“The interlocking relationship between public institutions, tuition and
fee policies, and state appropriations is an area that seems to be pervasively
misunderstood by taxpayers and policymakers” (Alexander,
2011).
International student enrollment within U.S. higher
education has experienced significant growth since 2007 (Institute
of International Education, 2013). The
growth of this demographic in public institutions has gained increased media
attention (e.g. Chicago
Tribune, Crain’s
Detroit Business, and The
New York Times). Generally, these
reports are not favorable to the universities as the media often focus on increases
of international student enrollments then jumps to conclusions toward how this
affects the in-state domestic students’ chances of entering into these
universities. Commonly, there is
minimal reporting that specifically links international student enrollment
increases to declining state appropriations operations revenue. For example, one report extensively stated, “During
a decade of declining state funding, the additional revenue by non-resident
freshmen is budget friendly” and another superficially reported that, “But
disapproval seems to have quieted in recent years with the decline in state
funding to U.I. and public institutions, and the recognition that
full-tuition-paying international students help the bottom line.” In
media reports full of numbers, they often seem to fail to report some of the
numbers that may help the public better understand why enrollments of international
students are increasing.
For decades, state appropriations for large, research
universities, have been in decline (The
College Board). As appropriations
decline, legislatures expect that universities will generate institution-controlled
revenue to bridge funding gaps (Hovey, 1999). Reacting to an eroding financial relationship
with the states, universities have been forced away from the public good paradigm
toward a privatized, revenue generating paradigm where institutions are now
“seeking to generate revenue from their core educational, research and services
functions…” (Slaughter
and Rhoades, 2004). One market
identified as a viable source of revenue are international undergraduate
students, hence the recent significant enrollment increases of this
demographic. In fact, the revenue generated from this demographic
has turned into big business as international students supply $17b
in tuition and fees, an overall $24b to the U.S. economy, and is responsible
for the creation of roughly 300,000 jobs. Essentially, international student enrollment
supports more U.S. jobs than Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google combined.
The table below displays the
annual average decline in state appropriations from 2007-2012 and shows the
relationship between inflation adjusted state appropriations and undergraduate
full-time international student [UG FTI] enrollment. The numbers are based on my original
research using IPEDS reported data and focuses on the public universities of the
Big Ten, many of which hold top spots in national
enrollment of international students. The
table shows that each university, sans Maryland, has experienced state
appropriations operations revenue declines, some of which are more profound
than others. It also suggests that for most of these universities
there are correlations between losses in inflation adjusted state
appropriations and UG FTI enrollment. Essentially, for every million dollars
removed in inflation adjusted appropriations, the universities are expected to
enroll more UG FTI students. The
exact numbers per individual university are found within the table.
The bar graphic shows 2007-2012 trends of inflation adjusted
state appropriations and collected international student and fees (estimated
via base tuition), projected to the year 2020.
The forecasts suggest that aggregate estimated international student
enrollment tuition and fees will soon overcome aggregate state appropriations. By 2020, the total estimated international
student tuition and fees should exceed $3 billion for just these 13 universities,
with seven universities projected collect more revenue in international student
tuition than they do in state appropriations.
This data signals that state legislatures’ facilitation of
declines in appropriations holds influence on enrollment of UG FTI student
enrollment. Basically, through decreased
financial support, state legislatures are positioning the universities to act
as privatized entities. This argument is
often lost in public media outlets because the decreased financial commitment
from states to universities is not deeply reported on, especially within
articles that explore international student enrollments. See the throwaway sentences cited
earlier.
Before I finish, I wish to make my personal position explicitly clear. My stance on international student enrollment in U.S. institutions is one of inclusion. I believe these students are an asset to our universities as they subsidize domestic tuition and fees and bring unique perspectives to our classrooms.
Fundamentally, I believe the problem is not within the
practice of enrollment international students, but instead is with international
students’ ability to remain in the U.S. post-graduation. Specifically, I believe that the federal H-1B work visa and
citizenship policies are too limiting.
These restrictive laws are an issue because almost 50% of international
students indicate a desire to stay and work within the U.S. beyond graduation, but
are forced to leave. As higher education institutions use this
demographic to generate revenue, whether by choice or through reactions to
legislatures’ actions, I believe it is their ethical duty to influence
modification of these restrictive policies.
Yet, that is the topic for a forthcoming blog.
by Dan Collier
