This chapter reviews the main cost components shaping international students’ decisions to study in OECD countries: tuition fees, visa‑related charges and financial requirements, and living expenses. It highlights substantial cross‑country differences in fee policies, reviews recent reforms that have introduced or raised tuition for third-country international students in several European countries, with varied effects on enrolments and student composition. The chapter further compares visa fees and proof‑of‑funds thresholds, which can represent significant upfront costs and financial barriers, and summarises living‑cost estimates across destinations.
International Student Mobility
Factors for Attraction and Retention
Abstract
Costs are central to international students’ destination choices, with tuition fees, visa‑related costs and rising living expenses consistently ranked among the most important factors shaping mobility decisions across OECD countries. Global surveys show that more than two‑thirds of students report affordability as the primary consideration when choosing a study destination, underscoring the centrality of financial factors in global mobility patterns.
Tuition-fee policies vary widely across the OECD and have undergone significant reform, with several OECD countries introducing or increasing fees for non‑EU/EEA students. These reforms have produced immediate effects on student inflows, often resulting in sharp declines in the first year before partially recovering.
Increases in tuition fees tend to disproportionately affect students from low‑income and lower‑middle‑income countries, altering the regional and socio‑economic composition of international student cohorts and, in some cases, shifting enrolments across fields of study, particularly in STEM.
Evidence from United Kingdom suggest that the impact of higher fees also differs across institutions and fields of study, with research‑intensive and high‑reputation institutions showing greater resilience, while less selective institutions and certain STEM fields display higher price sensitivity.
Targeted scholarship schemes can partly offset the deterrent effect of higher fees, helping sustain participation from priority countries and low‑income students, although take‑up and coverage vary significantly across countries.
Visa costs and financial requirements represent substantial upfront barriers, with large cross‑country variation in visa fees, documentation demands and proof‑of‑funds thresholds, ranging from around USD 8 000 to around USD 25 000 per year, and in some cases exceeding tuition fees themselves.
Living costs are a major and growing burden for international students, especially in high‑cost cities where foreign students tend to concentrate, often resulting in a higher accommodation cost‑overburden than that experienced by domestic students and offsetting the attractiveness of low‑tuition destinations
The financial dimensions of international study play a central role in shaping both the scale and composition of student mobility. The costs of tuition, visa costs, proof-of-funds requirements, and the broader cost of living all influence the attractiveness of study destinations. Global surveys with prospective international students consistently show that study and living cost is the top concern for students, with over two‑thirds of respondents highlighting affordability as the main factor when choosing study programmes (IDP, 2025[1]; Keystone Education Group, 2024[2]). Rising living costs across many OECD countries, combined with rising tuition fees in some higher education systems, have sharpened debates around affordability and access for international students. In parallel, increasing student inflows can add pressure to local housing markets, social services, and institutional capacities, prompting wider concerns about sustainability in the levels of international students.
Against this backdrop, student destination countries must navigate a complex policy trade‑off. International students contribute to institutional revenues and internationalisation objectives, yet higher education systems need to remain financially resilient while avoiding structural dependence on international student tuition income streams. Attraction efforts must be balanced against pressures on public services and the need to regulate student inflows in line with broader national policy priorities.
This chapter examines the costs faced by international students across OECD countries and considers how these costs shape student choices and mobility patterns. The chapter focuses on three main categories of costs facing international students:
Tuition fees: Tuition is often the most visible cost of higher education and can make up a large share of the total study expenses, though policies on tuition fees for international students vary widely across the OECD. In many countries, public universities charge higher tuition to international students than to domestic/EU students, whereas some countries do not differentiate or charge very low fees for all students. In recent years, more OECD countries have started introducing or increasing tuition fees for foreign students as a means of cost recovery or revenue generation.
Visa costs and financial requirements: While student visa application fees are usually small compared to tuition and living expenses, they can come with other prerequisites that can impose significant upfront costs or barriers. Key among these is the requirement that students demonstrate proof of sufficient financial means to support themselves during their studies, an amount that can reach tens of thousands of US dollars in high-cost countries.
Living costs: Student cost of living varies substantially across countries and cities and day-to-day living expenses are a major factor students consider when determining their study destination. Some study destinations with low or free tuition can be very expensive places to live in, rendering them less attractive.
The remainder of the chapter first section looks at tuition fees across OECD countries and analyses their role in attracting international students and funding higher education systems. The chapter then turns to comparing visa costs and financial requirements facing prospective international students, while the final section looks at the role of living costs.
In the past two decades, a number of European OECD countries have introduced reforms to the tuition fee system, notably when it comes to charging third-country nationals. There are also ongoing discussions about future increases in the tuition fees charged to international students by public universities in several OECD Member countries. This section compares tuition fees across OECD countries and discusses the impact on raising fees on student enrolment, composition and funding of the higher education sector.
2.2.1. Level and rationale of tuition fees for international students in the OECD
Public universities in most OECD Member countries charge tuition fees to international students, typically at levels well above those paid by domestic students. Among countries with available data, the English-speaking destinations New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and the United States stand out for charging comparatively high average fees, exceeding USD 20 000 (converted using purchasing power parities, PPP) per year at the master’s or an equivalent level, the degree level where most international students enrol (Figure 2.1).
By contrast, there is still a considerable number of European systems that maintain relatively modest fees for international students from outside the European Union. Luxembourg, Austria, Spain, Italy, and Switzerland either charge no tuition at all or keep costs relatively low. Others, however, have moved in the opposite direction: the Netherlands, Latvia, Finland, and Denmark impose substantial fees on international students, with average amounts in the Netherlands and Latvia approaching those seen in the English-speaking countries. France occupies a middle ground: although fees for students from outside the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA) were recently raised, they remain at around USD PPP 5 000 per year on average.
The scale of the tuition premium paid by international students varies considerably across countries (Figure 2.1). In some systems, such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States, and more recently the Nordic countries, international tuition is designed to cover the full cost of instruction without state subsidy. In the United Kingdom, universities charge international students above the cost of provision and use the margin to subsidise domestic students and other university activities. Tuition fees from international students accounted for 23% of the income of British universities in 2023 (Cuibus, 2025[3]). An important difference between the Nordic countries and the English-speaking countries is that while domestic students in the former pay little or no tuition fees, the latter charge their domestic students comparatively high fees.
Other countries differentiate tuition but continue to subsidise international students. France and Austria, for instance, charge non-EU/EEA students relatively modest tuition while public funding covers the majority of costs. A smaller group of OECD countries make no distinction between domestic and international students. In Germany, most public higher education institutions charge no tuition fees for domestic or international students, requiring only modest administrative contributions. However, as tuition policy is determined by the Länder, this general rule has notable exceptions: some states levy fees on non‑EU/ EEA students, and others allow institutions to introduce such fees on a discretionary basis, leading to a more differentiated landscape in practice.
Finally, a few systems determine tuition not by residency but by the language of instruction. In Estonia, for example, students in Estonian-language programmes study free of charge, while English-taught programmes carry significant fees. Czechia and the Slovak Republic follow a similar model, charging higher tuition when courses are delivered in foreign languages. Finland also follows a language‑based fee model, as tuition fees apply only to degree programmes taught in English, while programmes delivered in Finnish or Swedish remain free of charge for all students.
Average annual tuition fees charged by public institutions to national and foreign students for master’s or equivalent programmes in USD PPP, 2022/23
Note: The figure only includes countries that provided complete data in the OECD Ad-Hoc Survey on Tuition Fees and Financial Support to Students. In OECD-EU countries with a tuition gap between domestic and international students, only students from outside the EU/EEA are typically required to pay higher fees while EU/EEA students are generally treated the same as domestic students regarding tuition policies. Reference year differs from 2022/23 for Australia (calendar year 2021), Spain and the United States (2021/22). Norway introduced higher tuition fees for students from outside EU/EEA in 2023/24.
Source: OECD (2025[4]), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
Higher tuition fees can also be a signal of quality and attract more students (Beine, Noël and Ragot, 2014[5]). Countries with the highest fees remain among the world’s most popular destinations for international students. Comparing tuition fees for foreign students in relation to the share of international students in the total tertiary education student population reveals no clearcut relationship between the level of tuition fees and the share of international students (Figure 2.2). English-speaking countries with high fees, such as Australia, Canada and the United States, remain the top global destination countries for international students, along with the Netherlands and Latvia. However, some countries with significantly lower tuition fees still host an important share of international students in their student population. The most striking example is Luxembourg with relatively modest tuition fees for international students yet very high shares of international students. The lack of a clearcut relationship between tuition fee level and share of international students indicates that other factors, including language, institutional reputation, immigration pathways and labour market prospects matters when students are choosing their study destination. Tuition fees can also at least partly be compensated by scholarships and grants to students (Beine, Noël and Ragot, 2014[5]), as further discussed in the section on tuition fees.
Average annual tuition fees charged by public institutions to national and foreign students for master’s or equivalent programmes in USD PPP, 2022/23 and share of international students as part of all students at master level in 2022
Note: The figure only includes countries with comparable data on tuition fees in the OECD database (see Figure 2.1). Tuition fees reflect average annual tuition fees charged by public institutions to foreign students for master’s or equivalent programmes. The share of international students in the total student population refers to master students. For EU countries, international students from other EU countries are excluded as they pay the same tuition fees as national students. Norway introduced tuition fees for international students outside the EU/EEA/Switzerland in 2023.
Source: OECD Education at a Glance, and Eurostat.
Tuition-fee arrangements for international students are influenced by diverse policy considerations, including:
Revenue generation. For many governments and institutions, tuition fees from international students represent an important source of revenue to cover the costs of provision. In some cases, fees are set at or close to full-cost levels, reflecting a view that international students should contribute directly to the resources they use.
Cost-sharing. Other systems, such as those in the Nordic countries and France, maintain relatively low or no tuition fees for international students. This reflects a cost-sharing model in which the state continues to subsidise higher education, including for students from abroad, with the aim of promoting accessibility and diversity. Such policies are often also justified by the expected economic and labour-market contributions of international students during and after their studies.
Increased control. Tuition-fee levels can also be used as a policy lever to influence the scale and composition of international student inflows. By adjusting fees, governments and institutions can manage demand, reduce over-reliance on particular student groups, or align international recruitment more closely with labour-market needs.
Improving quality and strengthening brand. International fee income can provide institutions with resources to improve teaching and learning, invest in infrastructure, and enhance student services. This, in turn, can strengthen the overall attractiveness and reputation of national higher education systems.
Fairness. Some countries emphasise that international students, who have not contributed to the national tax base, should cover a larger share of the costs of their studies than domestic students for reasons of fairness. This rationale is often invoked to justify differential tuition-fee policies.
2.2.2. Recent tuition fee reforms across OECD countries
One way of investigating the role of tuition fees for international students’ decision making is to analyse the impact of a significant increase in the tuition fees for international students. Several OECD countries have recently implemented tuition fee reforms (see next section) and/or are planning or discussing increases to tuition fees, notably the United Kingdom (suggested 6% levy on international student tuition fees), Japan (allowed universities to charge higher tuition fees for international students in 2024), the Netherlands (plans to raise tuition fees for third country students), and Finland (from the academic year 2026/27, international students from outside the EU and EEA countries will be charged full-cost tuition fees to cover the costs of education).
Over the past two decades, several OECD countries have introduced or significantly increased tuition fees for international students. This marks an important policy shift, especially in northern Europe, that previously offered free higher education to all students. Since 2010, at least seven OECD countries introduced reforms in tuition fees facing international students (Figure 2.3).
Among the Nordic countries, all but Iceland have gone from free university education for domestic and international students to a system with higher tuition fees for international students from third countries in the past two decades. Denmark was the first of the Nordic countries to abolish free higher education to domestic and international students by introducing a tuition fee for incoming students from outside the EU/EEA and Switzerland in 2006, followed by Sweden that introduced tuition fees for non-EU/EEA/Swiss students in 2011. In Sweden, the change was motivated by a desire to relieve the Swedish taxpayer of financing foreign students’ education in the light of an increasing number of international students, and emphasis on attraction of students based on quality rather than fee levels (Bryntesson and Börjesson, 2019[6]; Nilsson and Westin, 2023[7]). Universities were free to set their own fees as long as they complied with the full cost-coverage rule, and the tuition fees charged in the first year of the reform started from SEK 80 000 (about EUR 8 000) and averaged SEK 125 000 (UKÄ, 2017[8]). The reform was accompanied by scholarship programmes aiming to help attract students from less developed countries (Bryntesson and Börjesson, 2019[6]). Finland introduced full tuition fees for non-EU/EEA students in English-taught programmes in 2017. Finnish universities now commonly charge between EUR 6 000 and 12 000 per year for international students. More recently, Norway approved a law to introduce tuition fees for students coming from outside the EU/EEA areas from 2023. Tuition fee levels were to be set by the institutions themselves with the intention to cover the full cost of instruction, in the range of EUR 12 000 to 14 000. However, in a press release from June 2025, the Norwegian Government announced a proposal to abolish the requirement of full-cost tuition fees for international students and instead give more freedom to the universities to set the tuition fee levels. This follows a significant drop in the applications and enrolment of new international students from third countries (see the next section).
In 2019, France introduced a differentiated tuition fee regime (droits différenciés) for third-country students from outside the EU enrolling in national degree programmes. The reform raised annual tuition to EUR 2 770 at the bachelor (licence) level and EUR 3 770 at the master’s level for newly enrolled non-EU students, while maintaining very low standard fees for domestic and EU students. The reform formed part of France’s broader Bienvenue en France strategy, aiming to strengthen international attractiveness, support quality improvements in international student services, and align public funding with beneficiaries. Institutions retained the ability to apply full or partial exemptions, as discussed in the next section. Evaluation evidence suggests that the differentiated-fees reform had only a limited direct effect on the costs faced by most international students, as universities made extensive use of exemptions and only a small minority of students liable under the scheme paid the full differentiated fee (Cour des comptes, 2025[9]).
In England, major changes to tuition-fee policy over the past decade have significantly altered the cost of higher education for both domestic and international students. The 2012 reform substantially increased the cap on undergraduate tuition fees for all “home” students and for international students enrolled in regulated undergraduate programmes, raising the maximum annual fee from GBP 3 375 to GBP 9 000 (later GBP 9 250). Postgraduate tuition fees, by contrast, did not undergo a similar shift, as they were not subject to a national cap and institutions retain broad autonomy in pricing. Moreover, institutional scholarships were more widely available at postgraduate level, partially easing tuition costs for some international students. More recent changes linked to Brexit have further reshaped the fee landscape, as students from EU/EEA countries and Switzerland lost their “home fee” status in 2021 and are now charged international-rate tuition fees. As a result, undergraduate tuition for EU students increased from the pre‑Brexit capped rate of GBP 9 250 to between GBP 11 400 and GBP 32 000 per year in 2021/22, depending on the programme and institution (Cuibus, 2025[3]), while postgraduate EU/EEA students saw the fees increase from the home fee level of about GBP 11 000 per year on average to international fee levels around GBP 17 109 per year (Clifton-Sprigg et al., 2025[10]).
Finally, Japan announced in 2024 that its national universities would be allowed to charge international students up to 20% higher tuition than domestic students due to the higher costs incurred by educating international students with additional language and support services.
Note: After introducing tuition fees at full-cost rate in 2023, the Norwegian Government announced in 2025 the abolishment of the requirement to charge full-cost fees and instead left the decision of the tuition levels to the universities. Japan has announced a proposal to allow differentiated fees, which has not yet come into effect. Finland has announced a further increase in tuition fees. As of 1 August 2026, international students from outside the EU/EEA and Switzerland will be charged full-cost tuition fees to cover the costs of education.
The remainder of this section discusses the rationale and effects of the tuition fee reforms for student enrolment and student composition, focussing on major reforms since 2010.
Effects of tuition fee reforms on student enrolment
In Sweden, the impact of the introduction of tuition fees for non-EU/EEA students in 2011 had an immediate negative impact on the enrolment of new third-country students, dropping by almost 80% from over 8 000 students in 2010/11 to just above 1 600 in 2011/12 (Figure 2.4, Panel A). The inflow of EU/EEA students remained largely unchanged. There was also a large drop in students with unknown origin1 (56%), indicating that the drop in enrolment following the introduction of fees might have been even higher than what has been previously reported in most official reports (Bryntesson and Börjesson, 2019[6]). International enrolments from third-country students recovered gradually over the subsequent years, partly because of expanded scholarship opportunities for students from certain countries, see discussion in the next section, but still remains below the pre-reform levels.
In Finland, the introduction of tuition fees for non-EU students in 2017 also led to an initial decrease in enrolments of new third-country students in the year following the reform. However, the drop was not as sharp as in Sweden (about 35%) and recovery was relatively swift. By 2020, the number of new international students in Finland exceeded pre‑reform levels (Figure 2.5, Panel B). A recent study investigates how the policy reform affected student applications, admission and enrolment using a difference‑in-difference approach with national register data and programme‑level tuition variation (Mathies, Karhunen and DesJardins, 2025[11]). The study confirmed a less dramatic drop in enrolment numbers and a quicker recovery following the increased tuition fees in Finland compared to the experience in Sweden. The relatively quick recovery is likely driven by an expansion of English-taught programmes, a reduction in the visa processing times for students, and other active policies to increase the recruitment of international students from relatively modest levels at the introduction of the reform (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2022[12]; Eurydice Finland, 2022[13]). A carefully planned implementation of the reform coupled with the implementation of a scholarship scheme has also been highlighted as factors that likely helped mitigate some of the negative impacts of the fee reform (Mathies, Karhunen and DesJardins, 2025[11]). The study by Mathies, Karhunen and DesJardins (2025[11]) further shows that the introduction of tuition fees did not decrease the number of applications from international third-country students.
The 2023 reform in Norway is recent, and it is yet too early to fully analyse the effects of the introduction of tuition fees for third-country students. However, data from the first two years of the reform indicate a sharp decline in the number of new enrolments of international students in degree programmes from outside the EU/EEA. The number of admitted third-country degree students has fallen by 46%, from nearly 3 700 in autumn 2022 to around 2 000 in both 2023 and 2024 (Figure 2.4, Panel C), with the steepest decline in two‑year master’s programmes (62%) and especially if considering new students where the decrease was 66% (HK-dir, 2025[14]). Over the same period, admissions of degree students from the EU/EEA and Switzerland increased by more than 40% and now form the majority of foreign degree students, though total foreign admissions have declined overall. However, fee‑paying students currently make up only a small share of third-country enrolments. Slightly more than 800 students have paid tuition fees for one or more semesters, and 660 paid fees for degree studies in autumn 2024. The number of new fee‑paying degree students also fell, from 427 in autumn 2023 to 324 in autumn 2024. The drop in new fee‑paying students contrasts with a modest increase in total number of third-country admissions, reflecting the fact that certain groups of third-country students are exempt from tuition fees. As a result, overall admissions may rise even as the number of fee‑paying students declines (HK-dir, 2025[14]).
New students in tertiary education (Sweden and Finland), international students in degree programmes (Norway)
Note: The dotted lines indicate the year preceding the reform implementation. The data excludes exchange students. For Norway, the numbers reflect admitted international students in degree programmes.
Source: Statistics Sweden (SCB); Vipunen/Education statistics Finland; The Directorate for Higher Education and Skills (DBH), Norway.
France introduced differentiated tuition fees for third-country students, droits différenciés, in 2019. The French reform shares some structural similarities with the Nordic tuition-fee reforms, but there are also important differences in design, implementation, and outcomes. Like in the Nordic cases, the French reform aimed to strengthen the financial sustainability of higher education, enhance internationalisation strategies, and improve resource allocation. However, the institutional autonomy and extent of implementation diverged sharply. Although the reform set a national framework for fee levels (EUR 2 770 for Bachelor studies and EUR 3 770 for Master studies), the legal framework provided for numerous exemptions. Many universities expressed concerns about losing applicants and limiting access for students from low-income backgrounds. The result was highly uneven implementation with some universities implementing near-universal exemptions while others applied fees selectively. In the academic year 2023/24, 42 universities exempted all liable non-EU students2 from the increased fees, 16 universities exempted some liable students based on linguistic, geographic or academic criteria, and only 13 universities applied the full higher fee (AEF Info, 2023[15]). As a result, the reform did not lead to a drop in the number of international students enrolled in higher education in France in the year following the reform. Instead, the number of non-EU students increased between 2018 and 2019 (Figure 2.5, Panel A). However, only a limited but growing share of liable students pay the full fee. The increase in the absolute number of liable fee students, from 1 200 in 2019 to close to 9 600 in 2023, is explained by the increase in the inflow of third-country students in the years following the reform (Figure 2.5, Panel A) as well as the gradual phasing out of third-country students that were already enrolled in tertiary education in 2019 and therefore exempted from paying higher tuition fees. The share of liable students paying full fees remain limited four years after the reform was introduced. Among the 108 100 international students liable under the differentiated-fee regime in 2023/24, only 9% paid full fees, while 13% received a full exemption and the vast majority (78%) benefited from a partial exemption (Figure 2.5, Panel B). These findings are consistent with the Cour des comptes’ assessment that the differentiated-fees reform was only partially implemented across the higher education sector because of the extensive use of exemptions (Cour des comptes, 2025[9]).
Note: The dotted line in Panel A mark the year preceding the reform implementation. Panel A includes both degree and non-degree students. From the 2022 academic year onward, students from the United Kingdom are no longer included in the European Union category. Panel B includes only non-EU students subject to paying differentiated fees, of which some are fully or partially exempted from the higher fees.
Source: Panel A: SIES-MENER; Panel B: Vinet, Bodelin and Ndao (2023[16]), Droits différenciés : Profil et évolution des étudiants internationaux concernés par leur mise en place depuis 2019, https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2023-03/ni-sies-2023-02-26738.pdf; Bodelin (2026[17]), Droits différenciés : profil des étudiants internationaux concernés en 2024‑2025, https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2026-01/nf-sies-2026-01-39184.pdf; Bodelin (2024[18]), Droits différenciés : profil des étudiants internationaux concernés en 2022‑2023, https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2024-02/.
Although not a tuition-fee reform, Brexit produced effects for EU students that were similar in scale and nature to those observed after tuition-fee introductions elsewhere. Following the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, students from the EU/EEA and Switzerland lost access to domestic tuition rates and student loans. The legal and financial implications of Brexit for students from the EU were gradually introduced over several years. No immediate measures were introduced right after the referendum in 2016, although the outcome of the referendum created significant uncertainty with respect to future consequences for EU students in the United Kingdom. In a first phase of Brexit in 2020, EU students faced increased administrative requirements, initially in the form of pre‑settlement that allowed students who arrived before 31 December 2020, to stay in the country for up to five years. EU/EEA students arriving from 1 January 2021 faced the same visa requirements as students from outside the EU/EEA. This change had an immediate effect on the inflow of EU students to the United Kingdom: new EU undergraduate entrants fell by more than half (53%) in the first year (Figure 2.6). By contrast, non-EU international enrolments continued to increase. The data further shows that the referendum did not slow down student enrolment from EU/EEA countries, and neither did the introduction of visa requirements in 2020. More in-depth studies, using difference‑in-difference approaches and controlling for potential effects of COVID‑19, confirm these findings, showing no impact in student enrolment following the changes in visa requirements but a drop in education enrolment by 48% following the introduction of higher tuition fees and the lost access to the UK loan scheme (Clifton-Sprigg et al., 2025[10]). However, the impact of the referendum itself on the number of applications from EU/EEA students is more ambiguous. While Amuedo-Dorantes and Romiti (2024[19]) find a reduction of applications from EU/EEA students by 7% following the Brexit referendum, Clifton-Sprigg et al. (2025[10]) find no such effect. This difference in findings might be explained by methodological differences between the studies (Clifton-Sprigg et al., 2025[10]).
The data further shows an increase in the inflow of non-EU students to the United Kingdom in the years following the Brexit referendum until 2022 (Figure 2.6). A contributing factor to this growth is the introduction of the Graduate visa route, an unsponsored post-study work visa, in 2021. The recent decline in student migration from non-EU countries is likely driven by the introduction of new restrictions for accompanying family members in 2024 aimed at reducing net migration, as discussed in Chapter 3.
Number of newly enrolled international students 2014‑2023, by region of origin
Note: The dotted lined indicates Brexit referendum (2016), Brexit phase 1 with changes in visa restrictions and the end of free movement for students from EU countries (2020) and Brexit phase 2 with an increase in tuition fees for students from EU countries (2021) and the end of free movement for students from EU countries.
Source: Cuibus (2025[3]), Student Migration to the UK, https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/student-migration-to-the-uk/.
Research on the 2012 tuition fee reforms in England highlights that the deterrent effect of higher tuition fees is not uniform across institutions. The perceived quality and prestige of a university mediate student responses to price increases.
The 2012 reform, which raised the cap on undergraduate tuition from GBR 3 000 to GBR 9 000, produced divergent outcomes across universities. A recent study show that more prestigious and research-intensive universities with stronger global reputations and higher positions in international rankings experienced little to no reduction in international student inflows following the reform admissions (Dias Lopes, Mateos‐Gonzalez and Wakeling, 2023[20]). These institutions appear to have maintained their attractiveness despite higher prices, likely reflecting their established international brand, perceived educational quality, and stronger labour-market outcomes for graduates.
By contrast, less prestigious universities experienced a significant decline in international student recruitment (applications and admissions) after 2012. The study suggests that these institutions are more price‑sensitive because their competitive advantages are less closely tied to global reputation. As a result, they faced greater challenges in maintaining international demand once fees increased. The findings imply that for some students, the perceived long-term returns of attending a top-ranked university can outweigh the burden of higher tuition and debt, while institutions with weaker reputations face stronger price competition.
Source: Dias Lopes, Mateos-Gonzalez and Wakeling (2023[20]), “How do tuition fee increases affect international mobility? The case of European Union students in England”, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12592.
Effects on student composition, fields of study, and completion rates
In both Norway and Sweden, the introduction of tuition fees led to a marked shift in the composition of incoming students in the year immediately following the reform. Previously, third-country nationals had constituted the majority of international students, but their share declined sharply while the proportion of students from within the EU increased and temporarily surpassed that of third-country students. In Sweden, this pattern was short-lived: the number of students from outside the EU/EEA recovered quickly and again exceeded the number of EU students from 2014 onwards. Although their numbers continued to grow over the subsequent decade, they had not returned to pre‑reform levels by 2023. The decrease in third-country students was mainly driven by a disproportionally decline in international students from low-income countries. In Sweden this mainly included students from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Nepal and Cameroon. The decline was least pronounced for students from non-EU/EEA OECD countries, including Canada, Mexico, the United States, Japan and Colombia, as well as for students from Brazil and Indonesia. Their respective shares of the total third-country student population more than doubled because of the substantial decline in students from other countries outside the EU/EEA. The introduction of fees in Norway led to a sharp decrease in student inflows from China, Pakistan, Iran which nearly halved over two years (HK-dir, 2025[21]).
In Finland, although the overall decline in international student numbers was less pronounced, the tuition-fee reform nonetheless had a substantial effect on the composition of the student population. Following the introduction of fees, the share of fee‑paying students from high-income OECD countries, such as the United States, Canada and Australia, increased across admissions, acceptances and enrolments. By contrast, the share of students from lower-middle‑income countries, including India, Viet Nam and Ghana, declined markedly. The proportion of students from upper-middle‑income countries, such as China, Brazil and the Russian Federation, remained relatively stable over the same period (Mathies, Karhunen and DesJardins, 2025[11]).
In England, the 2012 tuition fee increase also contributed to shifts in the regional composition of incoming students from the European Union. While enrolments from Northern and Western Europe declined substantially following the reform, the number of students from Southern European countries remained largely unchanged. Analysis further indicates that these patterns were associated with differences in youth employment conditions and higher education system characteristics across EU member states, suggesting that the impact of tuition fee reforms on student inflows is mediated by broader economic and institutional factors in countries of origin (Dias Lopes, Mateos‐Gonzalez and Wakeling, 2023[20]).
Furthermore, the fee reforms in the Nordic countries have shown to alter the field of study of incoming international students. In Sweden, the number of international students in STEM declined more than other fields of study in the years following the reforms, resulting in humanities, arts and social sciences accounting for a larger share of the remaining international student population. Similar impacts have been found in Norway, where the decline in degree‑seeking students from third countries over the past two years contributed to notable changes in the field-of-study profile of international students. Students from the three major third-country origins, China, Iran and Pakistan, have traditionally been concentrated in science and related disciplines. As inflows from these countries have fallen, science and technology fields have correspondingly lost ground, while the humanities and arts have become more prominent among international students. These findings suggest that fee reforms can reshape not only the volume but also the disciplinary profile of international student inflows, especially when particular fields rely heavily on demand from lower-income or middle‑income source countries. The disproportional decline in students in science and technology has been highlighted as a problem given the important shortages in these areas on the labour market (Bryntesson and Börjesson, 2019[6]), with potential negative consequences for the recruitment basis for the PhD programmes (UKÄ, 2017[8]). However, the effect showed to be relatively temporary, as the number of students in the science and technology fields recovered quickly over time.
Targeted scholarships partly offset the impact on international student flows from low-income countries
The tuition fee reforms in Sweden, Finland and Norway were all accompanied by scholarship schemes intended to mitigate potential declines in international student inflows from low-income countries. In Sweden, the Swedish Institute Study Scholarship (SISS) were introduced to cover tuition fees and living costs during the study time. The scholarships were initially targeting students from countries identified as priority countries to receive Swedish development assistance. However, starting from 2012 the programme was expanded with a second stream that also covered international students from other developing countries. In addition, the government introduced a scholarship for “extra qualified students” administered through Higher Education Institutions (HEI) to cover tuition fees. The total budget for these programmes was SEK 60 million in 2011 but increased rapidly in the following years to reach SEK 210 million in 2015 (Bryntesson and Börjesson, 2019[6]). Several studies have pointed to the importance of these scholarships to maintain the presence of students from low-income and priority countries for development co‑operation after the introduction of fees. In 2015, 38% of fee‑paying students in Sweden benefited from a scholarship from Sweden, including both the Swedish Institute (SI) scholarship programmes and the scholarships channelled through HEIs (UKÄ, 2017[8]). Over time, the Swedish Institute has developed its scholarship programme into the SI Scholarship for Global Professionals, and a newly established SI Scholarship Pioneering Women in STEM, which are further discussed in the chapter on services. In the academic year 2025/26, the budget for scholarships had increased to around SEK 260 million (about 24 million euros), out of which about 200 million for the SI scholarships with 400 recipients from 33 different countries (Swedish Institute, 2025[22]; UHK, 2025[23]).
Similarly, the Norwegian Government announced the establishment of the NORSTIP scholarship scheme for students from countries outside the EEA and Switzerland in 2023, funded through the development aid budget. The programme is targeting students from selected partner countries to support economic development and welfare in origin countries. Students are expected to return to their origin countries after completing their education in Norway.
Finland also introduced a scholarship programme alongside its tuition fee reform. The relatively stable share of students from low-income countries following the reform may partly reflect the availability of these scholarships. However, it is difficult to empirically confirm this link due to the lack of systematic data on scholarship uptake among fee‑liable international students in Finland. An evaluation of the tuition fee reform indicated that for the academic year 2019/20, scholarships awarded to international students in HEI in Finland reached EUR 28.55 million (Mathies, Karhunen and DesJardins, 2025[11]).
Beyond tuition, international students have to navigate the expenses and requirements associated with obtaining a student visa or permit. While visa application fees are generally modest compared to tuition and living costs, ancillary requirements, particularly proof-of-funds provisions, can represent a substantial financial barrier. Differences in fees, documentation requirements and administrative complexity may also affect students’ perceptions of the attractiveness of study destinations. This section examines the costs and requirements associated with obtaining a student visa or permit, from application fees to proof-of-funds requirements and other supporting documentation.
2.3.1. Visa fees and requirements
Student visa application fees vary widely across OECD countries, ranging from 100 USD to about USD 1 000 (Figure 2.7). Australia charges the highest fee, exceeding USD 1 000 per application. The United Kingdom also imposes a substantial fee of almost USD 700, while Norway, Finland and New Zealand all charge over USD 400. Several OECD countries have increased their visa fees over the last few years, most notably Australia, which more than doubled its fee for student visa applications in 2024 from the previous year. In some countries, visa fees may also vary depending on the country from which the application is submitted or the application channel used, with higher charges sometimes applying to applications lodged through embassies or external service providers rather than submitted electronically.
In addition to headline visa application fees, the duration of residence permits plays an important role in shaping the total costs international students face over the course of their studies. In a number of OECD countries, student residence permits are issued either for the full duration of the programme or for up to 24 months, allowing students enrolled in longer programmes to pay the application fee only once. By contrast, in countries where permits are issued for shorter periods, most commonly 12 months, international students enrolled in programmes exceeding one year are required to renew their permit during the study period, resulting in additional costs. Sweden and Poland constitute partial exceptions within this group, issuing permits for 13 and 15 months respectively, but still requiring renewals for most longer programmes. In most countries, permit renewal is subject to an additional fee, which can substantially increase the cumulative cost of studying abroad, particularly for master’s programmes lasting two years. According to the policy questionnaire, Belgium, Latvia, and Türkiye are the only countries where permit renewal is not subject to an additional fee, limiting the financial impact of shorter permit durations. Overall, differences in permit length and renewal practices add an additional layer of cost variation that is not captured by single application fees alone. For more detailed information about the duration of study permits across OECD countries, see OECD (2022[24]).
The United Kingdom operates a distinctive system for financing healthcare access for international students through the Immigration Health Surcharge (IHS), a mandatory, upfront charge linked to visa approval rather than insurance enrolment. As of 2024, international students must pay GBP 776 per year, calculated on the length of the visa and paid in full at application, regardless of whether they hold private health insurance. Payment of the surcharge grants access to the tax‑funded National Health Service (NHS) on broadly the same basis as residents. This model is unique among OECD countries: elsewhere, international students are typically required either to enrol in public or social health insurance schemes (e.g. Germany3 or France) or to hold approved private health insurance (e.g. Australia, the United States), rather than paying a visa‑linked health surcharge to the state.
Visa application fees across OECD destination countries, in USD
Note: Fees have been converted into USD based on exchange rate as of December 2025. In some countries, the visa fee is not a single fixed amount and can fall within a range. The table shows the minimum visa fee applied for countries that apply a range in their visa fees. The United Kingdom demand a health surcharge to be paid in association with the visa cost.
Source: OECD international student policy questionnaire, 2025.
Ancillary visa requirements
Visa fees are only one part of the upfront expenses faced by international students. Applicants are typically required to meet a range of additional conditions and provide supporting documentation to obtain a student visa. Among the 29 OECD countries that responded to the policy questionnaire question on visa requirements, all require applicants to demonstrate sufficient financial means to support themselves during their studies, usually an amount equivalent to at least one year of tuition and living costs (Figure 2.8). Students commonly meet this requirement by submitting bank statements, scholarship awards, or formal sponsorship letters that meet the minimum thresholds established by the destination country.
Almost all surveyed countries (around 90%) also require proof of acceptance from a recognised higher‑education institution. About half request the submission of a criminal record extract (Figure 2.8). Fewer countries require evidence of accommodation arrangements or a health certificate as part of the visa application process.
Source: OECD Policy questionnaire, 2025.
Table 2.1 breaks down the type of documents and requisites that OECD countries are demanding in the visa application process for international students by country of destination. Canada, Denmark, and Germany belong to the countries with fewer documents and requisites to fulfil, while Australia, Austria, Belgium, Latvia are demanding more documentation in the visa application. Taken together, these various documents and evidentiary requirements can impose substantial financial and administrative burdens on prospective international students.
Note: m=missing value in the questionnaire, d= depends on the circumstances. For Canada, the need to submit a health certificate depends on the country of origin. In the United Kingdom the health certificate implies a certificate showing that the applicant is free from active pulmonary tuberculosis.
Source: OECD policy questionnaire, 2025.
Proof of funds requirements
Besides tuition fees, proof‑of‑funds requirements represent the most significant upfront cost for international students, with required amounts varying widely across OECD countries. All OECD countries that responded to the international student policy questionnaire require applicants to demonstrate sufficient financial resources as part of the student visa or residence‑permit process (Table 2.1). There is significant variation in the levels of proof‑of‑funds required, to some extent reflecting differences in national living costs (see next section). At the upper end of the distribution, Switzerland requires prospective international students to demonstrate access to around USD 25 000 per year, followed by Luxembourg (around USD 20 000) and Australia (around USD 19 000) (Figure 2.9). A group of major destination countries, including Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, cluster between USD 13 000 and USD 16 000. Mid‑range requirements are observed in countries such as New Zealand, Portugal, Belgium, Ireland and Finland, where minimum thresholds are typically between USD 10 000 and USD 12 000. At the lower end, several Southern, Central and Eastern European countries, including France, Spain, Italy, Slovenia, Greece and Czechia, set minimum requirements below USD 8 000.
Countries differ not only in the minimum funds required but also in how financial capacity is defined, documented and verified. Germany, for example, requires most non‑EU students without scholarships to deposit a fixed amount (currently EUR 11 904 per year) into a blocked bank account (Sperrkonto), from which funds can be accessed once the student arrives in Germany. Other destinations, such as Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom, allow a broader range of evidence, including recent bank statements, approved education loans, scholarship award letters or formal declarations of financial support. The United Kingdom applies a risk‑based approach, under which students from many countries of origin are not required to submit proof‑of‑funds documentation upfront, although evidence may be requested during the assessment process.
Countries further differ in how long funds must be demonstrably available prior to application. In the United Kingdom, students must show that the required funds have been held for at least 28 consecutive days, while France typically requires bank statements covering the preceding three months and Canada four months.
Finally, the frequency with which financial thresholds are updated differs considerably. Some countries revise their requirements annually, while others do so only occasionally or following policy reviews. An assessment of France’s attractiveness to international students highlighted substantial variation in update practices across major European destinations (Cour des comptes, 2025[9]). France has not revised its resource threshold since 2011, whereas the Netherlands and Spain update theirs on a yearly basis. In Canada, the cost‑of‑living requirement for study‑permit applicants was increased in 2024 after remaining unchanged since 2000.
Note: Financial requirements are defined differently across countries. Where thresholds are set as monthly amounts, they have been recalculated to annual values (12 months) for comparability. Amounts have been converted into USD based on exchange rate as of December 2025.
Source: OECD policy questionnaire (2025) and data from official government webpages.
Within the European Union, proof-of-funds requirements are typically waived for intra-EU mobility, except for Ireland where both EU and non-EU applicants need to have access to sufficient funds. To facilitate student mobility, Ireland has put in place a pilot initiative to simplify the proof-of-fund verification process by providing an education bond to international students (see Box 2.2). The scheme is available to all international students, regardless of whether they require a visa.
Ireland has introduced a pilot Education Bond to simplify the financial-verification process for international students. Under existing immigration rules, students must demonstrate sufficient funds to support themselves during their studies, a requirement that has traditionally involved extensive financial documentation. The Education Bond offers an alternative where students lodge a fixed sum (typically EUR 7 000-EUR 10 000, depending on programme length) in a designated account before travelling, and the funds are released to them upon arrival and completion of immigration registration.
The scheme aims to reduce administrative burdens for applicants and provide a clear, standardised form of proof of funds that is easily verifiable by immigration authorities. It responds to concerns about delays and uncertainties associated with traditional bank-statement requirements and may help strengthen Ireland’s attractiveness as a study destination. Although still in a pilot phase, the bond is recognised in official guidance as a valid means of demonstrating financial capacity for degree‑seeking students.
For many international students, living costs represent the largest share of total expenses during their studies. These costs vary considerably across OECD countries, from under USD 10 000 per year in lower‑cost destinations to over USD 30 000 per year in the most expensive ones. Living expenses also differ markedly within countries depending on the city of study. Figure 2.10 presents an overview of estimated living costs across OECD destinations alongside countries’ official financial requirements for international students. Estimated annual living costs are based on information published on official government websites targeting prospective international students. These estimates are not standardised and reflect different national approaches to defining and calculating living costs. However, by drawing on official sources, the comparison provides a picture of the cost information that students are likely to encounter when searching for study‑abroad information. It is important to emphasise that international students are often concentrated in large metropolitan areas, where housing, transportation and food prices are significantly higher than national averages. As a result, national‑level estimates may understate the actual costs faced by many students in practice. Where available, estimates are presented as ranges to account for substantial cost differences across study locations.
Central European countries tend to have relatively low living costs for students, often below USD 7 000 annually. Among the larger destination countries, Korea and Japan are comparatively affordable overall, although living costs in Seoul and Tokyo are significantly higher than in other cities. At the upper end of the spectrum, Switzerland shows the highest living cost estimates. Among the major English‑speaking destinations, the United Kingdom stands out as the most expensive, with annual expenses ranging from around USD 16 000 outside London to over USD 20 000 in the capital. Costs are similarly high in Australia, France and Germany.
Taken together, the comparison of estimated living costs, official financial requirements and tuition fees reveals distinct cost structures across OECD destinations. In a number of countries – including Switzerland, Luxembourg, Austria, France and Germany, tuition fees for international students are relatively low, but living costs are high, resulting in substantial overall expenses during study. In these contexts, minimum financial requirements often fall below estimated living costs, particularly in major cities, indicating that thresholds are set as conservative benchmarks rather than reflections of typical student expenditure. By contrast, the largest English‑speaking destinations (the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia) tend to combine high tuition fees with high living costs, especially in the metropolitan areas hosting the most popular universities. Although financial requirements are generally higher in these countries, they may still underestimate the costs faced by students in the most expensive locations.
Estimated living costs based on information provided at official government platforms for international students, 2025
Note: Living costs can vary substantially depending on study place within countries and are therefore sometimes given in ranges. Estimated costs have been converted into USD based on exchange rate as of December 2025.
Source: Authors’ calculations based on information from official government platforms providing information about study and living to prospective international students.
2.4.1. Accommodation costs
One of the most important expenses when it comes to living costs is accommodation. As shown in Table 2.1, some countries require international students to show proof of housing already at the student permit application phase. Securing housing before arrival to the study destination country may be associated with higher costs. International students are also not able to rely on networks of family and friends for accommodation in the same way as domestic students, which also means that they are often facing higher costs for housing than domestic students. The Eurosurvey report calculates the accommodation cost overburden for students, defined as paying more than 40% of the income on accommodation, across European student destination countries. The findings show that international students are more likely to experience overburden (Box 2.3).
The EUROSTUDENT survey is a cross-national study conducted in more than 25 countries across the European Higher Education Area to analyse the social and economic conditions of students, including their living arrangements, income, and study-related experiences. The project collects nationally representative data using harmonised concepts and indicators to enable valid cross-country comparisons. Within the EUROSTUDENT framework, “international students” are defined as students whose country of prior education, typically where they obtained their higher-education entry qualification, differs from the country in which they are currently studying.
A notable share of the student population in Europe faces accommodation cost overburden, defined as spending 40% or more of their total monthly income on accommodation (Figure 2.11). The extent of this burden varies widely, ranging from 10% in Lithuania to 55% in Denmark. International students are particularly affected: on average, 34% report spending at least 40% of their income on accommodation, compared to 25% of domestic students. This pattern is partly explained by students’ housing arrangements. International students rarely live with their parents (8% on average, compared to 37% of domestic students), largely because their families reside abroad, making daily commuting impossible. As a result, international students have limited access to the least expensive form of housing and are more frequently obliged to choose costlier alternatives.
Share of students spending 40% or more of their total monthly income on accommodation (in percentage), in 2022
Note: Income includes in-kind transfers, defined as goods and services for students financed or provided by their parents, partner or others. International students are defined based on their educational origin. Data was collected in 2022, except for Switzerland (spring 2020), Germany (2021), Austria, France, and Portugal (2023). Number of observations for international students not included for Latvia due to small sample size. The figure presents data for a sub-sample of EU-OECD Member countries, and excludes Azerbaijan, Georgia, Malta and Romania.
Source: Hauschildt (2024[25]), “Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe: Eurostudent 8 Synopsis of Indicators 2021-2024”, https://dx.doi.org/10.3278/6001920ew.
References
[15] AEF Info (2023), Droits différenciés : seules 13 universités les appliquent complètement, https://www.aefinfo.fr/ (accessed on 20 November 2025).
[19] Amuedo-Dorantes, C. and A. Romiti (2024), “International student applications in the UK after Brexit”, Journal of Economic Geography, Vol. 24/5, pp. 637-662, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbae019.
[5] Beine, M., R. Noël and L. Ragot (2014), “Determinants of the international mobility of students”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 41, pp. 40-54, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.003.
[17] Bodelin, L. (2026), Droits différenciés : profil des étudiants internationaux concernés en 2024‑2025, https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2026-01/nf-sies-2026-01-39184.pdf.
[18] Bodelin, L. (2024), Droits différenciés : profil des étudiants internationaux concernés en 2022‑2023, https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2024-02/.
[6] Bryntesson, A. and M. Börjesson (2019), Internationella studenter i Sverige: Avgiftsreformens påverkan på inflödet av studenter.
[10] Clifton-Sprigg, J. et al. (2025), International Student Migration: Did Brexit Close the Door to EU Students?, IZA Institute of Labour of Labor Economics.
[9] Cour des comptes (2025), L’attractivité de la France pour les étudiants étrangers, https://www.ccomptes.fr/ (accessed on 26 November 2025).
[3] Cuibus, M. (2025), Student Migration to the UK, https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/student-migration-to-the-uk/ (accessed on 27 November 2025).
[20] Dias Lopes, A., J. Mateos‐Gonzalez and P. Wakeling (2023), “How do tuition fee increases affect international mobility? The case of European Union students in England”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 59/1, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12592.
[13] Eurydice Finland (2022), Eurydice, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/news/finland-tuition-fees-non-eueea-students-have-been-evaluated.
[25] Hauschildt, K. (2024), Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe: Eurostudent 8 Synopsis of Indicators 2021-2024, wbv Media, https://doi.org/10.3278/6001920ew.
[21] HK-dir (2025), Tilstandsrapport for høyere utdanning 2025, Direktoratet for høyere utdanning og kompetanse, https://hkdir.no/rapporter-undersokelser-og-statistikk/tilstandsrapport-for-hoyere-utdanning-2025.
[14] HK-dir (2025), Utenlandske gradsstudenter i Norge: Utvikling etter innføringen av studieavgift høsten 2023, Direktoratet for høyere utdanning og kompetanse, https://hkdir.no/rapporter-undersokelser-og-statistikk/utenlandske-gradsstudenter-i-norge-utvikling-etter-innforingen-av-studieavgift-hosten-2023.
[1] IDP (2025), Emerging Futures 7: Voice of the International Students, IDP, https://resources.idp-connect.com/hubfs/USA%20EF7%20Infographic%20Report.pdf.
[2] Keystone Education Group (2024), State of Student Recruitment, Keystone Education Group, https://www.keg.com/hubfs/SSR%202024%20full%20report%20(1).pdf.
[11] Mathies, C., H. Karhunen and S. DesJardins (2025), “If You Charge Them, Will They Come? The Effect of Levying Tuition Fees on International Students”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 66/6, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-025-09855-5.
[12] Ministry of Education and Culture (2022), Introduction of tuition fees did not halt the internationalisation process of higher education institutions – room for growth in tuition fee revenue, https://vm.fi/en/-/1410845/introduction-of-tuition-fees-did-not-halt-the-internationalisation-process-of-higher-education-institutions-room-for-growth-in-tuition-fee-revenue (accessed on 20 November 2025).
[7] Nilsson, P. and L. Westin (2023), “The Swedish Debate on Tuition Fees for International Students in Higher Education”, Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies in Education, Vol. vol. 12, pp. 281-303., https://ojed.org/jise/article/view/5629.
[4] OECD (2025), Education at a Glance 2025: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c0d9c79-en.
[24] OECD (2022), International Migration Outlook 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/30fe16d2-en.
[22] Swedish Institute (2025), 402 international students receive the SI Scholarships, https://si.se/en/si-scholarship-2025-2026/.
[23] UHK (2025), Universitets och Högskoleradet, https://www.uhr.se/globalassets/_uhr.se/internationellt/samarbete-och-utbyte/program/stipendier-studieavgiftsskyldiga-studenter/tilldelning-stipendier-for-lasaret-2025-2026.pdf.
[26] UKÄ (2020), Internationell studentmobilitet i högskolan 2019/20, Universitetskänslerämbetet/SCB.
[8] UKÄ (2017), Kartläggning av studieavgifter: Redovisning av ett regeringsuppdrag, Universitetskanslerämbetet, https://gamla.uka.se/download/18.28e93fee15a38a64f878f738/1487841871771/rapport-2017-01-19-kartlaggning-studieavgifter.pdf.
[16] Vinet, L., L. Bodelin and G. Ndao (2023), Droits différenciés : Profil et évolution des étudiants internationaux concernés par leur mise en place depuis 2019, MESR‑DGESIP/DGRI‑SIES., https://www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/2023-03/ni-sies-2023-02-26738.pdf.
← 1. The information about country of origin is largely based on residence permit statistics. The lack of information about origin country is thus expected to be more frequent among international students who do not require residence permits (i.e. students from the Nordic countries and the EU/EEA area) and among students who study fully online and may not reside in Sweden (UKÄ, 2020[26]).
← 2. Liable students here refer to non-EU students that were subject to the differentiated fees. Not all third-country students were subject to the differentiated fees due to various exemptions.
← 3. In Germany, all students are required to have health insurance, but not necessary through the public system. While most international students, especially those under 30 enrolled in degree programmes, are covered by the statutory (public) system, they may opt out if they demonstrate equivalent private or foreign coverage. Some categories of students are only eligible for private insurance.