Speaking Their Language: Insights from International Graduate Student Focus Groups

The graduate school application process can be incredibly daunting. And while we as admissions professionals like to think we have simplified that process in the best ways we can, there are often unseen barriers to application completion.

In the current geopolitical landscape, international students experience even greater challenges than ever. What are these challenges, and how can we help our students navigate them? Our project team decided to go directly to the source: international graduate students who had successfully navigated that process and were fulfilling their dreams of studying in the U.S.

In a joint project with NAGAP and Liaison, we conducted five focus groups that resulted in interviews with 15 different international graduate students who had come to the U.S. to study. What we found was both surprising and, unfortunately, common.

When speaking with our focus-group students about how they applied to U.S. programs, we were struck by how rarely they described the process as “hard” in a traditional sense. Instead, they described it as overwhelming, fragmented, and risky. This was not because of any single requirement, but because of how many disconnected pieces they had to manage at once, across multiple schools and platforms.

Students talked about navigating unfamiliar academic norms, the process of identifying programs and faculty to fit their academic needs, learning how to communicate professionally in a U.S. context, completing credential evaluations, and preparing for cultural transition, all simultaneously. For many, the challenge wasn’t academic readiness. It was figuring out how the varied systems worked and keeping track of them all.

One of the clearest themes across our focus groups was how cost compounds across a decentralized admissions process. Transcript evaluations, English proficiency tests, document verification, and application fees are often repeated for each institution. Students didn’t describe these expenses as isolated barriers, they described them as decision points that limited where and how broadly they could apply.

Delays or errors in credential evaluation introduced even more risk. Several students told us they abandoned applications simply because the process took too long or felt too uncertain.

International students indicated that they relied heavily on peer networks for information about programs. Friends, alumni, classmates, and informal advising communities served as trusted resources in decision making. However, many told us that these voices became particularly important in the absence of clear institutional guidance. Many universities were unable to offer visible access to international student voices prior to enrollment. In these instances, peer networks didn’t complement institutional systems; for many students, they replaced them.

But for those schools with a deep understanding of the power of student-to-student connection, these peer conversations were a powerful tool to create a welcoming community, allowing access to honest, practical, first-hand advice that very often was the difference maker.

Perhaps the most powerful finding was how strongly students interpreted responsiveness as a proxy for institutional care. Multiple participants told us they only applied to universities that responded to their emails. Silence signaled indifference to them, which in turn represented risk.

On the other hand, timely, personalized outreach from faculty or program staff often created a sense of belonging well before enrollment. Students described those moments as feeling like someone was “invested” in them, not just processing an application. And in almost every interview, it was those moments of attention and connection that served as the decision point for where they ultimately chose to attend.

When we demonstrated a centralized application platform (Liaison GadCAS), students immediately connected process consolidation with efficiency and stress reduction. Being able to enter common information once, reuse materials (e.g. transcripts, credential evaluations), and view graduate programs in one place made the process feel more manageable.

They also wanted transparency: admissions patterns, funding signals, and outcomes to help them decide where to focus limited time and money. Consolidation mattered, but informed decision-making mattered just as much.

Finally, students reminded us that the hardest challenges often come after admission, especially navigating employment, visas, and financial stability. On-campus jobs, early career guidance, and messaging that explicitly says “you’re not alone” were described as critical supports during transition.

These candid conversations lead us to these summative takeaways. Improving international graduate admissions isn’t about fixing one broken step. It’s about reducing cumulative burden, communicating consistently and personally, making peer networks visible and accessible earlier, and recognizing that for international students, admissions is the beginning of a much larger leap.

Institutions that design for clarity, responsiveness, and belonging will not just attract international students, they’ll earn their trust and ultimately their enrollments.