Speakers at the AIEA Conference last month emphasised the growing structural constraints facing US higher education and the need to tackle affordability and labour market demands, on top of current visa challenges and hostile government policies.
“Nowadays, from the 2020s onwards, it’s not just about demand from the student side, but it’s also about constraints on the supply side,” said ICEF chief revenue officer, Ian Cann.
As colleagues widely anticipate incoming changes to Optional Practical Training (OPT) – with news emerging last week of DHS re-reviewing the program – leaders said removing the promise of post-study work opportunities raised serious questions about the cost of a US degree.
“OPT cuts the financial risk of a US degree by 75%,” said Cann. “It’s a risk to come and study in the most expensive place in the world if you aren’t going to get the job that you thought you might get.”
“With OPT the US degree becomes a lot better in terms of ROI,” he said, citing INTO data revealing OPT reduces the payback period for an Indian master’s graduate of a US public institution from over 15 years to four years.
This makes the ability to gain work experience central to America’s appeal among this cohort, with Indian students making up almost a third of the overall population of international students and nearly half of OPT participants.
And yet, speakers highlighted Indian spending on overseas education had decreased by 58% since 2021, suggesting the “high-risk investment” perception is driving students to more affordable and stable competitors.
Softening US demand is already playing out in the data, with new international enrolments falling by 17% this academic year, and post-graduate demand from Indian students down by 38%, according to Studyportals.
Moreover, a recent survey of more than 1,000 current international students found more than 50% wouldn’t have enrolled in a US institution if OPT didn’t exist.
“What we’re seeing right now is a reaction to changes but also reaction to threats of changes,” said Kirsten Feddersen, IDP vice president of partnerships USA, drawing a direct link between the current administration and declining student confidence in the US.
“Let’s hope it doesn’t, but if OPT does in fact go away, the affordability issue is going to become the biggest barrier,” said Fedderson, emphasising the “unbreakable link” between of affordability, OPT and students’ return on investment.
“Affordability and labour are interconnected,” said Acumen North America president Roger Brindley: “It’s a transactional decision and there has to be that hook between affordability, labour and how we repay.”
As such, Brindley highlighted the need for better career services and work experience opportunities for international students – be it internships, industry links or community service – which are central to the “unspoken agreement” students make when they come to the US.
Meanwhile, the labour market stakes are high. While critics have argued OPT causes job displacement of American workers, advocates say it drives innovation leading to job creation, especially in STEM fields.
Moreover, the Institute for Progress has warned OPT’s elimination could cause annual losses of $220bn-$440bn over the next decade, partly due to a decline in tuition dollars but mainly due to the loss of their economic “injection” in the economy, said Cann.
I can’t imagine a world where we compete without OPT
Bill Colvin, Shorelight
“OPT is the infrastructure for American success,” said Bill Colvin, SVP global solutions at Shorelight, urging colleagues and policymakers to think about the global competitive landscape.
He highlighted Germany’s 18-month post-study work visa and Canada’s drive to attract H-1B workers pivoting from the US, alongside China’s new K visa to attract young STEM talent.
“I can’t imagine a world where we compete without OPT. Of course, we’ll adapt and find a different way of conveying the value of US higher education, but boy is it going to be hard,” said Colvin.
And yet, he said the potential crisis could also present an opportunity to think creatively around affordability, with Fedderson urging institutions to “look critically” at how they are reducing costs for students and explore the possibility of 2+2 programs and other hybrid delivery options.
“US higher education has been reluctant to undergo significant infrastructure changes to make things more efficient in the way that businesses do all the time… there has to be emphasis from institutions on how we deliver more low-cost options,” she said.
As such, Brindley highlighted the need to work with university enrolment managers to expand scholarship opportunities for international students, as well as emphasising the “critical opportunity” for leadership to explore which TNE models could work for them.
While speakers doubled down on the need for proactive strategic planning to mitigate the worst impacts of current policy volatility, Cann reassured delegates: “These constraints can disappear just as quickly as they come in.”
He highlighted that much of the rhetoric and proposals making the headlines have not necessarily translated into policy changes, with university leaders encouraged to counter damaging narratives and continue advocacy at the state level.
“We may see the competition, but it might not mean they have the capacity,” said Fedderson, pointing to destinations such as Canada and the Netherlands where mismanagement and souring public sentiment have caused leaders to rollback on welcoming international talent.
