The White House has proposed a 15% cap on international enrolments in undergraduate programs, with no more than 5% coming from any one country.
In news that could send chills down the spine of the University of Sydney’s finance team, the Trump Administration’s move to exert greater control over the higher education system and curb international student enrolments has ramifications for both international education markets and local politics.
The release of Federal Government statistics that indicate that the University of Sydney has more international than domestic students last year attracted a range of headlines over the past week. The Government has already flagged its intention to rein in numbers via the new Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC).
While the University of Sydney and Group of Eight have mounted a spirited defence of the need to rely on international student revenue to fund research in lieu of adequate Federal Funding, the recurring commentary about the sector, allegations of soft standards and anti-international student rhetoric are likely to continue in Australia as long as enrolment levels fail to pass the pub test – the level acceptable to middle Australia.
While 35% is often touted as an acceptable level for international student enrolments as a proportion of overall student numbers here, the Trump Administration’s plan pushes US institutions to adopt a far lower target – noting that international student numbers are proportionally far lower than Australia’s. For example international students constitute just 15% of Harvard undergraduate enrolments, while the University of Pennsylvania, one of the nine targeted by the compact, only has 13%.
The proposed US compact has been sent to nine institutions. In addition to restrictions on international enrolments, it also proposes a range of ideological requirements, such as banning diversity policies and programs, severely restricting right to protest, freezing tuition costs for five years and standardising admissions testing.
In return, institutions would get preferential access to Federal Funds. It is suggested that the compact may be enforced across all US institutions.
The compact requires selected international students to be, “introduced to, and supportive of, American and Western values, ultimately increasing global understanding and appreciation for the United States and our way of life.
“Universities that rely on foreign students to fund their institutions risk, among other things, potentially reducing spots available to deserving American students, and if not properly vetted, saturating the campus with noxious values such as anti-Semitism and other anti-American values, creating serious national security risks.”
The compact includes a range of other directives targeting wealthier institutions – for example requiring any university with an endowment exceeding $2 million per undergraduate student to not charge tuition for hard science programs ( on a means tested basis).
The compact also requires stronger credit recognition for previous study completed by military veterans.
In measures that could be construed as having echoes of the McCarthy era, the compact also provides a strict range of controls over ‘Foreign Entaglements’ including employing compliance officers to inform on researchers to federal agencies if they are perceived to stray from the Compact’s America-First path.
Faculty at the University of Pennsylvania were among many sector advocates urging institutions to reject the White House deal.
The concept of ‘compacts’ between the Federal Government and Universities is also in use in Australia – describing the mechanism by which ATEC will set enrolment caps with individual institutions from 2027.
While there are many broad similarities between the US and Australia in terms of significant increases in state control of HE, immigration reduction requirements and rhetoric and institutional compliance driven by access to funding, there are of course many differences in policy and practice – for now at least.