Volume Was Never a Strategy: Why International Enrollment Risk Is Now Structural - April 2026
By Emily Dorso
The Existing Model Is Broken
It is neither surprising nor revolutionary to point out that higher education, particularly international higher education, is facing a reckoning. One need only cite the U.S. F-1 visa refusal rate at a decade high of 35% globally, with industry leaders warning of the compounding enrollment losses, or the news of the “Duration of Status” proposal, to see the chaos facing the United States.
Many view the current challenges as purely cyclical. Countless conversations and webinars touch upon the yearning for U.S. higher education institutions to return to “normal.” The problem is that this yearning for a return to “normal” distracts higher education professionals from the stark reality – the reckoning facing international higher education is not cyclical, but structural.
The Exposure Is Compounding
Each week, new data emerges supporting that the situation is dire. We’ve seen the U.S. visa refusal rates in India go from 31% to 61% in two years. African applicants face denial rates at nearly two-thirds (64%). These are structural reductions in a once-reachable population, and current policy and global shifts do not point to this being a temporary dip.
Then there is the recent Huron report, which found that 442 of the 1,700 private, nonprofit institutions in the States are at risk of closure or merger within a decade. Over 130 announced or already completed mergers or closures between 2020 and 2025. ACE reportsthat 86% of leaders are concerned about long-term viability. Add this up, and you see a troubling and simultaneous convergence of financial fragility and enrollment risk in the same institutions.
This bleak picture is not unique to the U.S.; Canada is also struggling. New international study visas in September 2025 were 50,730, down from 456,690 in 2023, an almost 90% decline. Predictions for 2026 are not more promising, with some reporting lower targets for Canada yet again.
Why the Traditional Response Falls Short
The response to these struggles is understandable, albeit predictable. Institutions talk about “diversification,” which translates to new recruitment markets and more agents. Leadership is aware their institution can no longer rely on inbound students from one country (e.g. China, India), so they expand – new countries, same inbound recruitment model.
This is a rational response to a volume problem, but also a misguided one when you understand that the issue is structural in nature.
The problem is not simply reach. It is an antiquated model that is largely dependent on self-funded individual students capable of mobility (and willing to invest in high tuition prices for an expected return on investment), while acutely sensitive to external disruption – economic instability, international relations, policy changes. We’re seeing this all come to a head. Throw AI into the mix, and the environment gets even more complex.
The issue is that diversifying across more of the same thing is not, in fact, diversification. It is doubling down on a model that is no longer addressing the needs or reality of the current landscape.
What Resilient Institutions Are Doing Differently
Institutions that are recognizing the severity of the situation and accepting the changing environment are looking to innovate beyond the traditional inbound recruitment model. There are several approaches that speak to greater diversification.
Transnational education (TNE): A familiar model in the United Kingdom, TNE is less understood in the U.S. The concept is relatively simple: meeting students where they are reduces the dependence on physical mobility to a U.S. campus, which therefore decreases exposure to shifting international policy and economic changes that directly impact student mobility. It is also an opportunity to work strategically with a local university partner to collaboratively design high-value, industry-driven academic opportunities for students in-country. This is not limited to developing international branch campuses; it can also include models such as franchise or validation.
Structured pathway agreements: A form of TNE, these pathway agreements are not simply an inbound recruitment funnel, but a truly collaborative institution-to-institution partnership. These articulation and progression collaborations can reduce sensitivity to individual visa decisions, as the credibility of the pipeline is at the institutional level, not solely dependent on the individual student’s success in managing the visa application and interview process. These partnerships can also expand, leading to joint research collaboration, joint applications to research funding globally, and the development of dual or double degree programs, all of which enrich both partner institutions and lead to a strengthening of the value-add for students, faculty, communities, and local industry.While the current environment may make the U.S. a less attractive study destination in the short term, a university partnership can hopefully weather the storm for the medium and long term, creating a foundation for growth if policies shift again and focusing on other forms of collaboration in the near term.
Sponsored student organizations: Beyond bringing U.S. academic programs overseas, key partnerships with sponsoring organizations help address a true need of governments and corporations for skilled workers in targeted fields. These partnerships are often more diverse than typically understood and can include relationships with government scholarship bodies, sovereign wealth fund-linked initiatives, and corporate-sponsored pathways. These sponsors are actively investing in outbound student mobility as it aligns with national development priorities.
The above is just a small start. The reality is that a structural problem will not be solved by simply increasing on-campus student numbers for the next intake. The goal is to address points of weakness in institutional infrastructure, leading to success in the medium-to long-term.
The Strategic Moment
It may be a generalization, but higher education institutions are not always known for their agility. Unfortunately, the current environment will not wait for innovation or strategic thinking. The number of institutions closing and merging in the U.S. each year is a warning for what is to come, but it doesn’t have to be the fate of your institution. Now is the time to engage in difficult conversations with key stakeholders and address these structural problems head-on. Yesterday was ideal, but today is better than tomorrow.
I will be at NAFSA and welcome your thoughts on the topic. I look forward to connecting and hearing more about what your institution is doing to adapt to the changing landscape.