Report on the Decline of International STEM Student Enrollment in the U.S. and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Shift in Global Educational Dynamics

A recent analysis indicates a significant downturn in the interest of international students, particularly in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields, toward pursuing higher education in the United States. This trend, largely attributed to restrictive visa policies, poses a considerable threat to the U.S.’s long-standing leadership in global education and innovation. More critically, this development has profound implications for the advancement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including those related to quality education, economic growth, and global partnerships.

Analysis of Declining Interest and Contributing Factors

Policy Changes as a Primary Catalyst

The decline is closely linked to a series of policy shifts that have created an unwelcoming environment for prospective international students. These policies undermine SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by creating barriers to the global mobility of people and knowledge.

• Revocation of student visas.
• Temporary freezes on new student visa interviews.
• Implementation of extra scrutiny for students from specific nations.
• Introduction of new social media checks for all visa applicants.

Quantitative Indicators of Shifting Trends

Data from international education platforms provide clear evidence of this declining interest, signaling long-term consequences for enrollment and global talent distribution.

1. Studyportals Data: A report from May shows that overall student interest in the U.S. has fallen to its lowest point since the COVID-19 pandemic, with page views for U.S. degree programs declining by 50% between January and April.
2. STEM-Specific Decline:
   • Interest in U.S. bachelor’s engineering degrees dropped by 41% between January and May.
   • Interest in master’s engineering degrees declined by 36% in the same period.
3. IDP Survey: In a May survey, 44% of prospective international students with aspirations to study in the U.S. indicated they were seriously considering alternative destinations.

Implications for Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 4: Quality Education

The United States has historically been a central hub for providing world-class higher education. The current trend jeopardizes its capacity to contribute to SDG 4 by making quality educational opportunities less accessible to a global audience. This shift redirects talent to other nations, potentially altering the global landscape of higher education and research excellence.

SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

The decline directly threatens the U.S.’s innovation ecosystem, a key component of SDG 9. International students are vital to progress in critical technology sectors.

• In the 2023-2024 academic year, 56% of the 1.1 million international students in the U.S. studied in STEM fields.
• A 2023 analysis revealed that 70% of graduate students in AI-related fields are international.
• Furthermore, 42% of top U.S.-based AI companies were founded by individuals who originally came to the country as international students.

Losing this talent pool compromises the nation’s ability to enhance scientific research and maintain its technological leadership, which is crucial for sustainable industrial development.

SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

The economic contributions of international students are substantial and directly support SDG 8. A reduction in their numbers represents a direct economic loss and a depletion of the future skilled workforce.

• In the 2023-2024 school year, international students contributed US $34.8 billion to the U.S. economy.
• The tuition paid by these students often subsidizes financial aid for domestic students, promoting more inclusive economic participation in education.

SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

International education is a fundamental mechanism for fostering global partnerships. It facilitates the exchange of knowledge, technology, and cross-cultural understanding. Restrictive policies weaken these international collaborations, undermining the cooperative spirit essential for achieving all SDGs. As Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, states, “International students and scholars are tremendous assets that contribute to U.S. preeminence in innovation, research, and economic strength. Undermining their ability to study here is self-defeating.”

Global Competition and Reputational Risk

Emergence of Alternative Destinations

As interest in the U.S. wanes, other countries are actively recruiting international talent, many with policies designed to attract and retain skilled individuals. A NAFSA report indicates that nearly 75% of surveyed U.S. institutions anticipate a decline in international enrollment, with students turning to other countries.

The top five alternative destinations are:

1. United Kingdom
2. Australia
3. Canada
4. China
5. Germany

Conclusion: A Challenge to Global Leadership and Sustainable Development

The decline in international student interest presents a multifaceted challenge to the United States. It not only risks the nation’s economic vitality and leadership in innovation but also signifies a retreat from its role in fostering global partnerships and advancing the Sustainable Development Goals. As Clay Harmon of AIRC warns, “It’s very hard to build up a reputation for having the best education opportunities in the world, and it’s easy to destroy that reputation and the trust.” Reversing this trend is imperative for maintaining a competitive edge and fulfilling a commitment to global progress and sustainable development.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 4: Quality Education

  The article’s central theme is the decline in international students pursuing higher education, specifically in STEM fields, in the United States. It discusses access to tertiary education, the global market for higher education, and the reputation of U.S. universities, all of which are core components of SDG 4.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The economic impact of international students is explicitly mentioned. The article states they “contributed US $34.8 billion to the U.S. economy” and that their tuition fees subsidize domestic students. The loss of these students is framed as a loss of “talent” and future entrepreneurs who could have “started the next big company,” directly linking education to economic growth.

• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

  The article heavily emphasizes the role of international students in science, technology, and innovation. It highlights that “70 percent of graduate students in fields relating to AI are international” and that “42 percent of the top AI companies based in the United States… had a founder who came to this country as an international student.” This demonstrates a direct link between international education and the capacity for scientific research and innovation.

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  The article discusses U.S. administration policies that create barriers for students based on their country of origin, such as “extra scrutiny for Chinese students.” These policies create unequal access to educational opportunities, which is a key concern of SDG 10.

• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

  The issue is presented in a global context, discussing the flow of students between countries and the competition for talent. The article notes that U.S. policies “will undercut the U.S. position in the global higher-education market” and that other nations like the UK, Canada, and Germany are becoming preferred destinations. This relates to the global partnerships and international cooperation necessary to facilitate the mobility of students and knowledge sharing.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • Target 4.3: “By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.” The article discusses how new visa policies are creating significant barriers that impede equal access for international students to U.S. universities.
   • Target 4.b: “By 2020, substantially expand globally the number of scholarships available to developing countries… for enrolment in higher education… in developed countries.” The article discusses the flow of international students to a developed country (the U.S.) for higher education. The restrictive policies described work in opposition to the goal of expanding these opportunities.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • Target 8.2: “Achieve higher levels of economic productivity through diversification, technological upgrading and innovation…” The article links international STEM students directly to innovation, noting they are the talent pool for major discoveries and the founders of “the next big company,” which are essential for economic productivity.
3. SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure
   • Target 9.5: “Enhance scientific research, upgrade the technological capabilities of industrial sectors… encouraging innovation and substantially increasing the number of research and development workers…” The article provides direct evidence of this by stating that 70% of AI graduate students are international, demonstrating their critical role in the R&D workforce.
4. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.7: “Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies.” The article describes how policies like “revoking student visas” and freezing interviews disrupt the orderly and regular mobility of students seeking education.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Indicator: Total number of international students in tertiary education. The article provides a figure: “an unprecedented high of 1.1 million in the 2023-2024 school year.”
   • Indicator: Percentage of students in specific fields. The article states “56 percent, studied in STEM fields.”
   • Indicator: Student interest metrics. The article mentions “weekly page views for U.S. degree programs declining 50 percent” and a “41 percent” drop in interest for bachelor’s engineering degrees as tracked by Studyportals.
   • Indicator: Proportion of prospective international students considering alternative destinations. The article cites an IDP survey where “44 percent indicated that they were ‘seriously considering’ other study destinations.”
2. For SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth):
   • Indicator: Economic contribution of international students. The article quantifies this: they “contributed US $34.8 billion to the U.S. economy.”
3. For SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure):
   • Indicator: Proportion of R&D personnel from foreign countries. This is implied by the statistic that “70 percent of graduate students in fields relating to AI are international.”
   • Indicator: Contribution of migrants to innovation. This is measured by the finding that “42 percent of the top AI companies… had a founder who came to this country as an international student.”
4. For SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Indicator: Existence of policies that affect the mobility of international students. The article names several, including “revoking student visas,” “extra scrutiny for Chinese students,” and “new social media checks for all applicants.”

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: spectrum.ieee.org