Olena Agapova/iStock/Getty Images Plus
Based on what happened the last time Donald Trump was president, the international education sector has a lot to fear. Travel bans on several Muslim-majority countries and a general unwelcoming stance toward international students did a lot to damage sentiment even before the pandemic quashed mobility outright.
But this second time around, there’s a lot more at stake. With the U.S. hosting a record-high 1.126 million students from abroad—largely due to growth in graduate students rather than new undergraduates—Trump’s expected crackdown might expose a dirty little secret: widespread misuse of student visas.
While the vast majority of students who are granted a student visa successfully enter the U.S. and duly enroll in the academic institution which admitted them, there are exceptions to this general rule—and a troubling many of them at that. According to a recent U.S. Customs and Border Patrol report, in fiscal year 2023, 51,556 individuals who entered the U.S. on an F, J or M student or exchange visitor visa overstayed the terms of their admission, a total overstay rate of about 3.5 percent.
The report breaks down overstays by country. In some cases, the overstay rate—the percentage of those who were expected to depart the U.S. by a certain date but didn’t—was over 50 percent. And to put the 51,556 figure in a different perspective, consider that the Institute of International Education’s most recent Open Doors report documented 298,705 new international student enrollments in 2023–24. So, for every six newly enrolled students, one more student visa holder violated the terms of their admission to the U.S.
Some violations are relatively benign—legitimate students who left the country a handful of days after their allowed postgraduation grace period come to mind. However, others are cases of willful fraud. Instead of showing up to the academic, language or vocational institution which admitted them, some of these “students” went underground to live and work in the U.S. illegally. These fake students clog the nonimmigrant visa system, which is already short-staffed, contributing to often lengthy delays for visa interviews for legitimate students eager to study in this country.
At least as importantly, the prevalence of fake students increases the likelihood that legitimate students don’t get visas due to guilt by association.
This is a complex, systemic problem seldom discussed by university administrators who individually lack the means to solve or even address it. It is a sobering reality that well-intentioned admissions officials are inadvertently abetting overstays to this extent, along with Customs and Border Patrol agents and consular officials, the latter of whom are, ironically, sometimes criticized for excessive visa denials.
Here is how the gaming of the system works.
A university or school issues an admitted applicant an all-important Form I-20, which is the document required by U.S. consulates overseas to apply for an F-1 student visa. However, upon arrival in the U.S., the student visa holder fails to report to the institution that issued the I-20.
Some students exercise their right to transfer to another U.S. university for legitimate reasons. For example, they may opt to go to a less expensive institution, or choose one that is closer to family and friends. However, some number never actually intended to enroll in college in the first place and just sought a student visa as a pretext to get to the U.S. And some alleged fake colleges have been designed to facilitate this route. The Department of Homeland Security even ran two such fake universities as sting operations to crack down on this route for immigration fraud.
Despite this, U.S. colleges and universities continue to process untold numbers of applications and issue I-20s to individuals who have no intention of actually studying. Meanwhile, international education organizations in the U.S. advocate for policies that will allow more international students to study and work in this country. On balance that’s to be applauded and supported. But this advocacy largely ignores the clear problem of fake students and overstays, and risks coming off as tone-deaf to those grappling with the consequences.
There are other gray areas in international higher education that are being exploited, even by legitimate students.
Many U.S. higher education institutions offer students the opportunity to engage in curricular practical training. CPT allows students to gain real-world and often paid work experience as part of their academic program and is gaining in popularity—there are currently 140,829 international students availing of this work benefit in the U.S. However, a loophole in the existing CPT regulations allows graduate students to engage in CPT from the very start of their studies; ordinarily students must complete one full academic year of study as a condition of CPT eligibility.
While legitimate “Day 1 CPT” programs exist, the provision is being abused by universities and students for whom the academic aspect of their program is a distant second to the main goal— to work in the United States. A cottage industry has also emerged to help “students” avail themselves of Day 1 CPT.
Some universities, such as Indiana-based Trine University, are being scrutinized for their Day 1 CPT practices. According to the Open Doors report, Trine—which has satellite locations in Michigan, Virginia and Arizona—enrolls the highest number of international students among master’s-level universities in the U.S. Bloomberg reported in October that Trine requires as little as one in-person visit per semester for students on CPT.
While egregious abuses may be the exception to the rule, too many Day 1 CPT opportunities are “pay tuition to work” schemes that undermine the spirit of the regulations, the proverbial tail wagging the dog. We can do better than this.
International education professionals often reflexively avoid talking critically about practical training because few want this student visa benefit to be eliminated. That’s understandable, because legitimate work opportunities in the U.S. are indeed a powerful magnet for international students and in many cases authentically complement their academic studies.
However, without foundational soundness, the U.S. cannot continue to build on its reputation, especially one that is currently drawing significant numbers of international graduate students but failing to grow undergraduate enrollments commensurately.
Trump’s “America First” ethos may withdraw the welcome mat for many international students. But an arguably positive outcome would be cleaning up questionable international student mobility practices. Instead of lamenting another Trump term, it may be a good time to turn the mirror on ourselves and acknowledge what can be improved.