Bradshaw: What international admissions mean for Northwest Indiana
The question isn't just 'Can my child get into Purdue or IU?' It's 'Why is it getting so hard?'
Part of the answer lies thousands of miles away. In 2025, the United States has made it more difficult for international students to study here. Visa approvals are slower. Government scholarships, like the prestigious Fulbright Program, are shrinking. Earlier this year, dozens of international Fulbright awards were revoked with no clear explanation, prompting the resignation of the entire Foreign Scholarship Board. These weren't administrative errors — they were signals. To the world, they read as: You're no longer welcome here.
And yet, demand has not declined. The Ivy League remains the pinnacle of aspiration for students from around the globe. But more than ever, international students are setting their sights on public universities — especially top-tier flagships like Purdue, Indiana University, and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. These institutions offer world-class research, respected brand names, and — crucially — more seats.
This is where the issue becomes very local.
Many families in Northwest Indiana are starting to feel boxed out. Their sons and daughters have worked hard, maintained strong GPAs, and taken AP or dual-credit courses. But even with solid credentials, admission feels more uncertain.
The culprit, they say, is an increasingly competitive — and global — pool of applicants.
And they're not wrong. Public universities were founded to serve in-state students. But over the past two decades, many of these schools have faced
serious budget cuts. To stay afloat — and competitive — they've turned to full-pay students. That often means international students and out-of-state applicants who bring in significantly more tuition than Hoosier residents.
It's become a flashpoint in the broader debate about fairness, access, and the mission of public education. For local taxpayers, it raises uncomfortable
questions: Why is my kid struggling to get into a school we help fund? Why does it feel like universities are recruiting abroad while ignoring students here at home?
These are fair questions — and they deserve honest answers.
From the university's perspective, admitting international students is often a financial necessity. It's not about turning away locals — it's about survival in a system where state funding has steadily declined. International applicants often pay full freight, don't require financial aid, and boost a university's global reputation. In that light, it's easy to see why admissions offices view them as essential.
But optics matter. And so does public trust. When families in Crown Point, Valparaiso, or Merrillville feel that their children are being squeezed out by students from Beijing or Bangalore, it erodes confidence in the system.
Meanwhile, the international students are adapting too. As the front door to elite schools narrows, many are entering through the side: enrolling first at second- or third-tier U.S. colleges, with plans to transfer after a year or two. They know the rules. Once they're on American soil, with good grades and recommendations, the odds of getting into a top school improve dramatically.
But in 2025, it's a complex game of positioning, paperwork, and planning.
Positioning means understanding how to present yourself in a way that aligns with what top colleges are seeking. For example, a student interested in
economics might build a unique profile by launching a financial literacy podcast for teens, demonstrating initiative, leadership, and a passion for their field — qualities that resonate with admissions committees beyond just grades and test scores.
Allysia Findley, a member of the Editorial Board of The Wall Street Journal, shared her thoughts with me on how writing for a high school newspaper can help shape one's career: 'I do think writing for a student newspaper can foster intellectual curiosity, originality, and an appreciation for the First Amendment. Original reporting and angles are more important than ever in the AI age. A student's reporting for a school newspaper may also provide a better reflection of his writing skills than an essay, which can be generated by a chatbot.'
Paperwork refers to the increasingly burdensome and technical side of the process: financial aid forms like the CSS Profile and FAFSA, and supplemental essays tailored for each school.
Planning is the long-term strategy: selecting the right courses and extracurriculars early in high school, deciding when to take the SAT or ACT, and understanding when to apply early decision versus regular. A well-advised student might decide to apply Early Decision to the University of Pennsylvania, knowing their odds are statistically stronger in that round — but only after confirming that Penn is a genuine first choice and that the family can commit financially.
As someone who advises both U.S. and international students, I tell them the same thing: stop obsessing over rankings.
The U.S. News & World Report list may dominate headlines, but it doesn't tell the whole story. Some of the best programs in engineering, AI, business, and agriculture are found at public institutions that rarely make the top 10.
In fact, some of the most cutting-edge research in America is happening not at Ivy League campuses, but at places like Purdue, Michigan State, and Texas A&M. For Northwest Indiana families, that should be reassuring. Your child doesn't need to get into Harvard to thrive. But they do need a smart strategy.
So who gets in?
This question often catches local families off guard. The students who prepare early, understand the real admissions landscape and adapt their approach. They treat college admissions not as a lottery but as a carefully planned process that can be learned and strategically navigated. That includes understanding how the competition prepares, and applying to a broad mix of academically appropriate schools — even if they aren't household names.
Most of all, it means staying informed. Whether you're a family in Crown Point or Bangalore, the college landscape is shifting. The American dream is still within reach.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
16 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana's war on 'useless' degrees hurts all students
Indiana's elimination of over 400 university degree programs represent an unprecedented attack on academic freedom. A new state law threatens the existence of an overwhelming number of degrees. Public universities are cutting or consolidating about 20% of the degree options available in Indiana. This troublesome legislation limits access to the types of degrees and majors Hoosiers are able to pursue. Gov. Mike Braun said these changes will help students make wiser decisions about degrees that will lead to better career prospects. Bachelor's degree programs are safe if they produce an average of 15 graduates over a three-year period. The threshold is seven for master's degrees. In Indiana, it now seems like a degree is only as good as its potential to land you a high-paying corporate job. Career-readiness and professional development are undoubtedly important aspects of a college education, but they aren't the only types of growth and learning that matter. Mia Behringer, a rising senior at Indiana University-Bloomington, rejects the notion that the only goal of a college degree is to find a job. "Higher education is more than looking for a way to make money," Behringer said. "You go to school to expand on your lifelong learning." Behringer, who majors in art history and environmental sustainability, wasn't surprised when her art history degree was targeted. But the Ph.D program for art history at IU has been impacted by the legislation, too. Hicks: Indiana's college crisis has nothing to do with woke campuses or high costs 'It would have been nice to be able to have the option to go to higher education in my home state, but that's just kind of disheartening to see that cut off,' Behringer said. 'My plans now are to probably go study in Spain. I'd like to continue and probably do something abroad after kind of seeing the attack on academic freedom in the United States. And we don't really hold importance in sustainability programs or art history programs, and I can feel that.' The cuts make it increasingly difficult for humanities students to pursue higher education in their fields, overlooking academic careers that require these specialized programs. "To equate education with job readiness and making money is misguided," recent IU graduate Lilly Luse said. "The market will always change." Luse graduated this year from IU with degrees in comparative literature and film studies. The comparative literature major is on track to be suspended and merged due to the legislation. Luse hopes to use their degree to become a professor of cinema studies and plans on pursuing higher education to reach that goal. They find that pursuing a less popular degree has its perks, including smaller class sizes, more attention from teachers and increased collaboration with other students. Opinion: Indiana should cap out-of-state student enrollment to solve brain drain The success of a particular degree should not exclusively be defined by how many graduates it produces. Some advanced degrees are meant for academics and professionals within a field of study that might be far more niche than others. 'If we lose critical thinking skills, we're going to fall victim to certain messages,' Luse said. Luse is right. Stifling academic freedom restricts freedom of thought — part of a broader anti-intellectual trend Indiana lawmakers have embraced. 'People are so afraid to have challenging conversations about things like stifling queer life in Indiana (or) like the book bans,' Luse said. "We're going back to these really outdated modes of thinking that certain things are to be feared or not to be talked about." Opinion: Indiana should cap out-of-state student enrollment to solve brain drain Indiana is continuing down a path that diminishes the role and impact of a college education and learning as a whole, putting not just students, but all Hoosiers, at risk. This legislation claims to prepare students for the workforce, and it's clear that academia doesn't make the cut. There is always value in learning something new. Exposure to new perspectives and ideas helps us become well-rounded people. Learning for the sake of learning is important, too.
Indianapolis Star
04-08-2025
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana should cap out-of-state student enrollment to solve brain drain
Indiana has long been a hotspot for out-of-state students, around 85% of whom return home after graduation. Recent data also shows Indiana residents are going out of state for college more than ever. A provision hidden in President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill helped address this problem by capping the amount of debt graduate students can take on to pay for college, making it nearly impossible for them to afford studying out of state. Indiana needs to follow suit by capping out-of-state enrollment at public universities and tying university funding directly to in-state student enrollment. Opinion: Indiana's college crisis has nothing to do with woke campuses or high costs An enrollment cap may seem harsh, but North Carolina and California have already successfully enacted one. Indiana almost followed suit with Senate Enrolled Act 448, but its enrollment cap provision was removed due in part to backlash from Purdue University. That backlash emphasized how state funding cuts to higher education have created a perverse incentive for colleges to market themselves to out-of-state students and subsidize lower tuition for in-state students. That's the wrong approach. Giving a higher proportion of enrollment capacity to out-of-state students can be beneficial to their bottom line in the short-term. But, over a lifetime, bachelor's degree recipients add around $700,443 more than high school graduates to the economy through higher taxes and spending. They also file less than one-third of unemployment claims and are one-third as likely to be in poverty. Opinion: Mike Braun's tuition freeze for Indiana colleges is a marketing gimmick Recognizing that, the state should direct public universities to cut unnecessary or ineffective initiatives and focus more on the academic needs of in-state students. As an example of unnecessary spending, Indiana University-Indianapolis spent $1.6 million just on diversity, equity and inclusion administrative staff salaries and its Social Justice Scholars program during the 2023-2024 school year. Thankfully, IU recently closed the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. IU-Bloomington still gives its student government a nearly $300,000 annual budget with little to no oversight. In turn, it has spent $48,000 on DEI programs, $35,000 on emergency contraception, $4,000 on mail-order lubricants and condoms and much more. Now, though, Indiana University is starting to make "deliberate and targeted reductions" in expenses as a result of state budget cuts. That's an acknowledgment that Indiana's public universities have room to cut spending without making up for budget cuts by bringing in out-of-state students. Despite these budget cuts, the Indiana General Assembly is still prone to wasting taxpayer dollars on schools' pet projects. For example, they recently gave $89 million to IU Indianapolis to build another athletics center and an additional $89 million for restroom upgrades, painting projects and other infrastructure upgrades. The state could more efficiently use taxpayer dollars to serve the public if it redirected this money to fund tuition for students with financial need. Just that $178 million could more than double the 21st Century Scholarship Program's budget for awards. Gov. Mike Braun has long emphasized the importance of Indiana's public universities serving residents first. He recently pushed for a tuition freeze for in-state undergraduate students in exchange for a modest tuition increase for graduate students and those from out-of-state. He has also pushed them to offer automatic admission to in-state students who obtain an Enrollment Honors Plus diploma seal. However, not all state agencies have fully embraced Braun's resident-first approach. The Commission for Higher Education has long focused on keeping graduates in Indiana by connecting students — both residents and out-of-state — with local job opportunities during and after college. "It is critical in retaining talent to connect both resident and non-resident students to local employers as a way to better align degrees with a student's intended career and help them to see Indiana as a place where they could stay, work, and build a future," a spokesperson for the Commission for Higher Education told me. Trying to retain people who grew up across the country is a lost cause. Few young adults move far from where they grew up. It is getting even harder to put down roots anywhere at all in an economy where homeownership and the ability to obtain affordable housing is becoming further out-of-reach for young people. Studies have shown the homeownership rate among student borrowers declined by 24% from 2009 to 2019, so the problem is clearly getting worse — and student debt is playing a role. Gen Z, in fact, has racked up almost twice as much debt as the previous generation. Banning or capping out-of-state enrollment at public universities altogether or tying university funding to in-state student enrollment, then, is the most realistic way to stop Indiana's brain drain and ensure our public universities are sufficiently motivated to serve Indiana first.
The Hill
03-08-2025
- The Hill
Authoritarian threats to campus speech come from both abroad and at home
In 2015, a visiting scholar at Harvard Law School named Teng Biao scheduled a public event with another Chinese dissident that coincided with the visit by Harvard's president, Drew Gilpin Faust, to China. The law school's vice dean for international legal studies convinced Teng to cancel the panel to avoid 'embarrassing' the school and undermining its programs in China. In 2018, the debating union at Georgetown University's Qatar campus planned to discuss whether 'major religions should portray God as a woman.' Accused of 'insulting God,' the university canceled the event because it 'failed to follow the appropriate approval processes and created a risk to safety and security.' Administrators noted that the school encouraged 'civil dialogue that respects the laws of Qatar,' presumably including prohibitions of blasphemy. On March 25, masked federal agents surrounded and handcuffed Rumeysa Öztürk, a doctoral student at Tufts University and a Fulbright scholar from Turkey, on a street near her home outside Boston. They forced her into an unmarked car and shipped her to a detention center in Louisiana. Her apparent offense was co-authoring a pro-Palestinian opinion piece in a student newspaper. The federal judge who ordered her release declared that Öztürk's detention risked chilling 'the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.' These three incidents reflect a disturbing trend in which university administrators seek to accommodate authoritarian regimes eager to silence critics, and the Trump administration works to suppress campus protests and criticism of its policies. In her new book 'Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech,' Sara McLaughlin, a senior scholar at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, paints a portrait of 'censors without borders' policing speech, while complicit universities, eager to profit from global partnerships and tuition-paying international students, turn a blind eye or, worse, self-censor to avoid alienating China and other authoritarian states. McLaughlin does a commendable job of calling attention to threats to freedom of expression across the globe, though, in our view, suppression of speech by foreign governments on U.S. campuses is not as pervasive a practice as she makes it appear. At least not yet. In 2023, students at George Washington University posted artwork mocking China's fitness to host the Olympics. When two Chinese student groups complained that the artwork 'insulted China,' the university president, Mark Wrighton, declared the postings unacceptable and agreed to investigate those responsible. After a public outcry, Wrighton apologized, terminated the investigation and declared his support for 'freedom of speech — even when it offends people.' McLaughlin finds it 'troubling that Wrighton's first instinct … was to promise censorship.' But she offers no evidence to support her assertion that the instinct to censor was 'shared by many university leaders.' Nor does she demonstrate that 'sensitivity exploitation' — using the desire to create a welcoming environment for all students to suppress criticism of a foreign government — is having a widespread impact on free speech. In a recent Gallup poll, 74 percent of college students said their institution was doing an excellent or good job of protecting unfettered expression, while only 5 percent believe it is doing a poor job. Of much greater concern is the ability of China and other authoritarian states to restrict the speech of their nationals abroad by threatening their families or, when they return home, their livelihoods or freedom. Universities 'want to reap the financial and reputational rewards' of bringing international students to their campuses, McLaughlin contends, but have failed to 'accept the [accompanying] responsibilities to free speech and academic freedom.' McLaughlin suggests as well that U.S. institutions that have relationships with authoritarian foreign partners often feel pressure to self-censor because 'that is how many university administrations operate: not as values-driven institutions, but as global corporations that must protect the bottom line.' Having 'reached the point where brand supersedes all else, and protecting image matters more than protecting values,' they continue operating campuses in countries 'conducting human rights violations their community members are not freely allowed to teach or discuss.' These broad-brush attacks are, alas, not accompanied by practical proposals for what universities can and should do. How might leaders of campuses in the U.S. 'stand by' international students when their families at home are threatened? How can they protect scholars who lose access to research materials or are denied visas for criticizing authoritarian regimes? Should they insist that the host countries of campuses they operate abroad respect American academic norms in their entirety if the cost is sharply limiting opportunities for their faculty and students, including individuals from the countries in which they operate? Or should they warn students and faculty of the likely constraints on expression and do what they can to minimize them, recognizing that their campuses will not be able to operate as freely abroad as they would at home? McLaughlin acknowledges that the extent of self-censorship by students, teachers and administrators 'is difficult to measure.' And that universities should not 'simply cut off engagement with unfree countries.' Instead, campuses established in authoritarian countries should 'carefully and thoughtfully tailor engagement to limit opportunities for rights violations and interference,' advise students and faculty of the challenges they face, make clear they oppose 'transnational repression' and educate students about how to protect themselves. Good advice, as far as it goes, though that is how most universities already operate. Sadly, the greatest threats to free speech and academic freedom on American university campuses may now be home-grown. Shortly after taking office, President Trump promised to deport 'all the resident aliens' who participated in pro-Palestinian protests. Secretary of State Marco Rubio boasted in March of revoking at least 300 visas of students and others whose activities 'are counter … to our foreign policy.' Last month, the State Department directed consular officials to screen the 'entire online presence' of foreign students seeking to study in the U.S. for 'any indications of hostility toward the citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles of the United States.' Red states, eager to amplify Trump administration policies, have adopted a host of educational gag orders restricting discussion of race, gender, sexual orientation and other 'divisive concepts.' Ohio, for example, limits discussion of ' controversial beliefs or policies,' including 'climate policies, electoral politics, foreign policy, diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, immigration policy, marriage, or abortion.' And last month, a federal judge temporarily enjoined a Mississippi anti-DEI statute for 'possible widespread suppression of speech.' As McLaughlin recognizes, the 'fight against authoritarian influence' is 'a problem that cannot be 'solved,' only mitigated.' Given the Trump administration's approach to higher education, mitigation efforts should probably begin on American soil and with our own government.
