How the end of H-1B lottery is a correction that will benefit talented Indian students

The shift away from a random H-1B lottery to a wage-weighted system has been widely interpreted as restrictive. In reality, it represents a corrective move that rewards education quality, genuine skills, and fair employment, particularly for Indian students who choose credible U.S. universities and serious academic programmes. For years, the H-1B visa programme has been discussed in India largely as a matter of chance. Each March, tens of thousands of applicants entered a lottery where randomness often outweighed considerations of academic preparation, programme quality, or career planning. The U.S. government’s recent decision to move away from this system has therefore generated anxiety, especially among students who fear that post-study employment opportunities may narrow under the new rules. A closer reading of the policy changes suggests the opposite. What Washington is attempting is not exclusion, but correction, realigning the visa framework with its original intent of attracting well-trained graduates into high-value roles that the U.S. economy genuinely needs. A lottery that was being gamed The lottery-based H-1B system was originally designed as a neutral mechanism to allocate visas when applications exceeded the statutory cap of 85,000. Over time, however, it became vulnerable to systematic manipulation. A network of education and employment intermediaries emerged that prioritised volume over quality. Large numbers of students were channelled into low-selectivity institutions with limited academic or career outcomes. After graduation and entry into Optional Practical Training (OPT), many were pushed into the H-1B application pool through intermediaries who filed multiple registrations for the same individual across affiliated entities. This artificially inflated application numbers without reflecting genuine labour demand. The result was a paradox. Despite hundreds of thousands of registrations and multiple selection rounds, the system struggled to allocate visas efficiently. Apparent excess demand often masked duplication and low-quality filings tied to weak employment terms. More importantly, graduates from stronger institutions, backed by credible employers offering competitive wages, often found themselves disadvantaged in a process that made no distinction based on quality. Ethical employers lost access to capable talent, while the lottery increasingly rewarded those who were better positioned to exploit its loopholes. Exploitation under the radar This distortion also had human and economic costs. A segment of international graduates found themselves locked into low-wage, low-growth roles, dependent on intermediaries for continued legal status. Career progression was limited, wages stagnated, and professional development suffered. From a broader perspective, the system failed on multiple fronts. It did not address genuine skill shortages in high-value sectors, nor did it consistently reward students who had invested in rigorous, high-return academic programmes. At the same time, it contributed to wage suppression and displacement pressures within segments of the domestic labour market. A coherent policy signal on quality in the ecosystem The move to a wage-weighted selection process directly addresses these distortions. By linking visa selection probabilities to offered compensation, the system now aligns outcomes with market signals. Higher wages typically reflect higher skill levels, stronger educational preparation, and roles of greater economic value. This change gains further clarity when viewed alongside...

Preview: ~500 words