$
Several articles and studies discussing the issue of educational institutions, particularly universities in the US and elsewhere, potentially prioritizing international students over domestic ones. This often revolves around financial incentives, as international students typically pay full tuition without aid, which can help subsidize operations. However, opinions vary: some sources highlight concerns about displacement or favoritism toward wealthy foreign applicants, while others argue that international enrollment benefits domestic students by funding scholarships, diversity, and expanded programs without crowding them out. Below, I’ll summarize key articles representing different perspectives.
- A New York Times opinion piece addresses growing concerns that elite US colleges prioritize wealthy international students over qualified domestic applicants, citing a guest essay arguing that reliance on overseas tuition revenue harms Americans by limiting spots for locals. It includes reader anecdotes, like a parent whose high-achieving son was rejected from top schools, but counters with views from professors that international students bring diversity and support non-elite institutions facing enrollment declines. NYTimes Opinion: What international students bring to campus.
- A Boston Globe opinion article argues that US colleges should cut back on international students, suggesting admissions priorities favor them due to higher revenue, especially amid
political tensions, and calls for rebalancing to focus more on domestic applicants. Boston Globe Opinion: Why US colleges should cut back on international students. - An academic study in the Journal of Public Economics examines whether international students “crowd out” Americans in higher education, using data from a boom-and-bust cycle in US graduate programs; it finds mixed effects but notes that foreign enrollment can sometimes displace domestics in certain fields while cross-subsidizing others through tuition revenue. Do international students crowd-out or cross-subsidize Americans in higher education?
- A National Review article explores the “big business” of foreign students at American universities, accusing institutions of prioritizing them for full-price tuition that funds operations, potentially at the expense of domestic applicants who receive more aid or face stiffer competition. The Big Business of Foreign Students at American Universities
- On the counter side, a Shorelight analysis asserts that international students don’t take seats from domestics but create them by boosting university budgets, enabling more scholarships and programs for locals; it refutes displacement claims, stating the US higher ed system operates below capacity. International Students Don’t Take Seats — They Create Them
These discussions are often tied to broader debates on immigration, tuition economics, and enrollment trends.
$
Several articles and analyses in the student housing REIT industry discussing dependence on foreign (international) student renters, though the level of reliance varies by market and property. In the US (the primary focus for student housing REITs like the former American Campus Communities, now owned by Blackstone), the sector emphasizes low overall dependence, with domestic students making up over 95% of enrollments. However, international students provide stabilizing benefits, such as counter-cyclical demand, earlier arrivals, and support for rents/prices in college towns.
- An academic paper (“The Impact of International Students on Housing Markets,” published in the Canadian Journal of Economics, 2023) highlights how the 2005–2015 international student boom sustained rental demand and residential investment in US college towns during the Great Recession. It notes that international inflows increased rents by 1.3% and home prices by 2.5%, insulating markets and benefiting student housing (including REIT-owned properties like those of American Campus Communities, which grew during that period).
- The US Student Housing REIT (an Australian-listed REIT focused on US properties) explicitly markets low reliance on foreign students (>95% domestic enrollments) as a strength, reducing risks from visa changes or geopolitical shifts (e.g., declines in Chinese students offset by rises from India).
- Industry reports note that international students prefer professionally managed off-campus housing (common for REITs), arrive earlier for better occupancy, and are less price-sensitive, adding stability. However, visa uncertainties and enrollment shifts (e.g., India surpassing China as the top source in 2023/24) introduce risks for properties with higher international exposure.
Broader trends show international students driving demand in global markets (e.g., Australia, Canada, UK), but US student housing REITs position themselves as resilient due to dominant domestic demand and supply shortages in college towns. So far, while not heavily dependent, international students are viewed positively for buffering downturns rather than as a core risk in most US-focused REIT discussions.
$
