On July 8, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) published a notice on its official website titled "Prohibition on Collaborations with Restricted Entities," announcing a new policy that will take effect in fiscal year (FY) 2027 prohibiting NSF funds from being used to support collaborations with entities appearing on U.S. restricted party lists. Under the new policy, senior/key personnel will be prohibited from collaborating with these restricted entities on NSF-funded projects. In addition, senior/key personnel will be prohibited from holding an appointment or position with, or receiving research support from, any restricted entity for the duration of an NSF award. To implement the policy, NSF plans to revise its current guidance to include the following provisions: NSF appropriated funds shall not be used for grants, contracts, other transactions, or other assistance to an organization if the purpose is to conduct research in collaboration with restricted entities. This funding prohibition also extends to the employees of such restricted entities.Senior/key personnel are prohibited from holding an appointment or position with, or receiving research support from, a restricted entity. Further, senior/key personnel are prohibited from collaborating with a restricted entity, or any employee thereof, on research funded by their NSF award.To comply with this prohibition once it becomes effective, organizations' Authorized Organizational Representatives (AORs) and senior/key personnel will be required to certify compliance at the time of proposal submission. Organizations will also be responsible for ensuring that senior/key personnel are aware of and comply with the prohibition, and for identifying and addressing any prohibited activities before NSF funds are expended. The U.S. Proscribed Party Lists referenced by NSF draw from seven U.S. government departments and agencies, including the U.S. Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), the Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), the Department of State, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). According to Science, the lists cover hundreds of China's leading universities, national laboratories, and other research institutions. However, some prominent Chinese institutions have notably been omitted from the restricted lists. For example, Tsinghua University, which is not currently on the list, recently hired away 2025 Nobel laureate in Chemistry Omar Yaghi from the University of California, Berkeley. Representative John Moolenaar (R–MI), chairman of the Select Committee on China in the U.S. House of Representatives, described the NSF's move as "commendable and commonsense" and urged other federal agencies to "follow the lead of the Pentagon and NSF." Many scientists, however, argue that the policy overlooks the mutual benefits of U.S.-China scientific collaboration and could ultimately harm research in both countries. The constraints on U.S.-China scientific cooperation have continued to tighten. On May 29, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a proposed rule that would comprehensively overhaul federal grantmaking policies. The proposal seeks to establish a uniform standard across all federal agencies by prohibiting federal grant funds from supporting any research collaboration with entities in "countries of concern," including China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. The proposal is open for public comment until July 13, with a final rule expected to be issued in October. The OMB proposal has sparked widespread concern across the U.S. higher education community. Critics argue that, if adopted, the rule would allow federal agencies to terminate grants at any time if they are deemed inconsistent with "evolving national interests." They also warn that it could significantly impede university researchers' ability to collaborate with scientists outside the United States and to co-author research papers with international partners. In an interview with Science, Stanford University physicist Peter Michelson said, "This NSF policy and the likely new OMB regulations are definitely not good for U.S. science. Very damaging!" Science also noted that one of the greatest uncertainties concerns the definition of a "research collaboration." Would it include informal conversations at academic conferences about publicly available research, or co-authorship on papers where the authors conducted their work independently? Agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and NASA already appear to be limiting grantees' freedom to co-author papers with foreign scientists. "Co-authorship is not necessarily equivalent to collaboration," said Kevin Wozniak of the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), a nonprofit consortium of universities that monitors federal research policy. "But the National Institutes of Health calls it a factor" in determining whether an interaction crosses the line. The NSF policy is currently still open for public comment. On July 15, officials from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science are scheduled to testify before the House Select Committee on China. The hearing may provide greater clarity on the future direction of U.S.-China scientific collaboration.
Data collected by the Association of American Universities Data Exchange (AAUDE) from 55 member institutions of the Association of American Universities (AAU) show that doctoral admissions—a key indicator of universities’ ability to enroll new PhD students—fell by 15% overall in fall 2026 compared with the previous year. At the same time, while applications from domestic students to doctoral programs increased by 3%, applications from international students declined by 21%. The decline has been even more pronounced at some universities. According to The New York Times, the California Institute of Technology expects to enroll 40% fewer new graduate students this fall, while the Massachusetts Institute of Technology anticipates about 20% fewer new graduate students. The AAU attributes the decline in graduate admissions directly to the financial uncertainty facing universities as a result of declining and increasingly unpredictable federal research funding. Since the beginning of last year, federal research agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have terminated previously awarded grants, faced proposals from the current administration for substantial budget cuts, and slowed the pace of new grant awards despite receiving adequate congressional appropriations. These agencies are among the primary sources of research funding for U.S. universities. Meanwhile, changes in U.S. immigration policy have made international students feel less welcome, while universities in other countries have intensified their efforts to recruit international STEM talent. Together, these developments appear to have reduced international students’ interest in pursuing doctoral education in the United States. The result has been a broad contraction in doctoral training capacity across research universities. Indeed, many institutions have gone so far as to suspend doctoral admissions altogether, turning away highly qualified applicants—including those in strategically important fields such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced engineering. The disruption also extends to students already well advanced in their doctoral studies. PhD candidates whose research has been derailed by abrupt grant terminations and delayed funding renewals have been forced to abandon their original dissertation projects, seek new faculty advisors, and, in some cases, postpone completion of their degrees by more than a year. The AAU concludes with a stark warning: as PhD admissions continue to decline, the United States faces the alarming prospect of losing an entire generation of scientific talent. The global scientific leadership that the United States has spent decades building is now at risk.
The Australian Government has confirmed that it will maintain its National Planning Level (NPL) for international student commencements at 295,000 in 2027, signalling a continued focus on managing the country's international education sector while ensuring long-term stability. The announcement was made by Education Minister Jason Clare, Skills Minister Andrew Giles, and Assistant Minister for International Education Julian Hill as part of the Government's 2027 International Education Settings. The 2027 cap remains unchanged from 2026 and sits 8% below the immediate post-pandemic peak in international student commencements. Government data suggests enrolments are already tracking below the cap. International student commencements in 2026 are currently 8% lower than the same period in 2025 and 13% below 2019 levels, indicating that current demand remains well within the planning framework. "International education is an incredibly important export industry for Australia, but we need to manage it sustainably," Education Minister Jason Clare said. "This is about making sure international education supports students, universities and the national interest." Regional Universities to Retain Strong AllocationsUnder the 2027 settings, all active international education providers will receive at least their current allocation of international student places. The Government said the policy preserves the stronger allocations granted to regional universities during last year's distribution process, helping spread the economic and educational benefits of international education across the country. Beginning in 2027, responsibility for allocating international student places among higher education providers will shift to the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC), while the Government will continue to determine the overall National Planning Level. ATEC has been operating in an interim capacity since July 2025. During the previous allocation round, the commission prioritized programs aligned with Australia's workforce shortages—including nursing and information technology—while tightening allocations for high-demand courses such as business degrees at the country's Group of Eight universities. Beyond student allocations, ATEC is also tasked with coordinating support for regional institutions, overseeing tuition fee settings, and aligning education policy with Australia's broader migration and skills agenda. Student Visa Fees Increase for the Third Time Since 2024The release of the 2027 international education framework comes alongside another increase in Australia's student visa application charges. Last week, the Government announced a 25% increase in fees for Student and Temporary Graduate visas, raising the application charge for the Subclass 500 Student Visa to AUD 2,500. The changes also introduce a separate AUD 2,050 application fee for standalone English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students (ELICOS). Lower visa fees will apply to applicants from ASEAN member states and those undertaking non-award courses, while existing concessions for students from Pacific Island nations and Timor-Leste will remain in place. The latest increase marks the third rise in Australia's student visa application charge since 2024. The sector has expressed growing concern over the cumulative impact of higher visa costs. According to English Australia, the national peak body representing Australia's English-language education sector, the increase in the student visa application charge from AUD 710 to AUD 1,600 in July 2024 led to a 38% decline in visa applications for independent ELICOS providers. A second increase—to AUD 2,000 in July 2025—was followed by another 25% drop in applications. Combined with historically low student visa approval rates for independent ELICOS providers, the sector recorded its lowest application numbers on record in 2025–26, with volumes 24% below those recorded in 2005–06. The Government argues that the latest policy settings provide greater certainty for education providers while ensuring international education continues to support Australia's economic and workforce priorities. However, the combination of enrolment controls, higher visa costs, and tighter visa settings is expected to continue weighing on international student demand. Industry observers warn that these measures could make it increasingly challenging for Australia to maintain its competitive position in the global international education market, particularly as other major study destinations seek to attract a larger share of globally mobile students.
On June 2, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) released a report on current public attitudes toward higher education in the United Kingdom. The report shows that the view that the higher education sector is too large remains a minority opinion. While 18% of respondents believe that opportunities for young people to enter higher education should be reduced—an increase of seven percentage points since 2017—around four in ten (41%) think current participation levels are about right, and 37% believe opportunities should be expanded. The perception that a university education benefits graduates is less widespread than it was two decades ago, although it remains more common among university graduates themselves. A total of 34% agree that “a university education just isn’t worth the amount of time and money it usually takes,” whereas this figure had never exceeded 20% in previous surveys. People also appear to be increasingly skeptical that graduates enjoy greater financial benefits. Only 36% agree that “in the long run, people who go to university end up being a lot better off financially than those who don’t,” a decline of 10 percentage points since 2018 and the lowest level ever recorded. These findings are consistent with responses to a separate question asking whether, “considering the cost of a university education nowadays,” a degree represents good value for money. As many as 77% of respondents say that it does not, compared with only 17% who believe it does. This marks a significant shift from 2014, when 51% considered a degree to be good value for money. Although higher education has traditionally been viewed as a pathway to strong employment prospects and greater financial security, the public appears increasingly unconvinced that this promise is being fulfilled. There remains majority support for students and families contributing at least part of the cost of tuition, although opinions on how this should be implemented do not always align with current government policy. In 2004, 77% believed that all or some students and families should pay tuition fees; today, that figure stands at 69%. In addition, 61% believe that the maximum annual tuition fee should be set below the current cap of £9,535. The survey also examined public attitudes toward international students. It found that approximately two-thirds of adults in England (67%) believe that the government should impose limits on the number of international students universities are allowed to enroll. The report concludes that universities and graduates are currently facing a range of interconnected challenges. Many universities are experiencing financial difficulties, while graduates are confronted with substantial student debt, underemployment, and a diminishing “graduate premium.” These challenges have not gone unnoticed by the public, which is now less convinced than in the past that higher education delivers clear benefits for graduates. Fewer people believe that university graduates are financially better off in the long term, and a larger proportion than ever before consider a degree not worth the time and money it typically requires. However, these concerns have not yet translated into a significant backlash against the size of the higher education sector. Although support for reducing access to university has risen to a comparatively high level, a majority of respondents still believe that opportunities for higher education are either appropriate as they are or should be increased. At the same time, public perceptions of the number of graduates in the labor market have remained broadly unchanged over the past decade.
According to Nature, an internal document obtained by Nature shows that, as of April 9, the Office of Award Management (OAM) at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF)—the office responsible for finalizing grants and managing their finances—had imposed restrictions on new funding to Duke University, Harvard University, Princeton University, and Yale University. A note attached to these institutions in the NSF database stated: “Future Awards to Organization on Hold.” Since then, the NSF has provided little new funding to these universities. An internal NSF list obtained by Nature indicates that the OAM has stalled 33 research proposals submitted by researchers from the four universities or their collaborators. While the average NSF research grant takes about 10 days for the OAM to finalize, proposals involving researchers from Duke, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale have remained pending for an average of 91 days. Approximately 85% of the delayed proposals are in mathematics, the physical sciences, and engineering. Several of them focus on quantum information science, an area that the Trump administration has said it intends to prioritize. According to the report, in 2024, these four universities received a combined total of 218 new NSF grants. However, in the current fiscal year, they have received only 13 new grants, with no new awards made to scientists at Duke or Harvard since April 9. Meanwhile, last month, the NSF suspended 18 research grants awarded to the University of California, Berkeley. However, according to Nature’s latest update, on May 28, the NSF’s OAM removed the “Future Awards to Organization on Hold” designation from its database for Duke, Harvard, and Yale. Agency staff members who spoke with Nature also said that a small number of grants for researchers at Harvard and Duke have since been released. Notably, in May, sources familiar with the matter at Harvard University revealed that Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) could lay off as many as one-quarter of its staff this summer as part of a sweeping administrative restructuring. The plan would consolidate departments, centers, and institutes into shared administrative “clusters.” The restructuring is intended to help address the FAS’s projected budget deficit of $365 million. However, it would also represent one of the most significant staff reorganizations in the school’s recent history, with layoffs expected to have a substantial impact on departmental administrators—staff members responsible for managing finances, human resources, and personnel matters within individual FAS units.
Recently, UNESCO released its first Higher Education Global Trends Report. The report shows that the number of students enrolled in higher education worldwide has more than doubled over the past two decades, reaching 269 million in 2024. International mobility has tripled over the same period, with nearly 7.3 million students studying abroad, half of whom are hosted in European and North American countries. Women now outnumber men in higher education, but they remain underrepresented at the doctoral level. Significant geographical inequalities also persist, with lower enrolment and completion rates in regions such as sub-Saharan Africa. The report includes new data from 146 countries and indicates that the number of students enrolled in higher education worldwide increased from approximately 100 million in 2000 to 269 million in 2024, accounting for 43% of the population of typical higher education age (18–24 years old). However, this growth masks stark regional disparities. While 80% of young people in Western Europe and North America are enrolled in higher education, the corresponding figures are 59% in Latin America and the Caribbean, 37% in the Arab States, 30% in South and West Asia, and only 9% in sub-Saharan Africa. The completion of studies has not kept pace with enrolment growth, with the global gross graduation ratio increasing only modestly from 22% in 2013 to 27% in 2024. The report also examines the financing of higher education. Data show that in 2022, average public expenditure on higher education (ISCED levels 5–8) amounted to approximately 0.8% of GDP globally. This average, however, conceals significant regional differences. Income level is also a key factor, with public spending ranging from below 0.3% of GDP in low-income countries to over 1.5% in high-income systems (UNESCO GEM Report, 2024). Governments in Western Europe and North America invest an average of 1.11% of GDP in higher education, supporting robust public systems. In East Asia and the Pacific, government expenditure on tertiary education averages 0.78% of GDP. Countries such as China and the Republic of Korea invest above the global average. At the same time, international student mobility has become an increasingly important topic in higher education, as mobility flows continue to rise worldwide, driving unprecedented levels of global exchange. According to the report, the number of students pursuing higher education abroad has more than tripled over the past two decades, rising from 2.1 million in 2000 to nearly 7.3 million in 2023. However, mobility benefits only 3% of the global student cohort, with substantial regional disparities. Looking at specific countries, nearly half of all internationally mobile students in 2023 came from just ten countries. China and India account for the largest shares of outbound international students, a trend projected to continue at least until 2030 (British Council, 2024b). In terms of destination countries, seven countries—the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, Canada, the Russian Federation, and France—continue to host half of all international students. Countries such as Türkiye and the United Arab Emirates are becoming increasingly popular destinations. With mobility numbers increasing at least fivefold over the past decade, they are now closely trailing France. The report also highlights an important finding: women now outnumber men in higher education. Globally, there were 114 women enrolled in higher education for every 100 men in 2024. Gender parity has been achieved in all regions except sub-Saharan Africa. Central and Southern Asia have made remarkable progress, rising from 68 women enrolled per 100 men in 2000 to achieving gender parity in 2023. Nevertheless, women remain underrepresented at the doctoral level and hold only around one-quarter of senior leadership positions in academia.
Starting 8 April, Germany is set to roll out the German Graduate Trainee (GGT) programme, offering young German university graduates the opportunity to start their careers at the European Space Agency (ESA). The programme will first run as a three year pilot phase beginning in March 2026, accepting six trainees annually. Over a period of up to two years, participants holding a master’s degree will join ESA as German Graduate Trainees, exploring diverse areas such as Earth observation, space exploration, satellite communications, space law, industrial policy, and more. First unveiled by Germany’s Federal Minister for Research, Technology and Space, Dorothee Bär, at the ESA Ministerial Council in November 2025, the scheme aims to raise the number of German specialists in Europe’s space organisations and reinforce the country’s space expertise over the long term. Upon completion, graduates can move into roles in research, industry, or other sectors, where their ESA background and networks are expected to deliver lasting value. The German Space Agency at DLR is running the programme on behalf of the Federal Ministry of Research, Technology and Space (BMFTR). Job postings will be available on the ESA careers website.
Recently, China's Ministry of Education, together with four other departments, issued the "AI + Education" Action Plan. The plan encourages higher education institutions, enterprises, and research institutes to participate in building the "AI + Education" ecosystem. It also calls for guiding state-owned and private long-term capital, patient capital, and strategic capital toward investment in educational technology innovation, thereby enabling more advanced technologies to serve human development. The highlights of this action plan are as follows: Achieving full-stage coverage of AI education. For example, in the higher education stage, efforts will be made to establish artificial intelligence as a public foundational course, promote cross-disciplinary AI innovation, and optimize and adjust the setting of academic disciplines and majors to meet the new demands for talent in the intelligent era.Promoting AI application across all scenarios. For instance, in scientific research, with a focus on fields such as natural sciences, engineering sciences, and philosophy and social sciences, the plan envisions building scientific AI agents and intelligent experimental clusters to explore paradigm shifts in AI-driven research.Providing comprehensive safeguards for the AI environment. At the foundational level, the state will lead the construction of an educational intelligent computing service platform, organize a national corpus of educational and research data, and develop specialized large models for education, thereby providing schools at all levels with high-quality computing power support, data services, model capabilities, and intelligent tools.Driving full-factor innovation in AI mechanisms. In research and innovation, for instance, the plan promotes interdisciplinary integration of education with psychology, brain science, and other fields, and establishes a collaborative innovation mechanism involving government, industry, academia, research, and finance to jointly cultivate high-quality educational intelligence products.To implement this action plan, China will increase investment and work with the National Development and Reform Commission to allocate central budgetary funds and "dual emphasis" funds for projects such as a national educational intelligent computing service platform, pilot test bases for AI (education) applications, and cross-disciplinary innovation platforms for AI disciplines, thereby strengthening the development foundation.
The Trump administration has released its 2027 budget proposal, calling for major cuts to US science agencies for the second consecutive year. The plan, unveiled on April 3, would propose cut to federal agencies that fund or conduct research in health, space, and the environment. The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency would each see their budgets fall by more than 50% in 2027 compared with current levels, while the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would face a 13% reduction. The proposal would defund the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research and close three of the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers: the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. It would also ban federal spending on expensive journal subscriptions and high publishing fees, without defining those terms. While the White House says its budget proposal would maintain funding for quantum information and artificial intelligence research would be maintained “to ensure the United States remains on the cutting edge.” According to Alessandra Zimmermann of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the administration plans to increase applied research funding for those areas at the Departments of Defense and Energy. However, at the NSF, quantum and AI funding would be cut by 37% and 32%, respectively, from 2025 levels. Congress has final authority over federal spending. Last year, lawmakers rejected similar cuts. Budget negotiations could extend beyond the start of the 2027 fiscal year on October 1, with congressional elections scheduled for November 3.
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding to jointly advance the "TechAccess: AI-Ready America" initiative, which aims to help American workers and businesses gain access to artificial intelligence knowledge, tools, and training. NSF will provide up to $224 million in funding to establish up to 56 state-level coordination hubs across the country to drive AI readiness. The program also involves the Department of Agriculture and the Small Business Administration. DOL has committed to connecting the coordination hubs with public workforce systems, including American Job Centers, Registered Apprenticeships, and other initiatives, to maximize the program’s impact. The collaboration also supports research on how AI is transforming labor markets and job requirements. Under the Memorandum of Understanding, both agencies will: •Collaborate on initiatives that equip American workers with the knowledge and skills to succeed in an AI-driven economy. •Support strategies that prepare workers for transitions and advancement opportunities created by AI adoption. •Conduct research on how AI is transforming labor markets, job requirements, and economic outcomes.
Data & Rankings
Data & Rankings
Data & Rankings
Top Universities
Research & Innovation