International education’s most established destinations are no longer following the same script.
Canada is reducing volume while prioritising research talent, New Zealand is pursuing growth within quality safeguards, Australia is seeking greater certainty after a period of policy tightening, and US institutions are being urged to reassess their place in a more multipolar world.
Those divergent paths emerged at AIEC’s Global Dialogue, chaired by Jazreel Goh of the British Council, where leaders repeatedly returned to the limits of a recruitment-led model.
Canada’s reset has been among the most visible. Larissa Bezo, president and CEO of the Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE), said a cap on study permits, higher financial requirements and changes to post-study work pathways had pushed international student numbers down to just under 700,000 at the end of 2025, from more than one million at the end of 2023.
“Canada is moving from a conversation about growth to a conversation about sustainability, quality and longer-term impact,” Bezo said.
Canada has also moved to attract more master’s and doctoral students, issuing 6,455 new graduate study permits in the second quarter of 2026, more than double the 3,085 issued during the same period a year earlier.
Graduate students are now exempt from the provincial or territorial attestation letter requirement, while other applicants face higher financial thresholds.
Bezo said institutions had struggled to reach their allocations not simply because of the cap, but because of affordability concerns, changed immigration pathways and a succession of policy signals that had unsettled applicants.
She recalled meeting prospective students in Vietnam after the cap was announced and being asked: “Why did you close the borders?”
That perception matters, she said, even when formal routes remain open, and Canada is now trying to rebuild predictability by being clearer about what students can expect during and after study.
Australia is confronting a related, but distinct, challenge. Phil Honeywood, chief executive of the International Education Association of Australia (IEAA), argued that years of commercial dependence on overseas fees had created a tension between international education’s revenue role and its wider public purpose.
“We’ve got this conundrum of profit motive versus the public good,” Honeywood said, contrasting a recruitment-led approach with the promises of global citizenship, soft power and opportunity for students.
“It’s all about inculcating global citizenship virtues,” he said, describing the approach he heard from European peers.
In October, the Australian government opened a consultation on possible changes to the Genuine Student requirement and financial-capacity rules after assistant minister for international education Julian Hill acknowledged that high refusal rates were deterring students in key markets, particularly South Asia.
The proposals would strengthen financial verification and, under some models, require relevant study funds to be held in Australian bank accounts.
The consultation follows recent restrictions on student dependants, course transfers and some onshore pathways, which sector leaders have warned could compound the impression that Australia has become harder to access.
For Honeywood, the question is whether Australia can show that its international education offer extends beyond migration settings and fee income.
Internationalisation is not just about teaching and learning. It’s also about research collaboration
John Hudzik, Michigan State University
Professor John Hudzik of Michigan State University said American institutions could no longer assume they occupied a default position in global higher education, describing a transition from a bipolar to a multipolar world in which the US must work with other countries as equals. “Business as usual is over,” Hudzik said.
“We count outputs, not outcomes,” Hudzik said, arguing that universities had not sufficiently explained to the public why international students, global research and cross-border partnerships matter.
A Department of Homeland Security proposal would charge universities USD$70,000 for an initial Optional Practical Training recommendation and USD$30,000 for subsequent recommendations, including a STEM extension.
The fees are not in force, but advisers have warned that they could weaken the financial case for loan-funded students, particularly from India, as some applicants add alternative destinations rather than abandon US plans altogether.
New Zealand, meanwhile, is presenting itself as a growth market while stressing that its social licence cannot be taken for granted.
David Downs, chief executive of Education New Zealand Manapou ki te Ao, said the agency had redefined its purpose as “grow New Zealand through international education”, with sustainability, quality and student experience built into that ambition.
“You don’t take your sort of current settings for granted. They can change quite quickly,” Downs said.
New Zealand is on track for about 99,000 international enrolments in 2026, still below its 2019 peak, while export earnings have moved beyond pre-pandemic levels.
Recent national survey data provides a strong foundation for growth, with 90% of international students rating their overall experience positively and 47% describing it as excellent.
But the same survey showed the fragility of that proposition: only 55% rated work experience positively and just 33% said it was easy to find part-time work alongside their studies.
“At the end of it are human beings who are making really serious decisions for their lives,” Downs said.
The panel’s discussion comes as students become less tied to a small group of familiar Anglophone destinations.
Indian advisers say applicants are increasingly taking a portfolio approach, shortlisting three or four countries and comparing cost, visa certainty, employment prospects and return on investment before committing.
Germany, France, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Malaysia, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and the UAE are among the destinations gaining greater attention as the US, Canada, Australia and the UK reassess migration and post-study settings.
At The PIE Live India earlier this year, representatives from France, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia and Japan similarly argued that sustainable growth depended on academic partnerships, graduate outcomes and government-to-government engagement, rather than recruitment volume alone.
That is also changing the institutional task.
Bezo urged universities not to undervalue the staff expertise and relationships needed to sustain international engagement, while Downs cautioned against “scattergunning” across markets and programs without a clear long-term strategy.
Honeywood said universities must also break down faculty silos if internationalisation is to become a genuine institution-wide project rather than a function of recruitment teams.
For Hudzik, mobility cannot remain the sole measure of internationalisation as transnational delivery and research partnerships evolve.
“Internationalisation is not just about teaching and learning,” he said. “It’s also about research collaboration.”
