Which U.S. states saw the largest percentage increase or decrease in Chinese student enrollments from 2015 to 2024?
Executive summary
Available sources give national totals and broad trends for Chinese student enrollment in the U.S. between roughly 2015 and 2024 — for example, Open Doors/IIE-based counts showing a peak of ~372,000 in 2019–20 and declines to the high‑200,000s by 2023–24 [1] [2]. None of the provided documents include a state-by-state breakdown of Chinese student counts for 2015 and 2024, so the specific answer to “which U.S. states saw the largest percentage increase or decrease” is not contained in the current reporting (available sources do not mention a state-by-state comparison).
1. What the national data say: a rise then a fall
Multiple sources in your search set present the broad arc: Chinese student presence in the U.S. rose for years to a peak in 2019–20 (cited as “over 372,000”) and then fell in the years after the pandemic to the mid/high‑200,000s by 2023–24 [1] [2]. Statista and other reporting cite Open Doors totals showing the post‑2019 downturn, while news outlets note continuing political and visa pressures that coincide with the decline [3] [4].
2. Why state‑level answers are missing from these sources
The documents provided include requests for detailed university or country enrollment breakdowns (a Freedom of Information request to University of Southampton) and national aggregates from Open Doors and news outlets, but none of these materials contain a state-by-state time series for Chinese students from 2015 to 2024 [5] [3]. Therefore, a claim naming specific U.S. states with the largest percentage increases or decreases between 2015 and 2024 cannot be supported from the available files (available sources do not mention state-by-state figures).
3. Where you would find the state comparisons (and why they matter)
State-by-state shifts typically require granular data: either institution-level Open Doors tables aggregated to states, state higher‑education agency reports, or Freedom of Information responses from many universities and systems (the search set includes an FOI-style request as an example of that route) [5]. State results matter because national totals hide redistribution: while national Chinese enrollment fell overall after 2019, some states or institutions may have gained enrollments even as others lost them [1].
4. Confounding factors that complicate percentage‑change calculations
Even with state data, interpreting percentage increases/decreases requires caution. Small absolute bases (e.g., a state with a small 2015 cohort) can produce large percentage swings with modest numeric changes; campus‑level policy, recruiting strategies, visa enforcement, and local cost-of-living shifts all affect flows (the national reporting links broader geopolitical and visa policy shifts to declines) [4] [2]. The NBER and higher‑education coverage also point to longer‑term geopolitical and research‑collaboration dynamics that affect graduate enrollment decisions, especially at the PhD level [6].
5. Competing explanations in the reporting
Reporting and research offer differing emphases: statistics outlets and Open Doors trace the numeric decline to pandemic disruptions and policy/visa changes [3] [2], while academic analyses highlight structural shifts in where Chinese students choose PhD programs or research ties changing after 2015 [6]. News pieces also cite administrative actions (visa revocations, etc.) and institutional concerns about future pipelines as drivers of recent drops [4] [7]. These perspectives are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.
6. Practical next steps to answer your original question
To identify which states had the largest percentage gains or losses from 2015 to 2024, you need state- or institution-level Open Doors data (Open Doors often publishes institution-level tables that can be aggregated), state higher‑education agency reports, or FOI responses from major public university systems — none of which appear in the current set of documents (available sources do not mention the necessary state-by-state tables) [5] [3].
7. Short guidance on interpreting results if you obtain the data
When you get state figures, report both absolute and percentage changes, flag small‑base artifacts, and contextualize with known policy events (COVID‑19, 2019–2024 visa actions, and shifting recruitment trends) so readers understand whether a change reflects a genuine shift in attraction or a statistical quirk [4] [2] [6].
Limitations: This analysis uses only the sources you supplied and therefore cannot compute or name state winners/losers — the necessary state-level counts for 2015 and 2024 are not present in the provided material (available sources do not mention state-by-state comparisons) [5] [3] [1].