United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony before the Subcommittee on 

International Organizations, Human Rights 

and Oversight, Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, House of Representatives

HIGHER EDUCATION

Challenges in Attracting 

International Students to 

the United States and 

Implications for Global 

Competitiveness 

Statement of George A. Scott, Director 

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT

Friday, June 29, 2007

 

GAO-07-1047T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

June 29, 2007

HIGHER EDUCATION

Challenges in Attracting International 

Students to the United States and 

Implications for Global Competitiveness 

Highlights of GAO-07-1047T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on International 

Organizations, Human Rights, and 

Oversight, Committee on Foreign Affairs, 

House of Representatives

More international students obtain

a higher education in the United

States than in any other country,

and they make valuable 

contributions while they are here. 

For those students returning home 

after their studies, such exchanges 

support federal public diplomacy 

efforts and can improve 

understanding among nations. 

International students have earned

about one-third or more of all U.S. 

degrees at both the master’s and 

doctoral levels in several of the

science, technology, engineering, 

and mathematics fields. Yet recent

trends, including a drop in 

international student enrollment in 

U.S. colleges and universities, and 

policy changes after September 11, 

2001, have raised concerns about

whether the United States will 

continue to attract talented

international students to its 

universities. 

This testimony is based on ongoing 

and published GAO work. It 

includes themes from a September 

2006 Comptroller General’s forum 

on current trends in international 

student enrollment in the United 

States and abroad. Invitees to the 

forum included experts from the 

Congress, federal agencies,

universities, research institutions, 

higher education organizations, and 

industry. 

What GAO Recommends

This testimony does not contain 

recommendations. 

GAO identified the following key issues that may affect the United 

States’ ability to continue attracting the world’s most talented 

international students to our universities and colleges: 

• The global higher education landscape is changing and providing 

more alternatives for students, as other countries expand their 

educational capacity and technology-based distance learning 

opportunities increase. For example, enrollment in college-level 

distance education has nearly quadrupled since 1995. In addition, 

U.S. universities are establishing branch campuses in other countries 

and partnerships with international institutions, allowing 

international students to receive a U.S. education without leaving 

home. Greater competition has prompted some countries to offer 

courses in English and to expand their recruiting activities and 

incentives. Some countries also have developed strategic plans or 

offices focused on attracting international students. 

• The cost of obtaining a U.S. degree is among the highest in the world 

and rising, which may discourage international students. Average 

tuition in 2003 at public U.S. colleges and universities was second

only to Australia. Moreover, tuition and associated costs continue to 

rise. While the effects of high and rising costs and related factors are

difficult to estimate, some policymakers are concerned they may be 

discouraging international students from coming to the United 

States. 

• Visa policies and procedures, tightened after September 11 to protect 

our national security, contributed to real and perceived barriers for 

international students. Post-September 11 changes included a 

requirement that almost all visa applicants be interviewed, affecting 

the number of visas issued and extending wait times for visas under 

certain circumstances. GAO has made several recommendations to 

strengthen the visa process in a way that reduces barriers for 

international students while balancing national security, and recent 

changes have improved the process. Processing times for certain 

security reviews have declined, and recent data show more student 

visas issued in the last few years. The Department of State also has 

taken steps to ease the burden on students, including expediting

interviews and extending the length of time that some visa 

clearances are valid. We are continuing to study aspects of these 

issues. 

The United States must maintain an appropriate balance between 

protecting national security interests and ensuring our long-term 

competitiveness. Monitoring current trends and federal policies is

essential to ensuring that the United States continues to obtain talented 

international students in the face of greater global competition. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1047T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact George Scott at 

202-512-5932 or ScottG@gao.gov. 
Chairman Delahunt, Chairman Hinojosa and Members of the 

Subcommittees: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the challenges in attracting 

international students to the United States and implications for global 

competitiveness. Over 2 million students worldwide study outside of their 

country of origin and make economic and foreign policy contributions to 

their host countries. The United States has relied on undergraduate and

graduate students from other countries to support both economic and 

foreign policy interests. International students have been important 

sources of innovation and productivity in our increasingly knowledgebased economy, brought needed research and workforce skills, and 

strengthened our labor force. For those students returning home after 

their studies, such exchanges support federal public diplomacy efforts and

can improve understanding among nations. 

The United States’ competitiveness in a global society must strike a proper 

balance among protecting our national security interests, ensuring our 

long-term competitiveness, and building bridges with other nations and 

their people. It is also essential that we continue to develop our own 

domestic capacity. 

My testimony today touches on several of the key issues that may affect 

the United States’ ability to continue attracting the world’s most talented 

international students to our universities and colleges. My remarks today 

are drawn primarily from previous GAO reports, and the framework for 

discussing the issues is based on the perspectives and insights from the 

Comptroller General’s forum held in September 2006 to discuss American 

global competitiveness in higher education that included leaders from 

government, universities, research institutions, higher education 

organizations, and industry.1

 The forum participants’ suggestions and 

views reported here are not intended to reflect the views of GAO. All of 

the work on which this testimony is based was performed in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

 1

GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Global Competitiveness: Implications for the Nation’s

Higher Education System, GAO-07-135SP (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2007). 

Page 1 GAO-07-1047T 
In summary: 

• The global landscape of higher education is changing and providing 

more alternatives for students, particularly as other countries expand 

their educational capacity and technology-based distance learning 

opportunities increase. 

• The cost of obtaining a degree in the United States is rising, which may 

discourage international students from enrolling in our colleges and 

universities. 

• Visa policies and procedures, tightened after September 11, 2001, to 

protect our national security interests, may have contributed to real 

and perceived barriers for international students seeking to enter the 

country, but recent changes have helped ease barriers. 

The United States has historically sought to attract international students 

to its colleges and universities. In recent years international students have

earned about one-third or more of all of the U.S. degrees at both the 

master’s and doctoral levels in several of the science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. In academic year 2002-2003

alone, international students earned between 45 percent and 57 percent of

all the STEM degrees in the United States.2

Background 

Several federal agencies coordinate efforts to attract and bring 

international students to the United States and implement related 

requirements. The Department of State (State) manages the student visa 

application process, administers some student exchange programs, offers 

grants to facilitate international exchanges, and provides information 

promoting educational opportunities in the United States. State’s Bureau 

of Educational and Cultural Affairs supports a global network of more 

than 450 advising centers around the world that provide comprehensive 

information about educational opportunities in the United States and 

guidance on how to access those opportunities. In addition, the 

Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs has undertaken 

ongoing efforts at outreach. For example, the office has organized several

delegations of American university presidents to travel overseas with the 

Undersecretary in order to emphasize the United States’ interest in 

welcoming international students. The Department of Homeland Security 

enforces immigration laws and oversees applications for changes in 

 2

GAO, Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs and Related Trends, GAO-06-114 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-07-1047T 
immigration status. It also administers the Student and Exchange Visitor 

Information System (SEVIS), an Internet-based system that maintains data 

on international students and exchange visitors before and during their 

stay in the United States. Finally, the Department of Education 

(Education) sponsors initiatives to encourage academic exchanges 

between the United States and other countries, and the Department of 

Commerce offers various activities to help U.S. educational institutions 

market their programs abroad. 

Students or exchange visitors interested in studying in the United States 

must first be admitted to a U.S. school or university before starting the 

visa process.3

 Most full-time students enter the United States under 

temporary visas, which usually permit them to stay for the duration of 

their studies but may require renewals if they return home before their 

studies are complete. In order to apply for a visa at a U.S. embassy or 

consulate, students are required to submit a SEVIS4

 -generated document 

issued by a U.S. college or university or State-designated sponsor 

organization when they apply for a visa.5

 State advises student applicants 

to apply early for a student or exchange visitor visa to make sure that 

there is sufficient time to obtain an appointment for a visa interview and 

for visa processing. Among the long-standing requirements for students 

applying for a visa is that they demonstrate an “intent to return” to their 

country of origin after they complete their studies. Graduates who wish to

stay and work in the United States beyond the time allowed by their 

student visas generally need to receive approval for a change in status, for 

example, through a temporary work visa or through permanent residency. 

 3

A visa allows a foreign citizen to travel to a U.S. port-of entry and request permission from 

the U.S. immigration officer to enter the United States. It does not guarantee entry into the 

United States. 

4

Section 641 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(IIRIRA), as amended, requires the creation and implementation of a program to collect 

information relating to nonimmigrant foreign students and exchange visitor program 

participants during the course of their stay in the United States. Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. C, 

Tit. VI, § 641, 110 Stat. 3009-704 (1996), codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1372. The

program became known as SEVP (Student and Exchange Visitor Program), and its core 

technology became known as SEVIS. It is administered by the Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and is an 

Internet-based system that maintains data on foreign students and exchange visitors before

and during their stay in the United States. 

5

The U.S. academic institution or program sponsor provides the appropriate SEVISgenerated form when the applicant has been academically admitted to the institution or 

accepted as a participant in an exchange program. To ensure that they will be able to arrive 

in time for the start of their educational program in the United States, applicants need to 

request and receive the appropriate visa-qualifying document from the U.S. institution or 

program sponsor well in advance of their planned arrival in the United States. 

Page 3 GAO-07-1047T 
Although the United States continues to enroll more international students 

than any other country, the number of international students enrolled in 

U.S. higher education institutions leveled off and even dropped slightly 

after 2001, as shown in figure 1. Figure 2 shows that the U.S. share of 

international students worldwide decreased between 2000 and 2004. 

According to the Institute of International Education, the decline in the 

number of international students attending U.S. higher education 

institutions between 2002 and 2003 was the first drop in over 30 years.6

While some preliminary data suggest that international student enrollment 

numbers may be rebounding, enrollments have yet to return to previous 

levels. Nevertheless, the United States continues to be a prime study 

destination for international students for numerous reasons: its highquality higher education institutions, top-ranked graduate programs, 

strong research funding, English-language curriculum, and a diverse 

foreign-born faculty. 

 6

Institute of International Education, Open Doors: Report on International Educational

Exchange, 2004, New York. 

Page 4 GAO-07-1047T 
Figure 1: Estimated Number of International Students Enrolled in U.S. Higher Education, 1984/1985 to 2005/2006 

Source: Institute of Intenational Education (IIE) data.

Year

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

199

1999/2000

2000/2001

2001/2002

2002/2003

2003/2004

2004/2005

2005/2006

8/1999

1997/1998

19

1990/1991

1991/1992

1992/1993

1993/1994

1994/1995

1995/1996

1996/1997

89/1990

1988/1989 

1987/1988

1986/1987

1985/1986

1984/1985

Estimated number of international students

Page 5 GAO-07-1047T 
Figure 2: Estimated Percentage of All International Higher Education Students 

Enrolled in a Selection of Countries by Destination, 2000 and 2004 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

NonOther

United

States

OECD

OECD

countriesa

countriesb

United

Kingdom

Germany

France

Australia

Canada

Japan

New

Zealand

Estimated percentage

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data.

2000

2004

Note: Information in this graph includes only those countries for which both 2000 and 2004 data were 

available, except for Canada, for which the year of reference is 2002. GAO did not assess the 

reliability of the data for the percentage of students enrolled in schools outside the United States. 

Also, the definition of international students is not uniform across countries. 

a

Other OECD countries include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, 

Ireland, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak 

Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and Turkey. 

b

Non-OECD countries include Brazil, Chile, India, Malaysia, the Russian Federation, South Africa, 

and others. 

The Global Higher 

Education Landscape Is 

Providing More Options 

for Students 

As worldwide demand for higher education continues to rise, changes in

the global higher education landscape have provided students with more 

options. For example, technological advancements have spurred online 

courses and even completely online programs that cater largely to 

nontraditional students having work and family commitments. Between 

1995 and 2001, enrollment in distance education at the college level nearly 

Page 6 GAO-07-1047T 
quadrupled to over 3 million students, according to Education’s most 

recent data.

In addition, international partnerships allow institutions to share faculty 

members and facilitate study abroad opportunities. International branch 

campuses now provide international students the opportunity to receive 

an American education without leaving their home country. 

Greater competition has prompted some countries to embrace instruction 

in English and encouraged other systems to expand their recruiting 

activities and incentives. Germany alone offers nearly 400 courses in 

English that are geared toward international students. In terms of 

recruiting, several of the participants during our global competitiveness 

and higher education forum suggested that some countries appear more 

committed to attracting international students than the United States or 

are now competing with the United States for the best and the brightest 

students. Japan offers the same subsidized tuition rates to international 

students as domestic students, while Singapore offers all students tuition 

grants covering up to 80 percent of tuition fees as long as they commit to 

working in Singapore for 3 years after graduation. France and Japan have 

also strengthened and expanded their scholarship programs for 

international students. Some countries’ recruiting efforts include providing 

scholarships to international students who may not be able to afford the 

costs of obtaining a higher education degree in the United States. 

In addition, some countries have also developed strategic plans or offices 

that address efforts to attract international students. The German 

Academic Exchange Service and EduFrance offer examples where 

government agencies have been tasked with international student 

recruitment. Participants at GAO’s forum on global competitiveness 

expressed concerns that the United States lacked such a national strategy

for recruiting international students and emphasized a need to both 

explore new sources of international students as well as cultivate U.S. 

domestic capacity. 

Rising Cost of U.S. Higher 

Education May Discourage 

Some International 

Students from Coming 

As the cost of attending college in the United States rises, international 

students may be discouraged from coming here to study. Higher education 

in the United States ranks among the most expensive in the world. As 

shown from OECD data in table 1, in 2003-2004 annual average tuition at 

Page 7 GAO-07-1047T 
public U.S. colleges and universities ($4,587) was second only to Australia 

($5,289) and more than 2.5 times higher than Europe’s system with the 

highest tuition fees, that of the United Kingdom.7

 In terms of private higher 

education providers, U.S. institutions ranked the highest at more than 

$17,000 per year followed by Australia ($13,420), Italy ($3,992), and 

Portugal ($3,803). 

Table 1: Estimated Annual Average Tuition Fees Charged by Select OECD 

Countries’ Tertiary-Type A Educational Institutions (School Year 2003-2004) 

OECD countries Public institutions Private institutions

Australia $5,289 $13,420

United States 4,587 17,777

Canada 3,267 --

New Zealand 2,538 3,075

Italy 983 3,992

Portugal 868 3,803

Austria 853 800

Spain 801 --

Belgium (Other) 658 751

Belgium (Flanders) 540 536

Hungary 351 991

Czech Republic 0 3,449

Denmark 0 --

Finland 0 0

Iceland 0 3,000

Slovak Republic 0 --

Sweden 0 0

Netherlands -- 1,565

United Kingdom -- $1,794

Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2006. Paris. 

 7

Higher education institutions in the United Kingdom are privately controlled. However, 

because they are funded largely by the state, they are commonly regarded as public 

institutions in international comparative analyses. 

Page 8 GAO-07-1047T 
Note: In equivalent U.S. dollars converted using purchasing power parity (PPP), by type of 

institutions, based on full-time students. Zero values indicate no tuition and dashed values indicate 

that data were either missing or the category was not applicable. These figures represent the 

weighted average of the main Tertiary-type A programs and do not cover all educational institutions. 

However, the figures reported can be considered as good proxies and show the difference among 

countries in tuition fees charged by main educational institutions for the majority of students. Tertiarytype A programs are largely theory-based and designed to provide sufficient qualifications for entry to 

advanced research programs and professions with high skill requirements. They have a minimum 

cumulative theoretical duration of three years’ full-time equivalent, although they typically last four or

more years. 

Moreover, student costs at U.S. colleges and universities continue to rise. 

Figure 3 depicts average undergraduate tuition and room and board costs 

between 1976 and 2004 for full-time students in degree-granting programs 

at both 4-year public and private higher education institutions as well as 

public 2-year institutions. Average costs for private colleges and 

universities have risen the most since 1990, from $13,237 to $26,489. 

However, in percentage terms the most growth took place at 4-year public

institutions; the change between 1990 and 2004 was approximately 118 

percent compared to a 100 percent increase at 4-year privates and an 83

percent increase at 2-year institutions. 

Page 9 GAO-07-1047T 
Figure 3: Average Undergraduate Tuition and Fees and Room and Board Rates Charged for Full-Time Students in DegreeGranting Institutions, by Type and Control of Institution: 1976-1977 through 2004-2005 

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

199

1999-2000

2000-2001

2001-2002

2002-2003 

2003-2004

2004-2005

8-1999

1997-1998

19

1990-1991

1991-1992

1992-1993

1993-1994

1994-1995

1995-1996

1996-1997

89-1990

1988-19891987-1988

1986-1987

1985-1986

1984-1985

1983-1984

1982-1983

1981-19821980-1981

1979-1980

1978-1979

1977-1978

1976-1977

Total Tuition, Room and Board

Source: U.S. Department of Education. Digest of Education Statistics: 2005.

Academic year

Private 4-year

Public 4-year

Public 2-year

Note: Data for 1986-1987 and later years reflect a basis of 20 meals per week rather than meals 7 

days per week. Because of this revision in data collection and tabulation procedures, data are not 

entirely comparable with figures for previous years. Room and board data are estimated. Data were

imputed using alternative procedures. Preliminary data based on fall 2003 enrollment weights. Data

are for the entire academic year and are average total charges for full-time attendance. Tuition and 

fees were weighted by the number of full-time-equivalent undergraduates, but were not adjusted to

reflect student residency. Room and board were based on full-time students. The data have not been

adjusted for changes in the purchasing power of the dollar over time. Data for 1976-1977 to 1996-

1997 are for institutions of higher education. Institutions of higher education were accredited by an 

agency or association that was recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, or recognized 

directly by the Secretary of Education. Because of their low response rate, data for private 2-year 

colleges must be interpreted with caution. 

International students generally do not rely on U.S. federal funding to 

study in the United States. According to the Institute of International 

Education’s Open Doors 2004/2005 report, which provides data on 

international student mobility patterns from U.S. universities, an estimated 

71 percent of all international students reported their primary source of 

funding coming from personal and family sources or other sources outside 

of the United States. The effects of high and rising tuition and other factors 

on international enrollment patterns are difficult to estimate, but some 

Page 10 GAO-07-1047T 
policymakers are concerned that costs may be discouraging some 

international students from coming to U.S. higher education institutions. 

Changes in U.S. Visa 

Policies Contributed to 

Real and Perceived 

Barriers for International 

Students to Enter the 

Country, but Recent 

Improvements Have 

Helped Ease Some of the 

Burden 

After September 11, State and Homeland Security, as well as other 

agencies, took various steps to strengthen the visa process as an 

antiterrorism tool. This has made the visa process more robust, but may 

have contributed to real and perceived barriers for international students 

as well as fueled perceptions that international students were not 

welcome. Almost all visa applicants must now be interviewed by a 

consular adjudicating officer at a U.S. embassy or post; this requirement 

has both affected the number of visas issued and extended wait times for 

visas under certain circumstances.8

 We have reviewed aspects of the visa 

process and have made many recommendations to strengthen the process 

in a way that reduces barriers for international students while balancing 

national security interests. In October 2002 we cited the need for a clear 

policy on how to balance national security concerns with the desire to 

facilitate legitimate travel when issuing visas and made several 

recommendations to help improve the visa process.9

 In 2003, we reported 

that the Departments of State, Homeland Security, and Justice could more 

effectively manage the visa process if they had clear and comprehensive 

policies and procedures as well as increased agency coordination and 

information sharing.10 In 2005 we reported on State’s management of J-1 

exchange programs.11 Separately in 2005, we reported on the department’s 

efforts to improve the time required to process visas for international 

science students and scholars as well as others.12 In 2004 we found that the 

time to adjudicate a visa depended largely on whether an applicant had to

undergo a Visas Mantis security check. Visas Mantis security checks target

 8

See GAO, Border Security: Reassessment of Consular Resource Requirements Could

Help Address Visa Delays, GAO-06-542T (Washington, DC: Apr. 4, 2006). 

9

GAO, Border Security: Visa Process Should Be Strengthened as an Antiterrorism Tool,

GAO-03-123NI (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2002). 

10GAO, Border Security: New Policies and Increased Interagency Coordination Needed to 

Improve Visa Process, GAO-03-1013T (Washington, DC: July 15, 2003). 

11GAO, State Department: Stronger Action Needed to Improve Oversight and Assess Risks 

of the Summer Work Travel and Trainee Categories of the Exchange Visitor Program,

GAO-06-106 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 14, 2005). 

12GAO, Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on

Foreign Science Students and Scholars but Further Refinements Needed, GAO-05-198 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005). 

Page 11 GAO-07-1047T 
foreigners who might be involved in violation or evasion of U.S. laws by 

exporting goods, software, technology, or sensitive information, aiming to 

prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and conventional 

weapons. Between January 2004 and June 2006, almost 28 percent of all

visa applications sent for Mantis security checks were for students or 

exchange participants. State has acknowledged that long wait times may 

discourage legitimate travel to the United States, potentially costing the 

country billions of dollars in economic benefits, including from foreign 

students,13 and adversely influencing foreign citizens’ impressions and 

opinions of our nation. 

Much progress has been made over the years with respect to the visa 

process. Since 2002, State and other agencies have implemented many of

our recommendations aimed at strengthening the visa process as an 

antiterrorism tool while improving processes to facilitate legitimate travel. 

In particular, State has issued standard operating procedures, in 

consultation with Homeland Security, to inform consular officers on 

issues such as special security checks and student visa requirements. In 

2005, we reported a significant decline in both Visas Mantis processing 

times and cases pending more than 60 days.14 Recent visa data show an 

increase in the number of student visas issued in the last few years.15

According to State Department data, the combined student visa issuance 

levels for fiscal year 2006 increased by about 20 percent from fiscal year

2002. See figure 4 for the issuance trends for individual student visa 

categories. 

Broader efforts to facilitate travel to the United States for international 

students have also been implemented. State has expedited interviews for 

students. In addition, the length of time that some visa clearances are valid 

has been extended. In February 2007, State issued guidance to posts that 

applicants should receive an appointment for a student visa interview 

 13In March 2007, the Deputy Secretary of State for Visa Services testified that, according to

Department of Commerce figures, international students contribute $13.5 billion each year 

to institutions they attend and the surrounding communities in which they live. 

14GAO, Border Security: Streamlined Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on

Foreign Science Students and Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed, GAO-05-198

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 18, 2005). 

15For purposes of this testimony, unless otherwise noted, when we refer to student and

exchange visitor visas we are referring to F-1 and J-1 visa categories only. The F-1 is for

individuals seeking to study at accredited American higher education institutions and the 

J-1 is for participants in visitor exchange programs. 

Page 12 GAO-07-1047T 
within 15 days or less.16 We are continuing to study aspect of these issues, 

including visa delays and Visas Mantis security checks, which we will be 

reporting on in the coming months. 

Figure 4: Student Visa Issuance Trends, Fiscal Years 2002 to 2006 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 

Number of issuances

Source: GAO analysis of Department of State data.

Fiscal year

J-1

F-1

234,322

215,695 218,898

237,890

273,870

253,841 253,866 254,504

275,161

309,951

Concluding Observations The United States must maintain an appropriate balance between 

protecting national security interests and ensuring our long-term 

competitiveness. The United States has relied on undergraduate and

graduate students from other countries to support both economic and 

foreign policy interests. Changes designed to protect national security in 

the wake of September 11 may have contributed to real and perceived

barriers for international students, and the subsequent decline in 

international enrollments raises concerns about the long-term 

competitiveness of U.S. colleges and universities. Rising U.S. tuition costs 

 16In July 2004, State issued a cable to posts that directed them to give priority scheduling to 

persons applying for F, J, and M visas. As explained in the cable, students and exchange

visitors are often subject to deadlines, so State directed posts to have well-publicized and 

transparent procedures in place for obtaining priority appointments for them. 

Page 13 GAO-07-1047T 
and growing higher education options worldwide further demonstrate that

the United States cannot take its position as the top destination for 

international students for granted. While federal efforts to reduce barriers 

for international students have helped, monitoring current trends and 

federal policies is essential to ensuring that the United States continues to

obtain talented international students in the face of greater global 

competition. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to

respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittees may 

have at this time. 

For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at 

(202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

include Sherri Doughty, Carlo Salerno, Marissa Jones, John Brummet, 

Eugene Beye, Carmen Donohue, Eve Weisberg, Melissa Pickworth, and 

Susannah Compton. 

GAO Contacts 

Page 14 GAO-07-1047T 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER