Immigration curbs: Universities should have little to fear

With the recent surge in anti-immigration rhetoric from both the public and politicians, some of which has translated into harmful policies directly affecting international students in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and now United States President Donald Trump’s blitzkrieg on immigration in his first 100 days, it’s worth asking: What has really changed?

The solution lies in the palm of their hand so why are universities so apprehensive about moving from a strategy focusing on inputs – student recruitment – to one focusing on outputs – graduate outcomes, if they understand and have confidence in the quality of their teaching, research and graduate outcomes?

Historically, all universities have maintained a relatively generic mission: teaching students and conducting research to benefit economies and societies. This was as true in 1088 when the University of Bologna was founded as it is today. If that core mission hasn’t fundamentally changed, why has international education in recent years leaned so heavily on post-study work and pathways to migration to attract international students?

The tipping point

The emphasis on migration pathways gained traction after 2011 when UK Home Secretary Theresa May revoked post-study work rights for international students studying in the UK.

This triggered others to increase their post-study work rights to gain a competitive advantage. During the COVID-19 pandemic the reliance on migration incentives continued. For instance, Australia allowed graduates stuck outside its closed borders to apply for the 485 Graduate Visa – a notable shift for a previously onshore-only visa subclass.

Canada, until recently, was the sole destination offering a clear pathway to immigration for international students. However, this pathway is now narrowing. According to a government source cited by Reuters, Canada plans to reduce annual immigration targets from 485,000 new permanent residents in 2024 to 365,000 by 2027.

Meanwhile, the US offers limited clarity on its stance following the election of President Trump, adding to the uncertainty.

Migration as a proxy for quality education?

When did immigration become a stand-in for quality education? Numerous studies highlight the importance of post-study work in attracting international students. However, placing migration at the forefront of marketing strategies makes higher education vulnerable to shifting political and societal attitudes. Surely, another way to promote international education that doesn’t hinge on migration is within the gift of higher education?

Possible unique selling points could include:

• Cost: In 2017, the British Council focused on the affordability of UK degrees compared to competitors, particularly Australia and the US. A radio campaign in Kuala Lumpur emphasised the UK gave “great discounts” and labelled the UK as the “land of fish and chips!” This campaign coincided with the UK revoking post-study work for international students and it seems to us that it was “grasping at straws”. As cost often correlates with perceived quality, a race to the bottom on pricing may not serve institutions well.

• Time: The UK has a significant advantage in degree duration: three years for undergraduate programmes and one year for most postgraduate taught degrees. This shorter timeline reduces costs without compromising quality – a compelling differentiator.

• Location and lifestyle: Australia has long marketed its universities with images of sun, sea and sand. Plus, it has an entire infrastructure focused on location marketing: ‘Study Melbourne’, ‘Study NSW’, ‘Study Western Australia’ etc.

London Higher has taken a leaf out of Australia’s book here with its ‘Study London’ campaign, promoting London as a premier study destination. While destination marketing and lifestyle appeal to some and the proliferation of UK universities opening branch campuses in London is strong evidence to back this up, we feel location-based marketing does not focus on education quality and surely that is what universities are in fact selling?

• Quality: The notion of ‘quality’ has evolved since the pandemic. University rankings have become less relevant as students increasingly prioritise outcomes over traditional metrics.

In the IDP’s recent Emerging Futures survey of 11,500 international students from 117 countries, ‘high quality of education’ was the top decision driver, followed closely by ‘good employment opportunities after graduation’. Notably, students define ‘high quality’ primarily by the availability of graduate schemes and post-graduation job opportunities.

• Outcomes: The golden bullet: If quality is the primary factor influencing global student mobility, and students equate quality with employability, then understanding and promoting graduate outcomes may be the most effective marketing strategy. However, reliable data on international graduate outcomes has historically been scarce.

Over the past five years, however, Asia Careers Group has collected over 120,000 individual data points on international graduate outcomes. This information, available in detailed reports for Australian and UK institutions, included segmented insight on graduate destinations by country, study level and subject. Such data empowers universities to market what students value most – employability after graduation.

Beyond migration

Linking higher education to migration pathways is undeniably attractive. Since the UK reinstated post-study work, international student numbers rose from 580,000 in 2018 to 758,000 in 2022.

While post-study work offers international students valuable experience, only a small fraction secure sponsorship for skilled work visas following a period of post-study work, due to high salary thresholds and rising employer costs.

Dato’ Faiz, the former executive chairman of PwC Malaysia, brought up the negative impact of revoking post-study work on Malaysian students when speaking at Asia Career Group’s International Employability Forum hosted by King’s College London back in 2018. His feelings were that valuable work experience gained in the UK was sought after by Malaysian employers, with most Malaysian students returning home following a period of post-study work in the UK.

For many, particularly students from regions like China and ASEAN (the Association of Southeast Asian Nations), the ultimate goal is to return home after gaining experience abroad. Historically, Chinese students predominantly return home directly after their studies. However, with rising unemployment in China this may no longer be the norm.

South Asia, however, presents a different challenge with many students from this region looking for a path to migrate. In many cases this desire has become more acute since the pandemic.

While some will be successful in this aim, the majority will not. We must therefore think about effectively supporting these students from South Asia and their peers from China and ASEAN to transition successfully to jobs back home in addition to their desire to work in their study destination.

This focus on employability back in students’ home countries requires investment in robust data and insights into labour markets and employer needs worldwide. By leveraging such insights, universities can bridge the gap between student expectations and real-world outcomes.

A balanced approach

Universities have little to fear if they adopt a balanced strategy that emphasises both post-study work and successful employment outcomes back in students’ home countries. It’s not about an either-or, but about investing in using data to inform evidence-based, strategic decisions that meet all student needs.

After all, if universities fail to deliver on employability, students may start questioning the value of an international education altogether. Universities and colleges hold the solution in the palm of their hand if they choose to invest in international futures. That said, the question remains whether or not they will do so!

Louise Nicol is founder of alsocan and Asia Careers Group SDN BHD. Asia Careers Group assists universities in developing cost-effective employer engagement strategies and showcasing graduate outcomes at recruitment events.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.