Higher education global mobility has always thrived at the intersection of complexity and possibility. We create opportunities for students to cross borders, expand perspectives and strengthen institutions. Yet the people who make this possible – international education professionals – are carrying unsustainable burdens. The challenges are not confined to one country. They reverberate across the global higher education community.
A recent survey from Terra Dotta underscores the scope of the problem. In the United States, International Student and Scholar Services (ISSS) offices at public universities are reporting student-to-staff ratios that frequently exceed 200:1, some more than 700:1.
Compliance-heavy roles such as SEVIS coordinators are underpaid and turnover among international education professionals is outpacing the broader higher education sector by roughly 25%.
A fifth of institutions still operate without dedicated technology to manage increasingly complex compliance requirements. While these findings are US-specific, they mirror the concerns voiced across the globe – Canada, Europe, Australia – where expanding visa regulations, rising student expectations and resource limits create similar strain.
Staffing inadequacies put international education at risk
Behind the statistics lies a reality every institution face: compliance does not pause when staffing is inadequate. A visa denial, a missed reporting deadline or an audit gap can compromise not only an individual student’s academic future but also an institution’s credibility with government agencies and its reputation among prospective students and families.
At a time when – according to our survey and other recent supporting data – international enrolments account for 14% of student bodies at private US universities and represent billions in economic impact worldwide, institutions cannot afford to treat compliance staffing and support as an afterthought.
Compensation gaps are most pronounced at the entry level, where narrow pay bands and below-market wages create barriers to retention
The human impact is equally urgent. One in four ISSS professionals in the US has left their role in the past three years, reducing the institutional knowledge and continuity essential for managing complex cases. Compensation gaps are most pronounced at the entry level, where narrow pay bands and below-market wages create barriers to retention. These are the roles most directly responsible for monitoring visa status and ensuring accurate regulatory reporting. Underpaying and under-supporting such positions introduces risks that extend well beyond the staff office.
In the UK, visa changes have forced institutions to rapidly adapt processes, stretching staff capacity. In Australia, where international students account for nearly 30% of total enrolments at some universities, offices have faced mounting pressure to manage fluctuating mobility flows while maintaining compliance with rigorous government oversight. Across borders, the common thread is clear: institutions are asking fewer staff to manage larger, more complex portfolios with insufficient compensation or tools.
Reframing global engagement strategies
So where does the sector go from here? The first step is recognising that staffing, compensation, and operational support are strategic imperatives. Every institution that competes for international students is also competing for trust – trust from governments that regulations will be followed, trust from families that students will be supported and trust from students that their educational experience will be managed with care. That trust is earned through well-supported professionals working within systems that enable them to succeed.
Investment must be deliberate. Competitive compensation and clear pathways for professional growth reduce the churn of talent that undermines institutional resilience. Technology is equally critical. Our survey revealed that 20% of US ISSS offices are still managing SEVP compliance without structured software support and one-third acknowledge gaps in SEVIS readiness.
Equally important is reframing how international education functions are perceived. Too often, they are categorised narrowly as administrative or compliance driven. These offices sit at the centre of global engagement strategies. International students enrich research, teaching and community life, while their tuition revenue contributes materially to institutional budgets. The offices responsible for supporting them deserve recognition and resources proportionate to their impact.
Examples from across the sector illustrate the benefits of acting decisively. Universities that recalibrate staffing structures to reduce student-to-staff ratios demonstrate stronger retention outcomes and improved preparedness for regulatory audits.
The call to action is straightforward but urgent. Higher education leaders must move beyond acknowledging the pressures facing international education offices and begin resourcing them at the level required. Doing so is not just about addressing today’s challenges; it is about building resilience for the future.
Policy landscapes will continue to shift. Student mobility will remain subject to political, demographic and economic dynamics. But institutions that invest in people, technology and training now will weather those shifts and define the next era of global engagement.
While the value of international education is universally recognised, the structures that sustain it are fragile. Strengthening those structures is critical to the foundation on which a globally connected, student-centered, and resilient higher education sector must be built.
