International students make a substantial contribution to British universities. Their fees support departments, teaching and research, and many leave with lasting connections to the country. Treating that as an inconvenience to be eliminated would be foolish.
But university funding and immigration policy have become so entangled that it is difficult to discuss either honestly. A decision about recruitment can also be a decision about migration, made because an institution needs the income rather than because anyone has considered the wider policy.
What dependence does to a decision
When domestic fee income doesn't cover costs, overseas recruitment becomes more than an educational choice. Universities have a financial reason to increase it, and restrictions on student visas can threaten their budgets.
International study is a migration route, even though studying here doesn't mean someone will settle here permanently. Some students return home. Some qualify for further permission to work. The relevant question is what the route allows and what happens through it, rather than whether calling someone a student makes their arrival irrelevant to migration policy.
The Home Office recorded more than 400,000 sponsored study visa grants in the year to June 2024. That gives a sense of the route's scale at the time. It doesn't tell us how many of those students would remain permanently, and it shouldn't be presented as though it does.
Decide both policies deliberately
Ask how universities should be funded and "recruit more international students" can become an answer by default. Ask how many people should enter and on what terms, and the financial position of universities immediately constrains the discussion.
Neither consideration can simply be ignored. Universities don't operate outside the economy, and an immigration decision has consequences for institutions that employ people and conduct useful work.
We should nevertheless be able to state the purpose of each policy. What do we expect higher education to provide, and how are we prepared to pay for it? What opportunities should overseas students have after graduating? How should that fit the country's wider plans for migration?
A department's funding gap shouldn't quietly decide the answer to the second question. Nor should a migration target spare us from answering the first.