In this study at a research-intensive public university, a group of eight instructors across a range of disciplines designed a writing assignment in which students (n=104) chose to write to one of three audiences--the teacher, a novice, or an adjacent expert. Students were then asked to complete a questionnaire that included open-ended questions about why they chose a particular audience and why they thought writing to different audiences was or was not valuable. This study design allowed us to answer three questions: (a) do students value writing to different audiences? (b) if so, why? and (c) how are students' perspectives about writing to an audience of their choice connected to their perceived engagement and their perceptions of the assignment's ease? Unexpectedly, writing for the instructor was the most commonly selected option of our participants--a decision students made based in part on their perceptions of relative ease and familiarity of the task and audience. Yet, at the same time, participants valued being asked to write for different types of audiences, in part because they saw other audiences as stretching their rhetorical skills. Of note, too, was the fact that students rarely referred to grading as a motive for their choice. Quantitative analysis confirms that students' choice of audience was not based on an inherent sense that one audience type was easier to write for than others. These findings inform ongoing conversations about writing-to-learn, writing transfer, and anti-racist teaching.