Universities Report Growth in U.S. Citizen and Permanent Resident Enrollment along with Declines in Enrollment of Temporary Visa Holders at Master’s and Doctoral Levels Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coordinators’ responses to the items on the modules indicate that between 2019 and 2020 doctoral enrollment within schools was more stable than was master’s enrollment and that enrollment over that period was more stable for U.S. citizens and permanent residents than for students on temporary visas. More specifically, the percentage of schools that reported enrollment stayed about the same between 2019 and 2020 for U.S. citizens and permanent residents was 53% for doctoral students and 40% for master’s students (figure 1). For temporary visa holders, 41% of schools reported that doctoral enrollment was similar over that period, compared with 28% of schools for master’s enrollment. In 2020, enrollment for students in a master’s program and for temporary visa holders changed more than did enrollment for those in a doctoral program and for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

These findings are consistent with findings from the Council of Graduate Schools and the Institute of International Education, both of which noted large proportions of schools reporting declines in the enrollment of temporary visa holders in fall 2020. Among GSS coordinators, slightly less than half (45%) reported a decrease in enrollment of temporary visa holders in master’s programs, while about a third (35%) reported a decrease in doctoral students (figure 1). A small minority of coordinators indicated an increase in enrollment of graduate students on temporary visas, with 4% at the master’s level and 5% at the doctoral level.

While the focus of the studies and articles referenced above has been on the decline in the number of graduate students on temporary visas, results from the module portray another facet of the story: some schools experienced an increase in the number of U.S. citizen and permanent resident graduate students during the pandemic (figure 1). Specifically, about a third (33%) of schools reported an increase at the master’s level, and a quarter (25%) reported an increase at the doctoral level. A smaller proportion of schools reported declines in the number of students who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents (17% for master’s students and 11% for doctoral students). Thus, while some schools reported declines in the enrollment of U.S. citizen and permanent resident graduate students in SEH, more schools reported an increase among these students.

Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on financial support for graduate students were similar for master’s and doctoral students, and support was generally stable at over half of the schools. Specifically, over 60% of schools reported that financial support for both master’s and doctoral students stayed the same (figure 1). About 10% reported an increase in financial support, and about 5% reported declining financial support.

When coordinators responded to items using the “don’t know” response option, this indicated uncertainty. Coordinators reported higher levels of uncertainty regarding the enrollment of temporary visa holders and financial support (20%–24%), compared with the enrollment of U.S. citizens and permanent residents (10%–12%) (figure 1).

Coordinators responded to three questions about policy changes: (1) if graduate programs deliberately reduced or suspended newly admitted students, (2) if there were changes to doctoral time-to-completion policies, and (3) if there were changes to doctoral funding policies. For the questions about doctoral time-to-completion and funding policies, about one-fifth to one-quarter of coordinators responded that they did not know (table 1).

Responses to the policy questions differed by Carnegie Classification (at the institution level) and institutional control (public vs. private) (table 1). In general, more coordinators from very high research activity institutions than coordinators from high research activity institutions and all other GSS institution types reported that policies had changed. For example, 19% of all responding coordinators reported changing time-to-completion policies, including about 36% of coordinators at very high research activity institutions, 12%–13% at high research activity institutions, and 3%–7% at all other institution types. With respect to doctoral funding policies at very high research activity institutions, about a third (34%) of coordinators at private institutions reported changes compared with over a quarter (26%) of those at public institutions.

Overall, 6% of coordinators reported that their schools reduced or suspended programs, with more coordinators at high (7%–11%) and very high (10%–13%) research activity institutions reporting that they had reduced or suspended programs than at GSS schools in other Carnegie Classifications (2%–3%) (table 1). Coordinators at public institutions were more likely to report reduced or suspended programs. Among schools with very high research activity, 13% of coordinators at public institutions reported that they had reduced or suspended programs, compared with 10% of coordinators at private institutions. Among high research activity institutions, 11% of public institutions reduced or suspended programs, compared with 7% of private institutions.  The findings on policy changes indicate that schools in public institutions and those with a research focus made more policy changes associated with the pandemic than did similar private schools and those with less of a research focus.

For coordinators who report postdocs and NFRs, the module asked about policy changes for these two groups of researchers. Postdocs, with their (often) term-limited appointments, were a vulnerable group during the pandemic with distinct concerns about career progress and sex disparities.^{​Committee on Women in Science, Engineering and Medicine. 2020. The Experiences of Postdoctoral Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic (Virtual Meeting). Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/event/11-17-2020/the-experiences-of-postdoctoral-women-during-the-covid-19-pandemic. Woolston C. 2020. Pandemic Darkens Postdocs’ Work and Career Hopes. Nature 585:309–12. Available at https://indico.cern.ch/event/987669/contributions/4157821/attachments/2167072/3657883/NatureSurvey1.pdf.} The module results highlighted the institutional policy changes (such as changes to funding, duration of appointments, and delayed or rescinded offers) and employment trends of postdocs broadly. Yet, the uncertainty, as measured by “don’t know” responses, was higher for items regarding postdoc counts and policies than for items regarding graduate students. Specifically, 27%–32% of coordinators responded “don’t know” to the items related to postdoc counts and 35%–48% responded “don’t know” to the policy items (figure 2, table 2).

Similar to graduate enrollment trends, a larger proportion of coordinators reported that enrollment declined in 2020 for postdocs with temporary visas than reported a decline for postdocs who were U.S. citizens and permanent residents (figure 2). Over half of coordinators (58%) reported that about the same number of U.S. citizen and permanent resident postdocs were enrolled in 2020 as in 2019, and just under half (48%) reported a stable number of postdocs with temporary visas during this period. Similar proportions of coordinators reported decreasing numbers of U.S. citizen and permanent resident postdocs in 2020 (7%) as did those reporting increasing numbers (8%). In contrast, almost four times as many coordinators reported decreasing numbers of postdocs with temporary visas as did those reporting increasing numbers (16% vs. 4%). As with doctoral students, enrollment of postdocs with temporary visas was affected more than enrollment of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

Postdoc appointment estimates varied by Carnegie Classification and institutional control (figure 2). Larger proportions of coordinators at private institutions reported that postdoc appointments stayed about the same between 2019 and 2020 than did coordinators at public institutions. For example, among very high research institutions, 69% of coordinators at private institutions reported stable counts for U.S. citizen and permanent resident postdocs compared with 42% at public institutions. This pattern holds for postdocs with temporary visas as well. Larger proportions of coordinators at public institutions reported decreasing numbers of postdocs in 2020. For example, among coordinators at very high research institutions, 29% of coordinators at public institutions reported a decreasing number of postdocs with temporary visas, compared with 16% of coordinators at private institutions.

Turning to institutional policies related to postdocs, again, differences emerged by Carnegie Classification and institutional control, much like for graduate students. Among very high research activity institutions, larger proportions of coordinators at public institutions reported delaying or rescinding offers to postdocs (32%) than did those at private institutions (23%) (table 2). Among schools with very high research activity, a larger proportion of private institutions changed postdoc funding (23%) and duration (33%) than did public institutions  (17% and 24%, respectively) and other GSS institutions (less than 10%). In sum, a higher proportion of very high research activity institutions changed postdoc policies than other institutions, with a higher proportion of public institutions delaying or rescinding offers to postdocs than did private institutions and with a higher proportion of private institutions changing funding and duration policies than did public institutions.

The module included a single question about NFRs alone, asking if there were staffing reductions for NFRs. Almost half (48%) of coordinators responded “don’t know” to this item (table 2). Overall, 20% of coordinators reported staffing reductions for NFRs, including 31% of coordinators at public very high research activity institutions and 25% at private very high research activity institutions. These responses indicate that doctorate-holding research staff were vulnerable to staffing changes during the pandemic and that this is an area where more data should be collected.

Conducted since 1966, the GSS is an annual survey of all academic institutions in the United States that grant research-based master’s or doctoral degrees in SEH fields. This report contains data collected in the COVID Impact Module, a topical module added to the 2020 GSS. Coordinators accessed the module through the 2020 GSS instrument and submitted their responses to the module separately from the standard GSS data collection.^{​GSS respondents, who respond on behalf of their schools, are called coordinators. Schools may have separate coordinators for reporting graduate students and postdocs or NFRs. Institutions may be split into multiple schools.} The module had an earlier due date than the standard GSS.

The 2020 GSS COVID Impact Module contained 22 questions in total. All coordinators received three questions on their ability to complete the standard 2020 GSS during the pandemic. Coordinators were then asked about changes to school policies related to graduate students, graduate enrollment trends, financial support, and employment and funding of postdocs and NFRs. Coordinators received the questions relevant to the populations (master’s students, doctoral students, postdocs, and doctorate-holding NFRs) that they reported to the GSS.

The 2020 GSS COVID Impact Module was asked of the 890 coordinators at 805 schools (in 711 eligible institutions) who were part of the GSS at launch (table 3).^{​Due to changes in coordinators after the close of the 2020 GSS COVID Impact Module, this count is larger than the final count of coordinators for the main 2020 GSS.}
For the 2020 GSS COVID Impact Module, 93% of coordinators were partial or complete respondents, with 90% of coordinators completing the module. Item nonresponse ranged from 7% to 18%, with higher item nonresponse for the questions on postdocs and NFRs than questions about graduate students (table 4).

The full set of data tables from the 2019 GSS is available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvygradpostdoc/; 2020 GSS data will be available at this website once released. Data from the standard GSS survey are also available in the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics interactive data tool (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/ids/gss). For more information about the survey and the 2020 GSS COVID Impact Module, including additional tables, contact the GSS project officer, Michael Yamaner.

Arbeit CA, Yamaner MI; National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2021. Universities Report Growth in U.S. Citizen and Permanent Resident Enrollment along with Declines in Enrollment of Temporary Visa Holders at Master’s and Doctoral Levels Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic. NSF 22-313. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22313/.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics
Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences
National Science Foundation
2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite W14200
Alexandria, VA 22314
Tel: (703) 292-8780
FIRS: (800) 877-8339
TDD: (800) 281-8749
E-mail: ncsesweb@nsf.gov