Britain made a huge mistake recently when it removed the "welcome mat" that has lain on its front doorstep for decades and threw it in the rubbish bin. The nation's decision to make it harder for foreign students to work and study there made me think of the man who spent a pound to save a penny - it just doesn't make sense.

Sure, the move may free up some entry-level and part-time jobs, but doesn't the government in London realize the nation will lose much more than it gains by giving Chinese students the impression they are no longer welcome?

For those who missed the story, METRO reported on March 24 ("UK's tight visa rules hit capital students") that the British government wants to slash the number of overseas students by about one-fourth.

Clearly, Chinese people have been increasingly eyeing the European country as a place to continue their education, something I would have thought Britain would be proud of and surely a welcome revenue stream during difficult economic times.

However, Home Secretary Theresa May said the nation wants to grant fewer student visas, largely because some use them to find jobs instead of to study. She said the UK will carefully look at its educational institutions and clamp down on bogus ones that are, in effect, fronts for people wanting visas.

I don't have a problem with that part of the announcement. Sure, if there are schools that are not offering bona fide learning opportunities, then "students" should not be able to get their hands on visas (so far, 64 schools have had their right to sponsor overseas students withdrawn). What I fail to understand is why Britain is taking its clampdown so much further.

In addition to rooting out dodgy schools, May announced that genuine students - more than 90,000 from China alone, including about 70,000 working toward undergraduate degrees or higher qualifications - will no longer get post-study work visas that allow them to remain in the country. In the past, people could finish their degrees and stay in the UK for another two years. The change means they will have to leave just four months after graduating.

It doesn't stop there, either. Those who found post-study jobs in the past could often get additional visas. Now, only those who manage to snag a job paying in excess of 20,000 pounds a year (214,000 yuan) will be allowed to apply for work visas.

Also, for the first time, students will be blocked from even entering the country if their English skills are poor, with new rules demanding they speak at least level 5 of the International Language Test System. Surely someone in authority must realize that turning away students with poor language skills is missing the point entirely. Many go precisely because they have poor language skills and want to improve them.

The changes beggar belief. It's a strange attitude from Britain, which is one of the world's major destinations for overseas students. According to United Nations figures, more than 2.5 million students studied abroad in 2009, with most headed for the United States (672,000), the UK (330,000) and Australia (280,000).

Why would the country that is the second most popular destination for overseas students want to stem the flow? Is the prospect of a few more part-time jobs for local people really so juicy? Has the government factored in the loss of rent or tuition fees they would have paid, or the fact that many of them liked to shop in the high streets?

I have a Chinese friend who after completing her studies in Britain decided to stay on, and is now supporting her boyfriend and his entire familiy with her monthly paycheck. There are many more like her.

I really hope the British government reconsiders its decision quickly and puts the "welcome mat" back on its doorstep. Those paltry part-time jobs it expects to get are just not worth the cost. Ministers should hurry before Chinese students - the largest group of expatriate students in the world - chose to go elsewhere.

The author is a copy editor for China Daily. To comment, e-mail metrobeijing@chinadaily.com.cn. The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of METRO.