A New York Times report detailing declines in international applications to American colleges and universities seems like an unflattering indictment on the Trump administration – until you read the data.

Some foreign students worry they're not welcome in the United States, according to the article. Some school administrators also report they've seen declines in applications from international students. They also say they have misgivings about President Trump's approach to immigration.

From these points, the Times drew this headline: " Amid 'Trump Effect' Fear, 40% of Colleges See Dip in Foreign Applicants."

The article, which does little to dissuade readers from assuming Trump played a role in the decline, included quotes from select school heads.

"Several [students] said they were concerned about the 'Trump effect,'" said Portland State University president Wim Wiewel.

"I'd say the rhetoric and actual executive orders are definitely having a chilling effect," he added, referring to Trump's executive order barring immigration from six Middle Eastern countries.

The Time story also included this detail: "Nearly 40 percent of colleges are reporting overall declines in applications from international students … The biggest decline is in applications from the Middle East."

This is where the article runs into some major problems.

The cited 40 percent figure comes from a survey of 250 college and universities conducted by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

A few quick points on this study: First, the survey cited by the Times clearly states it is gauging perceptions, not doing a "deep-dive into applicant numbers."

"Our survey was intended specifically to gain some data on a trend that we were hearing from our member institutions – that in some areas, there were significant dips in application numbers, and that amongst the applicants, there were significant concerns voiced about whether study in the U.S. was desirable," AACRAO Deputy Director Melanie Gottlieb told the Washington Examiner.

Secondly, the survey also showed that there have been increases in the number of foreign applications submitted to many U.S. colleges and universities.

Of the 250 colleges and universities polled, 35 percent reported increases , compared to the 39 percent who reported decreases. A little more than a quarter (26 percent) said they saw no change at all.

"When you place the 39 percent reporting a decrease alongside the 26 percent reporting no significant change within the context of 7 percent overall growth per year over the last 7-8 years and an overall 40% increase over the last decade, this is news," Gottlieb told the Examiner.

"The trend has been a solid increase to now more than 1 million international students studying in the US annually. Even flat numbers would be a change and will likely have an overall impact given that international students contribute approximately $36 billion to the U.S. economy," she added.

This is still a significantly different portrait from the one the Times painted for its readers.

It's one thing to report perception, and another thing to report fact-based data. When the two are blurred, as they are in the Times' story, readers are left with an unclear picture.

There have been declines in applications in certain areas, according to AACRAO. There have also been increases in certain areas. Some students say they feel unwelcome, and some school administrators say they are worried about the Trump administration.

These are things that can be reported neatly and accurately, which is not quite what the Times did.

Consider this line: "One student, who is Muslim, said his father was worried that America had an anti-Muslim attitude."

Also, consider this line: "'Our deans describe it as a chilling effect,' said Suzanne Ortega, president of the Council of Graduate Schools."

Between these quotes and the article's headline, there is little doubt left in the readers' mind as to who should be blamed for the falling number of applications.

To cherry-pick data, and to pass it off as part of a larger trend linked to the White House, gives readers a very misleading and false impression about what is actually happening.

To the Times' credit, the report noted Trump might not necessarily be responsible for the application declines. To the Times discredit, however, it doesn't mention this until several paragraphs into the story.

The following passage is buried 10 paragraphs deep:

Still, despite the steady increase, the movement of students from one country to another is sensitive to fluctuations tied to political and economic forces. So some officials cautioned that a "Trump effect' is just one possible explanation for this year's application figures.

And this passage isn't found until the 21st paragraph of the article:

Applications at Irvine are not down, but students have expressed concern about coming to the United States, Ms. Leslie said. "We're hearing from students, even beyond the seven countries, expressing concern," Ms. Leslie said, referring to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, which were singled out in the first travel ban. "This year, even when students are admitted, they may not be willing to accept the offers."

The university will not have those numbers until April 15, a national deadline for students to make a decision.

Spokespersons for the Times did not respond to the Washington Examiner's request for comment.

Intl Survey Results Released by Becket Adams on Scribd