The public files are in many respects an under-appreciated resource, because they provide detailed guidance about the rules and compliance requirements for Canada’s various immigration streams. They also provide a window into how, over time, that guidance can be expanded, clarified, or otherwise changed.

The larger context here is that many students gather information about compliance or the fine points of their visa status from peers, through online message boards, and from other unofficial sources. Many, too, file their own applications for visas or renewals without assistance from an authorised advisor or lawyer – and they may or may not be aware of the latest official guidance.

A number of changes have been published in recent weeks to the reference files for study permit and post-graduate work permit (PGWP) compliance. Not all of these are rule changes. Rather, many take the form of useful clarifications of established policy or practice. That said, keeping track of those changes can be tricky as they may not be publicly announced or otherwise highlighted in the published files.

In broad terms, the revisions made in the second half of June point to greater scrutiny of the enrolment status and academic progress of continuing students, students transferring between programmes and institutions, and students’ absence or leave from studies. They also introduce important updates to PGWP eligibility, and they mark the end of an exception for temporary residents to pursue studies in Canada without a study permit.

Actively pursuing studies

The current version (as of 18 June 2026) of the IRCC file “” expands on the department’s expectations for the active pursuit of studies and academic progression with additional detail on when the programme of studies is considered to be completed.

Specifically, it stipulates that:

“Studies are considered officially completed on the date the DLI first notifies the student by any of the following:

• Completion letter
• Transcript
• Degree or diploma

The date stated on the document will be considered the date of notification unless the applicant and/or DLI can provide proof of a different date.”

The significance of that mechanism is underscored by a related note in the study permit guidance, which specifies that the student’s study permit “will become invalid … 90 days after the day the study permit holder completed their studies.”

Changing DLIs or programmes of study

The include considerable expansion of the rules around transferring between institutions.

This guidance is based on a rule change, effective 8 November 2024, which stipulates that “study permit holders in Canada, whose permit names a DLI [Designated Learning Institution], must apply for a new study permit if they wish to change designated learning institutions (DLIs).”

The updated file expands on this point by specifying that “study permit holders must adhere to the condition that they remain enrolled at the DLI named on their study permit until they complete their studies … their study permit becomes invalid on the day that they are no longer enrolled at the DLI named on their study permit, other than as a result of completing their studies.”

“Therefore, if a student whose study permit names a DLI has changed DLIs without applying for a new study permit, their previous study permit is rendered invalid and the student is considered to be studying without authorization at the new DLI.”

The updated guidance also addresses the scenario where a student may have a study permit that does not specify a DLI: “If a post-secondary student holds a study permit issued prior to November 8, 2024,that does not name a DLI, they should apply for a new study permit when changing DLIs. Once that study permit with no DLI is expired, they must apply for a new study permit which will be issued with the name of the DLI they are attending.”

The bottom line is that students cannot change institutions before they obtain a new study permit that specifies the new DLI.

The exception to this pertains to students who transfer to a different programme of study within the same DLI: “Students engaging in post-secondary studies in Canada are authorized to change programs of study within the same DLI at the same level of study, provided they are not limited from doing so by conditions imposed on their study permit.”

Finally, the expanded guidance in this area also provides some clear provisions for secondary students transitioning to post-secondary education:

“Students must apply for a new study permit with the DLI’s name on it when they transition to post-secondary studies to avoid any non-compliance issues.”

And:

“If a student is attending a secondary school while on a visitor record, they must wait for their study permit application to be approved before beginning studies at the post-secondary level.”

Leave from studies

remains consistent from past versions in that, “Students may be required or may wish to take leave from their studies while in Canada. For the purpose of assessing if a student is actively pursuing their studies, any leave taken from a program of studies in Canada should not exceed 150 days from the date the leave commenced and must be authorized by their DLI.”

However, the 18 June updates expand on multiple leave periods and work rights during a leave from studies.

The point regarding multiple leave periods is in keeping with an overall pattern towards greater scrutiny of student progress: “In cases where a student has taken multiple periods of authorized leave in Canada during their program of study, the officer should consider the student’s reasons for the various periods of leave. If the multiple periods of leave do not appear to support the expectation that the student is making reasonable progress toward the completion of their course or program of study in the time allotted by the course or program of study, the officer may determine that the study permit holder has not fulfilled the condition to actively pursue their course or program of study.”

And on the question of working during a leave from studies, the updated document sets out plainly that, “If a study permit holder is not attending class full time, they are not eligible to work as per the condition listed on their study permit … During any leave from studies, including DLI closures, a study permit holder cannot work on or off campus.”

PGWP and non-credit programmes

IRCC also updated its guidance for on 24 June 2026. The notable change here occurs in the section “Who’s not eligible for a PGWP” which has been changed to specify that students are not eligible if they have “completed a non-credit program of study (except for a flight school program).”

The significance of such updates is underscored by the high-profile case of a large number of PGWP application rejections this month for graduates from the Canadian Institute of Osteopathic Therapy (CIOT) in Calgary. CIOT delivers programmes in partnership with , and students in such public-private partnerships (P3) are no longer eligible for PGWPs following a rule change that came into effect on 15 May 2024.

However, many of the CIOT students who have had their PGWP applications refused began their studies prior to that May 2024 effective date, and therefore should be grandfathered under the previous policy that allowed students in P3 programmes to be eligible for post-study work.

, an independent news outlet, reports that, “The students immediately inquired about this with [IRCC], which said the mass rejections were due to recent policy changes, including that non-credit courses were no longer eligible for work permits …. This modification was made on June 24, years after the students initially started their programs and 18 to 21 months after they submitted their work permit applications.”

In a written response to Livewire Calgary, IRCC explained that “There have been no changes to the eligibility criteria. We updated our PGWP webpage in June 2026 to clarify the existing eligibility requirements related to non-credit programs of study.”

The inference from that reporting is that (i) the policy around non-credit study may have been clear within IRCC but may not have been commonly understood otherwise; (ii) IRCC appears to have determined that there was some ambiguity in this area, thus the 24 June update; and (iii) because this does not represent, in the apparent view of IRCC, a rule change (but rather a clarification), students may not be automatically grandfathered.

șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor understands that many of the affected students are appealing their PGWP refusals and that the published guidance in this area may be further tested as a result.

Study for work permit holders

Finally, IRCC has also closed out that allowed some work permit holders to study in Canada without a study permit.

This policy had been in place from 27 June 2023, and it officially expired on 27 June 2026.

For additional background, please see:

• “OECD: International students may be underinformed about job prospects in top destinations“
• “New data provides early signals that Canada’s popularity as a study destination is on the rise“
• “New international student permit approvals for Canada fell below COVID levels in 2025“
• “Canada’s foreign enrolment has fallen by nearly 300,000 students over the last two years“

The post Canadian immigration officials have made several updates to compliance guidance for study permits and post-graduate work permits appeared first on șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The end of duration of status?

DHS, which includes United States Citizenship and Immigration Services and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, says it will publish an updated rule establishing a fixed time period for international student visas in July 2026.

from immigration law specialists Fragomen explains: “This month, DHS plans to issue final regulation that will end the longstanding practice of admitting foreign students (F nonimmigrants), exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) and media representatives (I nonimmigrants) to the United States for the duration of their program – known as ‘duration of status’ – and switch to admitting individuals in these categories with a fixed expiration date, after which they will be required to file an extension with the immigration authorities in order to remain in the United States.”

For those who would like additional background on the forthcoming rule, we have written extensively about the pending changes to duration of status. Details of DHS’ proposed rule from August 2025 are .

This rule change has been anticipated all year and has the potential to introduce significant aspects of uncertainty and disruption for foreign students in the US. As such, we might expect that it will also be subject to legal challenge on publication.

Proposals pending for practical training

The newly published agenda for 2026 carries over an item from the prior agenda pertaining to .

Details of the planned reforms are now anticipated in February 2027. For the moment, DHS says only that, “The proposed rule will better align practical training to the goals and objectives of the program while providing more clarity to the public. The proposed rule will amend existing regulations to address fraud and national security concerns, protect US workers from being displaced by foreign nationals, and enhance the Student and Exchange Visitor Program’s capacity to oversee the program.”

To the extent that those reforms affect the Optional Practical Training (OPT) programme, this could be another very consequential change in policy settings.

Of the 1,177,766 foreign students in the US in 2025, just over 294,000 (or about one in four) were in OPT. Participation in the programme was up 21% year-over-year from 2024 to 2025, continuing a multi-year programme of significant growth in programme participation.

Beyond its sheer scale, OPT is a critical aspect of the US offer to international students as it is the most widely used pathway to post-study work for foreign graduates. In a 2025 survey of current international students conducted by NAFSA and the Institute for Progress, 54% of respondents said they would not have enrolled at a US university had OPT not been available to them.

H-1B reforms

In another continuation of an item from the previous regulatory agenda, DHS say it intends to proceed with reforms to the H-1B work visa programme.

First published in , this amounts to a statement of intent to reform the programme “by revising eligibility for cap exemptions, providing greater scrutiny for employers that have violated program requirements, and increasing oversight over third party placements, among other provisions. These changes are intended to improve the integrity of the H-1B nonimmigrant program and better protect US workers’ wages and working conditions.”

There is no other detail in the agenda docs, except that the Department expects to publish its proposals for H-1B in August 2026.

For additional background, please see:

• “There are more international students in the US than ever in 2025, but commencements are declining“
• “US to end ‘Duration of Status’ for F, J, and I visas and limit the time international students can study in the US“
• “What international students need to know about study and work visas in the United States“

The post US regulatory agenda for 2026 aims to end “duration of status” and introduce Optional Practical Training and H-1B reforms appeared first on șÚÁÏčÙÍű 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 șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

These destinations are informally called the “Big Fourteen” in industry circles – representing the longer list of countries now enrolling tens or hundreds of thousands of international students.

Japan is on that expanded list. Last year, it surpassed its target to reach 400,000 international enrolments by 2033, and it did so eight years early. The achievement was bolstered by the government’s drive to attract and retain top foreign students to offset the economic effects of an ageing population and shrinking labour force.

Past Japanese governments considered the creation of English-taught programmes (ETPs) in the country’s universities to be a promising tool for building Japan’s global reputation and its international student population. But those programmes are no longer the focus. They exist, and many are successful, but new initiatives are behind the country’s strengthening position as a major study destination in Asia.

Japan’s departure from ETPs as a primary recruitment mechanism is due to several reasons we explore in this article, all of which highlight:

• The challenges of ETPs in non-anglophone countries where domestic English proficiency is low;
• A growing realisation that public acceptance of foreigners depends on how well immigrants can integrate into national culture and language;
• The importance of offering strong language supports to international students who are not proficient in a host country’s language.

ETPs: From recruitment lynchpin to programme option

In 2009, the Japanese government invested heavily in a project aimed at enrolling 300,000 international students by 2020. Part of that project was the launch of “Global 30,” which funded the development of ETPs in seven national and six private Japanese universities. These universities were chosen among hundreds because they were thought to have the best potential to position Japan as a premier regional education hub.

English-medium instruction in those thirteen universities prompted wider take-up of ETPs across the system – but not in a dramatic way. This was because:

• Funding for ETPs was limited to such a small number of universities;
• There is limited enthusiasm among faculty and Japanese students for English-taught programmes.

The general consensus is that the Global 30 project helped to raise the visibility and cachet of Japan as a study abroad destination – not least because of the marketing campaigns enabled by the funding – but did not drive system-wide adoption of ETPs.

The Global 30 project gave way to other initiatives, including the current J-MIRAI strategy, aka “Japan Mobility and Internationalisation: Re engaging and Accelerating Initiative for future generations,” as shown in the following chart.

Japan’s university internationalization arc: G30 → TGU → J MIRAI

The current landscape for English-taught programmes in Japan

The most recent definitive data shows that between 2018 and 2022, the number of undergraduate ETPs in Japanese universities edged up minimally from 42 to 45, and the number of postgraduate ETPs increased slightly from 107 to 114. Some premier universities are planning new English-taught courses, or even full departments, but these examples are few and far between.

Dr Hiroshi Ota, Director of the Global Education Program at Hitotsubashi University, said in an email exchange with șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor, “I don’t think the number of ETPs in Japan will increase significantly in the near future. I think that Japanese universities have reached their capacity limits for establishing new ETPs.”

Dr Ota believes that in order to increase the number of ETPs at Japanese universities in the future, major reforms are needed, such as switching the language of instruction to English in existing degree programmes taught in Japanese. This is because of the major obstacle preventing an expansion of ETPs in Japan: “The English proficiency of both Japanese students and Japanese faculty is significantly lower than in other countries.”

The language conundrum

In 2017, of 1,000 Japanese adults who had never lived overseas or studied abroad found that:

• 2.5% said they could “speak English fluently”
• 2.2% felt their English was sufficient for work
• 43.5% said they could “hardly speak English,” and 40% said they could speak only “elementary” English
• 22% felt able to answer a tourist’s question for directions

Though the survey was conducted in 2017, its findings are not dated. The 2025 EF English Proficiency ranked Japan 96th among 123 non-English speaking countries, moving Japan into the “very low proficiency” band (95–123). By contrast, China was ranked #86 (“low”) and South Korea #46 (“moderate”). Japan also sits behind Laos, Bhutan, Turkmenistan, and Vietnam.

Why is English-language proficiency so low?

There has historically been little need for English-language skills within Japanese society, with some exceptions. Most of the population can live and work entirely in Japanese. Retail outlets, media, government, and most workplaces operate fully in Japanese. The exceptions are Japanese who work in tourism, at multinational firms, or as academics involved in international research.

This is changing. For example, ETS, a company specialising in lifelong learning, commissioned the Harris Group in 2025 to conduct . Japanese respondents were more likely than their global peers to say English proficiency matters more today than it did five years ago (96%). On the policy side, the Japanese government has set a target for attracting more foreign direct investment (FDI) and multinationals.

However, Japan’s education system is not primed for the English-dominant global economy. Writing in , Yuko Tamura said: “One of the biggest problems in English education in the Japanese public system is the gap between the government’s expectations and the reality in schools.”

Ms Tamura writes:

“The focus on test-driven English education has eclipsed the true value of learning a foreign language, creating a sense of aversion among many of those studying it.”

It isn’t only students who may dread their English lessons; it is the instructors teaching these lessons. Ms Tamura writes:

“As a former English tutor, I taught Eiken Grade Pre-1 (the second-highest tier) to high school students who needed this level to aim for top universities. To my surprise, teachers were among those I tutored because this was the preferred proficiency level for their profession. Yet in 2023, only 45% and 81% of Japanese teachers in junior high and high schools respectively had achieved it.”

The low drive to learn English also dovetails with public concern about the rising number of foreigners in Japan and the impact on national identity. For example, political scientist Axel Klein commissioned in February 2026. One survey question asked if “foreigners should place the highest priority on following Japanese rules, etiquette, and customs.” Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) agreed, and only 7% disagreed.

Of the findings, Mr Klein, said:

“They reflect a tension that Japanese policymakers and the public have struggled to resolve: the economic case for accepting more foreign workers is clear, yet it sits uneasily alongside deep-rooted ideas of cultural cohesion and ethnic homogeneity.”

Learning Japanese a key step to employment

Mr Klein’s comment helps in understanding a new governmental policy announced in January 2026: foreigners will need to learn Japanese and be able to integrate into Japanese society in order to be eligible for permanent residency.

Learning Japanese will also help international graduates wanting to stay in Japan to find jobs.

Dr Ota adds:

“Unless they have a high level of Japanese proficiency, international students find it difficult to secure employment in Japan. This is especially true in the humanities and social sciences. When Japanese companies hire international students, they place the highest priority on Japanese language proficiency. In other words, Japanese companies screen applicants without distinguishing between Japanese and international students. Therefore, international students who do not have a high level of Japanese proficiency are at a disadvantage when job hunting.”

To smooth the settlement process, the government is working on a system to ensure both before and after they move to Japan, foreigners can learn basic Japanese and adapt to social norms.

Writing in , Menshu Toshihiro lauded the new policies, saying that they will “help to prevent conflicts with neighbors caused by unfamiliarity with the local language, rules, and customs.” He continued: “Japan’s path forward depends on its ability to integrate foreign nationals and build mutually beneficial relationships.”

Coincidentally or not, foreign enrolment in Japanese language schools is at record-high levels. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) data show 294,200 international students learning Japanese within Japan as of November 2024 – 30,000 more than in 2023.

While there are no system-wide, standardised pathways from Japanese language schools to Japanese universities, individual institutions do establish that pipeline. Some language schools even offer scholarships to encourage progression to certain institutions – you can see .

It is likely this pipeline will strengthen as the Japanese government turns ever more from a volume-based conception of international recruitment to a more selective one related not only to economic goals, but also to social ones.

For additional background, please see:

• “Japan market report: A dual focus on attracting international students and sending more Japanese students abroad”
• “From the Big Four to the Big Fourteen”
• “Japan surpassed its foreign enrolment target of 400,000 in 2025”

The post Japan: Japanese proficiency essential for foreign graduates staying on to work appeared first on șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

• Affordability
• Value for money
• Quality
• Scholarships
• Degree recognition across Europe
• English-taught programmes (15,000+ delivered wholly or partially in English)‹‹

The country has become especially popular in the past couple of years as thousands of international students find themselves priced out of programmes in the Big Four anglophone destinations (Australia, Canada, the UK, US) or rejected for a study visa.
 
A new whitepaper from student recruitment platform delves into the reasons for TĂŒrkiye’s ascent, while also outlining challenges the country faces in retaining foreign graduates. In this article, we will reference the report as well as other sources to provide an understanding of TĂŒrkiye’s new status among major study abroad destinations.

Burgeoning international student numbers

International education is a priority export sector for the Turkish government. Alongside tourism, the sector’s contribution to GDP has greatly accelerated in the past five years as the number of foreign students in TĂŒrkiye has increased.

The goal is to welcome 500,000 students by 2028, a target that looks likely to be met given the pace of growth in recent years. Turkish universities – of which there are over 200 – now host twice as many foreign students as they did five years ago (about 350,000 in 2026).

The new competitive advantage: predictability

It wasn’t that long ago that international students travelled (1) mostly to North America and a handful of European destinations and (2) prioritised rankings/reputation when selecting an institution. But especially over the past couple of years, this has changed. The MSM Unify report makes a great observation:

“Students are reassessing destination value propositions, placing greater emphasis on cost predictability, degree recognition, and access certainty over brand prestige alone.”

It isn’t just that the leading anglophone destinations are becoming more expensive. It is that they also are becoming more unpredictable in terms of post-study work rights, visa rejection rates, visa processing times, and costs of living.

By contrast, when international students choose TĂŒrkiye, they can expect stable, and much more affordable, tuition fees and living costs. The MSM Unify report compares the “total cost of attendance” (tuition plus living costs) across the US, UK, major European destinations, and TĂŒrkiye, as shown in the following chart.

The report notes:

“Undergraduate tuition fees in TĂŒrkiye typically range between USD$3,000 and USD$30,000 per year, depending on institution type and discipline. Professional and regulated programs, most notably medicine, generally fall within the USD$18,000 to USD$50,000 annual range, significantly below comparable programs in Europe, North America, or Australia. Public universities and selected foundation institutions offer even lower tuition for non-professional programmes.”

“Cost-efficient” rather than “low cost” higher education

TĂŒrkiye wants to position itself as “cost-efficient” rather than simply cheaper than Big Four alternatives. The report explains:

“TĂŒrkiye offers affordability without structural dilution of degree value. Its cost-value equation lowers financial risk while preserving international recognition, making it one of the most economically rational choices in today’s increasingly price-sensitive global higher education market.”

As long as students choose a well-respected Turkish institution (most of these are in Istanbul or Ankara), they can expect a high quality of education at a lower price than in most other major destinations. Six Turkish universities are in QS’s 2026 top 500, and 11 in total are in the top 1,000.

provides interesting comparisons between value-for-money at Turkish universities and at those in the Big Four, looking at features such as tuition costs, graduate employability rates, and the length of time it takes students to “earn back” their tuition fees. For a variety of reasons, it argues that:

“Students [from emerging markets] with genuine elite potential targeting Harvard, Oxford, or Imperial can justify premium pricing. Students aiming for solid professional careers increasingly can’t justify the premium Western universities charge over Turkish alternatives.”

Geographic positioning

The time and cost required for students from emerging markets to get to a study destination is perhaps not recognised enough as a factor in international student mobility flows – especially in a context where:

• Affordability is the top consideration for many families;
• Geopolitical tensions and anti-immigrant sentiment in some countries have moved safety up on the list of concerns.

In this context, the fact that TĂŒrkiye is located at the intersection of Europe, Africa, and Asia is a major competitive advantage in emerging markets.

TĂŒrkiye’s top 10 sending markets are Syria, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Pakistan. Of these, only three (Somalia, Pakistan, and Kazakhstan) require students to take direct flights of more than five hours. Even then, the travel time is less than seven hours. Students from all top 10 markets would spend at least 12 hours getting to Canada, the US, or Australia – at about double the flight cost.

Lower travel costs and proximity can be added to the list of TĂŒrkiye’s relative advantages, including affordable visa application fees, tuition fees, and costs of living. Collectively, this is a very attractive list for a large segment of prospective students in emerging markets.

Public versus private

When deciding whether to apply to one of TĂŒrkiye’s or to a public, state-funded institution, international students consider the following general strengths and weaknesses:

• Private universities often charge more in tuition fees compared to public institutions; are less likely to place in major world university rankings (with some exceptions); and offer more English-taught programmes (ETPs), especially . They also often offer generous scholarships.

• Public universities outperform private institutions in global rankings and are much more competitive to get into. They offer much lower tuition (annual fees can be as low as US$200 to US$1,000 depending on the programme and university), and about 5,000 international students receive substantial funding through the programme every year. However, Turkish is the main language of instruction in public universities, which can be difficult for foreign students.

Challenges

TĂŒrkiye is clearly able to attract a diverse range of students from multiple emerging markets (many of them Muslim-majority). However, it struggles in its ability to add top foreign talent to the labour force. A major barrier is that:

“Turkish language competence remains a decisive factor in accessing the domestic labor market. While English-medium instruction facilitates academic access, functional Turkish proficiency substantially improves employability, particularly in client-facing, regulated, and public-sector-adjacent roles.”

In addition, TĂŒrkiye’s own students are having serious issues finding good jobs. data shows that TĂŒrkiye ranks last of 33 European countries in employing recent university graduates (i.e., those who graduated within the past three years), with less than two-thirds (63.5%) of recent Turkish graduates employed in 2024. The European Union average was 85%, pulled up at the extreme end by Bulgaria, Estonia, and the Netherlands (over 92% employed).

TĂŒrkiye’s labour market is simply not performing well when it comes to absorbing university graduates, and many international job candidates have the added hurdle of language barriers. These obstacles are significant.

Work opportunities

While studying, international students can obtain a permit to work for up to 24 hours per week, but undergraduate students need to wait until their second year to work. Graduate students can work as soon as they begin their programmes.

International graduates can obtain a short-term residence permit allowing them to look for work for a year. To receive a work permit, they must secure employment within that first year. Their employer must prove that the international graduate has skills that a Turkish national does not for the position when applying for the permit. notes that “to obtain a work visa can take months.”

All work (in-study and post-study) contributes to the points required for eligibility for the Turquoise Card (Turkuaz Kart), which is designed to attract highly qualified foreign professionals, and which says “functions like a permanent residence and work permit combined.” The website outlines the criteria upon which Turquoise Card applicants are judged:

• “Education: Master’s or PhD from a Turkish or internationally recognised university
• Work experience: 3+ years in a relevant field (Turkish experience preferred)
• Salary level: Above a threshold set by the Ministry
• Strategic field: STEM, healthcare, energy, or other priority sectors
• Turkish language skills: Bonus points for B2+ Turkish proficiency”

The road ahead

The past few years have proven that TĂŒrkiye’s offer to international students is strong. But the MSM Unify report notes that to keep the momentum – and to transition from enrolment volumes to more targeted goals such as retention – reforms are needed to close the education-employment gap:

“TĂŒrkiye’s international education credibility will ultimately be judged not by enrollment volume, but by measurable graduate outcomes, including skill relevance, employability transparency, and the ability of institutions to translate academic access into sustained career value for international graduates.”

For additional background, please see:

• “TĂŒrkiye: After a decade of dramatic growth, a goal to host 500,000 international students by 2028”
• “șÚÁÏčÙÍű Podcast: Redrawing the map of global student flows from the ‘Big Four’ to the ‘Big Fourteen’”
• “Beyond the Big Four: How demand for study abroad is shifting to destinations in Asia and Europe”

The post Why are so many international students choosing to study in TĂŒrkiye? appeared first on șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

On 12 May, Todd M. Lyons, ICE’s acting director, called to announce that ICE has found more than 10,000 cases of fraud in the system on the part of dodgy employers and students.

Mr Lyons said that OPT has “become a magnet for fraud.”

He continued:

“When OPT was created under the Bush administration and expanded under the Obama administration, DHS had anticipated only a few thousand foreign students would receive training approval before returning home. Instead, OPT ballooned into an uncontrolled guest worker pipeline with hundreds of thousands of foreign students working in the United States. As the programme size has exploded, so has the fraud.”

Mr Lyons, and acting executive associate director for Homeland Security Operations (HSI) John Con, detailed the results of multiple investigations across the country, which include cases of “empty buildings with locked doors at addresses where hundreds of foreign students are allegedly employed 
 residential addresses listed as work sites for hundreds of foreign students – yet no employees were present.” Mr Lyons said:

“We are discovering evidence of organised fraud that spans national and international borders. This is not accidental. It is deliberate, coordinated, and criminal.”

Closing out the press conference, Mr Lyons concluded: “We will not tolerate abuse of our programmes, and more actions are forthcoming.”

In 2024/25, close to 300,000 international graduates participated in either OPT (one year) or STEM OPT (one year plus a two-year extension for STEM programme graduates).

A step toward restricting the OPT programme?

Many international education analysts believe the press conference is laying the groundwork for much stricter government oversight – or even the elimination – of the OPT programme.

There is strong political support for this direction within the governing Republican party, and as we reported last week, the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Joseph Edlow, has indicated that he wants a regulatory system that can “remove the ability for employment authorisations for F-1 students beyond the time that they are in school.”

It’s possible that a cumulative and coordinated administration strategy that gradually reduces the attractiveness of OPT – and more broadly, the opportunities for international students to work in the US after graduating – could be in play. Following are four measures whose inter-dynamics suggest this may already be the case.

1: Pause in visa processing. In January 2026, the government expanded its 39-country travel ban so it could impact not just students coming into the US, but also those already studying there. It announced that while current students from those countries could still apply for OPT, the processing of their applications would be paused. This “pause” remains active. OPT applicants cannot work in the US until their application is approved, leaving them in limbo and without any sense of when processing will resume.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. It becomes harder and less attractive for international students from travel ban countries to participate in OPT.

2: USCIS to decide how long international students can stay in the US. The Duration of Status (D/S) system, which allows many students to stay in the US past their programme end date if their Designated School Official decides they have a valid reason for needing more time, is expected to be terminated in September 2026. It will be replaced by a fixed-admission structure under which students will be allowed no more than four years of admission unless they get an extension. US Citizenship and Immigration Services officials will decide whether to approve the extension. Officials will be permitted to “use discretion,” which means they can make independent judgments and choices when reviewing requests from students. They will never have met those students, relying rather on a paper or electronic submission for their decision. Most F-1 students will need the extension to be eligible for OPT given that they would exhaust the four-year admission period just by completing their degree.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. To enter OPT, students will need permission from immigration officials to stay in the US for longer than four years.

3: The framing of the OPT system as a “magnet for fraud” this week. In this week’s press conference, ICE may have been creating a context in which limiting OPT access would be justified. Mr Lyons characterised the incidences of fraud as “not victimless 
 [but] a blatant attack on the goodwill of the American people who generously allow foreign national access to our education system.”
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes. OPT is being positioned as a backdoor immigration pathway.

4: New rules for US employers hiring H-1B workers. In the March 2026 registration cycle for the H-1B lottery, a December 2025 “” was applied for the first time. This rule makes it more difficult for US employers to hire entry-level, highly skilled foreign workers and students.

It does so because petitions to sponsor entry-level or lower-salaried foreign workers and students receive fewer chances to “win” the lottery. There are now four salary levels in the selection process for H-1B recipients: #4 (the highest salary) gives four chances; #3 gives three chances; #2 gives two; and #1, the lowest, provides just one chance. Young international students in OPT, who represent a popular pool of H-1B prospects for employers, will be disadvantaged given their lower likelihood of being offered senior-level positions.
Strategic negative impact on OPT? Yes, indirectly. Receiving an H-1B is the primary route for highly skilled foreigners to work in the US for a considerable amount of time (three years with extensions possible to six years or even longer). It is also a dual-intent visa that allows employers to sponsor permanent residency for their H-1B workers.

By limiting the chances of international students to get an H-1B, the government also makes it less likely for them to eventually get a Green Card. The degree > OPT > H-1B > permanent residency pathway – while certainly not guaranteed – is the dream of many international students who choose the US for study abroad. Disrupting the OPT > H-1B pathway will jeopardise American universities and employers’ chances to attract some of the world’s top students.

Is OPT really so nefarious?

Many prominent companies, universities, and firms figure among the top employers of OPT participants. The table below is based on from 2024.

Apple CEO Tim Cook held a staff meeting in February in which he voiced his strong opposition to the Trump administration’s immigration approach. Mr Cook told employees: “For as long as I can remember, we have been a smarter, wiser, more innovative company because we’ve attracted the best and brightest from all corners of the world. I am going to continue to lobby lawmakers on this issue.”

Speaking of innovation

In 2022, a report from the found that one quarter of US billion-dollar companies were founded by international graduates of US universities.

More broadly, the latest instalment of the ’s long-running “New American Fortune 500” research programme found that in 2025, nearly half (46%) of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. Further, the American Immigration Council found that “of the 14 companies that made the Fortune 500 list in 2025 for the first time, 10 were founded by immigrants or their children.”

A 2022 of American Community data found that “every additional 100 foreign-born workers with an advanced degree working in a STEM occupation creates roughly 86 jobs for U.S. workers.”

Nothing final yet

With the press conference this week, the Trump administration continues to signal that OPT is in its sights. Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, told in April:

“This current administration has been signaling very clearly that they’re seeking to end postgraduate Optional Practical Training. The former secretary of homeland security, the current secretary of homeland security, Republican senators have all been kind of waving the specter that there will be a proposed rule to end OPT.”

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”
• “What international students need to know about study and work visas in the United States”
• “US: Student visa issuances fell by -36% in summer 2025; OPT uncertainty among factors affecting international student demand”

The post US immigration officials allege OPT is being widely abused and say “more actions are forthcoming” appeared first on șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

The most recent edition of the ISB gathered responses from 93,843 international students from 135 universities during a September–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 0–10, 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 – 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 – i.e., getting a job – 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 șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.

Prospective students are considering the high cost of studying and living abroad in those leading destinations and then they are:

• Looking at rules restricting foreign students’ entry, work rights, and ability to bring their families;
• Comparing what institutions promise about employment outcomes to what current students and alumni say about what is actually happening for them.

When considering each destination individually, they notice that:

• The non-refundable fee for a student visa in Australia keeps ramping up (it is currently AU$2,000), alongside historically high visa rejection rates.
• The UK’s Graduate Route post-study work term is being cut from 24 months to 18 months in 2027.
• Post-study work streams in the US are under review by policy makers.
• Canada’s international student cap remains in place, alongside more restrictive policies for post-graduation work eligibility, and declining visa approval rates.

At the same time, labour markets in the Big Four are being disrupted by geo-political factors and the impact of new technologies. The youth unemployment rate is currently higher in Canada than it was just after the pandemic, and it is the highest it has been in a decade in the UK – trends that contribute to a more uncertain employment outlook for domestic and foreign graduates alike.

“Post-study work is obviously a key driver for a significant part of the prospective student audience,” says Dr Mark Bennett, Vice President of Research and Insight at Keystone Education Group. “But that doesn’t mean it’s their ‘default’ option post-graduation. Rather, it’s one of many opportunities that enhances the value and attractiveness of an international degree. Trusting that the door is there in advance matters whether or not someone chooses to walk through it later.”

Measuring student sentiment

Recent survey research and social media listening studies confirm that international prospects are more skeptical about the ROI of study abroad in a Big Four destination.

Looking just at the UK, for example:

• New research found that 34% of international students are less interested in UK study as a result of the imminent shortening of the Graduate Route (and half of the sample didn’t know about the policy change, indicating that demand might fall still further).

• Student visa applications to the UK in the first three months of 2026 were down -31% compared with the same period in 2025.

• A newly released study by , an AI-powered social media listening platform purpose-built for international education, found that across various social channels there is vigorous conversation about the pros and cons of studying in the UK among current and prospective international students. Anxiety and disappointment are common themes in those online conversations across tens of thousands of student comments throughout 2025. So too is a sense of being valued primarily for paying higher tuition fees than domestic students.

Here are just a couple of quotes featured in the Voyage study:

“The government introduces policies every year, which further deters international students, such as the graduate visa restrictions, not allowing dependents, etc. The new visa restrictions pretty much killed any chance of working in the UK. If you’re looking for a degree from well-regarded institutions, that’s great. If you’re looking to get a job afterwards, just know that your options are extremely, extremely limited and recent law changes have pretty much made it impossible.”

“The immigration policies are made to be as prohibitive as possible. After milking you with insane tuition fees and living expenses while providing you with no jobs, the UK wants you to spend around 3,000 pounds on a graduate visa. This will allow you to stay for 2 years. Will you find jobs on a graduate visa? You have a better chance than the impossible student visa, but it is still hard.”

Overall, the conversations picked up by Voyage include a notable level of concern about UK government policies that limit work rights while tuition fees remain much higher for international students.

A new urgency around career services

In the face of restrictive government policies, it is crucial for institutions to demonstrate their continued value to international students.

This means proving – not just promising – that they are committed to international students’ post-study success. An excellent way of achieving this is (1) customising career services for the unique needs of international students and (2) effectively communicating the value of this function to them.

Recent research shows that this isn’t happening enough as yet. A 2024 QS and Universities UK International study, which surveyed 10,000 international graduates from nearly 40 universities, found that only 3% of employed graduates had found their job with the help of career services. About a fifth had used career services for other reasons, but not for job-finding.

The research highlights a gap between the availability of career services and the relevance of this function in the eyes of international students.

Recognising that international students have more barriers to securing a job than domestic students do can help to close this gap. For those students, career services must go beyond resume coaching, interview prep, etc. They need to cover other critical areas, including:

• Working through complicated visa and immigration processes.
• Being aware of programmes linked to skills gaps (that are thus prioritised by governments and employers).
• Knowing which programmes are eligible for post-study work streams.
• Avoiding being penalised simply because of not being aware of a deadline or requirement.
• Building professional networks both in their host destination and elsewhere, because:
  • There is not a guarantee they will be able to work in the host country after studies due to policies or other factors.
  • They may not want to stay in the host country and be perfectly content to find a good job at home or in another country.
• Identifying employers who are open to hiring/sponsoring international students.

Embedding career and immigration supports

Sanam Arora is the chair of the National Indian Students and Alumni Union (NISAU) in the UK. At the 2025 șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor Global Summit in London, she explained:

“Seventy percent of Indians choose a destination of study on the basis of overall employability, and they have historically seen the UK or US in particular as a launchpad for global careers. In that sense, the definition of what it means to be educated has fundamentally changed. Universities that realise they’re not just here to educate, they’re here to be that global talent launchpad, will really ace this going forward.”

Ms Arora shared her own perspective on what she would find helpful:

“Before I graduate, I want the university to help me prepare for a successful life. That is what I think of when I think of career services, because success in a career is not that different than success in life. Sometimes career services is seen as something that is off to the side or in a corner, but really it needs to be embedded end-to-end throughout the entire student life cycle.”

Embedding career services means considering the whole student journey – from pre-admission to post-graduation. It means offering help to students not only in choosing the right programme, but also in understanding immigration rules and post-study pathways. Supporting students through those immigration processes is in fact an integral part of career services today, especially in the wake of heightened government oversight and compliance requirements.

Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, has department whose name fits the bill for what is needed in our current context: the . That office combines employment research with immigration guidance, and it is open to all international students.

A wider lens for networking

Another important angle today is to recognise that fewer international students will be able to stay on to work because of new immigration policies – and some will naturally prefer to pursue careers in their home country or in a third country in any case. This puts the onus on institutions to connect students to global networking platforms and to career fairs with international employers.

Collecting data on students from the very beginning of their enrolment about their post-study plans enables the customisation of career services not just on the basis of international versus domestic, but also international “planning to stay” and international “planning to return home or work elsewhere.”

Integral to brand reputation

There is a growing urgency to backing up the promise of employability with real outcomes for students. Helping international students to achieve the ROI they expect is ever-more integral to brand integrity and equity, to student satisfaction, and to the ability to recruit successfully in overseas markets.

For additional background, please see:

• “Survey highlights a growing ‘engagement gap’ between international student expectations and institutional response”
• “Is a university degree still the same passport to success?”
• “What students want: The top decision factors for study abroad”

The post A common challenge: Strengthening student confidence in the ROI of study abroad appeared first on șÚÁÏčÙÍű Monitor - Market intelligence for international student recruitment.