The most recent edition of the ISB gathered responses from 93,843 international students from 135 universities during a Septemberā€“December 2025 survey window.

Here are five important takeaways from this year’s top-level findings.

Students are mostly satisfied with their study abroad experience

When asked in the 2025 ISB cycle, “Overall, how satisfied are you with all aspects of your experience at this institution?”, 90% of respondents said they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied.”

A related question asked respondents how likely they are to recommend their institution to a family member or friend. Etio uses the responses to generate a Net Promoter Score (NPS). Using a response scale of 0ā€“10, students who provide a score of 6 or below are classified as “Detractors,” whereas those who give a 7 or 8 are classified as “Passives,” and those who give a 9 or 10 are “Promoters.” The Net Promoter Score is arrived at by subtracting the percentage of Detractors from the percentage of Promoters.

The ISB shows that, globally, the Net Promoter Score has been on the rise since 2019, where the aggregated NPS value across the survey was 15, to 2025 with its NPS of 22. As with overall satisfaction ratings, there are big differences within institutions (by faculty or student nationality, for example), and by destination.

Students feel they are getting good value for their investment in study abroad

When asked, “To what extent do you feel that your current course is good value for money?”, 85% of students either agreed or strongly agreed that they were getting good value.

As we see in the chart, ratings for value for money have been climbing steadily since 2019. “That 85% as we are now is a pretty good result for the sector,” says Etio’s Head of Surveys Robin Hallows. “It suggests that [institutions] are by and large delivering on their promise.”

“I do wonder if there is a link between the improvements we have seen over time around graduate outcomes, employability, and career readiness ā€“ if there is a link to student perceptions of value for money.”

“Institutions are also managing expectations around cost,” adds Guy Perring, Etio’s Regional Director for APAC and the Middle East. “Singapore, for example, does very well in this regard. It’s not a cheap option; in fact, Singapore is one of the most expensive cities in the world. But they manage the expectations of the students so that students know how much the cost of living will be [in advance].”

Career impact remains the key driver

This year’s ISB results underscore that decision making for study abroad is heavily influenced by future career considerations, and by a return on investment calculation that weighs the costs of study and living abroad against anticipated future earnings.

Those priorities come through loud and clear when the ISB asked students, “How important were the following factors when deciding where to study?”

“The impact the [foreign qualification] has on their future careers is the most important decision factor,” says Mr Hallows. “And it’s always been the most important decision factor since 2019.”

“It is important for institutions to understand what drives decision making,” Nannette Ripmeester, Etio’s Regional Director for Europe, Africa, and North America. “This generation of students is completely different. [Study abroad] has to provide return on investment for them.”

Online information sources are having a greater impact on student decisions

When asked, “Which of the following helped your decision to choose this institution?”, students noted institutional websites and education agents as the most important influences on their study abroad decision, followed by friends and family.

It is interesting that the influences that have seen the greatest change over time are all digital, including the institutional website, online advertising, and social media channels.

There is a satisfaction gap in career services

The ISB asked a number of questions around career services, including “How satisfied are you with the following types of employment / careers support from this institution?”

“There is a bit of a variance [in satisfaction] within career support,” adds Mr Hallows. “Satisfaction with ‘information’ is quite a bit higher at 78% than employment ā€“ i.e., getting a job ā€“ at 59%. What I see when I see this is the potential for further improvement; for growth.”

For additional background, please see:

• “What students want: The top decision factors for study abroad“
• “How post-study work rights can make or break the return on investment for study abroad“

The post Five things we learned from this year’s International Student Barometer appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The survey sampled 7,900 current and prospective students around the world in July and August of 2025.

At the same time as students gravitate to AI inputs to inform decision-making, research by US education consultancy EAB highlights the continued relevance of a multi-channel marketing and recruitment strategy that prioritises (1) the content and design of institutional website and (2) supporting agents with accurate, real-time information about programmes, deadlines, requirements, applications, visa guidelines, and more.

Over half intend to use ChatGPT for study abroad decisions

More than half of surveyed prospective students plan to use ChatGPT to decide which institution to study at (54%) and in which programme (53%). This is up considerably from last year, when 35% of prospects surveyed in August 2024 planned to use AI for institution selection and 38% intended to determine which subject to choose.  

Source: IDP’s Emerging Futures 8

The research also found that 85% of prospective students are seriously considering more than one study destination.

Simon Emmett, chief partnerships officer at IDP Education, commented on the implications of the findings: ā€œWhile students are still turning to counsellors and universities for advice, many are telling us that AI is becoming part of their decision-making toolkit. As a result, AI is shaping the early stage of studentsā€™ journeys.ā€

AI as the first step, but not the only one

The growing proportion of students who are using AI tools for study abroad research is changing the role of education agents. In the past, it was common for a student to walk into an agentā€™s office with a vague sense of where and what they might want to study and an expectation that agents would fill in their knowledge gaps and guide their decision-making process. This is still happening, but to a lesser extent.

Vaishali Jain, a senior education counsellor at IDP Education, said she is already noticing a change in the knowledge base of students ā€“ and adjusting accordingly:

ā€œWeā€™re seeing a growing number of students using AI tools like ChatGPT to explore study options before they even speak to a counsellor. AI is helping students clarify their interests, compare institutions, and come to us with more focused questions, while still having the support and guidance of counsellors to keep them on track until the visa has been granted. When used thoughtfully, it helps students take more control of their learning journey.”

IDP asked a student for their perspective. Ishika Malik, who is currently in a psychology programme at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia, said:

ā€œWhen youā€™re making such a big decision it can be hard to know where to begin. By asking questions that mattered to me, AI helped me narrow down my options and understand what was possible. That made it much easier to have meaningful conversations with counsellors and finalise my application when the time was right.ā€

In other words, students still value agentsā€™ insights and guidance, but they are increasingly seeking agents’ services later in the decision-making process and with different expectations than in the past.  

Students consider AI results with caution

Beyond the IDP survey, other recent research shows that most students understand that they cannot automatically trust AI responses to their questions. This has important implications for institutions and agents, since there is still significant student demand for information and guidance provided outside of AI.

For example, education consulting firm of more than 20,000 high-school students in the US found that AI chatbots such as ChatGPT or Gemini were trusted the least of all information sources about an institution. The top three resources trusted by students were:

• In-person events (e.g., campus tours, college fairs, information sessions) ā€“ 34%
• Online resources (e.g., specific college websites, college search data) ā€“ 30%
• High-school resources (e.g., teachers, coaches, counsellors) ā€“ 26%

AI chatbots came last in the list of 11 options students were asked to consider (3%).

The EAB survey findings highlight that in-person events and human advice remain the most valued sources of information for students deciding on where to study. IDPā€™s Simon Emmett concurs with the perspective that AI is not a replacement for other channels used by students in their research. He notes that the latest iteration of Emerging Futures found significant reliance on agents/counsellors and university websites:

ā€œDespite the growing intent to engage AI, more than a third of students told us counsellors are among their most trusted sources of advice, and over half still rely on university websites. The role of counsellors and educators remains vital, especially when it comes to making final decisions, navigating applications, and building the confidence to take the leap.ā€

Implications for agent-institution partnerships

The IDP research suggests that agentsā€™ value is shifting more to:

• Truth-proofing the results of studentsā€™ AI research;
• Offering a more authoritative source of information based on deep, real-time knowledge of institution and programme benefits;
• Liaising with institutions on the shortlist to inform them about how students are evaluating their offer versus that of competitors;
• Supporting students in terms of visa applications and processes and preparing them for study abroad.

For agents to fulfill that ability to deliver authoritative, real-time information, they need institutions to provide them with accurate, compelling facts about what is offered in terms of programmes, requirements, deadlines, etc. Regular updates and check-in calls have never been more important for productive agent-institution relationships.

For additional background, please see:

• “Students are switching to AI for search. Are you ready?“

The post Growing use of AI for study abroad decisions highlights importance of multi-channel marketing strategies appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

This year, the report also does a nice job in setting the context for enquiry management by providing some important takeaways from a survey of 49 responding institutions. Those findings highlight, for example, that two out of five universities in the sample report receiving more than 25,000 international student enquiries every year.

Near nine in ten (85%) of the responding institutions report using either a standalone or fully integrated CRM system to help manage those enquiry volumes. A similar proportion (84%) say that they use marketing automation tools as well. Edified adds that while the use of such tools is widespread, it is “at varying levels of sophistication globally.”

The institution survey also provides an interesting window into the enquiry channels supported across universities. As we see in the figure below, email and phone remain the most commonly available options.

The 2025 Enquiry Experience Tracker

The average overall scores in the tracker study rose by 10% year-over-year to reach a four-year high point. The proportion of responses rated as “excellent” rose from one-third to 58%, and the share of interactions characterised as “negative” fell from 33% to 18%. This reflects, says Edified, “how intense global competition is driving universities to sharpen their interactions with prospects.”

The 2025 study is based on enquiries filed with 103 institutions in five countries, across six enquiry channels (e.g., email, web enquiry form, WhatsApp, or other) and using seven student personas. Roughly a third of the institutions in the study were in the UK, another 28% were in Australia and New Zealand, just over a quarter in Canada, and 7% in the United States (all in the state of New York).

The mystery shoppers’ interactions with each university were then evaluated against 51 criteria, including “findability, responsiveness, clarity, and personalisation.” The scores for each are weighted according to the following model and used to generate an overall Enquiry Experience Score (out of 100) for each institution in the study.

The results

Overall scoring improved this year to a global average of 61, which represents a six-point improvement from the 2024 study. As we see in the figure below, however, the scoring varied a fair bit by region, with institutions in Australia and New Zealand showing the strongest performance. Also of note: each region in the 2025 study either improved or equalled their ratings from 2024.

The four years of the Enquiry Experience Tracker study reflect a steady improvement in enquiry handling, with global ratings rising from 51 in 2022 to this year’s overall score of 61.

Key findings

Beyond those institutional, regional, and global scores, the Enquiry Experience Tracker model has some important insights to offer.

Channels are not always on. Some of the enquiry channels that students find most meaningful ā€“Ā such as peer-to-peer, live chat and WhatsApp ā€“Ā are not always available, meaning students are essentially asked to fall back to more traditional channels like email to reach the institution.

For example, only 70% of institutions provide options to chat with current students, and just over half have live chat or chatbots. WhatsApp is the channel least likely to be offered with two-thirds of this year’s mystery shoppers unable to locate WhatsApp details. The significant of this rests in part in the fact that students found WhatsApp the most satisfying enquiry channel in every region. It is an option that, when available, offers greater responsiveness (all students in the study received an answer to their queries via WhatsApp and 80% of those came within two business hours. “The experience was so good,” says the study report, that “6 in 7 students said theyā€™d be likely to engage further.”

Responsiveness is improving generally. Across the 2025 study, response rates and speed in responding improved. Edified reports: “Half of replies met best practice timeframes, up from four in ten last year.”

The report adds, “Response rates improved slightly, indicating that institutions are paying closer attention to their lead pipelines amid shifting policies and growing competition. On average, ANZ institutions are the most responsive, answering more than 95% of enquiries placed with them, followed by UK institutions, who replied to 85%. Response rates in North America were less consistent. One in four students didnā€™t hear back after placing enquiries to Canadian and US institutions in the time allowed for this research (three weeks for email and 15 minutes for live channels).”

Enquiry responses are becoming more effective. This year’s study finds that most institutions improved their communications in the last year and delivered both the key information that students need but also an element of persuasion as well. “Nearly 80% of responses were tailored to studentsā€™ study interests or country and 60% went the extra mile to include bonus information to help students,” adds the report. “Globally, half of communications were rated as ā€˜excellentā€™ against our standard ā€“ a further improvement on previous years.”

Follow-up remains a big challenge. While the study reflects better performance in terms of the initial reply to a student enquiry, serious issues remain in terms of any further follow up activity. Only one in four mystery shoppers received follow-up communications in the 2025 study, although this was up from one in five last year.

The report notes an important variation in follow up practice in that, “Students who placed web form enquiries were followed up with the most often, with 45% receiving nurture emails. This indicates a growing capability in data integration and consent management globally. Follow-ups were lowest for phone enquiries, and less than one in ten students heard back from institutions after their call.”

The bottom line. Most students in the 2025 study felt positively about their interaction with the institution(s). But one in five still said they would be unlikely to continue engaging beyond the initial exchange with the institution, mainly because the responses they received were impersonal or lacked warmth or a more personal touch. Just over half of the students in the study reported a positive experience, and more than four in ten said they would be “very likely” to keep engaging with the institution.

“Getting the basics of enquiry management right is not always enough to win hearts,” says Edified. “Student feedback shows they most value the institutions that anticipate their needs, give personalised responses and make them feel genuinely welcome.”

Recommendations

Working off of those important findings, the study report offers a series of recommendations for enquiry management.

1. “Apply a conversion mindset.” Each enquiry is an opportunity to guide the student to choosing your institution. Put your unique sales points forward, offer value-added details that speak to the student’s concerns, and close with practical next steps in the process.
   
2. Open up mobile channels. Many students may prefer to interact on messaging apps, but relatively few institutions offer this option.
   
3. “Donā€™t send students on a scavenger hunt.” Rather than relying on links to provide information, answer the student’s questions directly and meaningfully in your reply. “A more thoughtful reply builds trust and shows students what they can expect if they choose to study with you,” says Edified.
   
4. Commit to ongoing improvement. Student concerns, expectations, and even channel preferences are changing all the time. “Stay connected with your recruitment and in-country teams to identify shifts or challenges early, and adjust your content and channels accordingly,” concludes the study report.

For additional background, please see:

• “How to improve your communications with prospective international students“
• “In a time of shifting student demand, a speedy response to enquiries is a must“
• “Mystery shopping study indicates many institutions are still losing international student leads“

The post Mystery shopping study finds broad improvement in student enquiry handling this year appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The programme ā€“ produced in partnership by Studyportals with Uni-Life and the British Council IELTS ā€“ relies entirely on student reviews, which this year amounted to 102,000 reviews from students across 3,059 universities and 124 countries. The reviews were submitted between January 2023 and July 2025, from current students or alumni who graduated after January 2022.

Overall student satisfaction remains high at 4.18/5.00, reflecting a marginal decrease from 2023’s rating of 4.21. Comparable to the 2023 survey, just under 96% of responding students rated their overall study experience at either four or five stars.

At a national level, the top-performing destinations ā€“ based on that overall satisfaction score ā€“ were the United States (4.32), Belgium (4.29), and Austria (4.28). The following figure highlights a wider selection of country ratings (for overall satisfaction), comparing destination performance on two dimensions: (i) positive or negative change relative to the 2023 rating and (ii) relative ranking compared to the global average of 4.18.

Aside from the US, Canada showed steady improvement over the last four years, climbing from a rating of 4.07 (2021) and 4.11 (2023) to reach the global average for first time. The United Kingdom has also shown steady, if more gradual improvement, rising from 4.1 (2021) and 4.18 (2023) to 4.23 this year. Australia, however, remains below the global benchmark, with ratings consistently around 4.13 over the past four years.

As we see in the following summary of other key indicators from the 2025 ratings, there is a little more variability sitting behind that overall score.

ā€œThese results show where universities are winning student trust, and where they risk losing it,” said Studyportals CEO Edwin van Rest. “Students are more confident about career prospects, but increasingly concerned about diversity and their quality of life. In todayā€™s competitive environment, these student voices are critical signals for universities. Understanding these perspectives is crucial for shaping policies and programmes that genuinely meet studentsā€™ needs.ā€

Signals for improvement

The student rating for “Admissions Process” declined from 4.41 in 2023 to 4.24 this year. This parameter reflects student feedback with respect to ease of application, clarity of website information, and quality of staff assistance during the admission process.

Part of the issue here may lie in the premium that students place on ease of use and streamlined experience in other parts of their lives. “Students specifically appreciate when online applications are ‘easy and simple to operate’ and websites are user-friendly,” adds Studyportals. “Modern students expect admission processes to match the usability standards of consumer applications, with intuitive interfaces and straightforward procedures.”

Another notable change this year was in the area of “Student Diversity,” which reflects “how effectively universities foster welcoming environments for students from different countries, cultures, religions, age groups, gender identities, backgrounds, and those with special needs.”

Student satisfaction with respect to “Student Diversity” dropped from 4.37 (2023) to 4.15 this year, a change that the report summarises as, “Universities that intentionally create welcoming spaces for students from different backgrounds see higher satisfaction. Conversely, some students faced problems integrating into the campus community or feeling at home in a new country.”

The meaningful thing about both parameters is that they are largely within the control of each university, which highlights that they remain areas of opportunity and potential competitive advantage for most institutions.

The steady rise of career services

Students rated their satisfaction with “Career Development” at 4.13 this year, a small increase over the 4.08 rating from 2023 but an impressive gain over four years from the 3.86 rating from 2021. As the term suggests, this aspect of student experience is concerned with, “How well universities support students’ career development through extracurricular courses, workshops, conferences, internship assistance, and other employability-enhancing activities.”

Overall, “Career Development” is the most-improved category tracked in the programme, indicating the greater attention to student support and student outcomes in this respect. Given everything we are learning in recent years about the greater emphasis students now place on those outcomes, this is a particularly relevant finding in the 2025 ratings.

This year’s report also includes a series of related recommendations for institutions planning to further strengthen their career services for students.

• “Facilitate industry professional connections. Organise regular interactions with working professionals through guest lectures, networking events, and mentorship programmes. These direct industry connections often prove more valuable than theoretical career guidance, providing students with realistic insights and professional networks.

• Expand hands-on learning opportunities. Bridge the gap between academic learning and professional application through well-supported internships and real-world projects. Students need practical experience with current industry tools and challenges to feel prepared for their careers.

• Leverage faculty research connections. Ensure professors actively engaged in current research translate contemporary industry challenges into classroom content. This makes education feel immediately relevant and prepares students for the evolving problems they’ll encounter in their professional lives”.

For additional background, please see:

• “How likely are students to recommend your institution?“
• “Global survey says graduate outcomes the most important factor in studentsā€™ choice of institution abroad“
• “Better living and social environments for students linked to better mental health“
• “Is employability still the holy grail for the new generation of international students?“

The post Global student satisfaction survey highlights growing attention to career services appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has introduced new elements in the way students learn and work. Understanding how students perceive and interact with AI can help higher education institutions make informed decisions about whether and how to incorporate AI tools into curricula and support services.

Since 2024, the International Student Barometer (ISB) has expanded its learning satisfaction questions to include insights into how AI is currently integrated into educational settings, as well as into its perceived impact on students’ learning journeys and future career prospects. In this article, we will look at some global trends based on the International Student Barometer (ISB) data gathered from over 106,000 students, but we will also pay attention to regional nuances revealing important differences in how students engage with these emerging technologies.

The ISB data gathers responses on AI spanning six main areas:

1. Usage
2. Overall satisfaction
3. Learning experience
4. Frequency
5. Areas of use
6. Impact

AI usage among student populations

Identifying whether students are relying on AI-based tools or technologies to assist their studies helps institutions gauge the current levels of usage. Globally 57% of enrolled students mention they use AI tools, with a significantly higher proportion of international students studying at European institutions acknowledging they use AI (74%) than international students studying in Asia (65%).

26% of students mention they use AI tools daily, with Master level students using AI tools the most (3l% using it daily against 24% of both BA/undergraduate-level students and PhD candidates). When we look at study area, not surprisingly, Computing students are among the ones that use AI tools most frequently (33% daily use). Medicine students, with 38% stating they use AI tools daily, are among the top users, whereas only l8% of Media, Journalism, and Communications students claim they use it daily.

Overall satisfaction with AI integration

The ISB also measures students’ overall satisfaction with how AI technologies are integrated into their learning environment. This metric helps institutions understand whether their digital strategies meet student expectations or if adjustments and further integration are needed to enhance the study experience.

ISB data shows the highest satisfaction with online learning in Asia (65%). This might suggest that Asian institutions may be further along in adopting digital tools into their curricula, while regions with a lower satisfaction (e.g., the UK, which scores 47%) might hint at a stronger tradition of campus-centered education. When we look at the differences in satisfaction with online learning tools, we see that overall students are happiest with online learning resources and library facilities, an area where North American, European, and UK institutions outperform Asian institutions.

Impact on learning experience

Students are extremely positive about the impact of AI-based tools on their learning experience. We see a very high level of satisfaction globally of 94% (taking strongly agree (34%) and agree (60%) responses together), with North American institutions topping it with 96% of international students saying they strongly agree (42%) or agree (54%) that integrating AI technologies into their institution experience has positively enhanced their learning experience. Institutions in Asia also score 96% here but the percentage of international students saying they strongly agree is much lower (3l%).

This type of information will enable institutions to assess whether students view AI as an asset or as a challenge, guiding decisions on embracing AI-driven learning tools more actively or prioritising different methods. Despite differences in modality preference, the overriding insight is that (international) students across all regions overwhelmingly seem to recognise the value AI brings.

Frequency of AI usage by region (destination)

Understanding how often students use AI tools complements insights into students’ learning patterns and helps locate the role of AI in their education. Only 1% of international students surveyed in the ISB 2024 claim they never use AI tools, whereas 26% state they use AI tools on a daily basis.

Looking at regional breakdowns, it is interesting to notice that international students at North American institutions lead in daily interactions (32%) as well as weekly use (47%), possibly driven by the integration of AI tools in learning systems. It leads us to ask the question: Does higher daily usage correlate with stronger perceptions of AI’s usefulness?

“Today’s students, particularly younger generations, interact with AI intuitively in their everyday lives, often without even realising it. To meet their evolving expectations, institutional departments (marketing, admissions, academics, career advisors, alumni relations, etc.) must align around a unified, student-centered experience. ln this context, AI becomes the connective tissue that enables immediacy, personalisation, and predictive insight at scale,” says Alejandra Otero, founder and CEO of geNEOus, enrolment management experts. With student expectations rising and attention spans shrinking, we need student satisfaction data helping us balance human emotional intelligence with the enhanced efficiency AI makes possible.

Areas of use

The ISB also explores the specific domains in which AI tools might have had the most significant impact, including:

• Academic advising and planning
• Communication with lecturers and peers
• Coursework and assignments
• Research and information retrieval
• Time management and organisation

Identifying the areas where AI makes the greatest difference helps institutions make informed decisions on how to tailor their support and development strategies to best meet students’ needs.

Across all regions, students concentrate their AI use in three top domains, with research and information retrieval as the most used domain:

Perceived impact on future careers

We have also asked students a question around the impact of AI on their future career prospects. This is an important question to address. Understanding whether students view AI as an enabling or hindering factor to their careers can help institutions better prepare their students for an AI-integrated workforce. For instance, the chart below visualises students’ perceptions from various regions on how AI may affect their career prospects. The majority of students remain neutral about AI’s impact on their career prospects, while a substantial percentage of students globally view it positively. Negative perceptions are relatively low (only 11% globally), suggesting that students are generally optimistic about AI’s influence in determining their professional future.

Interestingly, we observe a general convergence on how students perceive AI’s impact. Despite some fluctuations between regions, the overall sentiment remains consistent, revealing a shared sense of cautious optimism or neutrality across various parts of the world when it comes to the impact of AI on careers. While the global story of AI-based tools in education is one of near-universal enthusiasm (94.5% positive), regional patterns remind us that modality preference, daily engagement, and application priorities differ. Irrespective of how we view the use of AI in higher education, the ISB data helps us to make decisions: Do we want to fortify digital classrooms, deepen tool integration, or respect the value of in-person learning? Notwithstanding the choices we make as educators, we need to understand how currently enrolled (and future) students view AI-based support in learning.

The post How does this current generation of students view the impact of AI? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Building on those earlier findings, the 2025 survey gathers responses from 155 US universities and 64 education agents in order to provide an updated view on the motivations, methods, opportunities and challenges facing US educators and their partners in international recruitment for the United States.

How and why?

For a strong majority of responding institutions (82%), international student recruitment is carried out by staff in the admissions office (44%), as part of a global education unit (26%), or via a stand-alone department (12%). Only 14% indicated that recruitment is distributed across multiple offices throughout the university.

In terms of motivation for building international enrolment, and in contrast to the 2023 survey findings, “Overall financial well-being of the institution” was the most-cited factor this year. While hardly unique to the US, this may reflect a growing concern around the financial stability of higher education institutions in the United States.

“This is a major shift compared to two years ago, when financial reasons were only the fourth most important reason,” notes the report. “Although diversifying the student body dropped from the first place to second, it remains an important aspect of student recruitment and experience.”

Channels to market

Nearly nine out of ten responding universities (87%) said that they use digital marketing channels to reach international students. In broad terms, this makes digital the most widely used recruitment channel among respondents.

The following chart provides a more detailed breakdown of other key channels, with a further breakdown in each case to indicate the extent to which responding institutions reported managing each channel in-house, via a third party, or a combination of the two.

“In-person and virtual recruitment events are gaining traction, with 82% of institutions confirming their investment in these channels,” adds the report. “Post-application student conversion support has become [another] important recruitment channel, with 80% of institutions dedicating resources to this approach.”

Most are working with agents

The 2025 survey makes to clear as well that the US universities’ engagement with education agents has expanded considerably over the past decade, with three out of four American institutions now actively working with agents.

The report explains: “Partnering with education agencies is increasingly popular among institutions. A 2016 study by BONARD revealed that 37% of US institutions engaged with education agencies. This figure rose to 63% in 2022 and has now reached 75% in 2024, proving the increasing importance of this recruitment channel in higher education.” Further, nearly half of responding universities (47%) report working with 20 or more agencies.

The major factors cited by institutions when selecting or evaluating an agency partner include the agent’s country of operation, positive references from other universities, the quality of referred students, agency certification/accreditation, the number of students placed in the US, and the number of existing partners in the United States.

For their part, responding agencies put the emphasis on academic programme offerings, tuition and fees, institutional rankings, and responsiveness when vetting an institutional partner in the US. Agents also highlighted the factors outlined in the chart below ā€“ notably stability and commitment of the partner institution ā€“ as key aspects of an effective, long-term working relationship with a US institution.

The survey report confirms that, “More than half of educational agencies use a traditional, face-to-face model [for recruitment]; they provide a wide range of support services to students and to institutions; cost and visa issuance remain one of the most significant challenges to agencies [in recruiting to the US]; they focus on what they believe is best for students, including academic offerings, cost and institution rankings; and agencies and institutions differ in compensation model preferences.”

A more diverse recruitment

With enrolments slowing from traditionally strong sending markets, notably China, South Korea, and Saudi Arabia, responding universities say that they are increasingly focused on developing new or emerging student markets. “Sixty-two percent of institutions are targeting emerging markets such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Ghana,” highlights the report. “Additionally, 59% are expanding their recruitment and partnership networks to diversify their global outreach.”

Institutions noted “visa difficulties” (referring both to processing delays and rising rejection rates) as their most significant recruitment challenge, followed by “access to additional budget”, and “cost of education in the US.”

For additional background, please see:

• “Nearly two-thirds of US colleges now working with agents“
• “Real-time insights on shifting international student interest in the US“
• “New whitepaper urges US institutions to diversify foreign enrolment“

The post Survey finds US institutions expanding agency engagement and focusing on new student markets appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

is the worldā€™s largest international student experience survey of enrolled students, and it is conducted and analysed by Etio (formerly i-graduate). This latest wave generated 192,581 student responses, including 122,975 international students, studying at 155 institutions in 24 countries.

Rethinking career services

ā€œFuture career impactā€ has been the most important determinant of study abroad decision making since 2018, and this year it came in at 96%, compared to 94% for ā€œspecific course titleā€ and ā€œuniversity reputation.ā€ Other top influences were ā€œresearch quality,ā€ especially at the post-grad level, and ā€œearning potentialā€ (93% each).

In a webinar devoted to discussing the findings, Nannette Ripmeester, director client services for Europe and North America for Etio, noted that she often hears university staff wondering why their students arenā€™t more satisfied with career supports despite improved institutional attention to that aspect of the study experience. She says that often, the problem is that preparing students for work is a siloed or even one-off endeavour:

ā€œStudents really expect more. Itā€™s not just a workshop at the end. Thatā€™s not going to do the trick. Employability must be really integrated into your curricula, and from first year to last year, it should be embedded in everything.ā€

Previous waves of the ISB have asked only final-year students about career preparedness, but this year, this expanded to students in earlier years as well. The research found that career concerns are prevalent in all years, suggesting that institutions should integrate work-related programming ā€“ e.g., lectures or entire units being delivered by industry professionals, work placements/internships, career advice and other supports, alumni networks, etc. ā€“ across the whole student journey.

Globally, 80% of final-year students said they feel prepared for their career goals. Ms Ripmeester noted that while this is a solid majority, it also means that 1 in 5 surveyed students do not feel prepared to meet their career goals when they graduate.

Costs and safety also matter

Not surprisingly, given the topsy-turvy economic context and persistent inflation in many countries in 2025, costs of living and studying also weigh on studentsā€™ minds when they are choosing where to enrol and while they are enrolled.

Safety is another top concern, especially for Chinese and Saudi Arabian students and their parents. Robin Hallows, the head of surveys for Etio, noted that good safety measures and a strong safety record should not be overlooked in promotional materials, saying it can go a long way in influencing studentsā€™ choice of destination and institution.

Related to safety is a student’s experience in a host country as a foreigner. Globally, 1 in 5 students said they had experienced some form of discrimination (e.g., race or nationality), with Chinese students particularly likely to have felt targeted.

How likely are students be brand advocates?

During the webinar, Etio panelists explained an important metric they are tracking in the ISB: the Net Promoter Score (NPS). This score is based on answers to the question ā€œHow likely is it that you would recommend this institution to family or a friend?ā€, where students were asked to pick a number on a scale of 0ā€“10, where 10 is the most likely to recommend.

The following screen grab from the webinar explains how the NPS is derived. The higher an institutionā€™s NPS, the more active promoters (or brand advocates) they have within their student body. This is an incredibly important metric given that the opinion of current students is highly influential for prospective students deciding where to study.

Donā€™t ignore AI

This wave of the ISB asked students for their opinions about artificial intelligence (AI). Fully 94% said it improved their study experience. Whatever academicsā€™ concerns are about AI and studying, thereā€™s no debating the fact that students are using it, and happily.

For additional background, please see:

• ā€œGlobal survey says graduate outcomes the most important factor in studentsā€™ choice of institutionā€

The post How likely are students to recommend your institution? appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

“We know that international students choose their study destination based on factors that help them become job ready, with access to post-study employment being the key influence,ā€ said Simon Emmett, chief partner officer at IDP Education. “The research serves as a timely reminder for governments and policymakers to embrace international students, who go on to fill vital skill gaps and foster long-lasting diplomatic ties between their home and host countries.”

Roughly a third of respondents were prospective international students (29%), another 43% had applied to study abroad, and 21% were already enrolled overseas. Consistent with earlier cycles of Emerging Futures findings, just over two-thirds of respondents (67%) cited “career development” as their main motivation for study abroad. Only “education quality” received a comparable rating (also 67%), with other factors such as “acquiring global knowledge” and “reputable qualifications” coming in slightly lower.

Respondents are also keenly looking at graduate outcomes. “Graduate employment rate” ranked as the top indicator of “high-quality education” abroad, ahead of “institution ranking” or “quality of academic staff.” In a similar vein, “job outcomes from the institution” represent the top non-academic factor for students, ahead of “range of scholarships” or “access to part-time work opportunities.”

Affordability continues to be a major concern

When asked about their main concerns about studying abroad, most students (66%) cited “cost and finances.” That concern placed well ahead of the next-most pressing item: “visa challenges” (47%). Those factors, along with a growing student interest in post-study outcomes, are reflected in the following chart, which measures the relative attractiveness of leading study destinations across a range of criteria.

In fact, concerns around affordability are so high that one in two students told IDP they would consider switching to another destination if it had lower savings requirements.

The bottom line, says IDP, is that, “Students are driven by career development, job outcomes, and return on their investment when choosing where to study internationally. Employability is a critical priority, underscoring the need for institutions to strengthen career support and industry connections to enhance studentsā€™ international study experience.”

For additional background, please see:

• “The impact of immigration settings, affordability, and job opportunities on international studentsā€™ study abroad decisions“
• “Reimagining career services for international students“
• “The three persistent themes in student accommodation: affordability, availability, and accountability“

The post Global survey says graduate outcomes the most important factor in students’ choice of institution abroad appeared first on ŗŚĮĻ¹ŁĶų Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.