Most international students in Australia live in private rental housing, not university halls. That is the clearest finding from the QILT 2025 Student Experience Survey, which asked undergraduates from major source countries where they stayed during their studies. The survey covers students from countries including China, India, Nepal, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand and Japan. Across nearly every one of those groups, the most common answer was a privately rented house, flat or room. The pattern is not uniform, though. Students from some countries are far more likely to live with friends or relatives, while others rely more heavily on university-managed accommodation. This article breaks down the official numbers, explains what they do and do not tell you, and shows how to check the underlying data yourself.
What the QILT 2025 Data Shows
The QILT Student Experience Survey is a national survey run under the Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching program. The 2025 accommodation data covers international undergraduate students who were enrolled in their first year of study. The figures below are percentages with 90% confidence intervals, which means each number is an estimate from a sample rather than a census of every student. The intervals give you a sense of the uncertainty around each estimate.
For students from China, excluding SARs and Taiwan, 62.0% lived in a private rented house, flat or room, with a 90% confidence interval of 61.0% to 62.9%. University or college halls of residence accounted for 7.5%, and student houses or flats controlled by the university also accounted for 7.5%. Private halls or student hostels made up 11.5%. Living with friends or relatives in their accommodation was the choice of 7.4%, while homestay with an unrelated family was 1.5% and living with parents was 2.1%.
Indian students showed a similar preference for private rental, at 48.0% with a confidence interval of 46.9% to 49.0%. The second most common arrangement was living with friends or relatives, at 28.6%. University halls accounted for 4.6%, university-controlled houses or flats for 4.1%, and private halls or hostels for 3.1%. Homestay was 9.0%, notably higher than for Chinese students, and living with parents was 2.5%.
Nepalese students had the highest private rental share among the groups shown, at 55.9% with an interval of 55.0% to 56.8%. Living with friends or relatives was also very common at 32.7%. University halls were only 1.4%, university-controlled housing 0.8%, and private halls or hostels 0.6%. Homestay was 5.4% and living with parents 2.9%.
Vietnamese students reported 52.8% in private rental, 22.4% living with friends or relatives, 5.6% in university halls, 4.5% in university-controlled housing, 3.2% in private halls or hostels, 7.3% in homestay and 3.4% living with parents.
Bangladeshi students showed 62.6% in private rental, the highest point estimate among the listed countries, with an interval of 60.9% to 64.2%. Living with friends or relatives was 21.7%. University halls were 3.0%, university-controlled housing 3.1%, private halls or hostels 2.8%, homestay 4.4% and living with parents 2.2%.
Sri Lankan students reported 53.9% in private rental, 23.2% with friends or relatives, 5.2% in university halls, 5.5% in university-controlled housing, 3.1% in private halls or hostels, 7.0% in homestay and 1.8% living with parents.
Malaysian students had a more balanced spread. Private rental was 49.7%, but private halls or student hostels were 13.6%, university halls 10.1%, university-controlled housing 9.9%, and living with friends or relatives 13.1%. Homestay was only 1.3% and living with parents 1.6%.
Indonesian students reported 54.7% in private rental, 15.9% with friends or relatives, 8.4% in private halls or hostels, 6.7% in university-controlled housing, 6.0% in university halls, 4.7% in homestay and 2.1% living with parents.
Students from Hong Kong, as a SAR of China, showed a different pattern. Private rental was 43.9%, but university halls were 15.8%, private halls or hostels 11.9%, and university-controlled housing 8.9%. Living with friends or relatives was 10.3% and living with parents was 6.5%, the highest parental cohabitation figure among the groups listed.
Singaporean students also relied more on institutional housing. Private rental was 46.5%, university halls 16.8%, private halls or hostels 13.7%, and university-controlled housing 9.9%. Living with friends or relatives was 7.0%, homestay 1.9%, and living with parents 3.0%.
Filipino students stood out for a different reason. Private rental was 36.8%, the lowest among the listed groups, while living with friends or relatives was 40.8%, the highest. Living with parents was 7.8%. University halls and university-controlled housing were each 3.3%, private halls or hostels 2.3%, and homestay 5.2%.
South Korean students reported 53.3% in private rental, 11.2% with friends or relatives, 10.2% in university halls, 6.8% in private halls or hostels, 6.2% in university-controlled housing, 5.2% in homestay and 6.6% living with parents.
Thai students showed 48.3% in private rental, 14.6% in university halls, 12.6% in private halls or hostels, 10.6% in university-controlled housing, 7.3% with friends or relatives, 3.6% living with parents and 2.3% in homestay. The confidence intervals for Thailand are wider than for larger groups, reflecting a smaller sample size.
Japanese students reported 41.7% in private rental, 16.3% with friends or relatives, 14.8% in university halls, 11.3% in university-controlled housing, 9.2% in private halls or hostels, 6.0% in homestay and 3.6% living with parents.
Why Private Rental Dominates
Several factors help explain why private rental is the most common arrangement across most source countries. Private rental offers flexibility in location and price, and it does not depend on a university having enough on-campus places. For students who arrive with family members or who plan to share costs with friends, a private flat can be more practical than institutional housing.
Living with friends or relatives is the second most common category for several groups, especially Filipino, Nepalese and Indian students. This arrangement can reduce costs and provide immediate social support, but it also means the student is not the primary tenant in some cases, which can affect lease rights and documentation.
University halls and university-controlled housing are more prominent for students from Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand and Japan. These groups are more likely to use institutional accommodation, possibly because of shorter travel distances, family preferences for managed housing, or the availability of guaranteed places for international students at certain institutions.
The differences between countries are not a ranking of better or worse living situations. They reflect different student profiles, family circumstances, budget constraints and preferences. The survey measures where students actually stayed, not which option they would have chosen if cost were not a factor.
What the 90.3% Satisfaction Figure Means
The 90.3% figure refers to overall satisfaction among international students in Australia, as reported in the QILT Student Experience Survey. It is a national-level result, not a result for any single institution, city or accommodation type. It tells you that a large majority of surveyed international students were satisfied with their overall experience, but it does not tell you which accommodation type produced that satisfaction.
Because the figure comes from a sample survey, it is an estimate rather than a precise count. The confidence intervals attached to the accommodation percentages show the same principle. A point estimate like 62.0% for Chinese students in private rental is the best single guess, but the true value could plausibly be anywhere within the 61.0% to 62.9% range.
Satisfaction and accommodation type are related but separate questions. A student can be satisfied with their studies while disliking their housing, or the reverse. If you want to compare accommodation options, the QILT data on where students live is a useful starting point, but it does not rate individual properties, suburbs or landlords.
How to Verify the Data Yourself
The QILT website publishes the survey results and the methodology behind them. The Student Experience Survey page explains which students are surveyed, how the sample is drawn and how the data is processed. The ComparED website is the public search tool where you can look up institution-level data, including student experience results for specific universities and colleges.
When you look at the data, pay attention to three things. First, check the survey year. The 2025 figures reflect students enrolled in that year, and patterns can shift over time. Second, check the population. The accommodation data described here is for international undergraduates in their first year of study, not for all students or all levels. Third, check the confidence intervals. A narrow interval means the estimate is more precise; a wide interval means the sample was smaller or the responses more varied.
FindStay uses this kind of official data as the foundation for its accommodation guides. The value of the QILT figures is that they are collected consistently across institutions and published with a clear methodology, so you can compare patterns without relying on anecdotal reports or marketing claims.
What the Data Does Not Tell You
The QILT accommodation data does not tell you which specific suburbs or buildings international students live in. It does not tell you rent levels, lease terms, or whether a student shares a flat with other students or lives alone. It also does not tell you how satisfied students were with their specific housing arrangement, because the satisfaction question is about the overall experience.
The data also does not cover every possible living situation. The categories are university or college halls of residence, student houses or flats controlled by the university, private halls or student hostels, private rented houses or flats or rooms, homestay with an unrelated family, living with friends or relatives in their accommodation, living with parents, and other. If a student had an arrangement that did not fit these categories, it would fall into the other category, which is small for most countries.
For practical planning, you still need to research local rental markets, compare costs in different suburbs, and check what accommodation your institution offers. The national survey gives you a baseline for what most students do, but your own situation will depend on your budget, your institution, your family circumstances and how long you plan to stay.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the QILT accommodation data a census of all international students?
No. It comes from a sample survey. The published percentages are estimates with confidence intervals, not exact counts of every student in Australia.
Which country group has the highest private rental share?
Among the groups shown, Bangladesh had the highest point estimate at 62.6%, followed by China at 62.0%. The confidence intervals overlap, so the difference between these two is not statistically reliable.
Which country group relies most on university halls?
Singapore had the highest point estimate for university or college halls of residence at 16.8%, followed by Hong Kong at 15.8% and Japan at 14.8%.
Does the 90.3% satisfaction figure apply to accommodation?
No. It is an overall satisfaction measure for international students. It is not broken down by accommodation type in the data described here.
Where can I check the data for a specific institution?
The ComparED website allows you to search institution-level data. The QILT website provides the survey methodology and national results.