes outside of the UK;
• Students enrolled only in non-credit courses;
• Post-doctoral students.

The Department indicates, however, that the levy will be charged for students who withdraw from their programme of studies after the initial two-week grace period.

The 13 July DfE response also sets out the timeline for implementation, indicating that the government will run two trial cycles during the 2026/27 and 2027/28 academic years. No fees will be charged during those trials, but the levy calculations will be reported back to providers each year. The levy will come into effect on 1 August 2028 and apply to international students from that point forward.

The government will next table legislation to formally establish the levy as part of the Finance Bill which will be introduced after the government brings in its next budget this fall.

Those opposed

As late as last week, sector leaders had urged the government to reconsider. Speaking at a Higher Education Policy Institute forum on 9 July, Durham University Vice-Chancellor Karen O’Brien said that the levy was “absolute insanity” and urged the government to take it “off the table”.

Earlier this month, Universities UK Chief Executive Vivienne Stern said that the levy “puts us in the bizarre situation of the government effectively putting a tariff on a UK export.”

Many of the submissions filed during the November–February consultation projected that the levy would undermine international student recruitment to the UK, and, by extension, the financial stability of the sector.

In its submission, for example, Universities UK says: “Recent data shows that international student recruitment has fallen materially and remains highly volatile. HESA student record data for 2024/25 shows total international enrolments down 6.1% year-on-year, driven primarily by a 12.5% decline in postgraduate taught enrolments, which have historically underpinned institutional financial sustainability. Home Office visa data indicates that while visa issuances have stabilised in aggregate, volumes remain 13.5% below 2023 levels and market composition continues to shift sharply. These data show that international recruitment is no longer a stable or steadily growing revenue base, but one characterised by sharp year-on-year swings, market concentration and policy sensitivity, increasing the risk that a per-student levy amplifies volatility rather than delivering predictable funding.”

Maike Halterbeck, a partner at London Economics, offered this comment on the release this month of a new Higher Education Policy Institute study on :

“This new report provides updated evidence on the substantial economic value that international students bring to the UK economy – value that is spread widely across the country. However, it also demonstrates what the economy stands to lose if and when this major export sector starts to decline. The number of international first-year students coming to the UK has already decreased by around 54,500 (12%) since 2022/23, and is expected to continue to decline as key new policy changes – including the new international student fee levy – come into force.”

Finally, Vanessa Wilson, CEO of University Alliance, said:

“We are very disappointed that the government has decided to press ahead with the International Student Levy despite the serious concerns raised by universities across the sector. As we have consistently argued, international students make an enormous contribution to our economy, communities and campuses, and this levy risks undermining the UK’s attractiveness at a time of intense global competition.

“It remains deeply counterintuitive to tax institutions that are already delivering opportunity, skills, and social mobility at scale, only to recycle that funding elsewhere in the system. We continue to believe international students are being undervalued in policymaking, and we urge the government to use the implementation period to reconsider the levy’s impact on institutional sustainability and the UK’s long-term international competitiveness.”

For additional background, please see:

• “UK confirms international fee levy of £925 per student starting August 2028“
• “UK confirms levy on international student fees as new analysis argues that government is ‘drastically underestimating’ the impact of the move“
• “UK sets out new immigration strategy, will reduce Graduate Route work term to 18 months“

The post England: Government “remains of the view” that the International Student Levy should go ahead; implementation planned for August 2028 appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

has just been released, and it gathers responses from 585 US colleges and universities over a period from 5 May through June 11. Collectively, the responding institutions host roughly half of the international students in the US.

The outlook for 2026/27

The survey highlights the following key trends for the coming academic year.

• Application volumes: 14% of responding institutions are reporting an increase in application volumes for 2026/27; 20% said that application volumes are roughly the same as the previous year; and 59% report a decrease in the number of applications.

• Projected enrolment: Nearly two in three respondents (63%) expect a decline in international student numbers for 2026/27; 26% predict stable enrolment year-over-year; and 11% forecast an increase in foreign enrolment.

Shifting demand from India looms as a major factor in the overall outlook for the year ahead. As IIE explains:

“At the country level, most reporting institutions indicate that international student applications either increased or remained stable across the majority of the 21 leading places of origin surveyed…The most pronounced decreases are reported for India, with only 39% of institutions indicating stable or increased application numbers. This is notable given that students from India made up nearly one-third (31%) of all international students in the United States in 2024/25.”

Contributing factors

Nearly all respondents (92%) cited visa processing issues (e.g., delays in processing or rising rejection rates) as the most significant factor affecting the enrolment outlook for this year. “Aligned with this concern,’ adds IIE, “64% of respondents noted an increase in questions and concerns from both current and prospective international students about the US political climate.”

The expanded travel ban and other travel restrictions were noted as an important factor by 80% of responding institutions. And the report notes as well that more than three in four respondents (77%) cited increased competition as a factor for 2026/27 with more students choosing to study in a destination other than the US.

“While this preliminary data suggests that enrollment numbers will decline in the 2026/27 academic year due to numerous factors,” concludes IIE, “it remains too early to determine the magnitude of potential declines.”

For additional background, please see:

• “US regulatory agenda for 2026 aims to end ‘duration of status’ and introduce Optional Practical Training and H-1B reforms“
• “What is happening to student mobility flows between the Global South and Global North?“
• “US visa processing centres in Africa to be reduced by more than half; only the latest barrier for African students“
• “Universities urged to focus on ‘factors they can control’ as policy settings depress international student enrolments in the Big Four“

The post Decline in Indian demand a major factor in softer outlook for foreign enrolment in US higher education in 2026/27 appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

It has set the National Planning Level (NPL), its system for controlling the flow of foreign students into universities and vocational (VET) education providers, at 295,000 new student spaces distributed across those institutions. This is the same number as last year, and the government considers this a continuation of a managed growth approach that “has been effective in returning student numbers to a more sustainable level in 2025, and so far in 2026.”

For background, the NPL system dictates that visa applications are processed normally for an institution that fills up to 80% of their allotted new student spaces. Beyond that 80% threshold, visa processing slows for that institution relative to others that stay within the threshold. The system aims to curtail over-aggressive international recruitment.

The NPL, however, is not the only way in which the government is constraining growth. On top of visa processing controls, a range of other recent policies make it more difficult for international students to choose Australia as a study destination. These include:

• Visa application fees that have risen repeatedly over the past couple of years and which now stand at AU$2,500 for a study visa and AU$5,750 for a post-study work visa. These are the highest in the world, and they are non-refundable for students who end up being rejected.

• High visa rejection rates, especially for Indians, Bangladeshis, and Nepalis.

The government’s satisfaction with how the National Planning Level is working obscures the fact that higher fees and rejection rates are causing international student demand to fall well below what might be considered “sustainable.” Some Australia institutions are not able to reach their allocation levels due to declining volumes of applications and enrolments.

The following chart shows trends in commencements (new student arrivals) over time, and it illustrates the sharp decreases from 2023–2025.

What is the real target?

from minister of education Jason Clare, assistant minister for international education Julian Hill, and skills minister Andrew Giles acknowledges:

“Current tracking indicates international student commencements are on track to be below the NPL for both 2026 and 2027. Commencements in 2026 are down 8 per cent compared to the same period in 2025, and 13 per cent lower than 2019.”

So, the NPL may be set at 295,000 in 2026 and 2027 – but the fact that commencements are coming in well below that threshold appears not to be an issue for the government. This seems quite likely given the follow-up statement in the press release:

“The decision to freeze the NPL at current levels accompanies adjustments to student visa fees.”

Mr Clare, Mr Hill, and Mr Giles all issued comments about the 2027 arrangements:

• Mr Clare: “International education is an incredibly important export industry for Australia, but we need to manage it sustainably. This is about making sure international education supports students, universities and the national interest.”

• Mr Hill: “The Albanese Government inherited a mess from the Liberals in 2022, with unsustainably high growth in student numbers in the least reputable parts of the sector and student visas being misused by crooks and shonks. The Government will not back off from managing the size and the shape of the onshore international student market and ongoing moderation in student numbers towards a more sustainable sector. Australia continues to welcome genuine international students seeking a premium Australian education which is great for our unis, domestic students and research.”

• Mr Giles: “International VET strengthens outcomes for students and supports our workforce, while deepening valuable global partnerships. Today’s announcement provides certainty for the international VET sector, enabling it to continue delivering sustainable growth and high-quality skills outcomes.”

Universities Australia Chief Executive Officer Luke Sheehy issued his own statement on behalf of the sector:

“Sustainability and integrity matter, and universities support both. Keeping new overseas commencements steady gives the sector something to plan around, but it is a long way from the sustainable, managed growth the government promised two years ago.

“Today’s announcement confirms there will be no growth next year. We recognise this may be appropriate in the current context, but the bigger problem is that the policy settings behind the number are making even this steady target harder to reach.

“If the government keeps making Australia more expensive and more difficult for genuine students to choose, we’re going to fall short – and we’re already seeing that risk emerge.

“That’s bad for our sector and Australia. It means fewer skilled workers, weaker productivity and a $55 billion export sector supporting 250,000 jobs put at risk.

“Many universities, particularly in regional and outer suburban Australia, are ready, willing and able to welcome more international students.

“International education is one of Australia’s great success stories, but it’s being steadily eroded by policies that do not serve our universities, our economy or our skills needs.

“A big number on paper means little if the policies behind it make it harder to deliver in practice.
That’s the contradiction at the heart of the current approach. The government says it wants almost 300,000 new international students, while keeping in place policies that make that harder to achieve.

“Unless the broader settings change, the 2027 allocation risks being just another number – not a plan that delivers the skills, jobs and growth Australia needs.”

More details about the NPL arrangements for 2027

None of the education providers subject to the NPL will receive fewer applications in 2027 than in 2026

The following are exempted from the NPL’s allocations:

• Schools
• Students studying standalone ELICOS courses
• Higher degree by research students
• Non-award students, including short term exchange students
• Students studying at TAFE and students enrolled in VET courses at Dual Sector public universities
• Students awarded certain scholarships including from foreign governments, multilateral organisations and Australian governments
• Students that are part of certain Australian Transnational Education (TNE) arrangements in higher education or VET approved by the Department of Education or the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations
• Students from the Pacific and Timor-Leste
• Students in pilot training courses
• International students transitioning from secondary school studies in Australia to tertiary study (higher education or VET)
• Students transitioning from embedded pathway providers or TAFE institutes to affiliated publicly funded universities
• Students transferring providers as a direct result of a provider closing or otherwise being unable to continue training.

For additional background, please see:

• “Australia: Multiple data indicators signal further declines ahead for international student numbers”
• “Surprise hike in international student visa application fees ‘a direct hit to Australia’s competitiveness’”
• “Australia: Latest enrolment data challenges the government’s assertion of stability for international education this year”

The post Australia: As visa applications from foreign students fall, the government has set the national target for new international students in 2027 appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Roughly 380,000 foreign students from nearly 200 countries were in China during the 2024/25 academic year, according to a senior Chinese education official quoted in the . While this is down from nearly 500,000 before the COVID-19 pandemic, it is a huge increase (+96%) from the 255,700 low in 2021. China closed its borders for longer than any other major study abroad destination or economy during the pandemic, opening up again only in January 2023.

This steady post-pandemic increase contrasts with the -20% drop in Chinese students abroad in 2025 (570,000) compared with 2019. There is also a rising trend of Chinese foreign-educated graduates returning home for studies (535,600 in 2025, suggesting about a 90% return rate).

Part of the plan

The uptick in international students in China is intentional. The 15th Five-Year Plan (2026–30) includes the prioritisation of the “Study in China” brand. Speaking with the China Daily in May, Wang Daquan, a Ministry of Education spokesperson, said, “We have confidence in that goal [of China becoming one of the world’s most attractive destinations for international students], and we will continue to make efforts to achieve it.”

Of China’s total foreign students in 2024/25, more than half (54%) were seeking a higher education degree. More of than a third (35%) of those degree students were in postgraduate programmes.

In terms of subject preference, more than a quarter (28%) were in engineering degrees.

Asian students dominate

The Ministry of Education reports that in 2024/25, Asian students made up the largest share of foreign enrolment at 61%, while African and European students accounted for about 16% each. Country-level figures have not been released, but top markets in recent years include South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Pakistan. Emerging markets that China invests heavily in developing are in Africa and Belt and Road countries in general.

Why the decline in outbound?

Nous Group principal Matt Durnin estimates that Chinese enrolments across Australia, Canada, the UK and US have fallen by approximately -13% since their peak in 2019/20. Posting on in late-2025, he wrote:

“There are a lot of factors driving the decline, but the one that I think deserves more attention is the rapid improvement of perceptions in the quality of Chinese universities.”

The 2026 QS rankings include 72 Chinese (mainland) institutions, compared with 192 in the US and 90 in the UK, putting China into third place globally. When Hong Kong universities are included, China moves into second place with a total of 99.

Another factor in weakening Chinese demand for study abroad is that the country’s disposable income growth has slowed, and consumers have become more cautious and price-sensitive. In May, consumer spending (measured in terms of retail sales) fell by -0.6% compared with May 2025 – the first year-on-year decline since the pandemic. Chinese consumers are using more of their income to pay off debt, and in a major departure from habits in the 2010s, they are becoming much more interested in discounted and second-hand goods.

Amid these consumer trends – and with so many high-quality Chinese and international universities close at hand – Chinese students have less reason to study abroad than in the 2020s.

The Chinese government wants to see the number of Chinese students enrolled in transnational education programmes to rise from 800,000 to eight million, and it is rapidly expanding international research collaborations, branch campuses, and joint programmes with foreign institutions.

For additional background, please see:

• “Inbound, outbound, and transnational: the landscape for international education in China continues to evolve”
• “China opens up to global STEM talent with new visa class”
• “China leverages higher education capacity with expanded TNE partnerships”
• “China: Two-thirds of new TNE partnerships are with countries outside the Big Four”

The post China in 2026: Slowing outbound student mobility, accelerating inbound momentum appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

This dream is one that is often referenced by universities promoting their programmes abroad, and it tends to be presented as universally possible. But the truth is that only some students are able to progress along that pathway.

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) has produced a report called “” The analysis shows that institutions in major destinations may be:

• Overpromising a route that is attainable only by a segment of their foreign graduates;
• Not providing the level of language and career supports needed by many graduates to have a good chance of working in-country after their studies and/or gaining permanent residency.

The report also reveals that government policies – and policy volatility – can present unforeseen challenges for international graduates hoping to find jobs that match their hard-won skills.

The OECD observes: “There appear to be tensions between recruitment messaging, which suggests future employment and possible residence, and the realities of post‑graduation opportunities.”

This can lead to false confidence among international students, who, “not always having all relevant information, have at times, an unrealistic expectation of the ease with which they can find a job, secure visa/permit and obtain permanent residency or even citizenship.”

Retention is an issue

Across the six countries analysed, the highest five-year retention rates were in Canada and Germany (52% each). This dipped significantly to about a third in Australia and France (34% and 33%, respectively) and to 19% in the Netherlands. In the UK, only 7% of international graduates were still in the country on a work permit or other immigration permission after five years.

These low retention rates contrast with international students’ high hopes to remain in the country to work after completing their studies: over 70% in Canada, 73% in the Netherlands, 64% in Germany, and 83% in France want to stay on to work.

What barriers are international graduates facing?

The reality that many international graduates face is that employers in their host country find it too cumbersome or expensive to hire them. This leaves many students at a pronounced disadvantage compared with domestic peers.

For example, in Australia, found that for about 20% of international graduates who reported taking a job which they were overqualified, the main reason was that they did not have permanent residency. Many Australian employers see temporary visas as unstable (in the sense that these visas have an expiry date) and administratively burdensome. It is not worth it for them to invest time and money in hiring a foreigner if they can find a domestic graduate with the right skills for the position.

As a result, many graduates go into “visa limbo” where they accept poorly paid jobs unrelated to their skill-set and education. They often apply for another work visa to remain in the country, but they end up becoming “permanently temporary” rather than permanent residents.

The report referenced surveys showing that in three of the six countries analysed, most international students say they feel inadequately prepared to secure a job after graduation and/or to find a job after their studies. For example:

• In the Netherlands, 59% faced difficulty in finding a job after graduation;
• In Germany, only 35% felt “rather” or “well” supported by their institution in planning their career;
• In the UK, 53% thought career support and placements at their institution , followed by internships and experiential learning.

The OECD notes:

“There seems to be a shared nervousness about the transition to employment among both international and domestic students. However, in the case of international graduates, the transition to employment is also tied with the possibility to remain in the country.”

The list of barriers can also include low language proficiency in destinations where English is not the dominant language:

“During their studies, international students are surrounded by English, in their institution and [because] they tend to socialise with other internationals. However, job opportunities for English speakers … tend to be very limited and concentrated in a few specific industries. Most companies in France, Germany, or the Netherlands will still expect at least working-level proficiency of the local language.”

This is particularly relevant given the high number of English-taught programmes (ETPs) in France, Germany, and the Netherlands – many of which do not require competency in these countries’ official languages. These are major attractions for non-EU students especially, and non-EU students are also the segment most interested in remaining in their host country after completing their studies. The issue here is that many of those ETP-enrolled students will not have gained sufficient proficiency in the official language (French, German, or Dutch) to compete successfully for jobs.

Recommendations

The OECD recommends that institutions adopt “a more realistic approach that clearly communicates that available opportunities, jobs and permanent residency permits, might be scarce. That stay after graduation is not guaranteed, and that there is a significant uncertainty about whether a particular international student will be able to settle in the country long term.”

Specific recommendations for policy makers and institutions include:

• Helping international students to understand the labour market, before and during their studies, to guide them in what topics to focus on and on choices regarding their education.



• Integrating labour-market literacy into programmes, supported by career centres. 



• Allowing students to engage with employers and  gain work experience during their studies. For example, “both professional networks and relevant work experience have been identified as among the most highly rated factors in finding employment by international graduates in the Netherlands.” This recommendation means “higher education institutions must establish and maintain strong relations with relevant employers.”



• Informing international students to start looking for possible employment early, to better inform them about various employment opportunities: “International students tend to be aware of the big and well-known companies but are not always aware of small- and medium-sized businesses and other employers.”

• Developing alumni networks that allow international graduates to turn to former students for career support and guidance.

For additional background, please see:

• “Germany’s foreign enrolment continued to grow in the 2025/25 academic year”
• “Many foreign students want to stay in Germany but need more help with the transition to life after study”
• “Netherlands reports first-ever decrease in foreign enrolment for 2025/26”
• “Canada struggling to attract and retain global talent”
• “UK to implement reduced Graduate Route from January 2027”

The post OECD: International students may be underinformed about job prospects in top destinations appeared first on ���Ϲ��� Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.