NAFSA, the association of international educators, a released a report this week noting that “[f]oreign students and their dependents continue to make a significant contribution to local and state economies, spending $17.6 billion in the United States during the 2008- 2009 academic year…California, New York, and Texas welcomed the largest numbers of foreign students, and those states each saw a substantial benefit from the spending students and their families do on day-to-day necessities, as well as tuition and fees. ” An excellent summary of the economic impact data can been accessed herewith the capability of seeing economic impact by state and congressional district. NAFSA notes:
This conservative figure, $17.6 billion, is based on tuition figures from Wintergreen Orchard House, enrollment figures from the Institute of International Education’s Open Doors 2009 report, living expenses calculated from Wintergreen Orchard House figures, and analysis of the data by Jason Baumgartner at Indiana University – Bloomington’s Office of International Services.
There is no doubt that the attraction of international students to the U.S. is of great value for academic, economic and cultural reasons (to name but a few). But with the economic downturn hitting states – and therefore public universities – very hard, there is a temptation in U.S. state capitals to hike tuition for international students and use that mechanism to fill in budget gaps. Last month the New York State Comptroller’s office issued a report arguing that State University of New York should charge out-of-state students nearly $8,500 more a semester so state taxpayers are not paying for these students to attend their public universities. Last year officials in California argued for taking more international students so that their higher fees and tuition rates could be used to fill in budget gaps. This strategy undermines the long-term relationship U.S. public universities have with partner universities overseas and sends a message to both international and domestic audiences alike that the attraction of international students is merely a cash cow. That message, combined with increased tuition and limited seats for in-state students has the potential to flame nativist fires. So, we should be clear that international students add to our fragile state economies, but that fact should always be placed in the context of the overall value of international education – a value that accrues to all involved.
