Don’t Limit Foreign-Student Enrollment

For too long, merit has taken a back seat in American higher education. Under the banner of DEI, admissions policies at many institutions have prioritized demographic balancing over academic excellence. But the pendulum is swinging back. A growing number of selective universities—including Princeton, Dartmouth, and Yale—have recently announced they will once again require standardized test scores for admission. These decisions reflect a broader reappraisal of merit-based criteria, driven not just by partisan pressure but by internal reviews of academic outcomes and fairness. The message is clear: Excellence matters, and the most promising students deserve a fair shot.

When so many of our strongest candidates are arriving from abroad, it becomes increasingly fraught to impose arbitrary limits. Increasingly, qualified students from around the world are seeking an American education. In my department at NC State, 86 percent of Ph.D. applicants in computer science for 2025 came from outside of the United States. That figure alone speaks volumes. These were not casual submissions—they were competitive applications to a selective program. The sheer volume of international interest reflects a global recognition of American graduate education as a proving ground for serious talent. When so many of the strongest candidates are arriving from abroad, it becomes increasingly fraught to impose arbitrary limits on how many can be admitted, as a recent Martin Center article recommends.

The shift isn’t the result of Americans being pushed out—it’s the result of more highly qualified international students applying. Our department is not unusual. Across the country, graduate programs in technical fields show similar patterns. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, international students make up the majority of full-time graduate enrollment in petroleum engineering (82 percent), electrical engineering (74 percent), computer and information sciences (72 percent), industrial engineering (71 percent), and statistics (70 percent). And those figures have been rising. Between 2017 and 2022, international graduate enrollment in science and engineering grew by 49.3 percent, while domestic enrollment grew by just 21.7 percent. That shift isn’t the result of Americans being pushed out—it’s the result of more highly qualified international students applying and programs expanding to meet the demand.

All of these disciplines are STEM fields, and STEM is critical to America’s global standing. According to the Brookings Institution, “Improving workforce development and STEM education [is essential] to preserve America’s innovation edge.” The Smithsonian Science Education Center adds that, “as our economy increasingly depends on … revolutionary new advances, many new jobs will be created in STEM fields.” Staying competitive requires “a bank of highly skilled, STEM-literate employees.” Whether at the graduate or undergraduate level, STEM education fuels innovation, strengthens the workforce, and underpins long-term economic leadership.

But it’s not just what international students study—it’s how much time they’re willing to invest. American teens 15-17 spend only about an hour a day doing homework. In contrast, Chinese students often spend more than eight hours a day at school and another two studying at home, totaling over 50 hours per week on academics. In college, foreign-born students study nearly an hour more per day than do their American peers. One study found that Chinese undergraduates spend about 32 hours per week on academic work, compared to just 13.5 hours for U.S. students. Meanwhile, American students spend nearly 24 hours per week on entertainment and social media. And many international students do all this while mastering a second language.

Without their majority-international graduate students, many specialized technical programs would simply collapse. They rely on foreign enrollment not just for diversity but for scale. Without enough students to justify faculty lines, departments couldn’t sustain the advanced coursework, research labs, or mentoring structures that define graduate education. And with so few qualified applicants, they wouldn’t be attractive places to work, either. As the National Foundation for American Policy puts it: “At many U.S. universities, the data show it would be difficult to maintain important graduate programs without international students.” Echoing this, NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, declares: International students “disproportionately contribute to driving innovation, filling gaps in specific STEM fields that simply cannot be met by the available supply of domestic U.S. students.” Loss of these programs would mean fewer opportunities for American students, as well, since they would have to travel farther to find programs in their specialized fields.

The economic impact of international students isn’t limited to the university. The economic impact of international students isn’t limited to the university. Many go on to found companies that create jobs, attract investment, and drive innovation. According to the National Foundation for American Policy, one-quarter of U.S. billion-dollar startups—companies such as SpaceX, Stripe, Instacart, and Grammarly—were founded by individuals who first came to America as international students. These companies have created an average of 860 jobs each, and their combined valuation exceeds $1.2 trillion. A 2023 study in Research Policy found that immigrant founders are more likely than native-born founders to launch financially successful and scientifically innovative startups. Twenty percent of those founders are immigrants, far above the 15 percent of the American population that is foreign-born. These are not marginal contributions—they are central to America’s entrepreneurial ecosystem. Restricting the flow of international students would mean turning away future founders, future employers, and future engines of economic growth.

Our strength comes not just from our economy but from our social structures. Our strength comes not just from our economy but from our social structures. Strong families are essential to national well-being—and immigrant families from the countries that send the most international students are among the most stable in America. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 84 percent of Asian-American children live with two parents—far above the national average of 63 percent. The percentage is even higher for three of the main sending countries for international students. The Institute for Family Studies at the University of Virginia reports that 94 percent of Indian-American children live with married parents. For Chinese-American families, the figure is 84 percent, and for Korean-American families, 85 percent. These households also report higher rates of educational attainment and lower rates of poverty than the national average. By helping these communities grow, we’re reinforcing the foundations of American family life and investing in the kind of social stability that underpins national resilience.

That point was brought home to me by personal experience. In the last five years, perhaps 15 high-school students have emailed me asking if they could get involved in one of my research projects. All of them have had Indian names. That’s not a coincidence. A report titled “Revisiting the Asian-American Second-Generation Advantage” found that second-generation Asian-Americans—Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Vietnamese, and Korean—consistently attain exceptional educational outcomes. The National Academies found that second-generation immigrants average more years of schooling than even third-generation white Americans. Forty-three percent of second-generation Indian-Americans and 25 percent of second-generation East Asians have graduate degrees, compared to only 13 percent of native-born non-Hispanic whites. Admitting more international students today may be our country’s best hope to raise the number of domestic STEM majors for generations to come.

Today’s impulse to limit student visas echoes past efforts to cap Asian-American enrollment—prioritizing optics over excellence. It substitutes a demographic mix that pleases gatekeepers for the kind of student body that produces world-class scholars. But, unlike past missteps, this one may be irreversible. The U.S. share of international students has already fallen—from 20 percent of the global total in 2013-2014 to just 16 percent today. Meanwhile, other countries are surging ahead: International students make up 38 percent of the student population in Canada, 31 percent in Australia, and 27 percent in the U.K. In the U.S.? Just six percent.

History shows that being a “sending country” is a transitional phase. Western Europe filled that role after World War II; Eastern Europe did so in the 1990s. Today, rising economies such as India and China have reached the point where families can afford to send students abroad. But, as their domestic universities improve and their economies mature, that window will close. Students will opt to stay home—finding opportunity without leaving their families half a world behind. Right now, the U.S. has a rare chance to welcome the world’s top talent and let it flourish here. Merit is knocking. It’s arriving with a passport and a student visa. If we’re serious about restoring excellence in higher education, we should open that door wide.

Ed Gehringer is a professor of computer science at NC State University.