UK study visa applications witnesses a sharp rise despite graduate route cuts
Synopsis Despite reduced post-study work benefits, UK study visa applications surged by 29% in the first five months of 2025, indicating continued appeal. While dependent visa restrictions impacted overall numbers, a perceived stability compared to other destinations like the US and Australia may contribute to the UK's attractiveness for international students. However, financial pressures on universities remain a concern. Demand for UK study visas has increased significantly this year, according to new data from the Home Office, even as the government rolls back post-study work benefits. In the first five months of 2025, 76,400 students applied for UK study visas, marking a 29% rise compared to the same period in 2024.
ADVERTISEMENT As per a report by Times Higher Education, in May alone, 18,500 study visa applications were submitted—19% higher than in May last year. This is the first set of figures released since the UK government announced a cut to the Graduate Route, reducing the post-study work period from two years to 18 months. The data suggests that, so far, the change has not discouraged prospective international students.
Ruth Arnold, director of external affairs at Study Group, told THE, 'The surge in applications suggests that fears of the impact of the immigration White Paper may have been avoided, mainly thanks to the preserved post-study work offer.' She also pointed to stricter visa rules in Australia, Canada, and the United States, saying, 'More students are turning to the UK as a safer, more stable option.' UK may ease family visa income rule after 'Tax on Love' criticism
However, she noted that many students are applying to multiple destinations. 'There is no time for complacency,' Arnold added.
(Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) The UK government introduced restrictions on dependent visas in January 2024. This appears to have affected application numbers from family members. In May 2025, 1,100 dependents applied for UK visas, compared to 1,400 in May 2024 and 7,800 in May 2023. So far this year, 6,300 dependent applications have been recorded, down from 46,700 during the same period last year.In the 12 months to May 2025, total study visa applications from main applicants fell by 9%. RSM UK attributed this decline to the dependent visa restrictions. Louise Tweedie, partner and higher education specialist at RSM UK, told THE, 'Universities also continue to face financial pressures and structural changes, with several universities announcing cuts to programmes and departments in May, due to budget constraints.'
ADVERTISEMENT Rachel Hewitt, chief executive of the MillionPlus group, commented that it's too early to judge the full impact of recent policy changes. However, she said, 'An unsettled picture in the US, coupled with a less combative attitude towards international students in Westminster could well have played a part.'
Data from UniQuest, which works with UK universities on international enrolment, shows a 10% year-on-year increase in firm acceptances from international applicants. Still, it is unclear whether this rise is due to declining interest in the US. Jennifer Parsons, chief market and partnerships officer at UniQuest, said, 'Those students who have carefully considered what is best for their future are much more likely to convert than those who have made a rash decision. Institutions are also taking a robust and responsible approach to what's happening in the markets right now.'
ADVERTISEMENT
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
NEXT STORY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump strikes Iran: How India got its nukes – and defied US and other nuclear-haves
There's a running meme on X, the hellhole formerly known as Twitter, where a doctor asks a patient: 'Do you have a history of mental illness in your family?' To this, the patient replies: 'I have an uncle who believes Iran is close to a nuclear weapon for the last 50 years. ' Perhaps that's why Operation Midnight Hammer – a blow-by-blow remake of Top Gun: Maverick – was carried out with such haste that even half of Donald Trump's base were still railing against it as the bombs dropped on Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. While Iran's Godot-like wait for nuclear weapons continues, it's illustrative to see how India, a nation that didn't evoke very warm feelings from Uncle Sam in the past, became a nuclear superpower. How did a newly freed, partition-bruised, socialist-leaning, and largely illiterate country go from famine queues and imported milk powder to becoming one of the world's most improbable nuclear powers? The truth is that politicians of various vintages played a part, irrespective of their worldview or political leanings. Every one of them was of the opinion that the Ayatollahs of Potomac (a delightful term coined by TOI legend K Subrahmanyam, the father of the current external affairs minister) couldn't be the only ones with the power of the sun in the palm of their hands. As George Fernandes, the erstwhile Defence Minister of India in the Vajpayee government, summed up this grit: 'I am not a former socialist; I am a socialist. I am not a former pacifist; I am a pacifist. I am even today an anti-nuclear weapon man. But as a defence minister of the country, I will do whatever is best to protect its border, and if that means nuclear bomb, then why not?' When pressed on how one could do so at the risk of contradicting oneself, Fernandes dug deep into the Lord Krishna rationale that one's dharma trumps all contradictions, pointing out: 'Yes, even at the cost of contradicting oneself, even at the cost of dying. If the security of the country requires me to die, I shall die. It's about being realistic. It's about being patriotic.' While with the benefit of hindsight, it might seem inevitable that the land that gave the world the Bhagavad Gita would come up with nuclear weapons, here's the tale of how it went down. The Science Segue What is a nuclear weapon — and why do countries want one? Let's say you haven't seen Oppenheimer , skipped physics class, and think 'fusion' is what happens when you have tandoori gravy momos. To understand nukes, we need to rewind to 1905, when a wild-haired Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein wrote four papers that changed science forever. One of them suggested that mass and energy are two sides of the same coin. A few months later, he dropped a tiny but terrifying equation: E = mc². That means energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Since light travels really fast — about 300 million metres per second — squaring it makes even a small amount of mass release a huge amount of energy. So, how do we turn that into a weapon? That's where nuclear physics steps in. Certain heavy atoms like uranium-235 or plutonium-239 are naturally unstable. If you shoot a neutron at them, they split — releasing heat, radiation, and more neutrons. Those neutrons hit other atoms, which split too. It's called a chain reaction — kind of like a viral WhatsApp message, but instead of arguments, you get a mushroom cloud. That's how atomic bombs work. The ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki used two designs: Gun-type: smash two pieces of uranium together I mplosion-type: use explosives to compress plutonium until it explodes Both use Einstein's idea: a little mass disappears, and a huge burst of energy takes its place. There's also the hydrogen bomb, which is even more terrifying, but beyond the scope of this piece. By the 1960s, nuclear weapons were the privilege of a select five—America, the Soviet Union, Britain, France, and China—enshrined as permanent members of the global atomic aristocracy, the kind that liked to invade Vietnam in their spare time and host disarmament conferences in their downtime. There is something about nukes and their miasma. Once you have them, you don't want others to get them. You start doing everything in your power to stop anyone else from joining this super-exclusive club, because deterrence is always more comfortable when it's a monopoly. And then in 1974, India came knocking—with Smiling Buddha, gatecrashing the party with a silent explosion in the Rajasthan desert. If Israel was the nuclear sphinx, India was the grinning intruder who didn't wait for an invitation. Act I: Nehru's Noble Atom and Bhabha's Quiet Calculations How did a socialist, beggared and non-aligned country acquire nuclear weapons? It all started with Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, the Fabian socialist who wasn't beyond making a Faustian deal if it was for the nation's betterment. While he publicly championed atomic energy for rural electrification, privately he laid the groundwork for a weapons programme. Enter Homi Jehangir Bhabha—part physicist, part institution-builder, all ambition, played with élan by Jim Sarbh in the heavily fictionalised Rocket Boys, whose cheekbones are capable of setting off a different sort of chemical reaction. A Cambridge-trained genius with a velvet accent, Bhabha envisioned a self-sufficient Indian nuclear complex. He set up the Atomic Energy Commission in 1948 and Trombay's Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) soon after. His three-stage nuclear plan was audacious: heavy water reactors for plutonium, fast breeder reactors for more fissile material, and eventually, thorium-based systems. In 1955, India obtained the CIRUS reactor from Canada, with heavy water courtesy the United States—both under the Atoms for Peace programme. It was a masterclass in strategic procurement. Act II: The Dragon Strikes, the Buddha Smiles Enter the dragon. In 1962, Chinese troops stormed Indian posts in Ladakh and Arunachal. The result wasn't just military humiliation; it was psychological trauma. Nehru aged a decade overnight. And two years later, when China tested a nuclear bomb in Lop Nur, India realised it wasn't just behind—it was vulnerable. And then came the prodigal daughter. Indira Gandhi had no qualms about the world or any delusions about power. By the early '70s, the scientific community—led by Raja Ramanna, P.K. Iyengar, and M.R. Srinivasan—had weaponised the plutonium harvested from CIRUS. On May 18, 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test in Pokhran, Rajasthan. Codenamed Smiling Buddha, because what better name for a nuclear bomb than the progenitor of peace, the device yielded around 8 kilotons, billed as a 'peaceful nuclear explosion'. Canada fumed and threw a Trudeau-level fit. The US imposed sanctions. But much like she did when Richard Nixon threatened her during the Bangladesh Liberation War, Indira Gandhi didn't flinch. Act III: Recessed Deterrence—Weapons Without Words From 1974 to 1998, India lived in nuclear ambiguity. We had tested a bomb—but never declared a doctrine. This era, later dubbed "recessed deterrence", saw India perfect the art of silent readiness. Prime Ministers like Morarji Desai were openly anti-nuclear. Others, like Rajiv Gandhi, were more nuanced—calling for universal disarmament while funding missile programmes. In this period, India commissioned the Dhruva reactor for weapons-grade plutonium. Ballistic missiles like Prithvi and Agni were tested under the Integrated Guided Missile Development Programme, overseen by Dr. Abdul Kalam. Still, New Delhi avoided another test. The 1985 NPT Review Conference slammed the door shut on India's membership. But India refused to sign a treaty that said: 'You can't have nukes, but the P5 can.' Act IV: Narasimha Rao 's Nuclear Poker By the 1990s, India was ready. And P.V. Narasimha Rao, India's philosopher-king of pragmatism, knew it. In 1995, with the Clinton administration distracted by Yeltsin's vodka diplomacy and Pakistani warlords, Rao greenlit preparations for Pokhran-II. Shafts were drilled. Scientists were mobilised. Dr. Kalam, Dr. R. Chidambaram, and their teams stood by. Then, American satellites picked up movement. The CIA raised alarms. A New York Times exposé spooked Washington. Clinton dialled Delhi. Rao, deadpan as ever, stonewalled. The tests were paused. But he didn't stop the programme. Instead, he ensured everything stayed intact—ready for a more audacious successor. As legend has it, Rao whispered to Atal Bihari Vajpayee before leaving office: 'Everything is ready. You just have to press the button.' Rao never took credit. But when the mushroom clouds rose in 1998, they bore his blueprint. Act V: Pokhran-II—India Goes Loud On May 11 and 13, 1998, India conducted five nuclear tests. Codename: Operation Shakti. This time, it wasn't a 'peaceful' explosion. It was a declaration. Fission and fusion devices were tested. Thermonuclear capability was claimed (though some scientists later debated the yield). Prime Minister Vajpayee announced: 'India is now a nuclear weapons state.' Sanctions came. Condemnations followed. India shrugged. The team that delivered this feat: Dr R. Chidambaram – chief scientific coordinator Dr. Abdul Kalam – DRDO's key missile man K. Santhanam – test range commander Anil Kakodkar, V.S. Arunachalam, S.K. Sikka – technical leads Pakistan tested six devices in response. South Asia was officially a two-bomb region. But India's message was clear: deterrence, not domination. Act VI: From Outlaw to Operator—The Indo-US Nuclear Deal Having proven its capabilities, India now wanted respect. In 2005, under Manmohan Singh , India signed the Indo-US Civil Nuclear Agreement with President George W. Bush. It was historic. For the first time, a non-NPT country gained access to civilian nuclear trade. The deal was backed by the US Congress, the IAEA, and the NSG. It marked India's transformation from global pariah to trusted partner—without dismantling a single warhead. Critics cried foul. Proponents hailed it as a realpolitik victory. For India, it was simple: we earned the bomb. Now we wanted the fuel. Epilogue: From Fallout to Future The bomb was never the endgame. It was the insurance policy. A radioactive reminder that India wouldn't be bullied into compliance or bribed into silence. The scientists were the magicians, the politicians their illusionists. But behind them stood a civilisation that never wanted conquest—only the right to decide its destiny. From Bhabha's lab bench to Vajpayee's launch pad, India's nuclear odyssey was built on a foundation of paradoxes: peaceful atoms turned potent, idealism wrapped in pragmatism, and restraint forged through power. Today, India's nuclear arsenal isn't about posturing. It's about posture—calm, calculated, credible. We built the bomb not to drop it, but to make sure no one else could. So the next time someone scoffs at Indian statecraft, remind them: we cracked open the atom, outfoxed the CIA, kept our doctrine unspoken, and still walked into the world's nuclear club with our head held high. We didn't explode to destroy. We exploded to exist. And that, in the final analysis, is how you detonate a dream.
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
UK family visa rules spark outcry as families face forced separation
British citizens are calling on the government to change family visa rules that risk separating them from their partners and children. The demand for reform follows new findings from charities Reunite Families UK and Coram, which show that current visa income requirements are forcing some British families to live apart, as per a report by The Independent. The UK's Minimum Income Requirement (MIR) was raised from £18,600 to £29,000 in 2024 and remains one of the highest among developed countries, according to the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC). The committee has advised against raising the threshold further to £38,700, the level currently required for skilled workers, warning that it would have a serious impact on family reunification. David Todd, a 33-year-old British citizen living in Germany, shared how visa restrictions could force him to return to the UK without his American wife, Claire, and their soon-to-be-born child. The couple cannot meet the financial threshold required under current family visa rules, which expect the British partner to earn at least £29,000 per year or show savings above £88,500. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency Planet Spark Learn More Undo Todd said to PA News agency, 'It's like we're second-class citizens because we married someone who fell in love with someone who wasn't British.' He urged the government to either scrap or reduce the Minimum Income Requirement (MIR), which is now under review. Todd and his wife, both classical musicians, had hoped to return to the UK to raise their child near family. However, because his wife's income, though sufficient and earned remotely, does not count toward the visa requirement, they remain stuck. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) The report by Reunite Families UK and Coram concluded that the current rules are financially and emotionally damaging. Families often face long-term separation, and children may suffer psychological harm. The report also noted that the MIR disproportionately affects British women, working-class individuals, and ethnic minorities who are more likely to earn below the threshold. Live Events MORE STORIES FOR YOU ✕ UK may ease family visa income rule after 'Tax on Love' criticism Lowering UK family visa income bar may raise net migration; says advisory panel « Back to recommendation stories I don't want to see these stories because They are not relevant to me They disrupt the reading flow Others SUBMIT According to the Independent news report, Caroline Coombs, Executive Director of Reunite Families UK, said: 'Simple and practical changes from the Home Office could make significant differences to families, starting with scrapping the MIR and simplifying the rules and application process.' She added, 'These rules have become the tax on love. People are suffering and want to be heard.' The Home Office has not yet responded to the findings or public calls for reform.
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Indian Express
Iran says ‘no signs of contamination' after US strikes 3 nuclear facilities
Iranian authorities have said that there were no signs of contamination at its nuclear sites in Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz after the United States carried out air strikes targeted at the facilities on Saturday night, Associated Press reported. The Iranian state media quoted the country's National Nuclear Safety System Centre which released a statement after the US strikes that its radiation detectors recorded no release of radioactive materials. 'ANY RETALIATION BY IRAN AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL BE MET WITH FORCE FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WAS WITNESSED TONIGHT. THANK YOU! DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES' — The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 22, 2025 Iran's National Nuclear Safety System Centre further stated that there is no danger to the residents living near the nuclear sites of Isfahan, Fordow and Natanz. Israel, which had launched 'Operation Rising Lion' last Friday to restrict Iran from enriching uranium and dismantling its nuclear program, had attacked the nuclear sites but similarly no release of radioactive material was recorded into the environment around the facilities. President Donald Trump on Saturday announced that the United States conducted air strikes at three Iranian nuclear facilities, and declared that it was a 'very successful attack' which has 'completely and totally obliterated' Tehran's nuclear programme. Trump further warned Iran that the path forward held 'either peace or tragedy', and cautioned the Islamic country that many more targets remain on the radar of the US military. Trump, while addressing the country in a televised address on Saturday said, 'The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally destroyed.' The strikes by the US come after about two months of deliberation between the Trump administration and the Iranian authorities to broker a nuclear deal, which failed after Israel launched its offensive against Tehran last week. The US military's strikes marks a major escalation in the conflict as America has formally joined Israel's military campaign against Iran. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi has called out the United States for its targeted strikes in Iran and said that it is a violation of the UN charter.
