International students’ choices: fees, rankings and plans after graduation

Updated Sep 07, 2026

University choice and plans after graduation are different questions. Enzo Peeters and Kristof De Witte study them through hypothetical choices in International student mobility and retention: evidence from discrete choice experiments.

Source scope: the journal article’s identity is verified, but its full text was unavailable. The findings below come from selected sections and tables of the authors’ KU Leuven discussion paper, dated 17 June 2026. They should not be taken as confirmation that every detail is unchanged in the journal version.

The sample and the choices

The discussion paper reports 748 completed questionnaires collected at KU Leuven between February and March 2025. It explicitly excludes 96 Belgian respondents from the analysis, leaving 652 international students. The original version of this briefing did not distinguish those counts.

Students completed six tasks in each of two choice experiments. University-choice tasks offered two hypothetical alternatives. Country-choice tasks also offered an undefined third-country option. The researchers varied attributes to estimate trade-offs using logit models.

These are stated preferences. The numbers describe responses to specified scenarios and modelling assumptions, rather than a census of actual enrolment or migration decisions.

What the selected results show

Fees and university rank were important in the university-choice model. Table A.3 estimates willingness to pay €8,597 more in annual fees for a university ranked 50th rather than 250th worldwide. That is a modelled trade-off for this sample, not a fee recommendation or an observed payment.

Gross salary was especially influential in the country-choice results; visa procedures and quality of life also mattered. The paper’s visa scenario calculations estimate changes of 11.62 to 23.99 percentage points for non-EEA students under more favourable hypothetical procedures. They are not observed increases following an implemented visa reform.

The authors acknowledge limits to generalisation from one highly ranked Flemish university. They also discuss hypothetical bias and variation in preferences between student groups. Those cautions matter when applying the findings to another national or institutional setting.

Questions for UK teams

The following are editorial suggestions for local research, not interventions tested by this briefing.

Separate questions about choosing an institution from questions about plans after graduation. Ask students what they mean by an affordable option, useful careers support or an accessible administrative process. Check current rules through the appropriate institutional specialists before drawing policy conclusions.

Compare structured answers with open comments and, where appropriate, observed outcomes. A comment can explain a respondent’s priorities; it cannot establish a causal effect or predict whether that person will remain in the country. Use participation coverage and privacy thresholds when examining differences between groups.

A documented approach to comment analysis can help maintain consistent categories. Follow up with students on ambiguous findings rather than treating the largest theme as the explanation for recruitment or graduate retention.

FAQ

Was the analysed sample 748 international students?

The accessible discussion paper distinguishes 748 completed questionnaires from 652 international respondents retained after excluding 96 Belgian respondents. The final journal version could not be compared in full.

Would easier visa processes increase retention by the quoted amount?

The figures are modelled scenario estimates from stated choices. They do not establish the real-world effect of a particular policy change.

Can the fee estimate guide UK pricing?

It should not be transferred directly. It concerns a specified ranking comparison, sample and experimental design, with acknowledged limits to generalisation.

Correction and review note, 7 September 2026: clarified the analysed sample, the third option in the country-choice experiment and the hypothetical nature of the results. Disclosed that the accessible source is the authors’ discussion-paper version.

References

Enzo Peeters and Kristof De Witte (2026). “International student mobility and retention: evidence from discrete choice experiments.” Studies in Higher Education. Journal article.

Enzo Peeters and Kristof De Witte (17 June 2026). International Student Mobility and Retention: Evidence from Discrete Choice Experiments. KU Leuven, Discussion Paper Series DPS 26.06. Version used for this briefing.