July 2004/30 Issues paper This report is for information
This report describes research to establish the range and types of international student mobility available to UK students and to ascertain current trends. The report analyses published statistics for scheme-led mobility programmes, the arrangements at UK higher education institutions for both scheme-led and other international mobility programmes, and attitudes to mobility among students and staff.
International student mobility Report by the Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex, and the Centre for Applied Population Research, University of Dundee
Commissioned by HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW, DEL, DfES, UK Socrates Erasmus Council, HEURO, BUTEX and the British Council
Contents Acknowledgements
2
Scope of report and recommendations from the steering group
3
Executive summary
6
1. Context, aims and organisation of the study
9
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Context of the study Eight key questions Organisation of the research Definition of international student mobility
2. The national and international statistical picture 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4
International trends and comparisons: where the UK fits in Erasmus mobility Other national and internationally managed mobility schemes Student mobility outside the Socrates-Erasmus programme
3. The institutional perspective 3.1 Managing mobility 3.1.1 Administering mobility 3.1.2 Strategies and tensions 3.1.3 Departmental perspectives: priorities and imbalances 3.1.4 Rationalising exchanges, reorienting mobility 3.1.5 Work placements and field trips 3.1.6 Other issues 3.2 Drivers and barriers – staff views 3.2.1 Benefits of mobility 3.2.2 Profiling the mobile student 3.2.3 Deterring factors 3.2.4 Concluding points 4. The student perspective 4.1 Movers and non-movers 4.2 Perceived benefits and problems associated with mobility 4.3 Drivers and barriers to international student mobility 4.3.1 Financial factors 4.3.2 Language factors 4.3.3 Information factors 4.3.4 Attitudinal and socio-cultural factors 4.4 Further comparisons 4.5 A model for student mobility 4.6 Future mobility
9 10 10 11 12 12 13 16 18 21 21 21 22 23 25 26 27 27 27 29 31 33 34 34 36 37 37 39 40 40 41 41 42
5. Synthesis and implications of findings
45
5.1 The eight questions answered 5.2 Policy implications
45 47 1
Annexes Annex A
What the literature tells us about international student mobility
49
Annex B
Research methods
51
Annex C
Supplementary tables for international student mobility
74
Annex D
Statistical analysis of the HESA-Erasmus matched dataset
81
Annex E
The HEI questionnaire: supplementary tables
91
Annex F
Mobility initiatives in Northern Ireland
95
Annex G
Promotion of mobility on HEI web-sites
99
Annex H
Staff interviews speaking about language and mobility
101
Annex I
The student questionnaire survey: supplementary tables
102
Annex J
References
112
Annex K
List of acronyms
114
Annex L
List of sponsors and steering group members
115
Acknowledgements Throughout this study the consultants have been greatly helped by the encouragement and advice of members of the advisory and steering groups. We have especially appreciated the support of Jannette Cheong and Beth Steiner at the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The expertise of John Reilly (UK Socrates-Erasmus Council), John Thompson and Mark Gittoes (HEFCE), Judy Powell and Barrie Morgan (British Council), Beatrice Merrick (UKCOSA), Annette Kratz (British Universities Transatlantic Exchange Association, BUTEX) and Adrian Hawksworth (Association of UK Higher Education European Officers, HEURO) was invaluable. We acknowledge the excellent administrative back-up of Rachel Titman at HEFCE and Jenny Money and Mark Thompson at Sussex. Finally, we are grateful to all the students and staff in HEIs across the UK who gave generously of their time to help us in the surveys. HEFCE would like to thank those members of the steering group who gave generously of their time to work closely with the consultants as the study progressed: Judy Powell and Dr Barrie Morgan of the British Council, Dr Annette Kratz of Keele University, Dr Beatrice Merrick of UKCOSA, John Reilly of the UK Socrates-Erasmus Council, and the many others who commented, advised or made available data to the team. The sponsors and steering group would like to acknowledge the work of the Sussex Centre for Migration Research at the University of Sussex and the Centre for Applied Population Research at the University of Dundee in undertaking this study. The knowledge and commitment of Professors King and Findlay to the work has been impressive, and the steering group appreciated their willingness to discuss openly many complex issues, as the study progressed. The dedication of the whole team to the undertaking was evident throughout, and the sponsors are particularly grateful for the enthusiasm, thoroughness and professionalism of Enric Ruiz-Gelices and Alexandra Stam, the Research Assistants at the Universities of Sussex and Dundee respectively.
2
Scope of report and recommendations from the steering group Scope of report 1. This report was commissioned following discussions among a wide group of stakeholders (see Annex L) with an interest in international student mobility. It was recognised that there was a lack of systematic information about the overall picture of UK student mobility, particularly individual mobility activity. Concern had been expressed about a decline in UK outward Erasmus mobility in comparison with other EU countries and the imbalance of incoming and outgoing Erasmus students to and from the UK. It became apparent during the discussions that while there was much anecdotal evidence of the underlying reasons for the imbalance, there were few available data and there were gaps in the collective knowledge. There was also considerable interest in learning more about student mobility outside Europe and outside the major schemes. The stakeholders agreed to sponsor a study which would examine the types and range of UK student international mobility, the reasons for student choice and how higher education institutions (HEIs) manage mobility. An invitation to tender was issued and the Sussex Centre for Migration Research at the University of Sussex (SCMR) was selected to undertake the study. (SCMR subcontracted the Centre for Applied Population Research at the University of Dundee, and the report was prepared by the groups working together.) A steering group comprising representatives of the main stakeholders oversaw the progress of the study and advised the consultants. 2. The sponsors of the report are the UK higher education funding bodies, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES), UK Socrates Erasmus Council, HEURO, BUTEX and the British Council. The research and conclusions drawn are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. 3. The results presented here draw together a range of previously uncollated data, which are relevant to the overall picture of UK students’ patterns of mobility, along with findings from specially commissioned surveys and new analysis of student data sources. Although these data can only give a partial picture of the multi-faceted context of student mobility, this report marks an important step in understanding how a variety of complex issues with a bearing on student mobility interact. The report makes it possible to answer at least some of the initial questions with which the stakeholders were concerned, and to pose others. Some of these are outlined below. Questions outside the scope of the study 4. Many of the stakeholders believe that mobility is of benefit to students. Some of the results of the qualitative survey and comments from the survey of HEIs support this belief, although this study did not explicitly focus on supplying hard evidence for this. The stakeholders recognise that assessment of the value of mobility schemes is at the moment based to some extent on a degree of judgement, by both providers and participants. 5. The wider context of the student experience, of which mobility is a part, is not fully considered in this report. For example, it does not explore the benefit to the UK student body of absorbing an increasing number of overseas students and whether this and other factors might offer students the benefit of international perspective. 6. It may be that what the trends in this report reveal is not attributable to any of the causes which might immediately suggest themselves, but rather that student aspirations in the global context are shifting. It may also be that providers of HE mobility opportunities need to reconsider the aims of such
3
programmes and how these mesh with the wider social context. This report does not seek to offer conclusive statements on these issues. Language 7. It has been asserted that a decline in numbers of students studying a language is responsible for declining numbers of mobile students. This study demonstrates a link between falling numbers of language students and a fall in outgoing UK Erasmus student numbers. The study shows that lack of language ability is a factor which students present as militating against mobility to a non-Anglophone country. It also shows an increase in students going to Anglophone countries, and to other destinations, even to other EU countries, but not as part of a nationally-managed scheme, such as Erasmus. In addition, there are some indications that students are becoming less interested in study abroad options, and that demand is increasing for work, or work and study placements. This last may indicate a link to the second most reported inhibitor to student mobility: concerns about the financial impact of a period spent abroad. It may be, therefore, that the decline in UK outward mobility to other countries in Europe is affected by a complex interplay of several factors, such as decline in language ability, limited opportunities for paid work placements, and the perceived high standards and marketability of US or other Anglophone education systems. If this is indeed the case, then, in seeking to encourage more students to be mobile, it may not be enough to increase the supply of study opportunities elsewhere in the EU. Rather, policy makers and all other stakeholders may wish to analyse carefully and respond creatively to student perspectives on mobility and the nature of student experience, for example by offering incentives for students from lower income groups, or forging partnerships, where appropriate, with countries to which UK minority ethnic groups may have historical and linguistic links, or developing more work or combined work and study opportunities. However, this is not to suggest that declining linguistic skills within the student body nationally should be ignored. The international context 8. The UK is a signatory to the ‘Bologna Process’ towards a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by 2010. This is intended to increase mobility between institutions in Europe and will have an impact on credit transfer arrangements through the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS). While Bologna is mentioned in the report, analysis of the likely long-term effects on the UK HE sector or student mobility were not part of the initial brief. National policy makers and HEIs will need to monitor the evolving EHEA and assess its implications and impact on mobility. It is also important to note that many other complex historical, motivational and cultural factors, which are not examined in depth in this study, influence UK students’ mobility. Improving the evidence base 9. During this project, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) initiated a review of the requirements for data relating to student mobility and international provision. Through this review measures have already been identified and implemented to improve the quality of data relating to Erasmus exchanges captured through the HESA individualised student record. The review is ongoing, and the findings of this report will be considered to see if data relating to other schemes can and should be captured through the HESA data collection process.
4
Recommendations from the steering group 10. As a result of the findings in this report the steering group makes several recommendations, which are presented below. 11.
The steering group recommends that: a. The Government take account of the findings in the report and, in particular, examine the implications for further development of language provision in schools.1 The Government take account of the need for a coordinated scheme in schools to promote and raise awareness of mobility opportunities at HE level (including full degree mobility). The Government, HEFCE and employers' organisations commission further research on the benefits and outcomes of mobility, in particular, on whether international mobility can give UK graduates greater currency in the labour market, and, if so, how the UK benefits. b. HEFCE include an examination of the cost implications of maintaining or increasing levels of international student mobility in its forthcoming review of funding for teaching. c. HEIs consider: •
the full range of mobility options on offer and how these match student demand/linguistic ability
•
how information on mobility opportunities is disseminated, and its content, particularly in informing students how mobility is assessed. (The stakeholders note the QAA’s Code of Practice in Placement Learning)
•
monitoring mobility activity centrally, especially the collection of management information
•
integrating planning for student mobility and exchanges into their international strategies, perhaps by developing a collective strategy which helps to underpin the efforts of mobility scheme organisers.
d. UK organisers of mobility schemes review provision in the light of changing patterns of mobility and the ‘mobility culture’, encouraging or influencing change where they are able, and consider, with HEIs, strategies for advertisement/dissemination and reaching out to schools. e. National and international student organisations consider working with HEIs and other interested parties to advise on effective communication to students about international mobility opportunities, and to identify resources in support of this activity.
1
The steering group notes the following statement from the DfES: ‘The DfES has commissioned research into patterns of language learning and provision in higher education as part of its work on the national language learning strategy. That research will help in considering how best to increase the level of language learning – both formal and informal – and related student mobility, as well as the need to develop more inclusive institutional international policies in HEIs.’
5
Executive summary 1. This study was prompted by concerns about the low level of outward international student mobility (ISM) from the UK compared with other European countries. It was thought that low international mobility frustrates the development of a cosmopolitan and multilingual perspective among UK graduates. This could put the UK at a competitive disadvantage within the global economy. The defensive argument – that English has become the ‘global language’ – ignores the important intercultural learning experience that a period of study or work abroad can bring. 2. Eight questions frame the study: •
What is student mobility – how can it be defined?
•
What trends can be identified in UK international student mobility and how do these compare with other countries?
•
What are the main determining factors influencing students’ mobility choices?
•
To what extent is it useful to relate student mobility during the programme of study to prior mobility such as the gap year?
•
What are perceived to be the main benefits of spending a period of time studying or working abroad?
•
What are the main barriers to international mobility for UK students?
•
How important is UK students’ foreign-language knowledge in conditioning their propensity for international mobility?
•
What are the main institutional factors driving, or constraining, student mobility?
3. In order to answer these questions a three-stage methodology was employed, each involving a different scale of analysis: •
a review and synthesis of available statistics on UK, EU and global student mobility, in order to put the UK situation in context
•
a questionnaire survey of all publicly-funded higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK, in order to document and quantify those types of student mobility for which statistics are not available, and to bring out the ‘institutional perspective’
•
site visits to 10 HEIs to collect first-hand information on the ‘student perspective’ via questionnaires, interviews and focus groups.
4. The ‘evidence base’ for the study consists of a statistical and literature review, completed institutional questionnaires from 80 HEIs, face-to-face interviews with 46 academics and ‘mobility managers’, 1,200 questionnaires from carefully stratified samples of students, and interviews and discussions with 180 students. 5. We define ISM as any form of international mobility that takes place within a student’s programme of study in higher education (HE). The length of absence ranges from a short trip to a full-duration programme of study such as a degree. In addition to study at a foreign HEI, mobility can also involve a period in a workplace or other non-HE environments. 6. Globally 1.8 million students were studying outside their country of origin in 2000. This figure is projected to rise to 7.2 million by 2025. Although the UK has higher rates of outward mobility than other English-speaking countries such as the United States and Australia, it has lower rates than most other EU countries. Foreign students in the UK greatly outnumber UK students studying abroad. 6
7. Erasmus data on European exchanges show that numbers of incoming students to the UK are twice the outward flow, and numbers of outgoing students have fallen by nearly a third since the mid-1990s. 8. The decline in UK Erasmus student flows to Europe should be set against growth of other types of student mobility and flows to other destinations, particularly North America and Australia. 9. At the institutional level, statistical analysis shows Erasmus outward trends correlate strongly with two key variables: research activity of HEIs, and changing numbers of students doing language degrees. 10. Mobility is increasingly, and disproportionately, concentrated in pre-1992 universities. This category of HEI accounted for half of all outward mobility in 1995-96, two-thirds in 2002-03. Corresponding shares for post-1992 universities were 40 per cent in 1995-96 and one quarter in 2002-03. The small remaining fraction is accounted for by the non-university HEI sector. 11. Only one third of the HEIs which responded appeared to have a specific plan for student mobility. Promoting outward mobility is secondary to increasing the recruitment of fee-paying overseas students. 12. HEIs and their departments are keen to minimise Erasmus imbalances between large incoming numbers and small outgoing flows, since there is a financial burden involved. Partly as a result, mobility is being redirected from Europe to North America, Australia and other destinations. Work placements are becoming more popular among students, but they can be costly to administer. 13. The institutional surveys confirmed the key role of language in both channelling mobility and acting as a barrier. However, most staff thought that financial problems were an even bigger obstacle to maintaining or increasing outward mobility. 14. Both the student questionnaire survey and the student interviews confirmed the staff views about finance and language being the two main barriers to mobility. Other factors which had some importance in the eyes of students were lack of information (or having information too late), actual or perceived academic/institutional barriers (course structures, credit transfer, worries over grades, for example), and attitudinal factors (fear of the unknown, and so on). 15. Mobile students are essentially of two types: those who go abroad as a compulsory part of their studies (mainly language students), and those who choose mobility for a range of personal, educational and professional reasons. Statistical analysis of matched Erasmus-HESA datasets on individual students show that outgoing Erasmus students from the UK are more likely to be younger, female, white and from families in the higher social classes, when compared with nonmobile students. 16. Students who had lived or travelled abroad prior to HE (referred to as prior mobility in this report), for example during a gap year, were more likely to engage in formal mobility during their time in HE. 17. Mobile students generally felt very positively about their foreign experience: 95 per cent thought it had enhanced their personal development, and 90 per cent felt that it was relevant to the development of an international career. Strict academic benefits were stressed less often.
7
18. Of those who had been abroad, relatively few encountered major problems. Even finance, the most often-cited problem, was mentioned by only 22 per cent of mobile students; absence from a girl- or boy-friend was cited by 20 per cent. 19. Nearly half the non-mobile final-year students questioned regretted not going abroad. Among firstyears, most interest was expressed in work placements or mixed work/study arrangements, rather than pure study abroad. 20. The following policy implications arise from the study: •
A need for more complete and regularly collected data on student mobility.
•
Financial and linguistic constraints inhibit ‘traditional’ HE mobility such as the ‘European Year Abroad’ undertaken by language students as a part of their study; there is an under-provision of work and mixed study/work schemes, and these are needed to respond to current student demand.
•
HEIs could be more proactive in promoting student mobility, balancing it against the priority to recruit high-fee overseas students.
•
Information and publicity about HE mobility schemes could be expanded, and targeted at schools and further education colleges.
•
Consideration needs to be given to language learning at all levels in the UK education system.
•
Consideration needs to be given to how access to mobility can be broadened; at present many students are ‘socially excluded’ from mobility opportunities because of their financial situation, family and class background, and linguistic limitations.
8
1.
Context, aims and organisation of the study
1.1
Context of the study
This study analyses outward higher education student mobility from the United Kingdom. International student mobility (ISM) involves students leaving their country of residence for a period of higher education abroad, or to pursue a related activity such as a foreign work placement or study tour. One major reason for undertaking this study was the concern expressed by some stakeholders about the low level of outward mobility by UK-based students compared with other EU countries. This lack of mobility is highlighted by a decline in numbers of UK students going on Socrates-Erasmus exchanges – from 11,988 students in 1994-95 to 7,956 in 2002-03. If current rates of decline continue, by 2006 there will be only about 6,500 UK students taking up Erasmus opportunities. Low student mobility links to wider concerns about the lack of a cosmopolitan and multilingual perspective among UK graduates in an increasingly globalised labour market. It might put the UK economy at a competitive disadvantage, especially in fields such as business, research and international organisations. There is an argument that English has become the ‘global language’ and that UK students should not feel the need to learn another language, but this ignores the important intercultural learning experience that a spell abroad can bring. Uptake of Erasmus places is one indication of mobility of UK students, but consistent and comparable data on non-Erasmus mobility are scarce. Another reason for this study was therefore to document other types of international mobility in the higher education sector. This study also explores the wider context in which student mobility occurs. In advanced societies, international mobility is much more widespread and frequent than it was in the past. Although older age groups are not excluded from this ‘mobility culture’, it is young people, especially those with good educational backgrounds, who travel abroad the most. Many are likely to have been abroad with their parents, on school trips, or as part of ‘gap year’ experiences between school and university. There are many other influences on student mobility. In Europe it is affected by key political changes in the European Union. One example is the Bologna process. This initiative aims to harmonise higher education systems across the EU, with mutual recognition of credits and qualifications. Another example is the enlargement of the EU in 2004. Many students in the 10 new countries want to study in an English-language environment (HEPI 2004) and will be entitled to do so within the current SocratesErasmus scheme. Whether UK students will reciprocate by moving in equal numbers to these new destinations remains to be seen, but indications are that they are unlikely to do so under current schemes. The UK’s position in the world is very complex, given its high degree of involvement in Europe, North America, and the developing world. This wide global reach means that viewing its student mobility largely within a European context may be misplaced: ties of language, culture and history mean that the United States, Canada, Australia and Singapore are also likely destinations. Hence, in this study, both European and non-European mobility are considered. This report considers how students perceive the benefits of, and barriers to, mobility and what factors are critical in shaping their mobility choices. We also ask whether the current pattern of international mobility matches UK students’ aspirations. Finally we consider the policy implications of the changing dynamics of UK student mobility. 9
1.2
Eight key questions
The study addresses eight questions, as shown below.
Eight key questions 1.
What is student mobility – how can it be defined?
2.
What trends can be identified in UK international student mobility and how do these compare with other countries?
3.
What are the main determining factors influencing students’ mobility choices?
4.
To what extent is it useful to relate student mobility during the programme of study to prior mobility such as the gap year?
5.
What are perceived to be the main benefits of spending a period of time studying or working abroad?
6.
What are the main barriers to international mobility for UK students?
7.
How important is UK students’ foreign-language knowledge in conditioning their propensity for international mobility?
8.
What are the main institutional factors driving, or constraining, student mobility?
Each question can be broken down further. For instance, under question 3 a range of factors – personal characteristics, financial situation, career ambitions, type of course and university – could be relevant, and relate to each other in complex ways. To take another example, the gap year (question 4) could be hypothesised as either a motivating factor for mobility during the study programme, or a substitute for in-programme mobility. These eight questions are discussed in this report. Conclusions are given in Chapter 5.
1.3
Organisation of the research
The research lasted for one year, structured into three separate, though linked studies. Study 1 reviewed the literature on student mobility and collated available statistical data. A review of the limited literature on ISM is at Annex A. Examination of existing statistical data helped set the UK’s trends against those of other countries. Study 2 surveyed all publicly funded UK higher education institutions. Its aim was to document and quantify types of student mobility by sending a questionnaire to all HEIs in the UK. Study 3 was the largest of the three and involved the main ‘field’ surveys. We collected primary data on the experiences and views of mobility from over 1,400 students and staff in 10 selected HEIs. Questionnaires and interview techniques were employed. The ‘results’ chapters of the report are sequenced in telescoping scale: •
Chapter 2 synthesises ISM trends for the UK and comparative countries, based on published data and on returns from the HEI questionnaire.
•
Chapter 3 covers the institutional perspective. It collates the views of academics and ‘mobility managers’ on the organisation and promotion of mobility, and on key ‘drivers’ and ‘barriers’. 10
•
Chapter 4 explores the student perspective. It combines quantitative and qualitative analysis of, respectively, student questionnaire and interview surveys.
Throughout, key methods and findings in the text are supported by supplementary information in the annexes. Annex B provides further information about the methods used as well as copies of the main research instruments.
1.4
Definition of international student mobility
We define ISM as any form of international mobility which takes place within a student’s programme of study in higher education. The length of absence can range from a short trip to the full duration of a course of study. In addition to study in a foreign HEI, mobility can include a period in a workplace or other non-HE environment. In order not to study HE mobility in isolation, we also consider the relevance of prior mobility, such as the gap year. One useful threefold typology of ISM is used by the UK Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA): •
mobility for an entire programme of study (diploma mobility)
•
for part of a programme (credit mobility)
•
other voluntary moves undertaken for a range of personal reasons.
Such mobility can be inward or outward, and can be either reciprocal (student exchanges) or one-way.
11
2.
The national and international statistical picture
Global data on students studying outside their country of origin are published by UNESCO and OECD. Erasmus and Leonardo annual datasets refer to the EU, while the British Council issues annual data on language assistants and participation in the International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience (IAESTE). Most such sources yield only basic data, such as numbers of students by destination country. Depending on the data source, some light may be shed on other variables, such as type of activity (academic study, work placement and so on), length of time spent abroad (such as one term, one year), timing of the mobility (undergraduate, postgraduate, vacation), and the role, if any, of foreign language learning.
2.1
International trends and comparisons: where the UK fits in
Globally, student mobility has grown considerably over the past 25 years. This reflects the general drive taking place within the global knowledge economy. It also indicates the specific recognition by some countries of the value of international awareness among students who are the professional and managerial classes of the future (Davis et al. 1999). The UK is a key node in this global circulation of students, especially as a destination. Over the last two decades there have been dramatic increases from EU countries (especially Greece), and significant growth from the US, China, Japan and some of the wealthier Commonwealth countries. Cross-sectional data from OECD (2001) enable us to see how the UK compares with other countries in terms of students studying abroad. Comparative statistics of this kind have to be interpreted with care because definitions of ‘student’ and ‘mobility’ vary greatly from one country to another (see Annex C Table C1 for definitions of foreign students in OECD countries). Table 1 below shows that in 2000 the UK sent 13.5 students to other OECD countries for every 1,000 students enrolled in its tertiary education system. The US and Australia were by far the most popular destinations. Less than half of UK mobile students went to the EU. The UK’s outflow rate was higher than the United States or Australia, but lower than other major EU states like France or Germany. The data include both students taking a full degree programme abroad and those studying for shorter periods such as a year or a semester (though there may be some undercounting of the latter). Table 1 suggests that large countries have lower mobility. Cultural or geographical remoteness also puts a brake on mobility. High levels of mobility result from the spatial and institutional proximity of EU countries. OECD data also provide an opportunity to compare student mobility by the language of the destination country: 43 per cent of UK students went to countries with a different language. This was much less ‘conservative’ than students from New Zealand, Canada and Australia. But the British were more linguistically conservative in their choice of destination than all their European neighbours except Ireland and Austria (see Annex C Table C5).
12
Table 1: A comparison of outward student mobility from UK, France, Germany, Australia and US to principal destinations, 2000 (number of mobile students enrolled in tertiary education in other countries per 1,000 students enrolled in country of origin) Destination Australia Austria Belgium Canada France Germany Ireland Japan Netherlands Spain Sweden Switzerland UK United States Total
Origin UK
Origin France
Origin Germany
Origin Australia
Origin US
2.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.6 1.3 0.9 0.2 0.3 1.3 0.4 0.1 3.8
0.1 0.2 4.9 2.2 3.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 2.3 0.5 1.4 6.2 3.2
0.5 2.9 0.3 0.4 2.6 0.2 0.1 1.1 1.9 0.9 2.7 6.6 4.4
Na Na 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.4 Na 0.1 0.2 Na 1.5 2.9
0.2 Na Na 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 Na 0.1 0.1 Na 0.8 -
13.5
25.5
26.0
6.3
2.5
Source: Adapted from OECD (2001). Na = not applicable
To summarise, it would appear that the UK, while being an exceptionally attractive student destination, does not have a particularly low level of outward mobility when global comparisons are made. The rate is, however, lower than other EU states, which may be a cause for concern. Our view is that the level of UK outward flows fits the trends discussed above: that the scale of flows is influenced by size of country of origin, its geographical remoteness, its institutional proximity to a specific student exchange system and the strength or otherwise of language barriers.
2.2
Erasmus mobility
Socrates-Erasmus is the best known organised student mobility programme in Europe, accounting for around one-third of all mobile students in Europe. During the 1990s the Erasmus scheme became increasingly popular across the EU, with total student mobility rising in every year except 1995-96 (Mitchell 2001). It is worth analysing the available datasets on European movements to explore trends and possible factors of mobility at a variety of levels – national, institutional, and individual. Annex D provides a statistical analysis of individual student data matched between Erasmus and HESA records. Taking overall student numbers during recent years, Germany, the UK, France, Italy and Spain together send and receive most students (send 71 per cent, receive 74 per cent). The UK has been the largest host nation within the Erasmus scheme. More significantly, it has been the country with the largest imbalance of incoming and outgoing students (see Figure 1). Countries which have a significant element of their HE system taught in English are the main net recipients of students. Countries which have instruction in other languages are the main net senders of students.
13
Figure 1: Net balance of Erasmus students across the EU, 2001-02
Net gain
8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000
Net loss
Incoming students - Outgoing students
10,000
0 -2,000 -4,000 -6,000 l y y a y e s k e g d d n d n UK de lan nd pai ar wa lan lan our uga eec stri ium nc an Ital r a a e re g t m m l r e l n r u S r b n N o Ic F I G A Be er Fi em Po er Sw De G th x e N Lu
Source: Erasmus student mobility 2001. SCHE/03/07 – Annex
The decline in the UK student outflow is marked (see Figure 2). In 2002-03 the number fell to only 7,956 compared with 11,988 in 1994-95. Inward mobility has been close to twice the out-movements since the mid-1990s. Figure 3 shows the decline in UK out-mobility in relation to specific destinations. The UK trend is contrary to that in all other EU countries except Sweden and the Netherlands; in these countries there has also been some fall-off, but less dramatic and more recent than for the UK. The UK figures raise two questions: •
What kinds of student participate in this type of organised mobility?
•
Why is the scheme operating at two-thirds of the level of mobility achieved a decade ago?
Statistical analysis of the characteristics of UK students participating in the Erasmus scheme in 2002-03 shows that they are younger, more likely to be female, white and from families in the higher social classes, when compared with other students (see Annex D). Table 2 highlights just how selective mobility is in terms of two of these criteria (ethnicity and class). To some extent these selective characteristics reflect the fact that language students (who make up a high proportion of UK Erasmus students) are disproportionately drawn from certain segments (female, white, high social class) of the population, but the selectivity is most obvious for non-language students. When Erasmus students on courses without a language element are compared with the student population as a whole, there is a marked bias in favour of white ethnic groups and students from higher social classes. It would appear, therefore, that student mobility choices are affected by deep social parameters. Alternatively, as Annex D suggests, it may be that unidentified common characteristics of courses with no language component account for the effect. Also important for explaining the trends in Figures 2 and 3 is the fact that the number of language students in the UK has been in sharp decline. As Annex D shows, UK Erasmus outgoing students in 2002-03 were only 68 per cent of those in 1995-96, while the number of students recorded by HESA as 14
studying languages dropped to 72 per cent of the 1995-96 level. This leads to a wider debate about why language learning in the UK is in decline, which lies beyond the remit of this report. Figure 2: UK – incoming and outgoing students (1987-88 to 2002-03) on Socrates-Erasmus programmes 25,000
Number of students
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 Academic year
Outgoing
Incoming
Source of data: UK Socrates-Erasmus Council
Figure 3: UK Erasmus outward mobility: main destinations (1987-88 to 2001-02) 4,500 4,000
Number of students
3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0
87-88
88-89
89-90
90-91 91-92
92-93
93-94
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98 98-99
99-00
00-01
01-02
Academ ic year France
Germany
Spain
Netherlands
Italy
Source of data: UK Socrates-Erasmus Council
There is also institutional differentiation in Erasmus participation. In 2002-03 149 UK HEIs participated in Erasmus. Of these only 27 institutions sent more than 100 students; 53 sent less than 20. In 1994, by comparison, not only did more institutions participate (159), but on average each one sent many more students. Thus the decline in outwardly mobile students reflects both a fall-off in institutional involvement in Erasmus exchanges and a reduction of participation in those institutions continuing with the scheme. However, this trend is not true of all institutions: 45 HEIs increased their participation between 1994-95 and 2002-03, and 13 doubled the size of their outflows. These findings point to the importance of the institutional dimension of Erasmus linkages, including the subject mix and commitment to student mobility. 15
Table 2: Social factors and Erasmus mobility, by course type (language/non-language), 2002-03
Social class Total students of high social class % Studying a language, % high social class Not studying a language, % high social class Ethnicity Total students non-white % Studying a language, % non-white Not studying a language, % non-white
Erasmus
Non-Erasmus
83 84 82
76 83 76
8 8 9
16 9 16
Source: Annex D, Tables D7 & D8
Statistical analysis at the HEI level offers further explanation for the fall-off (see Table 3). The proportion of students taking up Erasmus places is strongly associated with institutional involvement in language teaching. Business studies shows a similar, but less strong, positive relationship with outward mobility. Research activity also correlates strongly with outgoing flows of students. Given that performance in the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) was judged in terms of international excellence, it is not surprising that the international reach of an institution as indicated by student mobility is associated in this way, although the link with international excellence in research may not be a direct one. Table 3: Correlation of explanatory variables with the institutional mobility rates for the 2002-03 Erasmus outgoing student flow Explanatory variable
Statistical significance
% Full-time first degrees in languages (2000-01) Very significant % Full-time first degrees in law (2000-01) Not significant % Full-time first degrees in social science (2000-01) Not significant % Full-time first degrees in business studies (2000-01) Very significant % Staff entered as research active in the 2001 RAE Very significant % Staff in RAE rated 5 or 5* departments (2001) Very significant See Annex C, Table C12, for details of the tests on which this table is based. A more detailed statistical examination of change in Erasmus mobility rates was undertaken. This was restricted to those HEIs with higher levels of participation (sending 30 or more students) in the scheme in 1994-95. This confirmed that between 1994-95 and 2002-03 there were just two main determinants of changing mobility rates. The proportion of staff who worked in 5 or 5* rated departments was by far the strongest correlate; also significant was the changing proportion of students taking language degrees. These two variables accounted for over 40 per cent of the variance between institutions in the change in Erasmus participation (see Annex C, Table C13).
2.3
Other national and internationally managed mobility schemes
There are many other UK student mobility programmes. Although smaller than Erasmus, they provide important channels for different kinds of exchanges. Other Socrates programmes include the Lingua network, which supports projects that raise awareness of language learning opportunities, and the Grundtvig scheme in adult education and lifelong learning. We do not discuss these schemes here, because they are not primarily focused on students in the HE sector. 16
The rest of this section discusses three British Council-administered schemes, chosen to illustrate the variety of non-Erasmus mobility arrangements. Table 4 shows the number of students participating in these schemes over an eight-year period. Table 4: UK students going abroad under three British Council-managed mobility schemes Year
IAESTE
Language assistants
Leonardo
1995 160 1996 173 1997 220 1998 200 1999 203 2000 204 2001 196 2002 171 N/A = not applicable Source: British Council database
2,624 2,585 2,165 2,373 2,193 1,942 1,801 1,869
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 137 833 641
Most IAESTE students are drawn from science and engineering, and participate in the scheme during vacations. The scheme long predates Erasmus; it was formed in 1948 and now involves over 80 countries worldwide. In 2000 the IAESTE network facilitated some 5,515 multilateral exchanges worldwide, including 204 students from the UK going to other countries. Many go from Northern Ireland. In recent years the range of destinations has increased, although the number of students participating has declined. However, student demand remains buoyant. Limitations on the supply/capacity side include the willingness of employers to offer appropriate work placements, the UK’s capacity to reciprocate, and staff administrative resources. The Language Assistant scheme sends about 2,000 assistants abroad every year. Most spend a year abroad, typically the third of a four-year degree programme. This form of mobility has declined somewhat during the last decade. Students studying Portuguese and Russian have virtually disappeared from the scheme, and there is a decline in students going to France and Germany. Students going to China in 2002-03 contributed to a partial revival of total numbers. The main reason for the overall decline in UK students in the scheme has been the downward trend in the number of UK undergraduates taking modern language degrees and hence seeking work experience overseas. The European Community’s Leonardo scheme aims to use transnational cooperation and skill mobility to enhance vocational training. UK undergraduates engage in managed work placements of three months or more in Europe. As with many other schemes there is a major imbalance in flows, with UK receiving as many trainees from other countries as all other receiving countries taken together. This review of scheme-led mobility, brief and partial, has highlighted some common features: •
there are several mobility channels open to UK students in addition to Socrates-Erasmus
•
some of these schemes show similar trends to Erasmus, being affected by the downturn in the number of UK students studying languages in the UK and often having an imbalance of inward over outward flows
•
some work placement and vocational training schemes have recorded no decline in demand from students; their potential for contributing to the UK economy merits wider consideration.
•
many schemes exist that are specific to certain parts of the country or to individual HEIs and for which no national statistics exist. This makes it difficult to quantify total student mobility outside the Socrates-Erasmus channel. 17
2.4
Student mobility outside the Socrates-Erasmus programme
To collect cross-sectional data about outgoing student mobility under schemes and initiatives that lie outside Erasmus, IAESTE and Language Assistants, a questionnaire was sent to all UK HEIs asking about trends since 1995-96 (see Annex B2). The results showed rising mobility in terms of crude numbers of outgoing students; the rate of increase was considerably faster than that of total numbers of students enrolled in HEIs over the same period. We ran checks to ensure that there was no bias in the survey – for instance that institutions with higher mobility rates were more likely to reply (see the discussion in Annex B2). Table 5 records outgoing mobility for the 80 respondent HEIs by main destination area for 2000-01 to 2002-03. The trends are quite varied. In absolute terms the United States is by far the most important destination for UK non-Erasmus mobility, accounting for 41 per cent of the total students moving in 2002-03. With Canada included, North America receives just over half of UK students. Australia and New Zealand account for another 8 per cent. Taken together, these four countries comprise 60 per cent of that part of total UK student mobility measured by Table 5. Table 5: Non-Erasmus outward mobility from 80 UK HEIs by main destination, 2000-01 to 200203 Main countries of destination ( > 50 in 2002-03) Top ten countries US Canada Australia New Zealand Japan Singapore Hong Kong France Germany Spain Regions North America Australia, New Zealand Asia EU Other European Latin America & Caribbean Other and unspecified Total students Source: Authors’ survey
2000-01
2001-02 2002-03
% change 2000-01 to 2002-03
% of total mobility 2002-03
1,283 292 139 57 68 60 50 169 77 42
1,509 408 223 66 81 64 56 229 137 77
1,554 406 235 75 114 77 54 275 102 82
21.1 39.0 69.1 31.6 67.6 28.3 8.0 62.7 32.5 95.2
41.1 10.7 6.2 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.4 7.3 2.7 2.2
1,575 198 226 471 80 88 158 2,796
1,917 291 324 655 80 131 218 3,614
1,960 314 391 689 88 125 217 3,784
24.4 58.6 73.0 46.3 10.0 42.0 37.3 35.3
51.8 8.3 10.3 18.2 2.3 3.3 5.7 100.0
These four countries have one thing in common; they are Anglophone. Indeed, if we make an assumption about some of the mobility in the ‘Other and unspecified’ category (which includes South Africa and the University of the West Indies), the total mobility to English-speaking countries rises 18
above 65 per cent – maybe as high as 70 per cent if we assume Hong Kong and Singapore are at least partly Anglophone. While North America has enjoyed an upward trend as a destination, its share of the total has dropped from 56.3 to 51.8 per cent. This might be accounted for by the growing popularity of Australasia and Asia as destinations. It is also interesting that the EU commands 18 per cent of the market and this is outside the Socrates-Erasmus and Language Assistant movements. Another notable feature from the HEI questionnaire survey is how institutional schemes offering work placements abroad emerge as significant. A third of all student mobility involved work placements of some kind. To compare Table 5 with Erasmus mobility, Table 6 sets out the Erasmus outflows for the same 80 UK HEIs and the same period. Just the principal destinations are given. Comparing the totals for the three years, the Erasmus trend is opposite to the non-Erasmus trend: the latter more than compensates for the decline in the former; for the 80 respondent HEIs: Erasmus mobility declined by 647 and nonErasmus mobility grew by 988. Table 6: Erasmus outward mobility from 80 UK HEIs by main destination, 2000-01 to 2002-03 % of total mobility 2002-03
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
% change 2000-01 to 2002-03
Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Italy Netherlands Portugal Spain Sweden Other countries
87 78 72 143 1,395 706 379 253 52 865 174 179
68 96 81 130 1,287 619 363 251 54 816 154 184
14 54 70 143 1,184 556 306 207 41 822 150 189
-83.9 -30.8 -2.8 0 -15.1 -21.2 -19.3 -18.2 -21.2 -5.0 -13.8 5.6
0.4 1.4 1.9 3.8 32.0 15.0 8.2 5.5 1.1 22.0 4.0 5.1
Total students
4,383
4103
3,736
-14.7
100.0
Source: UK Socrates-Erasmus Council
The survey also showed mobility differences by institutional type (see Table 7). Again, non-Erasmus and Erasmus flows can be compared. The Erasmus trends, although downwards overall, are virtually identical to the non-Erasmus as regards their distribution by HEI type. The pre-1992 universities account for the major share of outward mobility. Moreover, their share has progressively increased – from half of the total in l995-96 to two-thirds in 2002-03. The post-1992 universities’ share has steadily decreased, falling from nearly 40 per cent in 1995-96 to one quarter in 2002-03. The remainder of the HE sector accounts for a smaller fraction – less than one tenth. Table 7: Non-Erasmus and Erasmus outward mobility by type of HEI, 2000-01 to 2002-03 Type of HEI
2000-01 No. students
2001-02 %
No. students
2002-03 %
No. students
%
19
Non-Erasmus Pre-1992 universities (n=31) Post-1992 universities (n=21) Other HEIs* (n=28) Total Erasmus Pre-1992 universities (n=31) Post-1992 universities (n=21) Other HEIs* (n=28) Total Total
1,739 838 219
62.2 30.0 7.7
2,361 934 321
65.3 25.8 8.9
2,474 962 348
65.4 25.4 9.2
2,796
100.0
2,734 1,291 358
62.4 29.4 8.2
4,383
100.0
4,103 100.0
3,738 100.0
7,179
100.0
7,719 100.0
7,522 100.0
3,616 100.0
3784 100.0
2,702 1,114 287
2,550 972 216
65.9 27.1 7.0
68.2 26.0 5.8
* Other HEIs = non-university HEIs Source: Authors’ survey
Allowing for size of institution, the post-1992 universities are at the bottom of the mobility table (5.4 mobile students per 1,000 in 2002-03). This is because, for our responding institutions, the average size of the student body in the post-1992 group (about 18,000 students) was much larger than the average for the non-university group (about 4,000 students), and slightly larger than the pre-1992 group (about 14,500 students). The mobility rate in pre-1992 institutions was 11.4 per 1,000. The survey also revealed that pre-1992 universities were better at retaining their European links (both through Erasmus and non-Erasmus schemes). This may be because they had stronger commitments to language-based mobility schemes, but it may also reflect differences in institutional policies.
20
3.
The institutional perspective
This chapter draws on two survey methods: •
questionnaire returns from 80 HEIs – see Annex B2 for an outline of this survey and for the questionnaire
•
interviews with 46 academic staff and mobility managers in 10 HEIs – see Annex B1 for the selection of these sample HEIs, Annex B7 for the interview questions and Annex B8 for the list of interviewees and their codes.
In contrast to the previous chapter, this one relies mainly on qualitative analysis. Two categories of primary evidence are presented: •
quotes from the written responses to the HEI questionnaire – these are set in italics
•
extracts from face-to-face interviews with staff – these are set in normal type, followed by a code which denotes the interviewee and their institution (A–K).
Supplementary results tables from the HEI questionnaire are at Annex E.
3.1
Managing mobility
Two sets of forces frame the challenge of managing mobility: a. The background institutional context, in particular the ways in which student mobility is prioritised within competing demands for resources and staff time. b. Changing student characteristics and attitudes, including students’ worsening financial situation, and the agendas for widening participation in HE. Evidence of this changing student ‘supply curve’ for mobility is presented at various points in this report. Also two, at first sight paradoxical, statements run through the staff interviews and respondents’ comments on the returned questionnaires: •
it is affirmed that (virtually) all students benefit greatly from the mobility experience: they become more mature, have higher employability, and get higher classes of degree
•
it is lamented that many students seem unable to go abroad, for a whole host of reasons.
Are these last two messages really contradictory? We hypothesise that the apparent contradiction is related to a process of social polarisation, or at least increasing diversity, in the student population. In other words wealthy students can go, and benefit; but the majority find it more difficult to be mobile nowadays than in the past. Evidence to support this diagnosis is presented below and in Chapter 4.
3.1.1 Administering mobility The questionnaire survey showed that more than half of the HEIs have a staff member with specific responsibility for outward student mobility; this proportion varies little across institutional types. In many cases – and especially in pre-1992 universities – there are separate persons dealing with European and with North American mobility. But in only a third of cases did the HEI claim to have a strategic plan for student mobility. Data from the institutional questionnaire also reveal contrasts in the types of mobility between different categories of HEI (see Table 8). Note that this table measures total mobility initiatives (n=364): each HEI had on average five such initiatives (this excludes Erasmus, IAESTE and language assistants). Mobility from pre-1992 universities was much more likely to be mandatory, to involve academic study 21
rather than work placements, and to incorporate language learning. By contrast, mobility in the other HEI categories was more likely to be optional, to involve non-academic work, and to exclude foreign language learning. This reflects the somewhat different missions of different types of HEI, including the concentration of the ‘academic’ study of languages in the older universities, and the more vocationallyoriented character of the newer universities and other HEIs. Table 8: Typologies of outward student mobility initiatives (average = five initiatives per HEI) Type of HEI
Is mobility mandatory or optional?
Mandatory
Optional
√
%
√
Pre-1992 universities (n=200)
103
51.5
Post-1992 universities (n=91)
7
Other HEIs (n=73)
1
Total (n=364) Source: Authors’ survey
111
Study √
%
√
%
√
%
97
48.5 144
72.0
56
28.0
64
32.0
7.7
84
92.3
54
59.3
37
40.7
10
11.0
1.4
72
98.6
59
80.8
14
19.2
6
8.2
70.6 107
29.4
80
22.0
30.5 253
%
Foreign language learning is an intrinsic part of Work or mixture the mobility of work and arrangement study
Does mobility involve academic study at a foreign HEI or work experience?
69.5 257
3.1.2 Strategies and tensions Surprisingly, only 34 per cent of HEIs in the survey had a strategic plan for student mobility. This needs further explanation. First, several respondents mentioned such a plan was in train. Second, in at least one third of all the cases where there was no specific student mobility plan; it was stated that student mobility statements existed within broader strategy documents – for instance in a European policy or international mission statement. Below is a typical example, from a post-1992 university in the London area: ‘The University believes that the curriculum and student learning experience can only be enhanced through an exposure to international examples, to a second language and through participation in international exchanges. The University values and seeks to build further a multicultural environment for international, European and domestic students and staff, and our exchange programmes assist this … All students and staff from all departments within the university should be given the opportunity to experience an exchange abroad. To enable us do this, each department should establish and maintain international exchange partnerships with institutions with an ethos and place within their own domestic context which is similar to our own.’
Where HEIs do have explicit strategies for ISM, they still conform to the kind of statement above. Remarkable is the lack of specific numerical targets for mobility: only 5 out of 27 cases. Here are two of these: ‘The targets for student mobility were set in 2001-02 and will remain in place with the long-term goal of sending 10 per cent of all full-time undergraduate students (approximately 260 per year) overseas on an exchange programme. The figure currently stands at 5 per cent (not including short study visits).’
22
‘Increase number of outgoing students (outside EU) by 70 per cent by 2007-08.’
Tensions can arise in HEIs over the issue of managing student mobility. Three administrative arenas can be recognised: •
the International or Study Abroad Office, whose staff may work full-time with mobile students and who have the deepest professional engagement with mobility
•
academics in departments, especially those in positions of responsibility for mobility such as heads, Erasmus coordinators and work-placement tutors
•
senior managers and administrators responsible for strategy and policy which might make reference to student mobility.
The first of these attracts much praise and appreciation, and very little criticism, according to our interviews. Academics are sometimes criticised for their lack of commitment and weak knowledge of the ‘rules’ of the mobility schemes. Senior management are often criticised for the lack of priority given to mobility ‘from the top’, and for not backing up fine-sounding policy rhetoric with concrete action and resources. A common remark was that the institution did not have a clear strategy for international student mobility beyond the drive to recruit high-fee overseas students. Some senior managers interviewed were quite candid in admitting this was the case: ‘Here’s our Strategic Plan for 2003-2006 and I think it’s quite useful because it shows you, essentially, that we have no strategy in this area (mobility). You’ll see there’s a section on overseas student recruitment – by overseas we mean non-EU – I think what we’re saying is, if we’re going to be investing effort, administrative effort in (say) North America, it should be in recruiting full fee-paying students …’ (H1)
Another senior administrator pointed to a void in the responsibility structure for student mobility in his institution: ‘I think there is a bit of a void in the university in terms of, not strategy because we have our strategies, but I don’t think on the Management Group there is a great interest in … exchanges as such. There are other things that seem to be taking priority … at the moment the message from the top is international recruitment and income generation. And for Europe we’re just sort of bobbling along and I suppose that’s why we’re static in numbers of (exchange) students.’ (J3)
3.1.3 Departmental perspectives: priorities and imbalances Most student mobility initiatives have developed ad hoc at departmental level; as a result they have not been embedded in institutional policies on internationalisation. Nor is there much evidence of integration of student mobility within international research collaborations. At the departmental level, student mobility is rarely a prime concern. The exceptions are language and a few other departments where study or work abroad is intrinsic to the degree programme. Further limitations arise through lack of flexibility, or the imbalance in exchange student numbers. These issues are exemplified in the following quotes. First, a Head of Geography: ‘I have to say that, speaking as a Head of School, I really have not seen a need to get more students to go abroad. I’ve not seen it as one of the main driving factors of what I need to do as a Head of School. I think there are other more important pedagogic processes which are much
23
more important for the 95-97 per cent who are staying behind … and I’ve got to get that right. So it might just be that it’s one of those things that if I had more time, which I don’t, but if I had less demands … I could identify this as being a key thing …’ (K1)
Where a university operates on a strict departmental basis, including responsibility for balancing student exchanges, complications can result, especially with language departments: ‘The way the (Institution) operates, they simply want to see symmetrical exchanges between departments … If we have an exchange with a French department, they don’t want to send their French students here to study French, which is apparently what the (Institution) insists upon! … People coming here want to do something outside the French department … (but) that can be difficult to accommodate. We have to look around for what they can do, and get into deals with other departments … Unfortunately the courses for which there is the greatest demand from foreign exchange students are those which are already bursting at the seams with our own students.’ (A1)
Imbalance between in flows and out flows has obvious financial and administrative implications. All departmental staff interviewed referred to this important issue. For some departments the problem is structural and therefore virtually unavoidable: ‘It has always been the case that there has been more students wanting to come … than we have students going to Germany, for the very simple reason … that many more students study English in most European countries, certainly in Germany … than there are students here studying German. So it has always been the case of an imbalance … and we don’t really see any way of equalising it, given the circumstances.’ (J2)
On the other hand, some science departments see the pay-offs to mobility as longer-term – for instance the recruitment of future postgraduate students. The following quote sets out a broader and less negative interpretation of the ‘imbalance’ problem. ‘Science faculties like the (exchange) students … they would want more of them and they are prepared to accept that there is some financial loss in not sending students out, but taking them in … The Scientists are prepared to subsidise the imbalance because the students that they get in are good quality and some will stay on and graduate, or will come back for postgraduate studies … It’s difficult to recruit good science students … so they see it as sort of enhancing the quality of their student body …’ (J3)
However, the problem of imbalance cuts both ways. With North American exchange schemes, the constraint is often the low numbers of incoming students. A pattern evident across many of the casestudy HEIs sees a shift from European exchanges, which have been constrained by low outgoing numbers, to newer North American and Australian exchanges where the cap is from low incoming numbers. Typical is the experience of university D: ‘In 1993 our peak activities were in Europe; we had two or three American partners at that time. We were sending nearly 200 students to French- and German-speaking partners. This has now reversed. Now we are sending about 150 students for a semester or year abroad to North America, Australia and English-speaking Europe, and we are sending maybe 50 linguists for the compulsory year. We now have 30 North American partners, 3 Australian and about 10 in English-speaking Europe, where the teaching is in English …’ (D3)
24
Exchange administrators note that UK students are especially attracted to exchange campuses in California, Florida, New Orleans and Australia. The climatic factor is all too evident. For exchangees moving the other way, a semester in an industrial city in Northern England or in Northern Ireland may be less appealing because of how these regions are sometimes perceived. Australian and Canadian students, in particular, are also put off by high costs. Moreover, many informants stressed that, whereas most UK students want to go to these long-distance Anglophone destinations for a year, most North Americans and Australians prefer to come to the UK for a semester.
3.1.4 Rationalising exchanges, reorienting mobility Especially for European exchanges, declining numbers of mobile students, imbalances, and the historical proliferation of networks and partners are factors leading towards rationalisation of partnership agreements. Most of the 10 HEIs visited were engaged in this process. An example: ‘When the Socrates task force was set up in this university, we did rationalise a lot of exchanges and told departments to re-thrash their existing arrangements to make sure that they kept those that would work and … end any relationship that was not realistic.’ (E5)
Many of the changes described above could be linked to the decreasing numbers of students coming through specialised language degrees and to the declining linguistic competence of non-language students. Hence the switch to North America and Australia as destinations. Some institutions have tried to respond to the student body’s fall-off in ‘linguistic capital’ by preserving as many European destinations as possible but restricting placements to partner institutions or work environments where programmes are undertaken in English. A good example of this pragmatic ‘damage limitation’ approach to sustaining European mobility is offered by institution B, a large, post-1992 university in London with a declining mobility profile. ‘I would say we have recognised that we are no longer dealing with a student body which is fluent in European languages, except, of course, the local UK students of Greek and Italian origin. We are not talking about students who have A levels in a European language, so the student body is not one that is well-equipped (for mobility). We have insisted that our partners make it clear to us what programmes can be delivered in English and we advertise that to our students … In some countries they will need some language skills just to cope with everyday life. We encourage students to go to countries where language is somewhat less of a problem – for instance Spain … We have sympathetic staff there and flexibility in the programme, enabling students to do something like a project module or dissertation delivered by the staff there in English and assessed in English, sometimes jointly by them and us … In terms of identifying partners … and finding a way round for the students who don’t have linguistic competence, we can put together a programme which satisfies the needs of most of the students. Getting the message across is another thing!’ (B1)
A broader-based pattern of expanding mobility links was evidenced in this detailed report from a pre1992 university in the Midlands: ‘While the number of outgoing Erasmus students overall may have decreased slightly over recent years… the last four years has seen the development of a number of new mobility programmes giving students the opportunity to study outside of Europe, e.g. Australasia and North America. More degree programmes incorporating a period of study abroad have also recently been designed. Many schools have added a fourth year to their degree programme with the third year spent abroad, eg. Law with South East Asian Law (year in National University
25
of Singapore) or Chemistry with a year in Australia. Steps have also been taken to encourage more post-graduate students to study abroad.’
This university’s expansion of new schemes is in contrast to a neighbouring, also pre-1992, university, whose administrator responsible for Socrates coordination expresses a more cynical view: ‘Participation in student mobility exchange schemes is largely for new student recruitment purposes: departments must be seen by new students to “have a student exchange scheme” with a good menu of potential links in place. Departmental strategy is “cover the bases” and limit overseas student intake (on exchanges).’
3.1.5 Work placements and field trips Alongside a geographical reorientation of outward mobility, we found a growing preference for work placements rather than study abroad. One senior respondent of a post-1992 university wrote: ‘It is generally accepted that overseas placements, particularly work placements, offer an excellent experience for our students and help them to focus on their future career plans. There appears to be a strong correlation between placement experiences and final Honours award classification. The main negative aspect of work placements abroad is the cost to the University of monitoring progress.’
Whereas most HEIs engage in study-abroad exchange schemes which are centrally supported (although often departmentally administered) within the institution, work placements are generally less well-documented. International and exchange officers we interviewed generally knew little about such placements. They said they were not part of their remit and referred us to other staff, usually at departmental level, for the relevant details. Given that work-placement schemes were rare within our three ‘target’ departments (languages, maths and geography), our information about foreign work placements in the ten HEIs we visited is rather patchy. We can, however, make three robust generalisations: a. Where students have the option of choosing work placements over study abroad, they tend to prefer the former because they are paid. b. Many programmes with placements or sandwich arrangements do not offer specific foreign placements, so that work abroad may only be a tiny element in the overall scheme. c. Work placements are more costly to administer than study-abroad schemes because they are often set up and monitored on an individual basis. Interviews with academics in language departments revealed that paid language assistantships were making Socrates-Erasmus a ‘second-choice’ for many language students. Well-funded academic or work placements can also have the same dampening effect on Erasmus mobility. Annex F looks at some successful non-Erasmus and work placement mobility initiatives in Northern Ireland. Four interviewees, representing different HEIs, mentioned Leonardo-supported initiatives for work experience in science and technology. However, the scale was relatively small, although the potential for further utilisation was recognised. Concerns were expressed about the administrative commitment, with not enough financial support going to the students. The issue of short-term mobility – study tours, field trips, foreign museum and gallery visits and so on – also deserves comment. We would not want to view these academic travel experiences too lightly. 26
However, it is difficult to think of them as constituting more than a brief exposure to another culture. For many such trips, their intrinsic interest and purpose lie in the material being studied – an ecological site, a library, archaeological remains – rather than in the wider culture of the area or country visited. The main exception to this rather dismissive judgement are geography field-trips, where the explicit aim is to study the landscape, settlement patterns, economic activities and culture of the target area. It was for this reason that we did some interviews with geography staff at the HEIs visited. The following is a typical account of field-trip arrangements, including an example of how such trips can hook up with exchange partners. ‘As geography students they have the opportunity to go on an overseas field course … I think this is particularly important for geographers because we are trying to teach them about different parts of the world, their cultures and economic systems … The venues vary, according to which options they are taking … but they have to go on an overseas field course for at least one week. The physical geographers go to Almería in Spain and the human geographers go to Malta … the university pays approximately half the cost and the students pay the rest … There is a lot of work involved by academic members of staff; it is not a small task to take 40 or 50 students overseas and it is hard work logistically, as well as academically … Sometimes we have used geography field courses integrated with the Erasmus or Socrates programmes. A few years ago I took one to the north of Sweden with geographers from some partner universities …’ (D2)
Without knowing the local language, however, foreign field trips have limited impact in terms of interaction with the local people and culture (Watson 2004).
3.1.6 Other issues There are several other mobility management issues which we have collected information on and which can only be listed in passing here. Such issues include: problems of converting grades from different academic systems; questions about the quality of academic work in different countries; administering exchanges involving joint honours or modular degrees where simple inter-departmental exchange agreements do not suffice; the specific challenges of going abroad for mature students and disabled students; drop-out rates and ‘escape-routes’ from programmes involving mobility; and the way mobility is often used as a marketing tool to recruit students. Some of these issues are worthy of further systematic investigation.
3.2
Drivers and barriers – staff views
This section examines the ‘drivers’ and ‘barriers’ to student mobility through the eyes (and accumulated experience) of HEI staff. This is cross-referenced with students’ views in Chapter 4.
3.2.1 Benefits of mobility Respondents and informants saw mobility as unerringly positive and beneficial for students: ‘There are substantial long-term benefits for participants (in the Study Abroad Programme). These include a higher level of independence and development, and students who take part in study abroad achieve a higher percentage of first class and upper second class degrees’ (pre1992 university, North of England) ‘When they come back, they have developed, it’s obvious – they’ve gained in confidence, they’ve matured, they really are different people. They say they have made friends that they are
27
going to keep for life. They have looked at themselves differently, and they may even change their direction … they may suddenly discover, actually that’s not what I want to do with my life, I’m going to do something completely different … But I also seriously think it helps employment prospects. I’m sure that employers are faced with hundreds of applications these days and anything that makes you stand out as somebody who has initiative and drive and confidence and adaptability – it’s got to be of benefit.’ (J4)
The key benefits identified or claimed have to do with personal development and maturity, cultural enrichment, language acquisition, better academic performance, and career enhancement. Similar endorsements, but talked up in a more student-friendly publicity genre, are found on HEI web-sites (see Annex G). Several of the above quotes and those in Annex G refer to the relationship between mobility and employment. We did not carry out systematic research on employers’ and recruitment officers’ attitudes to the benefits (or otherwise) of a period spent abroad by graduate job applicants. The evidence is therefore second-hand and anecdotal, coming either from the perceptions of students (described in Chapter 4) or from HEI personnel who have observed trends over a number of years and who may have links with employers. Regarding academic performance, Table D15 in Annex D shows that Erasmus students are somewhat more likely to get a first or upper second (73 per cent) than non-Erasmus students (61 per cent). This may be due to positive selection, however; see below and paragraph 29 of Annex D. Three further benefits were mentioned in the interviews. The first was the wider-scale inter-cultural impact of international student mobility – not just for the student but for society as a whole. ‘Widening the range of countries students go to is the way we can break down inaccurate stereotypes. If you look at long-term international relations, the encouragement (to study or work abroad) is a sure way to make us understand other cultures and perhaps prevent conflicts … Short terms of travel like holidays can sometimes reinforce the stereotype … More long-term study and stays abroad enable you to understand what other societies are about.’ (D4)
Second, much mobility was reciprocal, based on student exchanges. This means that the teaching and learning environment of departments with mobility schemes is enriched not only by those students who return from their stay abroad but, even more, by incoming exchange students: ‘For the European Studies programme, it is definitely positive … There are wonderful discussions going on in Europe-related subjects … discussing the European Union together, giving a new perspective on Europe … When they are all together in class, it is fabulous.’ (A1)
The final issue relates to the potential spin-offs of mobility, especially bilateral exchanges and multilateral networks, into research and other aspects of universities’ international work. This next interview extract stresses the international recruitment aspect: ‘Where the Year Abroad is concerned, it helps our profile in the USA, Canada and Australia. We don’t have many fee-paying students and it helps us with our promotion in those areas. If a student comes on a short-term placement, they might come back and do graduate courses and PhDs … Erasmus is the same … It’s very good for recruitment as Erasmus students often come back to do a Masters and turn into EU fee-paying students.’ (E4)
28
Synergies between student exchange schemes and staff research collaboration depend on individual links and personal circumstances. The view that student exchange bolsters or results from international research collaboration seems to be one held by administrators and is less often borne out at departmental level, as this head said: ‘Research links don’t map directly onto Erasmus exchanges … The schemes have grown up through long-standing personal links … The way Erasmus tends to work is not conducive to maintaining research links … It doesn’t work like that … You either maintain the research link without Erasmus, or the other way round.’ (G1)
3.2.2 Profiling the mobile student Four generalisations recur about mobile students in the interview narratives. They are: •
more ambitious, outward-looking and self-confident
•
positively selected academically
•
from middle-class backgrounds
•
disproportionately ‘non-local’ or ‘foreign’
These points will be exemplified in interview extracts below. In order to bring out the institutional and regional perspectives, we concentrate on three HEIs. These are a large post-1992 university in London with an ethnically diverse student body (B); a pre-1992 campus university in the Midlands (D); and one of Scotland’s main city-located universities (J). (Students at the Scottish institution are traditionally nonmobile.) First, some comments from university D: ‘I would say we have a mixed group of students … Because we recruit locally, nationally and internationally, we have the most diverse student population on our campus … I don’t really know if the ones who choose to do a year abroad are typical of the university’s social composition, I don’t think we have that sort of data on them … I would assume they would be more middle-class because they can make the money available … Grade-wise, we set a minimum 50 per cent average which 1st years must pass to go – 40 per cent is the pass mark here, so just passing is not enough … Individual departments may set higher criteria – Business Studies, 55 per cent, or you don’t go … Economics, 60 per cent or they will not let them go … We send a whole range of students out, but not the very weak ones and probably not the very brightest ones as they will see it as a risk.’ (D3)
Another colleague spoke of more personal factors, the changing recruitment base of the university, and the reluctance of the ‘local’ students to go abroad: ‘It does take a certain personality type with a bit of “get up and go” to go abroad for six months or a year. For example in France, they don’t look after students and give pastoral care … you have to have a certain amount of resilience. I think the English universities are sometimes “over-caring” in making students feel at home … There is also the financial dimension. Students from a more wealthy home find it easier, as their parents may foot the bill for what they consider is a good idea … According to the statistics, we are recruiting more local students now, and less from other parts of England … I don’t think this area is very conducive to the idea of migration! The people here are quite “local” and there is no evidence of any migration, perhaps because of the specialised industries here. That is my impression as regards the students’ outlook. These are people who are “first-generation” university students. They feel they have already made a
29
big step by coming to university! If you are a student from the South East or South West then you are more used to the idea of mobility. A lot of people from other parts of the country have travelled quite a lot already so they have a different attitude to mobility.’ (D1)
This last point was made with even more force by the staff interviewed in the other two universities. In university B, ‘one trend that we have noticed is that those most willing to travel are non-UK based students, so we import students from Finland, Greece, wherever, and they will travel. To get a student from north London to travel is really impressive!’ (B1)
His colleague provided more details in her interview: ‘We have a higher proportion of foreign students going abroad from here … we have students from all over Europe who want to go and they have better language skills … A lot of our students live at home and … are … from fairly deprived backgrounds. They live at home for financial reasons and the Asian students live at home with protective parents … they need reassurance … The students with the non-standard entries are the hardest to shift, and they need it most. It would give them confidence and allow them to stand out from the mass of other graduates.’ (B4)
But ethnic-minority UK-based students are not always reluctant to move, as shown by the predilection of Afro-Caribbean students to go to the United States: ‘… we find … the Afro-Caribbean students are quite keen on exchanges. They have a preference for going to the United States, for obvious reasons I think. We have a specific exchange programme. While not exclusively limited to black students, we have partners in the southern states in black universities … With the Asian group, slightly less – not a great interest here. It also depends on the subject a lot. If you went to the Social Sciences and Arts/Humanities areas, the Black/Caribbean numbers are higher than those of the Asian populations. Here in Computing Sciences, there are quite a few British Asians. But Computing Science students, for one reason or another, tend not to take up exchanges.’ (B1)
The interviewees in university J concurred that Scottish students, particularly those who live locally and at home, had a low propensity to undertake study abroad, at least during their degree programme. Here are two interview clips from ‘mobility managers’: ‘… we’re dealing here with sort of quite conservative students. We get a high percentage from the West of Scotland, a lot live at home … they feel they are not ready … What they do is they graduate and then they go and they travel for a year … A lot of the students who go on exchanges are actually the ones who’ve come up from England, you know …’ (J3) ‘Compared to even the other Scottish universities, (J) has always had a local catchment – a high proportion of local people … For a while it was really obvious that the students we were sending abroad were all English. And when you think about it, they’ve already had the confidence to leave home, you know, make that step and not be near their mother, and whatever, and obviously, they’ve got the financial backing to do it. It costs a lot, in Europe possibly less so, but everywhere else it costs a lot. I mean… Scottish students don’t have thousands of dollars sitting in their bank account.’ (J4)
30
3.2.3 Deterring factors By drawing up a composite identikit of mobile students in the previous section, we have already given clues about the barriers to student mobility as seen by HEI staff. Four key deterrents stand out. In order of importance they are: •
financial problems
•
language barriers
•
institutional constraints
•
student attitudes.
The issue of finance has many ramifications. It refers not only to shortage of money and indebtedness, but links also to the class background of students, student lifestyles (in particular, part-time employment), and issues for the future such as university fee regimes. Although not all the interviewees felt able to rank the various deterrents, where they did approximately twice as many nominated finance as the key factor as those who thought language to be the main obstacle to outward mobility. And on the open-ended comments on the HEI questionnaire, 30 respondents out of 80 mentioned financial issues and 14 highlighted language barriers. The first quote covers a number of issues that echoed, in various degrees, through many of the staff interviews: ‘I think students are increasingly de-motivated by financial concerns. Students are increasingly motivated by the desire to get a degree, get a job and move on. And they do perceive a year abroad as an extra, even though the whole point of the Erasmus exchange is that it is built into their degree … They worry about leaving behind a part-time job, or a virtually full-time job in some cases, that’s the reality of it … It could be difficult for them to get employment abroad, and then come back and have to find work again. And I think it’s parental pressure as well … when parents are already paying out increasingly to support their offspring at universities, it’s not necessarily something they want to encourage their offspring to do.’ (H1)
The linked issues of financial pressures and part-time employment surfaced repeatedly: ‘For a lot of the students cost is a major factor: not so much the cost of the visit … or actual cash-in-hand – it is the jobs. They have a part-time job, but can’t afford the risk of losing it when they come back. I think class enters it in that way. At this university we don’t have a large number of middle-class students, which means our students are less familiar with travelling … The hard economic facts are crucial … they are coming back half-way through their second year and are probably sacrificing a cheap flat and a job for the rest of their stay.’ (B1)
Second, language is key to mobility, especially within Europe. The problem of UK students’ generally poor, and declining, knowledge of foreign languages is a recurring theme in the discussion about UK student mobility. Although our evidence suggests that language takes second place to financial barriers, in other respects the comparison is not straightforward since the language issue impinges in different ways and at different points in decisions about mobility. There is the backdrop issue of declining interest in language learning in schools, shown by falling rolls at GCSE and A-level in most languages, and by the downgrading of languages in the secondary national curriculum. This feeds through to applications for language degrees in HE and possible shifting balances between languages as a ‘major’ or ‘minor’ part of degree programmes. The language issue seems to contribute to the shift of interest from European destinations to Anglophone environments in other parts of the world. 31
Some of the most detailed evidence on these themes comes from academics working in language departments. Here a departmental head of a pre-1992 university presents his analysis of recent trends. ‘There has been a wind-down of languages … and therefore those having the linguistic skills to be able to go abroad. There has been a fall in those taking the Erasmus migration route … Languages are now recognised as being difficult, and that has a knock-on effect (on mobility) … though Spanish has gone against the trend. Russian has become very small, it’s quite worrying. Italian has been holding its own … we have a community in (name of city) supporting the language because of family connections. French and German are perceived as difficult languages to learn. They (the students) believe Spanish is easier – at the early stages it probably is, the difficulties come later. Many of our students believe that Spanish is “sexy” – flamenco dancing, tapas bars etc… Also many go on holiday there and are influenced by what they find, they want to get in on the lifestyle. South America also comes into the picture – students see it as an area where they can go to “help out” with their idealistic motivations … All of this comes into the context of today’s students’ way of thinking, and that is where French and German have suffered. Once, in the business world, it was felt you had to have these two languages. There has been a great change in perceptions.’ (J1)
The post-1992 universities have been affected by the decline in language programmes, a fact that helps to explain their poorer performance on mobility trends compared to other HEIs. The linguistic skills many of their students have, which reflect their family ethnic origin, do not match the languages taught at the institution or the destinations on offer. This somewhat rueful quote from a student exchange coordinator at a post-1992 university in London expresses both despair at the fall-off of language and exchange activity, and envy for what appears to be the situation in certain other universities. ‘Yes, we have a huge problem. We cut our language staff … If we were rich and attracted middle-class students who had been abroad a lot, that would be different. At a European Officers’ meeting, someone from (name of university) said they had no problem sending students, because their parents had houses in Tuscany and they went abroad all the time. A lot of our students … have non-standard entry backgrounds … we have more of those than other universities … A lot of our students speak Asian or immigrant languages … Punjabi or Urdu, we are now getting students who speak Arabic, and in these countries we have no links … The difficulty is we have more links than students going abroad, so it’s difficult to spend time creating new links.’ (B4)
The third deterring factor is institutional and academic barriers. According to a Dean of an Arts Faculty, an important reason for non-mobility is ‘generally, a disruption to their studies, moving from one system to another. Even those who come back experience some sort of disruption. There is also the difficulty of finding a compatible programme. We are fairly flexible on what counts – in History, for example, on what period you take or what country – but in Psychology, which is a more linear subject, there have been restrictions … and you have to do certain things which require certain techniques, and there is a problem in finding suitable partners.’ (D1)
One mobility officer pointed to the problem of academic staff discouraging good students from going abroad for fear of jeopardising their degrees:
32
‘There are staff out there … who will discourage good students from going away because they will lose them from the classroom and because – I mean, it’s a myth – but they feel that the student may risk their chances of getting a First or a 2.1 if they’re borderline …’ (J3)
Further problems relating to the regulated nature of the UK academic system were raised by several respondents. Specific reference was made to the shorter and more rigid nature of UK degrees, and to the uneasy relationship between quality assurance and foreign study or work experience. It remains to be seen how the creation of a European Higher Education Area (as a result of the Bologna Process) will affect the structure of UK degree programmes, and how mobility patterns will change. Fourth on the list of deterrents is student attitudes. This is a nebulous area which covers a variety of explicit or nuanced feelings to do with lack of confidence, attachedness to home, fear about the unknown, worries over the academic impact of studying abroad and so on, and is considered in Chapter 4. Academics and mobility managers have also observed this syndrome among their students. Part of this concern has to do with what one interviewee called ‘academic scarediness’: what students fear they will lose out on. These include the risk of low grades from the ‘unknown, foreign’ university, missing important courses at their home university, and, if they are away for a year on an ‘optional extra’ mobility scheme, coming back to a cohort of students whom they don’t know. Meanwhile their original peers will have already graduated. ‘Academic scarediness – “what will I gain, will this harm my degree result? I need a 2.1 – if I go abroad I may harm this” … British students have the concept of a package holiday – everything has to be done and rolled up. That’s not how the Swedish, German or French student thinks …’ (D3) ‘I certainly get people who say, I don’t want to graduate a year later than all my friends. I’ll come back and be here, you know, and I wouldn’t know anybody. So that peer group thing is certainly there … Often they’re anxious, they want to get on and get a job and pay off their debts … Others will express a concern … that they will be missing out on courses here that their contemporaries are doing, they are worried that they would not be able to catch up.’ (K2)
A final dimension of students’ negative attitudes towards mobility has to do with the strength of their local and regional connections within the UK. This lack of cosmopolitanism appears to be most deeply entrenched among Scottish and Northern Ireland students.
3.2.4 Concluding points The topic that many returned to in their final remarks was the language dimension. The general feeling was one of exasperation, but also resignation, about the foreign languages scenario in the UK. The possibility of starting languages in primary school was welcomed, but this ‘step in the right direction’ was counterbalanced by the ‘two steps back’ of downgrading foreign languages in the national curriculum, where it is no longer compulsory at GCSE. This, according to one interviewee, ‘sends out the signal that languages are not important’. While some interviewees interpreted these language trends as closely linked to their own institutions’ future prospects for student mobility, others linked them to prevailing UK discourses of Euroscepticism. Annex H contains a sequence of quotes on this issue.
33
4.
The student perspective
To capture the student perspective, we report here the findings of a questionnaire survey of 1,200 students as well as interviews with students selected from 10 HEIs spread across the UK. Chapter 1 and Annex B provide details of the survey tools and methodology. Table 9 profiles the student respondents, and Annex I contains further background data. In the subsections which follow, we first compare the characteristics of mobile and non-mobile students. We then contrast the perceived benefits and problems of mobility. The results build towards a better understanding of students' views of the drivers and barriers to mobility. The questionnaire and interview surveys showed that mobility during higher education is only one feature of a much wider mobility culture. Most students had opportunities for foreign travel before coming to university, such as family holidays and school exchanges. Many had taken a gap year. Equally, during HE many students participated in a short foreign visit organised by their departments – especially the geography students. And many students saw opportunities for foreign travel or work after university. In presenting interview evidence, each quote is suffixed by a code which denotes the institution of the respondents (A–K), the sex of the student (m or f) and their course of study (geography, maths and so on). If no further notation is given, they are non-mobile students. For those who had been abroad, the destination is given. The vast majority of interviewees were aged 20, 21 or 22. Table 9: Student interviewees: profile characteristics
Characteristics Average age % Female % EU students % Overseas students % White UK/Irish % ‘Other’ White European % Father's occupation ‘Professional or managerial’ % Father with university education % Living in university halls of residence % Financing by loans % Receiving a parental contribution % With a term-time job
First year 19.0 54.8 4.7 2.2 81.6 5.3 51.0 31.3 59.2 73.0 55.5 40.4
Final year All respondents 21.4 61.3 2.3 1.3 88.4 4.9 53.4 32.8 12.0 78.7 54.0 52.3
20.2 58.1 3.5 1.7 85.1 5.1 52.2 32.0 35.6 75.8 54.7 46.4
Source: Authors’ survey
4.1
Movers and non-movers
Some 35.5 per cent of final-year students in the questionnaire survey had studied or worked abroad during HE. This mobile group included two contrasting types of students (see Table 10). One type (language students) went abroad as a compulsory element of their studies. The others (the science and social science students) were mostly self-motivated movers ‘choosing’ to go abroad for a range of personal, educational and professional reasons. Among those who had been away for a term or longer, 59 per cent had been on Socrates-Erasmus exchanges. Other forms of international mobility captured by the sample included the British Council language assistant programme, work placements, institutional exchanges between specific universities,
34
BUNAC and a range of other channels of movement. The majority of institutionally organised exchanges were between UK and US universities. Table 10: Mobility rate for final-year students by subject area Faculty
Total no. of students per subject area Language 200 Science 200 Social science 200 Total 600 Source: Authors’ survey
Mobile students per subject area 191 10 12 213
Mobility rate per 1,000 students 955 50 60 355
The dominance of language students in the overall pattern of mobility had a clear effect on the destination countries to which students had gone. France was the most popular destination (44 per cent). Science and social science students were very different; here the US accounted for 41 per cent of mobility. Table 11 shows that mobile students had a much higher rate of language proficiency. This is partly explained by the number of students for whom language constituted the core element of their studies. But it was also important in distinguishing between movers and non-movers among science and social science students. Table 11: Relationship between language proficiency and having been abroad (final-year students)
Studied abroad Did not study/work abroad Source: Authors’ survey
Proficient in speaking a foreign language 194 103
Not proficient in Total speaking a foreign language 19 213 284 387
% of students proficient in speaking a language 91.1 26.6
Language proficiency was not only a factor explaining differences of behaviour between movers and non-movers. It also was an important predictor of intention to move by first-year students. Nearly 70 per cent of first-year students who definitely wanted to go abroad were proficient in speaking another language (see Table 12). Although the figures in the sciences and social sciences (in other words, excluding language students) are lower, the same trend is found. Table 12: Relationship between language proficiency and the intention to go abroad (first-year students) Intention to go Total % proficient in Proficient in Not proficient % proficient in abroad for speaking a speaking a in speaking a speaking a study or work language (All language (science foreign foreign placement students) and social science) language language Definitely 165 75 240 68.8 39.5 Perhaps 87 153 240 36.3 32.4 No 26 67 93 28.0 24.4 Don't know 6 20 26 23.1 21.7 Source: Authors’ survey Note: In this and subsequent tables students who did not answer the question are excluded from the figures.
35
Among non-language students, many other factors differentiated movers from non-movers. Females were more likely to go abroad than males. Those with a mother or father in professional and managerial employment were more likely to migrate; this probably reflects their educational and class background as much as any direct financial driver of mobility. Non-language students who had a mother or father with university education were about 50 per cent more likely to take up opportunities to study or work abroad. ‘Visible’ ethnic minorities had a lower mobility rate than white UK students, but students with other ‘white’ ethnic identities were highly mobile. Annex D reveals that about 12 per cent of all students on outward Erasmus exchanges are non-UK nationals. Both the questionnaire survey and the interviews confirmed the link between an individual’s mobility history and their likelihood of engaging in student mobility. Participation in foreign school exchanges and gap years were strong predictors of ISM. Some 21 per cent of respondents had taken a gap year. Of those who had been abroad, the experience had raised their desire for further international experience during their HE studies. Only a tiny minority appeared to have used their gap year as a substitute for a year abroad while at university (see Table 13). Table 13: The influence of a gap year abroad on students' attitudes to spending time abroad during their studies Gap year Decreased the likelihood of a year abroad No effect Increased the likelihood of a year abroad Total Source: Authors’ survey
4.2
First-year students No. % 3 4.8 13 21.0 46 74.2 62 100.0
Final-year students No. % 4 6.7 15 25.0 41 68.3 60 100.0
Perceived benefits and problems associated with mobility
Most students felt very positive about their study/work placement abroad. Indeed 92 per cent of language students expressed themselves as ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their time abroad. Satisfaction ratings were even higher for the smaller number of social science and science mobile students. The reasons for these positive views were explored by a set of attitudinal questions (see Table 14). On professional, educational and personal criteria, the mobility experience was perceived very positively. For instance, 95 per cent of students felt the experience enhanced their personal development, and 90 per cent felt that it was relevant to the development of an international career. Table 14: Percentage of students who felt that the period spent abroad had been worthwhile or very worthwhile relative to a range of criteria Criteria
%
Understanding of another country Maturity and personal development Relevance to developing an international career Foreign language proficiency Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge New way of thinking about the home country Relevance to employment prospects Source: Authors’ survey (n=214)
99.5 95.3 90.2 87.9 83.2 83.2 76.2
36
Interviews yielded more nuanced accounts. The main benefits were seen in the social, cultural and linguistic realms; academic benefits were stressed less often. A typical quote: ‘… living in a different country, that was really good, meeting new people, the fact that you have to speak the language all the time, that was really important; travelling, we did a bit of travelling as well. It was just really an overall good experience, I think.’ (D – f – German and applied social sciences – 1 year in Germany)
Mobile students struggled to identify any major problem with their time abroad. In the questionnaire survey, no single factor was listed by even a quarter of students as problematic (see Table 15). Some found finance a problem, others being separated from their boyfriend/girlfriend. In the interviews, likewise, negative aspects were few and infrequently cited. Mainly students referred to the problems of settling in at the start of their stay abroad, some difficulties adapting to the new academic system, and making host-country friends. Table 15: Most problematic aspects of living abroad as expressed by students who had been abroad Problematic issues
%
Not enough financial means Away from boyfriend/girlfriend Language Distance from parental home Commitment to partner Living in another culture Studies not recognised Source: Authors’ survey (n = 214)
22.3 20.0 14.0 8.9 8.2 8.2 4.9
Socio-economic background, not surprisingly, influenced perceptions of financial difficulties while abroad. Students financed totally by their parents were the least likely to face problems while abroad (64 per cent in this category found finance unproblematic). By contrast, 67 per cent of those depending entirely on loans or other ways of self-financing had financial problems while abroad.
4.3
Drivers and barriers to international student mobility
Both final-year students who had not been abroad and first-years who were not planning to go abroad offered suggestions for their immobility. Results from the two sets of questionnaires are presented in Figure 4 and the statistical base is in Annex I. We refer to the pair of graphs in Figure 4 throughout the ensuing analysis, supported by further tables and interview extracts.
4.3.1 Financial factors Figure 4 shows that lack of adequate finance is the factor most frequently cited by final-year students as a ‘very important’ contributor to their decision not to go abroad. Non-mobile students tend to see financial factors as much more problematic than mobile students (see Table 15). This raises the possibility that some respondents ‘declare’ financial factors to ‘hide’ other, perhaps more personal reasons. 37
Figure 4: Reasons for not studying/going abroad Final-year students
First-year students
100
100
80
80
60
60
N/A Not important Slightly important Very important
%
% 40
40
20
20
0
0 A
B
C
D
E
F G Factor
H
I
J
K
A = Not enough financial means B = Not confident enough with the language C = Insufficient information on possibilities to go abroad D = I have (had) a boyfriend/girlfriend E = I would have had to prolong my degree F = Studies not recognised G = Wary of living in another country/culture
A
B
D
E
F G Factor
H
I
J
K
H = Commitment to partner and/or children I = Difficult to leave parental family J = I (would have) had to leave my job K = I (would have) had to leave my flat N/A refers to students who answered the question but who judged the factor as being ‘not applicable’ in their specific situation.
Source: Authors’ survey
Abundant interview evidence documents the (perceived) financial aspects of mobility. The fact that many students nowadays work, or are highly dependent on parental help, or on loans, was raised by many students, as were expressions of concern over increasing university fees. Implicit in many of the students’ comments was the perception of mobility as an elite phenomenon. Three examples illustrate these issues; note that one reflects the mature-student perspective. ‘… university is nowadays very expensive and with the prospect of top-up fees and increasing university cost, I think that it is very likely that fewer and fewer students will have the financial means to even think about going abroad … also many students, like myself, work nowadays … which makes things more difficult … I think the government ought to put more money into helping those students who need or want to go abroad.’ (C – m – Journalism) ‘… money is probably a factor; actually university is already quite expensive, so there is massive debt involved with going to university nowadays, so if you are adding a thousand or two thousand to that to go to study abroad, then it probably does limit it to certain students … other students might not be able to go because of financial restrictions.’ (D – m – Psychology and biology) ‘… Given the current context of increasing cost of university and life in general, in addition to low wages, expensive housing … you know, many students have to work nowadays to support themselves through university, like myself. So, I think that the issue here is money, really … especially if you’re a mature student, or from a socially disadvantaged background.’ (F – f – Maths – late 20s)
38
As we will see later, the question as to how useful a period of study abroad might be was often answered in academic terms. A number of students put the cost of study abroad in perspective to its academic value. And some questioned the latter: In the words of one interviewee: ‘Frankly speaking, it looks to me like an expensive form of academic tourism’.
4.3.2 Language factors The second most important inhibitor for non-mobile final-year students was language. Over 40 per cent saw this as ‘very important’ and a further 26 per cent as an ‘important’ reason for not going abroad. Most interviewees pointed to the general lack of foreign language knowledge as a key deterring factor. Some were worried that the study of a foreign language might be seen as unrelated to the core subject, or blamed the lack of foreign language opportunities in their degree programmes. ‘When you do subjects like Maths you’re not given the possibility to do languages … at least I don’t know anyone here who does them. Also, the fact is that the range of courses you do does not have any relationship whatsoever with foreign languages …’(F – f – Maths)
The issue of foreign language knowledge is related to a broader ‘fear of the unknown’: ‘I probably reckon it’s the language barrier – you just don’t have the basic skills in order to grasp a foreign language, and that’s a massive confidence thing. If you are very sort of lost in their language and you think that you can’t get by … I think that’s the main barrier.’ (H – m – Geography)
Many interviewees made comparisons to other countries in order to emphasise this issue: ‘I think it’s probably an aspect of confidence, you know. You talk to European students studying here and they’ve all done numerous languages at school from a very early age, whereas you look at our schooling system and languages are not that important … I’m sure this is a barrier against people going abroad to study.’ (H – m – Geography)
The language issue was connected by some students with the need to choose those subjects at A-level which would get the best grades. Languages lost out: ‘I think a big problem is the language, that no one has any confidence in their language. When you’re at school it’s like not cool to learn a language; it’s not promoted, really. And then when you go to A Level, even if you’re kind of interested, unless you’re really good, you don’t take a language, because you have to get your A Levels to get into university. I think you have to pick your best, best, best subjects; even if you have a really good interest you don’t even have a go.’ (G – f – Maths)
The language issue also came across later in the interviews, when we invited students to suggest areas of action to increase the numbers of students involved in mobility. Many interviewees, especially the non-movers, emphasised the need to enhance the teaching of foreign languages at school. ‘I think from the language point of view the best thing they can basically do is to teach … a grasp of a foreign language at a lower level at school, you know, kind of bring it through in primary school. Because then if you learn a foreign language all the way through, I think you get to the point where you can speak it very, very clearly and you’re confident with it. So, I think that this would encourage more people to go.’ (H – m – Geography and management)
39
4.3.3 Information factors The third most cited reason for not going abroad was ‘insufficient information on possibilities to go abroad’. Nearly 60 per cent of final-year respondents thought this was ‘important’ or ‘very important’ (see Figure 4). Further evidence on this issue is in the first-year questionnaire results: 47 per cent of respondents claimed to have heard of the Socrates-Erasmus scheme. Knowledge of Erasmus was especially low among non-language students – less than a third of whom had heard of the scheme. Only 21 per cent had heard of any other national or institutionally-led schemes; BUNAC, Leonardo and university-specific exchanges were cited. Many non-movers interviewed highlighted lack of information as an important deterrent. ‘The thought had crossed my mind but I didn’t know enough about it or what opportunities there were … I had the idea that it would be quite an interesting thing to do but I didn’t know enough about it to … you know, have a look at it seriously.’ (E – m – Maths)
Several students referred to the timing of promotion, indicating that appropriate information ought to be given earlier, even in schools. ‘I only got sort of very sketchy information. I think it was either during the first or second year there was mention of meetings you could go to, sort of after the lectures or at a certain time, where you would have a talk by someone about what was on offer, but it wasn’t compulsory to go to these. So, it wasn’t really promoted … you kind of forget about it.’ (F – m – Geography) ‘… it’s about going into the schools, and starting there to promote it … and get them young, I think. Because then their mentality is different. They should get students who have been on a year abroad going themselves into schools and talk to the pupils.’ (B – f – Nursing – Finland)
4.3.4 Attitudinal and socio-cultural factors Figure 4 indicates that no other factors were considered inhibitors of mobility by more than 20 per cent of respondents. However, from the interviews insights emerged about people’s (and their families’) attitudes to studying abroad. Some drew attention to broader cultural factors within British and Northern Irish society. The following extracts exemplify some of these mutually reinforcing relationships. ‘I get the impression maybe that, not myself, but maybe Britain itself thinks of itself quite as an individual country that isn’t European, isn’t American, it’s kind of in between … and specially in Scotland, it’s kind of insular sometimes … one of my friends laughed at me – my Belgian friend laughed at me when I told her that I was going to go to the “continent” … she was like mocking me for saying the “European continent” … but that’s how it’s thought … I think being like isolated, as an island, makes it a bit different.’ (J – f – Geography) ‘Because here, I think, within the Northern Ireland context, people don’t travel. It’s not normal, people don’t travel here. People who tend to travel, they go to Marbella for two weeks and they think they travel. My parents, when they see me travelling, they say “Why? Don’t go”.’ (K – m – Languages – Year abroad as language assistant in Spain)
This qualitative evidence is interesting and revealing. But it should not be exaggerated, particularly in light of the fact that such views are not necessarily statistically significant in accounting for differences in student mobility behaviour. 40
4.4
Further comparisons
Figure 4 provides parallel data for first-year students. Financial factors and language concerns once again top the list, although fewer saw them as ‘very important’ compared with final-year students. For first-year students the third most important factor is the belief that study abroad may not be recognised for their UK degree. Nearly one-fifth of respondents felt this was very important, and this was backed up by interview evidence. These concerns may be unfounded. It is useful to compare mobile and non-mobile student perceptions of various ‘mobility inhibitors’ as a means of trying to understand the drivers and barriers to international student mobility. Table 16 compares final-year students in the sciences and social sciences who went abroad with those who did not, identifying statistically significant differences of view. Four very significant differences are apparent. First, students did not want to go abroad if their home institution did not recognise the course of study. Second, they were reluctant to go because of the perception that this meant prolonging their studies. In practice this perception is misplaced for most students. Although most of those taking languages add a year to their studies, other students engaging in Erasmus complete in the same time as their peers. Third, mobile students were the ones who were most confident of their language skills. And fourth, mobile students were much less likely to be worried about the financial implications than their non-mobile peers. Table 16: Comparison of views of factors inhibiting mobility between mobile and non-mobile final-year science and social science students Inhibiting factor
Statistical significance of difference
Not confident with the language Very significant Difficulty leaving parental family Not significant Wary of living in another country Not significant Boyfriend/ girlfriend Not significant Partner/children Not significant Not enough financial means Very significant Studies not recognised Very significant I had to leave my flat Not significant I had to leave my job Not significant Prolongation of degree Very significant Source: Authors’ survey See Annex I Table I43 for details of the tests on which this table is based.
4.5
A model for student mobility
The drivers and barriers to mobility evident in the student survey are summarised in Figure 5 below. The model does not attempt to represent national, international, institutional or departmental factors reviewed elsewhere in this report. We see these factors as key drivers of mobility, but ones that lie ‘outside the box’ of student decision-making. What Figure 5 indicates is that, for individual students, several drivers seem to be important in encouraging them to consider mobility. There are equally many forces discouraging movement: the barriers in the model. For students ‘inside the box’, specific profile characteristics (such as gender, socio-economic background, previous mobility history) can either increase or decrease their likelihood of responding positively to the drivers of mobility or negatively to the barriers to movement. 41
Figure 5: A model of the student decision-making process (after Morgan 2003) Political Context DRIVERS OF MOBILITY
Reinforcing factors
Enhanced career prospects
Improved language competence
Relevance to degree subject
Availability of a range of relevant and attractive options
Good university promotional information
Desire to study/work abroad DECISION Concerns about studying/working abroad
Institutional, national and international factors
Mitigating factors
• University policies • National schemes • Government policy • International schemes and policies
Preparatory language teaching
Language proficiency
Financial support available
Financial constraints
Personal development
Credit transfer system in place Credit transfer worries / lack of recognition of study abroad
Professional development
Committed and enthusiastic departmental staff
Student's profile characteristics • • • • •
Gender Socio-economic background Previous mobility Age Ethnicity • Personality traits Good promotional information and support Uncertainty about mobility opportunities
Cultural Context
Social Context
Employerled interest
Perceived prolongation of degree
BARRIERS TO MOBILITY
Economic Context
Figure 5 also indicates to policy makers a number of strategic interventions that can mitigate against the inhibiting factors and that can reinforce the desire for mobility (see Chapter 5). What the student survey revealed about future mobility aspirations is considered below..
4.6
Future mobility
Just over 40 per cent of all first-year students responding to the questionnaire definitely wanted to spend some time abroad during the remainder of their degree, and another 40 per cent were possibly interested in doing so (see Annex I, Table I16). What is significant is not only this openness to international mobility, but the forms of mobility in which students wished to engage. Most wanted to mix work and study (see Table 17). This is in contrast to the majority of final-year respondents who had been abroad on purely study-related visits. Table 17: First-year students’ ideal type of visit abroad Type of visit
No.
%
Study abroad Work abroad Mixture of both Missing answers Total Source: Authors’ survey
79 76 270 55 480
16.5 15.8 56.3 11.5 100.0
One of the findings emerging from the questionnaire related to the feelings of final-year students who had not been abroad during their studies. Some 43 per cent of respondents regretted that they had not 42
engaged in international student mobility. This seems a high proportion. On the face of it, this response reflects the potential unfulfilled desire of many students to travel for work or study. On the other hand, these are post-hoc views and may not reflect the reality of student choice. One distinctive factor with the mobile group, compared with the non-movers, is that there are many more who said they would like to travel after graduation, and perhaps settle abroad in the future. Many stressed the fact that their university mobility had been influential in this decision. ‘At the moment I’m planning to go and teach English in Japan next year. So I’m learning Japanese. I’m really interested in an international kind of career. And then this afternoon the careers talk … was talking about working in the European Commission or within the European government. So, I’m planning to live abroad because most of these jobs are based in Brussels … I mean, England is great, but I’ve realised that it’s even better sometimes living abroad… and I really thrive on a more kind of challenging environment where you don’t speak your mother language and where you have to interact with people from all over the world.’ (G – f – Italian – Year abroad in Italy)
Many of the students who thought they would be mobile in the future intended to return to their studyabroad country, or to another one where the language they had learned at university was spoken: ‘Ideally for me I would love to go to Cuba, I was in Cuba, and I’d love to go back … either that or go to Mexico again, because I absolutely loved it; and it’ll always be on the cards for me … I would seriously reject a job in Northern Ireland for travelling purposes, you know, to go and live somewhere else … I’m looking more on the Internet for jobs abroad as opposed to jobs here … I suppose Spain, Spain is an option because it is close …’ (K – f – Languages – Year abroad in Mexico as language assistant)
Many of the non-movers also entertained thoughts of travelling abroad and of developing an international career. Yet a clear distinction was observed between movers and non-movers: the movers appeared to have ‘more solid’ career plans. It frequently came across in the interviews that the period abroad had served to clarify their career prospects in terms of life projects and further study – as these two extracts from a focus group illustrate: ‘I was offered a job in Finland, and my partner now lives in Finland. I’m going to get some experience in England first, about six months to a year, and then by the time I finish, I’ll probably apply for the Masters in Finland, and then work there because you can work while you’re studying … it is work-funded, so we have to find a job and then do the Masters … it’s part-time as well, so this way you can work during the Masters.’ (B – f – Nursing – Work placement in Finland) ‘I’m planning to work a year, from when I finish here, but in the meantime I’m going to Finnish evening classes because I want to do the European Masters in Finland and there’s the possibility to work there and get funded.’ (B – f – Nursing – work placement in Finland)
Non-movers often said they regretted not having had mobility experiences: ‘I think that it would be nice to live abroad at some stage in my life … I sort of blame myself for not being able to give up everything and go out there, but I don’t think I would have been able to do so … I think it’s always a bonus if you can speak something of a foreign language.’ (J – m – Geography)
43
Such expressions of regret are evidence for taking the promotion and support of mobility more seriously. Quite apart from the language issue, which stretches back into the UK school curriculum debate, the question also arises as to when to inform students, and potential students, about mobility opportunities and benefits. Our interviews suggest that a more intense and widespread campaign of information and publicity is required, not only in the early months of a student’s career in HE, but also in the final years of school and sixth-form education.
44
5.
Synthesis and implications of findings
5.1
The eight questions answered
Question 1 – What is student mobility – how can it be defined? For the purposes of this study, ISM is defined as any form of mobility outside the UK which takes place during a student’s time of registration at an HEI. Ideally the period of mobility should be long enough to have an impact on the student’s appreciation of a foreign culture, and it should have some defined role within a student’s learning experience. For many students, this includes the opportunity to apply skills in a foreign work context. However, definitional boundaries are not easy to draw, particularly with regard to short trips abroad, and especially when these do not have an explicitly educational purpose. More broadly, ISM can be conceptualised as part of elite or high-skilled migration. It can also be viewed as part of youth mobility culture, motivated less by traditional economic migration factors (income, employment and so on) and more by educational, leisure and experiential factors. However, economics cannot be ignored: students may undertake study or work abroad in order to increase their competitiveness when seeking employment or as part of a desire to have an international career. Question 2 – What trends can be identified in UK international student mobility and how do these compare with other countries? Over the past 25 years there has been a marked upward trend in UK student migration rates to other countries. Inflows of foreign students to the UK have grown even faster, and these greatly outnumber UK students abroad. The UK’s student outflow is higher than that for some English-language countries like the US, but lower than the rates for other EU countries and the OECD as a whole. The US has been the most popular destination for UK students throughout the past 25 years. In recent years less than half of UK mobile students go to European destinations. The trend for UK outward Socrates-Erasmus mobility has been downwards since the mid-1990s, in contrast to most EU countries. However, Sweden and the Netherlands have started to follow the UK pattern. Question 3 – What are the main determining factors influencing students’ mobility choices? Language is the first determining factor. For students majoring in foreign languages, a period of study or work abroad is generally compulsory. For most other students mobility is optional, and few choose that option. Mobile students are more likely to be female, to be ‘young’ (entering HE aged 18 or 19) and to come from more privileged backgrounds – as defined by parental education or occupation. Prior mobility – gap year, school trips abroad, foreign travel – has some influence too. Interviews suggest that the desire to travel, have a ‘cultural experience’ and promote ‘self-development’ are important ‘personal drivers’. UK ethnic minorities are somewhat under-represented among mobile students, but there is evidence that ‘non-UK white’ (typically ‘other European’) students are more likely to be mobile than UK students. Question 4 – To what extent is it useful to relate student mobility during the programme of study to prior mobility such as the gap year? Questionnaire results show that the gap year, particularly if it involves time abroad, increases the propensity to be mobile during HE. Many respondents plan a gap year after graduating. Moving beyond the specific experience of the gap year, respondents who have a personal family history of travel 45
abroad are more predisposed to be mobile as students. Such students can be described as building up ‘mobility capital’. Question 5 – What are perceived to be the main benefits of spending a period of time studying or working abroad? Studying or working abroad brings multiple benefits. Students who have been abroad report significant personal, academic and professional ‘pay-offs’ from mobility. According to staff, students return from a foreign stay ‘transformed’. Increased maturity, self-confidence, linguistic competence, better academic performance, cultural understanding and a clearer purpose in life are frequently remarked upon. Mobile students think they are more attractive to employers, but an employer survey would be necessary to verify this. Within HEIs, mobility schemes benefit the learning environment for all students, as returning students and incoming exchange students bring an added dimension to the classroom. Question 6 – What are the main barriers to international mobility for UK students? All available evidence points to two key constraints: finance and language. However, this finding should not be interpreted too simplistically. On the one hand, it is likely that, for individual students, the various barriers to mobility are closely interrelated, and some factors may be contingent on others. Moreover, each of the two main barriers has several ramifications. For instance, finance links importantly to parttime employment which imposes clear restrictions on students’ ability to go abroad. Language, meanwhile, is obviously only relevant for certain destinations and mobility schemes. On the other hand, it needs to be remembered that important historical, cultural and economic forces shape the wider context in which mobility decisions are taken. Further research is needed on these contextual drivers of student mobility. At the individual level, three other deterring factors were found to be important. Lack of information emerged as a key barrier – and one that can be rectified more easily than others. Academic and institutional barriers were also noted. Some students believed (often incorrectly) that going abroad would damage their degree prospects and delay their graduation. Some departments appeared to discourage mobility because of tight curricula or professional accreditation. Finally, less well-off students tend to regard mobility as an elite or middle-class phenomenon, or ‘only for language students’. Question 7 – How important is UK students’ foreign-language knowledge in conditioning their propensity for international mobility? As seen under questions 3 and 5 above, language is both a facilitating factor and a barrier for many students’ mobility aspirations. Many students who might want (or have wanted) to be mobile blamed language shortcomings for their inability to turn their mobility aspirations into reality. At the same time, linguistic improvement is seen as one of the key benefits of studying or working abroad in a foreignlanguage environment. Declining numbers of UK students on Erasmus exchanges in the last decade can be largely explained by the drop in the number of students on courses involving a language component. This is linked to falling student numbers taking public exams in language in secondary education. There was a general feeling among interviewees – students and staff alike – that much more should be done to promote language learning in schools. Meanwhile, both students and HEIs seem to be adapting their mobility behaviour and planning with more links to Anglophone countries, and a trend towards foreign work placements. 46
Question 8 – What are the main institutional factors driving, or constraining, student mobility? Few institutions have a specific plan for outgoing student mobility, although such mobility does often feature as part of an institution’s European policy statement or strategic plan for internationalisation. Mobility is always promoted in policy statements as ‘positive’ and ‘desirable’, and often deployed as a recruitment tool – with stress on attractive and exotic destinations. However, real commitment to expanding outward mobility and exchanges does not match the rhetoric. Instead the main focus is nearly always on recruiting high-fee overseas students. The report found that high levels of Erasmus mobility are correlated with those HEIs which are most research-active. This relationship may be indirect: well-resourced universities with strong research profiles can afford to maintain student exchanges and tend to attract more wealthy and cosmopolitan students who are more disposed to spend time abroad. At the level of individual HEIs, much depends on institutional and staff commitment to mobility – efficient, knowledgeable administrators and advisors, and enthusiastic academics in individual departments.
5.2
Policy implications
The key findings listed above have many policy implications. Some of them are general issues and involve thinking ‘outside the box’ of the ISM model discussed in Chapter 4 (see Figure 5); others are more practical policy suggestions, and involve tweaking ‘inside the box’: a. There is a need for more complete and regular national statistics on mobility. If such data can contain, or be matched with, students’ biographical characteristics, a clearer idea can be gained about individual-level factors favouring or inhibiting mobility. b. There is a need to recognise that students today are part of a ‘mobility culture’ which is different from that of 20 years ago, when many mobility schemes were first launched. National and institutional policies need to recognise that travel and mobility are now much more commonplace (and cheaper); but that, on the other hand, financial and linguistic constraints may inhibit traditional HE mobility experiences such as the standard ‘European Year Abroad’ of many language courses. c. Existing mobility schemes are an imperfect match with demand. In particular there is underprovision of work or mixed study/work schemes which would respond more directly to students’ (and perhaps employers’) career expectations. Funded exchanges, overwhelmingly oriented to Europe, do not satisfy an increasing demand for study and placement schemes in North America, Australia and other centres of the global economy. Consideration should also be given to opening more mobility schemes with the global ‘South’. This would help to bridge global economic and cultural divides and have positive development spin-offs. Allied to this, new exchanges could open up to reflect the changing ethnic heritage of the UK student population and their non-European linguistic resources. Careful market testing would be advisable for this. d. HEIs could be more proactive in promoting student mobility. It need not be sidelined by the priority to recruit high-fee overseas students. Student mobility could be more closely integrated into institutions’ strategies for internationalisation, and efforts could be made for exchanges and placements to be more closely associated with international research collaboration.
47
e. There is an urgent need to consider how linguistic ability at all levels in the UK education system could be improved. We recognise that this is a huge issue, which connects also to fundamental cultural attitudes within British society. Ideally, a major re-positioning of languages within the school curriculum is necessary. More emphasis could be placed on school exchanges with overseas countries. f.
Information and publicity about HE mobility schemes could be expanded, not only within the early years of HE courses, but also into schools and sixth-form colleges, so that (prospective) students know more about mobility opportunities before they apply for HE places.
g. Access to mobility needs to be broadened, so that social and institutional barriers are overcome. At present, many students are ‘socially excluded’ from mobility by virtue of their financial situation, family and class background, and linguistic limitations. Mobility opportunities should be opened up which overcome these factors of exclusion.
48
Annex A What the literature tells us about international student mobility 1. There is a scattered literature on student migration and mobility, and very few in-depth studies. What does this literature tell us about the eight questions which frame this study (listed in section 1.2)? 2. First, ISM has been only partially conceptualised. A first perspective sees students as a subset of skilled migration (Findlay 2002). More precisely, students can be seen as a potential flow of qualified workers, following the hypothesis that mobility as a student will increase the propensity for subsequent mobility. Second, increased student mobility has been seen as a product of globalisation, both generally (increased global flows of goods, capital, people, ideas) and of higher education (Altbach and Teichler 2001; Kwiek 2001). A subset of this approach relates to ‘Europeanisation’ and the role of mobile, multilingual students/graduates as agents of European integration – the new Euro-professionals or, as Favell calls them, ‘Eurostars’ (Favell 2004; King 2003). A third interpretative strand places ISM within ‘youth mobility cultures’. Here, ‘going abroad’ (to study, travel, do voluntary work, and so on) is motivated less by traditional economic migration factors (to find a job, better income) and more by experiential goals. At a higher conceptual level this fits with the notion of the ‘do-it-yourself’ biography of the young, post-modern individual (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002). 3. Second, global ISM trends are inexorably upward. In an often-quoted figure, UNESCO (1998) estimated that globally there were 1.6 million tertiary-level students studying abroad in 1996. By 2000 this had risen to 1.8 million. It was forecast to grow to 2.8 million in 2010 and 1.5 million in 2025 (Bruch and Barty 1998). A more recent survey (Böhm et al 2002) suggests global demand will reach 7.2 million international students in 2025. The four biggest receiving countries (the US, UK, France and Germany, in that order) currently account for 61 per cent of global student mobility. The statistics and published analyses tell us that the UK is a major global player in ISM, but more as a host rather than a sending country. UK trends in outward mobility are upward, but they are increasing more slowly than in most other advanced countries. 4. Third, the literature speculates on several determining factors for ISM. In addition to important structural factors such as globalisation and the institutionalisation of student exchanges, other filters have been suggested. In one of the few in-depth anthropological investigations of European students abroad, Murphy-Lejeune characterises them as a ‘migratory elite’ – ready and willing to move, ‘open to changes in their environment: language, personal entourage, lifestyle, working style’ (2002: 5). Whether mobile students represent an elite among the general population of HEI students is more open to question. Indeed the evidence is contradictory. While the European Commission study on the socioeconomic background of Erasmus students found little support for selectivity (Commission of the European Communities 2000; Teichler and Maiworm 1997: 39-40), the Euro Student report concluded the opposite: ‘students from low-income families make substantially less use of the opportunities for studying abroad than those from families with higher income’ (Schnitzer and Zempel-Gino 2002: 115). This is a question that needs to be resolved. 5. At the individual level, choosing to study abroad is found to reflect a range of decision-making influences. One study of student mobility in the EU identified the wish to enhance foreign language skills, career prospects, cultural experience and personal development as the main factors behind student choices; moreover, many students stated that it had ‘always’ been their wish to study abroad (West et al 2001). Such findings are reinforced by several smaller-scale studies on students of varying European nationalities.
49
6. The relevance of prior mobility is also confirmed in the literature. Murphy-Lejeune (2002) advances the concept of ‘mobility capital’; her evidence strongly suggests those who go abroad on exchanges and as language assistants have previous experiences of overseas mobility and, often, personal and family histories involving an international dimension. Teichler and Jahr (2001) found students who had already been mobile prior to HE were more likely to be mobile during HE and to be professionally mobile after graduation. 7. With regard to Question 5, there is abundant evidence of the benefits of mobility for students. Several longitudinal studies of Erasmus mobility undertaken by Teichler and his colleagues conclude that students see their time abroad as overwhelmingly valuable. Specific benefits tend to mirror the motivations mentioned above: cultural awareness, foreign language proficiency, personal development (Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Maiworm et al 1991; Teichler and Maiworm 1994, 1997). A large-scale study on American students abroad reached similar conclusions: students returned intellectually enhanced, with better work habits, and with more empathy for other cultures (Carlson et al 1990). 8. The specific relationship between ISM and employment has been analysed by Teichler and Jahr (2001) within the framework of the Socrates 2000 Evaluation Study. They found that formerly mobile students are more likely than non-mobile students to be employed abroad and to reach a somewhat higher status in their careers. Analogous findings emerged from questionnaire surveys of matched mobile and non-mobile student samples from a UK university (King and Ruiz-Gelices 2003). 9. Barriers to UK student mobility have been identified in the literature, although the evidence base is somewhat speculative. Nevertheless some key studies enable provisional answers for Questions 6, 7 and 8 of our study. In an early study Adia et al (1994) highlighted language problems, financial obstacles, entry restrictions and academic recognition issues. The same four barriers were identified in the ADMIT study of five EU countries, including the UK (West et al 2001). This study also picked out a range of other obstacles, many of which referred to the institutional domain. Concerns were expressed about academic standards in other EU countries. There were different attitudes to mobility according to the prestige of institutions. Also within the institutional context, lack of support and resources, and lack of information, were seen as important obstacles. The ADMIT study also points to cultural/attitudinal barriers, and notes that study abroad is seen by some as more akin to a ‘tourist activity’. Two other problems were highlighted: the lack of opportunities for prospective students to hear about the advantages and positive experiences of studying or working abroad from returning students; and anxieties about the negative impact of grades/degree results (West et al 2001: 9).
50
Annex B Research methods Section
Page
B1
Overview of research instruments
51
B2
Comments on the representativeness of the HEI questionnaire
54
B3
Questionnaire survey methodology
58
B4
Interview questions for students who have spent a period abroad
68
B5
Interview questions for students who have not spent a period abroad
69
B6
Interview survey methodology
70
B7
Questions for staff interviews
71
B8
List of staff interviewees
73
Section B1: Overview of research instruments 1. The primary research conducted by the consultants involved a multi-method approach: review of data and literature, statistical analysis of secondary datasets, site visits to selected HEIs, questionnaire surveys to HEIs and students, interviews with students and staff, and focus groups. Employing these different methods enabled us to cross-check findings. In this annex we begin by summarising the different research instruments that were deployed. We then give extra methodological details about each research instrument. Review of existing data 2. An early task in research of this kind is to review and evaluate critically existing data on ISM. This helps us to understand the nature and diversity of ISM, and sets the UK position in an international context. Existing data sources are analysed in Chapter 2. Comparison of one dataset with another is problematic since different definitions exist of ‘student’, ‘higher education’ and ‘international mobility’. These problems are illustrated in some of the tables in Annex C; they show just how difficult it is for organisations such as the OECD to collate comparative statistics for different countries. Partly as a result of these problems, and partly because of a lack of secondary information on a wide range of ISM issues, the authors, in consultation with the steering group, placed great emphasis on primary research. Questionnaire survey of HEIs 3. In September 2003 a short questionnaire was sent to all UK HEIs via the Academic Registrars’ Council and by post from HEFCE to heads of all UK HEIs. The survey was designed to gather information on the management and evolution of mobility in each institution. Specific questions asked for a listing of mobility initiatives and trend data by destination country for the years 1994-95, 2000-01, 2001-02 and 2002-03. Data were only requested for mobility initiatives outside Erasmus and British Council schemes, whose data we were able to access by other means. 4. By March 2004, 80 HEIs had replied, a return rate of 48 per cent. Annex Table B1 shows that the pattern of return was fairly consistent across the HE sector (pre-1992 universities, post-1992 universities, other HEIs) and across the constituent parts of the UK. Further comments on the representativeness of the survey are in Annex B2.
51
5. In addition to the questionnaire survey, HEI web-sites were visited to collect non-quantitative data about institutions’ mobility links (for examples, see Annex G). Selection of HEIs for site visits 6. We undertook site visits to 10 HEIs, selected to reflect the diversity within the UK HE sector. The visits took place during autumn term 2003. Three survey techniques were used: a large-scale student questionnaire survey, face-to-face interviews and focus groups with students, and face-to-face interviews with academics and mobility scheme managers. These three survey instruments are described in the next three subsections. 7.
Four main criteria guided the choice of HEIs:
•
geography: distribution across the UK, including the regions of England
•
type of institution: proportionate representation across pre-1992, post-1992 and other (nonuniversity) HEIs, reflecting the fact that pre-1992 universities account for about two-thirds of all student out-mobility
•
physical location: a proportionate balance between major city, smaller city and green field campus HEI locations
•
mobility trends: on the basis mainly of Erasmus data, a mix of large and small outflows, and growing and declining numbers over recent years.
8. Since we wish to preserve the anonymity of the HEIs, we refer to them by letter codes from A-K. Out of the 10 HEIs selected, six are in England, two in Scotland and one each in Wales and Northern Ireland. The six English institutions comprise two in the London area, one in the south of England, one in the Midlands and two in the north of England. Seven of the HEIs are pre-1992 universities, two are post-1992 universities and one is a non-university HEI. Questionnaire survey of students 9. Two student questionnaires – for first and final years – were the means of generating quantitative data on student mobility experiences and attitudes. The questionnaires are included in section B3 of this Annex. 10. The questionnaires were distributed in lectures and seminars at the 10 HEIs with the collaboration of on-site tutors. They took 8-10 minutes to complete. They were piloted in the authors’ own universities before the main survey was undertaken. 11.
The survey targeted students in three disciplines/departments:
•
languages, because of their high engagement with study and work abroad schemes
•
geography, because this subject often involves shorter-term trips abroad and because geographers tend to have a broad world-view
•
maths as a science subject likely to be present in most institutions.
12. The quota was 120 questionnaires per HEI visited: 20 per discipline per year (first and final years only); the total was 1,200 for the 10 HEIs.
52
13. The method of administering the questionnaires often enabled much larger numbers to be collected, but in order to maintain a balanced sample across years and disciplines we randomly selected 20 per cohort for coding. However, we coded all questionnaires for final-year non-language students who had been mobile. Further details on the survey methodology are provided in section B3. Interviews with students 14. Students were interviewed singly or in small focus groups. The aim was to generate complementary, qualitative insights into more or less the same topics covered by the questionnaire, and hence to reinforce the evidence to answer Questions 3-7. 15. A total of 140 individual interviews were taken. Focus groups enlarged the total sample of ‘student voices’ to 180. Interviews and focus groups were taped for subsequent transcription and analysis. 16. Interviewees were nearly all final-year students, drawn mainly but not exclusively from the three departments/disciplines in which the questionnaire survey was administered. The interviews were evenly balanced between those who had spent a period abroad during their degree (n=67) and those who had not (n=73). The focus groups, on the other hand, comprised mainly students who had been abroad. One of the purposes of these groups was to learn of the experiences of students who had been on a variety of study or work abroad schemes. 17. Two slightly different interview sets of interview questions were used, depending on whether the interviewee had been abroad as a student or not. The schedules are provided in sections B4 and B5 and methodological notes are at section B6. Interviews with academics and ‘mobility managers’ 18. The third survey technique employed during site visits was face-to-face interviews with academic, managerial and administrative personnel. The objective was to find out how mobility is perceived, organised and promoted at the institutional level, taking account of devolved responsibilities for mobility management to departments or schools. We wanted to hear institutions’ and key informants’ diagnoses of the reasons for the decline of (certain types of) mobility. We also wanted to document examples of good practice in supporting student participation in mobility schemes, especially in HEIs with increased mobility in recent years. 19.
Four categories of interviewee were targeted:
•
the most senior individual in the institution responsible for outward student mobility
•
a dean or head of school/department
•
a mobility scheme manager within a school or department – usually an academic
•
an administrative officer responsible for organising student mobility.
20. A total of 46 interviews were made across the 10 HEIs. All were taped and transcribed. The interview questions are included in section B7. A list of the persons interviewed is at section B8; we do not give their names, only an indication of their position and function within the institution. Where we quote an interviewee their code (A1, C5 and so on) is given at the end.
53
Section B2: Comments on the representativeness of the HEI questionnaire 21. The questionnaire was distributed electronically to registrars in late September 2003. At the same time a letter was sent by HEFCE to all vice-chancellors and principals informing them of the survey and inviting them to participate together with a copy of the questionnaire. A supplementary sheet to the questionnaire provided brief guidance and clarification notes. 22. We did not expect a high return rate, especially since we were asking for data that had in many cases never been compiled before. Given this difficulty, many respondents asked for more time to collect the data from different units in their institution. This was readily granted. While the final survey fraction – 48 per cent – is not very high, the data collected are fairly unique. To the best of our knowledge no such compilation has been achieved before. 23. The table shows that the survey fraction was reasonably constant across the three main HEI categories, and by geographical area although in the latter case the pattern is somewhat obscured by the varying sizes of the constituent parts. Questionnaire return rates Total no. of HEIs
No. of returns
Rate of return %
63 41 64
31 21 28
49.2 51.2 43.7
England Wales Scotland Northern Ireland
131 13 20 4
65 5 9 1
49.6 38.5 45.0 25.0
Total
168
80
47.6
Type/location of HEI Pre-1992 Post-1992 Other HEIs Institutional location:
24. Some under-representation of Welsh and Northern Irish HEIs is noted, but these account for a small proportion of the UK HE sector in any case. The slight under-representation of ‘other HEIs’ is unlikely to be a problem since these institutions tend to be smaller than universities and have much less aggregate mobility than the other two categories of HEI. 25. We checked whether responding institutions were broadly representative of the size distribution of institutions, in terms of numbers of HE students. This was to counter concerns that responses were biased towards small institutions (which may have easier data accessibility), and away from larger institutions (which would tend to have complex mobility statistics which could be a barrier to filling out the questionnaire). No such bias was revealed. The 47.6 per cent response rate by institution closely matches the share of the aggregate student numbers in the returning institutions compared to the total student population of the HEIs. If the very large Open University (which has very little mobility and which did not return a questionnaire) is included, the student fraction is 44.5 per cent; if it is excluded the figure rises to 48.1 per cent. 26. There remains the possibility that the sample of returnees is biased towards institutions with centralised administration of student mobility and away from institutions with decentralised
54
management (and therefore statistics) of student mobility programmes, regardless of size of institution. We acknowledge that we therefore might be missing some interesting types and destinations of mobility. We think this effect, if it exists, is relatively minor. We say this because many responding institutions, especially the larger ones, do have decentralised records for non-EU mobility schemes. This was apparent from comments accompanying the returned questionnaires and from our site visits. 27.
The HEI questionnaire is reproduced here.
UK HEIs non-Socrates Student Mobility 1. Name of HEI 2. Management of mobility in your institution: a) Please state your name and position b) Is there a key administrative person in your institution with overall responsibility for outward student mobility? If yes, please state name and position c) Is student mobility
!
their sole responsibility? Or
!
a small part of their job description?
d) Are there separate persons responsible for: Europe Other parts of the world ! Yes ! No North America
! Yes
! Yes
! No
! Yes
! No
! Yes
! No
If yes, please state where
! No
3. Does your institution regularly collect data on student mobility? (minimum period of absence one month)
4. Please list the student mobility arrangements/initiatives for study/work abroad (over one month) that your institution is involved in (excluding Socrates/Erasmus exchanges, and the British Council Language Assistant and IAESTE schemes, for which institution-level data is available in the public domain) a) title of the mobility initiative b) discipline(s) / course(s) of study involved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (please continue in a separate sheet if necessary)
5. For each of the mobility arrangements listed in Q.4, please supply data on number of students over recent years. (please state country code stated on the next page) Location (destination country)
1995/96
2000/01
2001/02
2002/03
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6. Again for each of the mobility arrangements listed in Q. 4, please provide information on the following (for your ‘outgoing’ students): i) At what level does
ii) What is the normal
iii) Is mobility mandatory
iv) Does mobility involve
v) Is the mobility
vi) Is foreign
the scheme operate
duration of the period
or optional for students
academic study at a foreign
credit-bearing?
language
(e.g. Year 2
abroad (e.g. 3 months,
following the particular
HEI, work experience, or a
learning an
undergraduate, MA
one year etc)?
degree
mixture of both?
intrinsic part of
etc)?
programme/course of
the mobility
study?
arrangement?
Mandatory
Optional
Study
Work
Mixture
Yes
No
Yes
No
1
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
2
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
3
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
4
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
5
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
6
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
7
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
8
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
56
7. Does your institution have a strategic plan for student mobility?
! Yes
! No
! Don’t Know
If yes, what, briefly, is it? (please note that by this we do not mean plans for enrolment of overseas students, but a policy for overall student mobility, especially the outmovement of your own institution’s students)
8. Please comment on your institution’s views and experiences of student mobility abroad. (any comments you make will be used for aggregate analysis only and will not be attributed to you or your institution)
9. Please use this space to provide any additional information you may consider relevant.
Please return the completed questionnaire to Professor Russell King, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9SH, or by email to Enric Ruiz-Gelices at:
[email protected] We would be most grateful if you could enclose or send us further information relating to mobility schemes at your institution (brochures, statistical digests, guides for students studying abroad etc.) Thank you very much for your help!
57
Section B3: Questionnaire survey methodology 28.
The sampling of students in the 10 institutions was stratified in two ways:
a. The first stratification surveyed first- and final-year undergraduate students. Final-year students were usually third years, but in Scottish universities and on language and other programmes that involved a year spent abroad, they would be fourth years. b. The second stratification, designed to ensure spread across the arts and science spectrum while maintaining some subject-area consistency, involved targeting three subject groups, found in many UK HEIs. These were languages, geography and mathematics. Languages were chosen because of their obvious link with study and work abroad schemes. Geography was selected because this subject often involves shorter-term trips abroad and because this discipline is widely represented across social science and arts faculties. Maths was identified as a science subject likely to be present in most institutions. 29. Engineering had been the original science choice but at the pilot phase it became apparent that a large share of Engineering students were overseas students rather than of UK origin. While we did not want to ignore the presence of overseas students in UK HEIs, nor overlook their potential participation in further mobility, we wanted to avoid biasing the overall sample towards foreign students. 30. In HEIs where degrees in geography or maths were not offered (this applied mainly in the three institutions surveyed that were not pre-1992 universities), we substituted other cognate programmes drawn respectively from the humanities/social sciences and the physical sciences/technology areas. In institutions where single-honours language degrees were not offered, the substitutes were degree programmes involving some compulsory language study, such as international business studies. 31. The questionnaire target numbers were 20 per subject per year, hence 1,200 overall, 120 per HEI, 600 first years, 600 final years, and 400 per discipline. We experimented with e-mail circulation during the pilot phase, but rates of return were very low compared to in-class distribution. The latter method was chosen for the main survey. 32. Once the fieldwork phase of the survey was completed, the 1,200 questionnaires were coded and analysed using SPSS 10.0. The coding phase revealed a number of issues that could affect interpretation of the results. The most important of these was that some language students went to two host countries during their period abroad. For practical reasons, and because the questions were not adapted for two host countries, we only considered the first country mentioned. Therefore, we have to keep in mind that some students who appear to have gone abroad for one term or semester, spent in reality the whole year abroad. 33. Below are the two questionnaires, for first-year and final-year undergraduate students respectively.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
Section B4: Interview questions for students who have spent a period abroad 1. Pre-university international experience •
Have you had any experience of living, studying or working abroad before coming to university? If so, to what extent was this an influential factor in your decision to go abroad as part of your degree? Were you there as part of an organised programme?
•
Were you encouraged to study abroad by your school teachers? How about your family?
•
Were you encouraged to learn a foreign language by your school teachers? How about your family?
•
Did you take a Gap Year abroad between school and university? If so, where did you go? How long were you abroad? Did you organise it yourself? Did you seek assistance from any particular organisation? How did you finance it? Did you work while abroad?
2. Studying/working abroad •
Did you sign up for a degree with a mandatory period of study/work abroad?
•
What made you decide to spend some time abroad as part of your degree?
•
Did you decide so before coming to university?
•
How did you first hear about the possibility to study/work abroad?
•
What were the main factors that triggered your decision to spend part of your studies abroad?
•
How did you finance your period abroad?
•
Have the courses you took been recognised and credited as part of your degree?
•
If you were abroad on a work placement, has this been recognised and credited as part of your degree?
•
What were the main problems, if any, you encountered in planning you period abroad?; and once there? How do you think these could be ameliorated?
•
How would you evaluate the assistance you received from your home institution?; and from your host institution?
•
What do you perceive to have been the main benefits of spending time abroad?
•
What were your main expectations when you planned going abroad? Have these been fulfilled so far?
•
If you had had the possibility, would you have stayed there longer?
3. Life at university • Do you often socialise with students from other countries? •
Do you keep in touch with friends made during your period of study/work abroad?
•
Do you live with any international students?
4. Foreign languages • Did you study any foreign languages prior to university? (at school? private lessons?) •
Have you studied a foreign language as part of your degree?
•
Had you studied the language of your host country before you went there?
•
To what extent was improving your foreign language skills important in your decision to go abroad?
68
5. Post-graduation plans • What are you planning to do when you graduate? •
Do you intend to take a Gap Year after graduating?
•
Have you considered studying/working abroad after graduating?
•
Are you aware of any schemes to spend time studying/working abroad at post-graduation level?
•
How do you think the period abroad will reflect in your future career moves?
•
Would you consider moving abroad to live and work? Where? Why?
•
How do you think your career might compare with students who have not been abroad?
6. General questions • There is some concern about the declining numbers of students participating in study/work abroad initiatives – why do you think most students decide not to take advantage of the opportunities available? •
What do you think should be done so that more students would spend time abroad as part of your studies?
•
Would you recommend to a fellow-student that he/she take a period of work/study abroad?
Section B5: Interview questions for students who have not spent a period abroad 1. Pre-university international experience • Have you had any experience of living, studying or working abroad before coming to university? If so, to what extent was this an influential factor in your decision to go abroad as part of your degree? Were you there as part of an organised programme? •
Were you encouraged to study abroad by your school teachers? How about your family?
•
Were you encouraged to learn a foreign language by your school teachers? How about your family?
•
Did you take a Gap Year abroad between school and university? If so, where did you go? How long were you abroad? Did you organise it yourself? Did you seek assistance from any particular organisation? How did you finance it? Did you work while abroad?
2. Studying/working abroad • Have you heard of the possibility to go abroad during your degree? •
How would you assess the extent to which your university/department has promoted study/work abroad opportunities?
•
Do you regret not having spent a period of study/work abroad? If so, why? How long would you have liked to spend a period of study/work abroad?
•
What have been the main deterrents to you not spending time abroad?
•
If you had opted to spend – or had had the possibility of spending – part of your degree abroad would you have preferred to do a work placement, study ... ?
•
If you had the possibility, would you still consider studying/working abroad – perhaps as a postgraduate students or within a post-graduate training scheme?
3. Life at university • Do you often socialise with students from other countries? •
Do you live with any international students?
69
•
Do you have any friends at university who have been abroad?; If so, what have you heard about their experiences abroad?
4. Foreign languages • Did you study any foreign languages prior to university? (at school? private lessons?) •
Have you studied a foreign language as part of your degree?
•
How do you think foreign language knowledge (or lack of it) might influence your career?
5. Post-graduation plans • Do you intend to take a Gap Year after graduating? •
What are you planning to do when you graduate?
•
Have you considered studying/working abroad after graduating?
•
Are you aware of any schemes to spend time studying/working abroad at post-graduation level?
•
How do you think the period abroad will reflect in your future career moves?
•
Would you consider moving abroad to live and work? Where? Why?
•
How do you think your career might compare with students who have been abroad?
6. General questions • There is some concern about the declining numbers of students participating in study/work abroad initiatives – why do you think most students decide not to take advantage of the opportunities available? •
What do you think should be done so that more students would spend time abroad as part of your studies?
Section B6: Interview survey methodology 34. The most common method of selecting and accessing students for interviewing was to ask for volunteers at the end of classes, for instance where questionnaires had just been distributed; and then to arrange mutually convenient times and places. Sometimes the department concerned arranged rooms for the interviews and focus groups to take place in; on other occasions the interviews took place in common rooms and coffee bars. Departmental faculty and administrators also identified suitable and willing students, and helped to set up the focus groups. 35. We were also keen to broaden our survey of students’ views of mobility beyond the three departments targeted in each institution, so some interviews and focus groups were set up via other strategies. We got in touch with other departments where there were interesting experiences of mobility and set up interviews and discussion groups there – and talked to departmental staff. Some students were interviewed ‘randomly’ – in concourse areas, coffee bars and so on. 36. We cannot claim that the sample of students interviewed is representative of the student population as a whole. This is above all because the research is especially interested in learning about diverse experiences of mobility. So the in-depth interviews and focus groups were biased towards the students who had had a mobility experience, and these students constitute only a small minority of the total student body. However, more than half the individual interviews were with final-year non-mobile students.
70
37. It also has to be acknowledged that the students who participated in the interviews and discussion groups did so as volunteers and as such might not be a representative crosssection. Students with more negative views and experiences of mobility may well have ‘opted out’ of the opportunity to be interviewed. 38. All students interviewed were assured of the anonymity of the information provided, and all gave permission for the researchers to quote their statements. Section B7: Questions for staff interviews 1. Institutional management of mobility •
Is there a central office or individual responsible for overseeing student mobility in your institution? Follow-up questions on level of post, relationship to rest of institution, other duties etc.
•
To what extent is managing student mobility a centralised function in your institution, or is it highly decentralised to individual departments (schools, faculties etc.)?
•
Is there an office or an individual responsible for collating all statistics on mobility in your institution?
2. Mobility trends in the institution, and nationally •
What are the broad mobility trends – incoming and outgoing, and to various destinations – in your institution?
•
How do you explain the evolution of mobility in your institution?
•
Is there a shifting balance in the pattern of mobility – for instance between academic study and work placements, or between undergraduate and postgraduate mobility?
•
Are you concerned about the low and/or declining level of mobility of UK students compared to other EU countries?
•
Do you feel these trends put UK graduates at a disadvantage in the international business and employment market?
3. Profile of the internationally mobile student •
To what extent do the overall characteristics of the student population at your institution influence the make-up of the outward flow of students going abroad?
•
Does the mobile student reflect the characteristics of your institution’s student body as a whole; and if not, why not?
•
To what extent do you see international student mobility in your institution as typical of that from UK HEIs as a whole?
•
To what extent do you think your institutional engagement with this issue is different from elsewhere?
4. Promotion of mobility •
What efforts have been made to promote mobility within your institution (or department, school, faculty etc.)?
•
Is there a specific mobility strategy within the institution (department, etc.)? Follow-up questions on the nature of this strategy, its main catalysts, and evaluation of its success.
71
•
Are there institution-led activities (including departmental initiatives) which have evolved independently of international and national schemes such as Socrates/Erasmus and the Language Assistants programme?
•
Are there other kinds of shorter-term mobility abroad (fieldtrips, study tours etc.) which your institution/department promotes?
5. Reasons that deter students from going abroad •
In general, how do you explain the non-mobility of most students?
•
What are the main factors that deter students from your institution from going abroad? Can you give an idea of their relative importance?
•
How about the relevance of the Gap Year? Does it act as a substitute for within-programme mobility (or maybe a stimulus)?
6. Language skills •
What is the importance given to language teaching within your institution? Are students from departments other than languages encouraged to learn languages? Do you, for instance, have an ‘open language’ or ‘languages for all’ policy whereby all students can have access to language learning?
•
What are the trends for applications and enrolment in degrees including languages (other than English) in your institution over the past 5-10 years?
•
For those students who enrol on degrees involving languages, do you feel that their language competence has been increasing or decreasing over recent years?
•
What is the relationship between languages and mobility in your institution? For instance, do all students doing a language degree have to spend a period abroad? How about language minors? For students on non-language degrees who wish to spend a period abroad in a nonEnglish language environment, what language conditions, and what language training, are offered?
•
Is your institution/department exploring study/work abroad schemes that do not involve a foreign language?
7. Benefits of mobility •
What do you perceive to be the main benefits of international student mobility for your institution/department?
•
Why should students be encouraged to study/work abroad during their degree programme?
•
What do you, personally, think should be done to encourage more students to take a period of work/study abroad?
8. Problems of mobility, and future changes •
What are the main problems that have arisen with mobility (e.g. transfer of credit)?
•
What policy changes could counter these problems?
•
What major changes over the next few years might affect future mobility (e.g. the Bologna process, top up fees, semesterisation …?
72
Section B8: List of staff interviewees Interviewee code Position and function within the institution A1 Head of Department of French A2 Year Abroad Coordinator for Languages and European Studies (Academic) B1 Deputy Registrar and Head of European Office B2 Exchange Coordinator for a Medical department (Academic) B3 Coordinator of Exchanges with Latin America (Academic) B4 Student Exchange Coordinator (Administrator) C1 Vice-Principal C2 Erasmus Coordinator of the Faculty of Media and Arts (Academic) C3 Student Placement Coordinator, International Business Studies (Academic) C4 Field Trip Coordinator, Geography Department (Academic) C5 Erasmus Coordinator, Department of Law (Academic) C6 International Links Manager (Administrator) D1 Dean of Humanities D2 Head of Department of Geography D3 Head of Centre for International Exchanges and Languages D4 Study Abroad Advisor (Administrator) E1 Study Abroad Tutor (US Exchanges), School of Mathematics (Academic) E2 Socrates/Erasmus Coordinator, Department of Statistics (Academic) E3 Year Abroad Tutor, Department of Geography (Academic) E4 Study Abroad Advisor (Administrator) E5 Socrates/Erasmus Coordinator, Student Admissions (Administrator) F1 Head, School of Environmental Sciences F2 Head of the International Office (Administrator) F3 Educational Advisor, North American and Australian Exchanges (Administrator) F4 Coordinator, Leonardo placements (Administrator) G1 Head of European Studies G2 Erasmus Coordinator for Department of Economics and Management Studies (Academic) G3 Director, International Office (Administrator) G4 Director, Careers Service (Administrator) G5 International Exchanges Administrator, Registry H1 Deputy Principal H2 Head of Department of Mathematics H3 Erasmus Coordinator, Department of Mathematics (Academic) J1 Director of the Language Departments J2 Erasmus Coordinator, Department of German (Academic) J3 Director, International Office (Administrator) J4 University Exchange Coordinator (Administrator) K1 Head of Department of Geography K2 Socrates/Erasmus Coordinator, Department of Geography (Academic) K3 Lecturer, Department of Geography K4 Careers Advisor and Work Placement Coordinator, School of Computer Science (Academic) K5 Placements Coordinator, Department of Business and Finance (Academic) K6 Director, International Office (Administrator) K7 Socrates International Coordinator, International Office (Administrator) K8 General Secretary of IAESTE K9 Head, Business Enterprise Initiative
73
Annex C Supplementary tables for international student mobility Table C1: Criteria for identification of foreign students in OECD countries Australia
Foreign citizenship excluding - permanent residents - New Zealand citizens and residents - students sponsored by AUSAID Only concerns tertiary type A students (ISCED) Austria Foreign nationality, thus including permanent residents Belgium (Flemish) Foreign nationality, thus including permanent residents Canada Foreign nationality, excluding - former Canadian residents - students declaring themselves as immigrants Only concerns tertiary type A students (ISCED) Czech Republic Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents (a register of students should allow to distinguish residents in the future) Only concerns full-time students Denmark Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents Finland Foreign nationality, thus including permanent residents France Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents Germany Foreign citizenship, disaggregation between permanent residents and nonresidents exists, but is incomplete (disaggregation by level of study only) Hungary Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents, but excluding members of neighbouring countries’ Hungarian minorities (a specific questionnaire should allow to distinguish residents in the future) Iceland Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents Ireland Foreign domiciliary address, thus excluding permanent residents Italy Foreign nationality, thus including permanent residents Japan Foreign citizenship, disaggregation between permanent residents and nonresidents exists, but is incomplete (64% coverage for ISCED 5-6) Korea Foreign nationality, thus including permanent residents Luxembourg Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents (who make up the majority of foreign students, 100% for ISCED levels 1 to 4) New Zealand Foreign nationality (excluding Australian students), thus including permanent residents Norway Foreign country of birth Poland Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents Spain Foreign nationality, thus including permanent residents Sweden Foreign citizenship, thus including permanent residents However, only students registered on the Swedish population register are considered foreign, which is not the case of all students originating from other Nordic countries Switzerland Foreign citizenship, disaggregation between permanent residents and nonresidents exists, but is incomplete (70% coverage for ISCED 5-6) Turkey Foreigners entering Turkey on the sole purpose of study United Kingdom Foreign home address United States Foreign citizenship, excluding - permanent residents - refugees Source: OECD, 2001
74
Table C2: Exchange of students in tertiary education (OECD countries, 2000) Foreign Exchange of students1 students as a percentage of all students Students from Students Net intake of (foreign and other countries studying abroad foreign students domestic relative to total relative to total relative to total students) tertiary enrolment tertiary enrolment tertiary enrolment 2 2 2 Australia 12.5 6.1 0.6 5.5 2 2 2 Austria 11.6 7.6 4.4 3.2 Belgium 10.9 5.8 2 2.8 2 3.1 2 Canada 3.3 1.5 2.4 -0.9 Czech Republic 2.2 1.0 1.2 -0.2 Denmark 6.8 2.6 3.5 -0.9 Finland 2.1 0.7 3.6 -2.9 France 6.8 1.9 2.6 -0.6 Germany 9.1 4.5 2.6 1.9 Greece m m 13.1 m Hungary 3.2 m 2.2 m Iceland 4.2 3.5 25.4 -21.9 Ireland 4.6 3.9 11.0 -7.2 Italy 1.4 0.2 2.3 -2.1 Japan 1.5 0.6 1.5 -0.9 Korea 0.1 n 2.3 -2.3 Luxembourg m m 225.6 m Mexico 0.1 m 0.7 m Netherlands 2.9 1.7 2.6 -0.8 New Zealand 4.8 2.4 3.5 -1.0 Norway 3.7 2.2 7.0 -4.8 Poland 0.4 0.1 1.1 -1.0 Portugal 3.0 0.8 2.8 -2.0 Slovak Republic 1.2 0.3 2.9 -2.6 Spain 2.2 1.4 1.5 -0.1 Sweden 6.0 4.3 4.4 -0.1 Switzerland 16.6 11.8 5.3 6.5 Turkey 1.7 0.1 4.3 -4.3 United Kingdom 11.0 6.0 1.4 4.6 United States 3.6 1.8 0.3 1.5 Country mean3 4.9 2.9 4.1 -1.2
Foreign enrolment by gender % % male female
52.9 49.9 52.4 55.8 58.8 44.5 57.5 m 53.1 m 46.7 35.5 47.8 48.8 55.6 57.6 m m 52.9 49.3 44.7 47.2 49.7 62.8 49.3 44.1 56.0 73.7 52.8 58.1 52.2
47.1 50.1 47.6 44.2 41.2 55.5 42.5 m 46.9 m 53.3 64.5 52.2 51.2 44.4 42.4 m m 47.1 50.7 55.3 51.2 50.3 37.2 50.7 55.9 44.0 26.3 47.2 41.9 47.7
1
Only those OECD and non-OECD countries which report the inflow into their system are included in the sum. 2 Tertiary-type A and advanced research programmes only. 3 Country mean excludes Luxembourg. n = Missing data of which the magnitude is either negligible or zero. m = Data is not available. Source: OECD, 2002
75
Table C3: Exchange of students in tertiary education (non-OECD countries, 2000) Foreign students as a percentage of all students (foreign and domestic students) Argentina 2 Brazil Chile 2 China Egypt Indonesia 3 Jamaica Jordan Malaysia 2 Paraguay Peru Philippines 2 Russian Federation 3 Thailand Tunisia Uruguay 2 Zimbabwe
0.2 m 0.4 m m n 2.2 8.5 0.7 m m 0.2 0.9 m 1.5 0.9 m
Exchange of students1
Students from other countries relative to total tertiary enrolment
Students studying abroad relative to total tertiary enrolment
n m 0.1 m m n 6.3 1.1 0.3 m m 0.1 2.4 m 4.4 2.8 m
0.4 0.6 1.1 1.5 2.2 1.1 12.0 3.6 8.0 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.9 1.5 1.5 7.0
Foreign enrolment by gender
Net intake of % % foreign students male female relative to total tertiary enrolment -0.4 m -1.0 m m -1.0 -5.7 -2.5 -7.7 m m -0.1 2.1 m 2.8 1.4 m
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
1
Only those OECD and non-OECD countries which report the inflow into their system are included in the sum. 2 Year of reference 1999. 3 Year of reference 2001. n = Missing data of which the magnitude is either negligible or zero. m = Data is not available. Source: OECD, 2002
76
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
Table C4: Proportion of citizens in tertiary education studying abroad (2000) Countries of origin Countries of destination Other Korea + G-B + North Australia + Total EU1 European Japan Ireland America N-Zealand OECD countries Australia 0.09 0.01 0.04 0.16 0.33 0.00 0.63 Austria 3.16 0.30 0.01 0.49 0.40 0.04 4.41 Belgium 1.69 0.08 0.01 0.69 0.27 0.02 2.77 Canada 0.19 0.03 0.02 0.27 1.78 0.09 2.38 Czech Republic 0.43 0.28 0.01 0.11 0.36 0.02 1.21 Denmark 1.26 0.49 0.01 1.02 0.60 0.10 3.47 Finland 2.10 0.13 0.01 0.99 0.35 0.03 3.61 France 1.20 0.15 0.01 0.65 0.54 0.01 2.55 Germany 1.06 0.30 0.01 0.68 0.48 0.07 2.60 Greece 4.89 0.58 0.00 6.95 0.64 0.03 13.09 Hungary 1.59 0.09 0.02 0.13 0.36 0.01 2.21 Iceland 14.77 2.62 0.06 2.34 5.54 0.05 25.38 Ireland 1.13 0.05 0.01 8.93 0.72 0.21 11.04 Italy 1.55 0.23 0.00 0.35 0.18 0.01 2.33 Japan 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.16 1.12 0.07 1.48 Korea 0.24 0.00 0.61 0.07 1.30 0.09 2.32 Luxembourg 188.51 7.76 0.16 25.36 3.48 0.21 225.47 Mexico 0.11 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.54 0.00 0.72 Netherlands 1.48 0.08 0.01 0.54 0.37 0.08 2.55 New Zealand 0.09 0.01 0.05 0.28 0.57 2.48 3.49 Norway 2.34 0.26 0.01 2.19 1.20 0.94 6.94 Poland 0.85 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.01 1.08 Portugal 1.77 0.12 0.01 0.61 0.24 0.02 2.77 Slovak Republic 0.95 1.42 0.01 0.11 0.35 0.02 2.86 Spain 0.71 0.09 0.00 0.42 0.23 0.00 1.46 Sweden 1.13 0.37 0.02 1.17 1.41 0.29 4.40 Switzerland 2.94 0.04 0.02 0.92 1.28 0.12 5.32 Turkey 3.15 0.06 0.01 0.17 0.93 0.02 4.34 United Kingdom 0.54 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.42 0.22 1.35 United States 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.25 Non OECD countries Argentina 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.39 Brazil 0.23 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.34 0.01 0.65 Chile 0.49 0.04 0.01 0.06 0.34 0.05 0.98 China 0.16 0.01 0.40 0.08 0.74 0.08 1.47 Egypt 0.86 0.07 0.07 0.39 0.80 0.02 2.21 Indonesia 0.11 0.00 0.05 0.04 0.42 0.40 1.01 Jamaica 0.09 0.01 0.01 1.65 10.23 0.01 12.01 Jordan 1.10 0.28 0.01 0.58 1.48 0.04 3.49 Malaysia 0.06 0.01 0.42 2.32 1.92 2.97 7.69 Paraguay 0.20 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.44 0.00 0.79 Peru 0.26 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.56 Philippines 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.03 0.22 Russian Federation 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.28 Thailand 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.13 0.54 0.16 0.94 Tunisia 0.93 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.53 0.00 1.52 Uruguay 0.39 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.42 0.02 0.92 Zimbabwe 0.26 0.09 0.01 3.79 2.37 0.49 7.01 1
Does not include Great Britain and Ireland. Source: OECD, 2002
77
Table C5: Distribution of outgoing students by language of the destination country (%, 1998) Country of origin Australia Austria Belgium Canada Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Japan Korea Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom United States
Different language 21.7 31.3 70.2 4.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.9 76.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 9.1 88.4 100.0 100.0 18.1 92.7 76.7 3.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 52.0 100.0 43.1 40.8
Destination (OECD excluding Mexico, the Netherlands and Portugal) of which French-speaking of which German-speaking of which English-speaking 9.4 7.0 10.4 62.4 19.9 60.2 2.7 22.6 7.9 73.0 8.5 14.7 50.8 5.5 17.4 43.6 27.3 72.2 24.4 65.7 5.7 37.4 51.4 9.3 56.2 29.9 3.9 12.8 31.8 3.6 3.8 23.2 52.6 29.0 4.7 4.2 92.2 3.3 7.9 63.1 93.1 10.6 3.8 88.7 7.9 22.5 51.3 2.6 1.3 5.6 12.1 58.2 14.2 60.5 19.6 42.2 23.3 30.5 22.5 32.3 50.4 10.3 13.2 63.2 91.1 6.5 68.1 24.9 18.2 13.5 21.9 18.4
Source: OECD, 2001 Note: For multilingual countries (Canada, Switzerland, Belgium), we assumed that students were fluent in all official languages. Hence studying in a French or English-speaking country (Canada) / Italian, German or French-speaking country (Switzerland) did not involve adjusting to a different language environment. For these countries, mobility towards countries with a different language may thus be underestimated. Table C6: English language assistants abroad, 1995-96 to 2002-03 England
199596 1,334 558 212 3 14 3 1 30 0 2,155
199697 1,358 552 215 9 15 3 2 41 0 2,195
199798 965 563 219 10 13 2 2 39 0 1,812
199899 1,216 508 216 10 12 0 0 34 0 1,996
19992000200120022000 01 02 03 French speaking 1,026 896 796 769 German speaking 464 365 351 372 Spanish speaking 193 197 204 231 Portuguese speaking 4 1 1 0 Italy 10 10 13 14 Dutch speaking 0 0 8 2 Scandinavian languages 1 0 8 2 Central and Eastern Europe 34 5 8 2 Chinese 0 0 0 78 Total England* 1,732 1,474 1,373 1,466 Wales 122 116 80 92 Scotland 349 281 250 279 240 277 277 232 Northern Ireland 120 109 103 98 99 75 71 79 Total UK 2,624 2,585 2,165 2,373 2,193 1,942 1,801 1,869 Notes: ‘England’ includes assistants from Wales until 1998-99; assistants from Wales are recorded separately for the first time in 1999-2000. The above figures represent the number of assistants in post on 30 November. Source: British Council
78
Table C7: Student mobility relative to the population of 18-21 years of age Country
Student mobility (per 1,000)
Belgium
9
Denmark
7
Germany
5
Greece
3
Spain
6
France
6
Ireland
6
Italy
4
Luxembourg
5
Netherlands
6
Austria
8
Portugal
4
Finland
13
Sweden
8
United Kingdom
4
EU
5
Source: calculated from OECD data Table C8: UK institutional involvement in outgoing Erasmus students: number of students departing from UK institutions Number of students departing:
1-10
11-50
51-100
1994-95 35 43 39 2001-02 34 54 30 2002-03 38 55 29 Source: UK Socrates-Erasmus Council Note: the numbers in the table are the number of institutions from which students departed
101+ 42 30 27
Table C9: Location of work for graduated students by Erasmus exchange and type of studies (2000-01), percentage data Language students Location of work
Erasmus (%) UK 79 Other EU 15 Rest of world 5 Source: HESA-Erasmus matched data set
Non-Erasmus (%) 82 12 6
Non-language students Erasmus (%) 88 8 4
Non-Erasmus (%) 97 1 2
79
Table C10: Administrative aspects of outward student mobility by type of HEI Type of HEI
With a key person with overall responsibility for outward student mobility
There are separate Have a strategic persons responsible for: plan for student mobility North Europe America
√
%
√
%
√
%
√
%
Pre-1992 universities (n=31)
18
58.1
18
58.0
12
38.7
6
19.3
Post-1992 universities (n=21)
11
52.4
9
42.9
7
33.3
10
47.6
Other HEIs (n=28)
16
57.1
8
28.6
8
29.6
11
39.3
45
56.3
35
43.8
27
33.8
27
33.8
Total (n=80) Source: Authors’ survey
Table C11: Numbers of students on the Northern Irish Business Education Initiative (USA) Year Number of students 1999-2000 65 2000-01 73 2001-02 70 2002-03 62 2003-04 45 Source: British Council Table C12: Correlation of explanatory variables with the institutional migration rates for the 2002 Erasmus outgoing student flow Independent variable
Pearson’s R
% Full-time first degrees in languages (00/01) 0.265 % Full-time first degrees in law (00/01) 0.054 % Full-time first degrees in social science (00/01) 0.080 % Full-time first degrees in business studies (00/01) -0.248 % Staff entered as research active in the 2001 RAE 0.486 % Staff in RAE rated 5 or 5* departments (2001) 0.360 Very significant’ differences were those evident at the 0.01 level
Statistical significance 0.002 0.536 0.358 0.004 0.000 0.000
Table C13: Regression models on ‘change in number of Erasmus outgoing students’1 Model
R
Statistical Significance 0.000
Constant, % staff in RAE grade 5 and 5* departments1 0.621 Constant, % staff in RAE grade 5 and 5* departments, % 0.667 0.000 change in language students 1 The percentage change in the number of Erasmus students has been calculated on the basis of 1994 and 2002 figures supplied by the UK Socrates-Erasmus office, whereas the percentage change in language students is based on 1994 and 2001 values supplied by HESA. Staff in RAE grade 5 and 5* departments concerns the year 2001.
80
Annex D Statistical analysis of the HESA-ERASMUS matched dataset Introduction 1. This annex contains the results from matching individual data supplied by UK Socrates-Erasmus Council with the individualised HESA student and first destination records. The analysis was carried out by John Thompson and Mark Gittoes of HEFCE. The nature of these data is such that the matching is only approximate, and the results should therefore be interpreted with care. For example, differences between students on Erasmus exchanges and those not on exchanges should be taken as indicative of some differences, rather than giving an accurate estimate of the size of these differences. The UK SocratesErasmus Council and the Higher Education Statistics Agency have agreed to proposals which will allow much more straightforward and accurate matching to be undertaken in future. 2. It is shown that students with a language as one of their subjects of qualification are much more likely to go on an Erasmus exchange, and that the trends in the numbers of students going on Erasmus exchanges is at least in part explained by the decrease in numbers of students studying languages. The profile of students on Erasmus exchanges is largely explained by the proportion studying languages. The employment outcomes of students that have been on an Erasmus exchange are similar to other students, apart from the fact that they are more likely to be working abroad. A higher proportion of students who go on Erasmus exchanges get ‘good’ degrees than those not on exchanges, but they do not do better than those not on exchanges on language courses. Data matching 3. The file supplied by the UK Socrates-Erasmus Council for 2002-03 contained 7,959 records on outgoing Erasmus students. Table D1 shows the results of matching these records with the HESA record. Table D1: Classification of the records on the 2002-03 Erasmus dataset Description UK Socrates-Erasmus file Records relating to UK higher education institutions Records matched to HESA student record Records matched to HESA student record with duplicates removed
Number of records 7,959 7,852 6,507 6,026
4. The table shows that there are 107 students that attend an institution that is not present on the HESA dataset. Of the 7,852 students who do attend a HESA recorded institution, we are unable to find 1,345 on the HESA record using the matching process given below at paragraphs 30 to 32. We have removed 481 records from our matched records as they represent students already recorded in our final 6,026 selected records. 5. The matching is incomplete because of the limitations of the data. This also results in false matches, which we estimate results in less than 3 per cent being linked to the wrong HESA record. Populations used to compare Erasmus and non-Erasmus students 6. The differences in characteristics between Erasmus and non-Erasmus home full-time (or sandwich) degree-level students in their second or third years of study have been examined. Table D2 shows this group in the context of the total numbers of Erasmus students matched to the HESA record. 81
Table D2: Selection of records used in analysis (2002-03 cohort) Description
All Erasmus (linked to HESA records, see table D1) Full-time first degree Erasmus students in second or third years Home full-time first degree Erasmus students in second or third years All home full-time first degree students in second or third years Home full-time first degree ‘non- Erasmus’ students in second or third years
Number of records 6,026 5,374 4,718 491,091 486,373
7. Of the 5,374 full-time first degree students in second or third years on Erasmus exchanges, 4,718 are home students. This means that 656, or 12 per cent, are not from the UK. Most of these, 570, or 11 per cent, are from the EU. 8. Ninety-four per cent of home full-time degree students on Erasmus exchanges go on their exchange in the second or third year. This represents, allowing for the linking failures, just over 1 per cent of the total number of home full-time first degree students in second or third years. (Note that the 491,091 does not correspond to the totals published by HESA. For example, duplicate records have been removed.) 9. Students referred to as ‘non-Erasmus’ are those not found through the linking of Erasmus records in 2002-03. This is an approximation. There will be about 800 records in this category where the student went on the programme but where the link was not made, and a further 5,500 students who would have been on an exchange in 2001-02 or will go on an exchange in 2003-04. This means about 1.2 per cent of the ‘nonErasmus’ students will actually go on an Erasmus exchange. When we look at the ‘non-Erasmus’ students taking a language as a subject of study, this misidentification rate rises to 30 per cent, so that the real differences between non-Erasmus and Erasmus students studying languages will be somewhat larger than shown in this analysis. Erasmus exchanges and language as a subject of study 10. Students who had a language component to their study were identified. (Note that this does not follow a standard classification used in HESA publications, in which many language students appear under the ‘combined study’ heading.) Details are set out at paragraphs 33 to 34 below. The chance of a student with such a language component being identified as an Erasmus student is about 45 times that of a student without such a component. Table D3 below provides the details. 11. The majority of Erasmus students are on courses with a language component. The Erasmus students who are incorrectly matched will be matched to non-language component records in about 97 per cent of cases. This means that about 60 per cent of these Erasmus students must be on courses with a language component. This represents a minimum estimate, since we almost certainly have failed to identify some courses which have a significant language component. This supports our conclusion from a time series analysis that the decline in numbers of students on Erasmus programmes since 1995-96 can in part be explained by the decline in numbers of students on such programmes. 12. Note that because we have taken students from the second and third years of study, the penetration of Erasmus programmes will be about twice that shown in Table D3 below . If we also take into account our failure to match about 17 per cent of the Erasmus students, these figures are consistent with about half of 82
home full-time first degree students with a language component taking part in an Erasmus exchange programme. Table D3: Erasmus identification and language component of study (Home full-time first degree students in second and third years) Numbers of students
Language component Yes
No
Total
Non-Erasmus Erasmus
12,214 2,765
474,159 1,953
486,373 4,718
Total
14,979
476,112
491,091
Erasmus?
Percentage non-Erasmus and Erasmus Language component
Erasmus? Non-Erasmus Erasmus Total
Yes
No
Total
81.5% 18.5% 100.0%
99.6% 0.4% 100.0%
99.0% 1.0% 100.0%
Percentage with and without a language component Language component
Erasmus? Non-Erasmus Erasmus Total
Yes
No
Total
2.5% 58.6%
97.5% 41.4%
100.0% 100.0%
3.1%
96.9%
100.0%
13. This strong association between studying languages and taking part in Erasmus programmes provides a partial explanation for the decline in Erasmus numbers since 1995-96. Table D4 shows the numbers recorded on Erasmus programmes and the number studying with a language component. Table D4: Numbers of Erasmus exchanges and numbers studying languages (Percentages show numbers relative to 1995-96) Number of Number studying Number studying Number studying Erasmus languages law with language languages or law with exchanges component language component 1995-96 11,735 100% 19,917 100% 833 100% 20,750 100% 1996-97 10,537 90% 18,928 95% 808 97% 19,736 95% 1997-98 10,582 90% 18,523 93% 855 103% 19,378 93% 1998-99 9,994 85% 17,911 90% 836 100% 18,747 90% 1999-00 10,056 86% 17,544 88% 728 87% 18,272 88% 2000-01 9,014 77% 16,238 82% 726 87% 16,964 82% 2001-02 8,466 72% 15,270 77% 703 84% 15,973 77% 2002-03 7,959 68% 14,274 72% 705 85% 14,979 72% Table D4 notes a. Erasmus numbers include duplicates and EU students (see table D1 for 2002-03 figures). b. HESA data collection started in 1994-95, but data quality problems means that comparisons with this year would be unreliable. c. Number studying languages are home full-time first degree students in second and third years. d. The students without a language as a subject of qualification aim, but studying law with an indication of a language interest in the course title are shown separately. Given the identification of these law students is uncertain, the time series of these data should be treated with caution. 83
Characteristics of students on Erasmus exchanges 14. The age, sex, ethnicity and social class of students who have been on an Erasmus exchange are considered. Given the importance of whether the course involves a language component in determining whether a student goes on an Erasmus exchange, it is important to take this into account when comparing students who have been on Erasmus exchanges with those who have not. (Note that about 30 per cent of ‘non-Erasmus’ students on language courses will in fact go on Erasmus exchanges.) Age 15. Erasmus students are, on average, younger than non-Erasmus students. Table D5 below shows that the average age of an Erasmus student is 19.1 and for a non-Erasmus student it is 20.3. This difference can in part be explained by the fact that modern language students tend to be younger than non-language students, and in part because for students without a language component who go on Erasmus exchanges are younger than those who do not. Table D5: Average age at start of course by Erasmus or not and course type (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years) Erasmus? Non-Erasmus Erasmus Overall
Language component Yes No 19.4 20.3 18.8 19.5 19.3 20.3
Overall 20.3 19.1 20.3
Sex 16. Table D6 shows that the Erasmus students include fewer males (31 per cent) than their non-Erasmus counterparts (45 per cent). The subject area of study largely explains this difference. The Erasmus cohort of students has a much higher proportion studying courses involving languages and these are the courses favoured by women. Table D6 Proportion of male students by Erasmus or not and course type (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years)
Erasmus?
Non-Erasmus Erasmus Total
Language component Yes No Number of Number of students % male students 12,214 29% 472,159 2,765 28% 1,953 14,979 28% 476,112
Total
% male 46% 37% 46%
Number of students 486,373 4,718 491,091
% male 45% 31% 45%
Ethnicity 17. There is an ethnic imbalance between the Erasmus and non-Erasmus groups, with 8 per cent of the Erasmus group with known ethnicity being non-white. For the non-Erasmus group, the figure is 16 per cent. Table D7 shows the proportion of students with known ethnicity who are not white, separated by Erasmus or not, and by whether there is a language component in the course. 84
Table D7: Proportion of students who are not white by Erasmus and course type (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years) Language component Erasmus?
Non-Erasmus Erasmus Total
Yes Number of students 12,214 2,765 32,470
% not white 9% 8% 9%
No Number of students 474,159 1,953 824,425
Total % not white 16% 9% 16%
Number of students 486,373 4,718 856,895
% not white 16% 8% 16%
18. The ethnic background of Erasmus students is similar to non-Erasmus students where there is a language component to their courses. However, the ethnic background of students without a language component differs between non-Erasmus and Erasmus students, with the Erasmus group including a much lower percentage of students from ethnic minorities. Social class 19. Table D8 shows that the variation in the social classes can in part be attributed to the differences in the social classes of those studying a language course and those who do not. The proportion of those from higher social classes is also higher for Erasmus students compared to non-Erasmus students for students on courses without a language component. The table shows the proportion from each group that come from the highest three social classes. Students who are over 21 are excluded because their social class is defined by their own, or partner’s occupation, rather than the occupation of their parents. Table D8: Proportion of students from higher social classes by Erasmus and course type (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years under 21 on entry)
Erasmus?
Non-Erasmus Erasmus Total
Language component Yes No Number of % High Number of % High students social class students social class 11,047 83% 382,184 76% 2,629 84% 1,702 82% 13,676 83% 383,886 76%
Total Number of students 393,231 4,331 397,562
% High social class 76% 83% 76%
Profile of Erasmus students: a summary 20. Erasmus students have higher proportions of young students, female students, white students and students from higher social classes. This is in part, and in the case of sex differences, almost entirely explained by the higher proportions of these students on course with a language component. However, with respect to age, ethnicity and social class, for students on courses without a language component the Erasmus students tend to include more young students, white students, and students from higher social classes. 21. These differences could be due to a greater inclination for these groups to be mobile, or it could be due to some unidentified characteristic of the courses with no language component where students go on Erasmus exchanges, which makes them attractive to these groups. It may be that some of the ‘non85
language’ courses do, in fact, have a significant language component. Identifying a language component is not always straightforward, as is illustrated by the ‘law with language’ students, and it is likely that some have been missed. Destinations of Erasmus students Populations used to compare Erasmus and non-Erasmus graduates 22. The destinations of students who went on Erasmus exchange programs in 2001-02 and later are not yet known. The latest cohort for whom these data are available is 2000-01. In this analysis we look at those students who qualified in 2001-02 and returned a first destination questionnaire in early 2003. Table D9 shows how records were selected for analysis. (NB this table corresponds to tables D1 and D2 above.) Table D9 Selection of records used in analysis (2000-01 cohort) Description UK Socrates-Erasmus file
Number of records 9,014
Records relating to UK Higher Education Institutions
8,848
Records matched to HESA student record
7,106
All Erasmus (linked to HESA records)
6,603
Home and EU full-time first degree Erasmus
5,727
Home full-time first degree Erasmus
5,423
Home full-time first degree Erasmus students in second or third years
5,073
All home full-time first degree students in second or third years
466,571
Home full-time first degree ‘non- Erasmus’ students in second or third years
461,498
23. The selected Erasmus and non-Erasmus student records were then linked into the HESA student record for the following year, which in turn was linked to the first destination survey for those qualifying in that year. Table D10 shows the results of this linking. Table D10: Erasmus and non-Erasmus 2000-01 cohorts in 2001-02 (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years in 2000-01) Erasmus Non-Erasmus Not returned on 2001-02 student record 217 136,342 Returned on 2001-02 record but not gaining qualification 713 127,098 Gained a qualification, but not responding to FDS 664 38,130 FDS respondent 3,479 159,928 Total 5,073 461,498 Table D10 note: ‘Gained a qualification’ refers to a first degree or postgraduate qualification. 24. In this analysis the 3,479 Erasmus respondents to the First Destination Survey are compared to the 159,928 non-Erasmus respondents. These are not exactly equivalent cohorts, but are roughly comparable. Most students who take part on Erasmus exchanges are on four-year courses, while most ‘non-Erasmus’ students are on three-year courses. This is the reason why there are a relatively large number of ‘nonErasmus’ students who are not found on the 2001-02 record. 86
Type of activity 25. Table D11 shows the breakdown of activity for Erasmus and non-Erasmus students. The pattern of work, study, unemployment and other activities is similar for Erasmus and non-Erasmus students. Table D11: Erasmus and non-Erasmus graduate activities (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years in 2000-01)
Employed Entered study or training Seeking employment or training Unknown or not available for employment, study FDS respondent
Erasmus 2,172 62% 758 22% 268 8% 281 8% 3,479 100%
Non-Erasmus 106,054 66% 30,646 19% 12,995 8% 10,233 6% 159,928 100%
Quality of employment 26. In a study by the Institute for Employment Research (IER), ‘Moving On’, jobs were categorised on the basis of their Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) as ‘graduate’, ‘graduate track’ and ‘non-graduate’. (Details of the mapping can be found in HEFCE report 01/21, ‘Indicators of employment’ (April 2001).) Table D12 shows the proportions of graduate combined with graduate track and non-graduate jobs for Erasmus and non-Erasmus students. Table D12: Erasmus and non-Erasmus graduate employment quality (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years in 2000-01)
Graduate Non-graduate Graduate and non-graduate Not known All in employment
Erasmus 1,422 66% 744 34% 2,166 100% 6 2,172
Non-Erasmus 75,384 71% 30,176 29% 105,560 100% 494 106,0954
27. Table D12 shows that a higher proportion of Erasmus students are in non-graduate jobs. Table D13 shows that this can be explained by the subject balance of Erasmus students. Note that the differences in the percentages of graduate jobs between Erasmus and non-Erasmus students in these subject groupings are not significant. The numbers of Erasmus students doing sciences and combined subjects are just 218 and 20 respectively. Table D13: Erasmus and non-Erasmus employment – % of graduate jobs (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years in 2000-01)
With language component Other humanities Sciences Combined subject All subjects
Erasmus 63% 68% 73% 85% 66%
Non-Erasmus 66% 68% 76% 69% 71%
87
Location of employment 28. Table D14 shows the location of work of Erasmus and non-Erasmus graduates. Erasmus students are more likely to be working outside the UK than their non-Erasmus equivalents. Only 1 per cent of the non-Erasmus students are recorded as working within the EU (excluding the UK), whereas the associated figure for Erasmus students is 12 per cent. Table D14: Erasmus and non-Erasmus graduate employment – location (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years in 2001-02) Erasmus Students on courses with language component 79% 1,024 UK 15% 197 EU 5% 69 Outside EU 100% 1,290 Total known Students on courses without language component 88% 773 UK 8% 72 EU 4% 31 Outside EU 100% 876 Total known Students on courses with or without language component 83% 1,797 UK 12% 269 EU 5% 100 Outside EU 100% 2,166 Total known 6 Not known 2,172 All in employment
Non-Erasmus 2,094 305 148 2,547
82% 12% 6% 100%
100,366 1,121 1,707 103,194
97% 1% 2% 100%
102,460 1,426 1,855 105,741 313 106,054
97% 1% 2% 100%
Degree class of Erasmus graduates 29. Table D15 shows the class of degree obtained by students who had been on an Erasmus exchange. Overall, it shows that students who have been on an Erasmus exchange have a higher proportion of firsts, and firsts or upper seconds. However, it is known that there are a number of factors which are associated with the probability of getting a ‘good degree’, in particular the entry qualifications and subject of study. It is unlikely that students who have been, and have not been, on Erasmus exchanges are comparable in these respects. A comparison restricted to graduates with a language component, shows that the Erasmus and non-Erasmus students have similar proportions of ‘good’ degrees. Table D15: Proportion of graduates gaining firsts or upper seconds by Erasmus and course type (Home full-time first degree students in second or third years in 2001)
Erasmus?
Non-Erasmus Erasmus Total
Language component Yes % firsts or Number of upper seconds students 4,971 10% (72%) 2,412 9% (70%) 7,383 10% (71%)
Total
No Number of students 177,164 1,676 178,840
% firsts or upper seconds 10% (61%) 16% (76%) 10% (61%)
Number of students 182,135 4,085 186,223
% firsts or upper seconds 10% (61%) 12% (73%) 10% (62%)
Table D15 note: Table D15 includes those students identified in table D10 as ‘gaining a qualification’ who gained a first degree with honours, that is first, upper or lower second, or third. 88
Linking the Erasmus record to the HESA record – technical details 30. To identify Erasmus students in a particular year, active records on the HESA student dataset were linked to records in the Erasmus dataset for the same year. 31.
The linking is based on seven characteristics of the students: a. Surname – Only records that had matching or similar surnames were considered. b. Home institution / HESA institution – Only records whose Erasmus home institution matches the HESA institution are accepted. c. Sex – Records with matching sex are accepted. d. First name – For Erasmus records where there is no first name recorded, first name is not used as a matching criterion. For records where the first initial is given on Erasmus, only HESA records with a matching first initial are accepted. For Erasmus records where the full first name is recorded, records that match initials or similar first name are considered. e. Age/date of birth – Erasmus does not collect date of birth but does collect age at start of study period and start month of the student. Using the HESA date of birth, we can infer a student’s age for any HESA record at the start of the study period of the potentially matched Erasmus record. Any records whose ages are different by more than one year are not considered. f. Nationality / domicile, and level / qualification aim – These two sets of fields are used to increase or reduce the level of confidence in a potential match.
32. A scoring system has been developed, and only matches that achieve a certain level of confidence are accepted. For example, Erasmus and HESA records that have similar (but not matching surnames), no Erasmus first name recorded, at the same institution, the same sex, inferred ages that vary by one year, with differing nationality but the same level of qualification would not be considered a match. This approach allows us to find the majority of Erasmus students on the HESA student record. We estimate that less than 3 per cent of the matches we have found are false. Definition of a student with a language component in their course 33. A student is defined as having a language component in their course if any one of their HESA subjects of qualification aim fall into the list given below.. Note that there can be up to three subjects of qualification aim. Under standard classifications many of the identified students would be included under combined studies. The subjects, with HESA subject codes given in parenthesis, were: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k.
(R1) (R2) (R3) (R4) (R5) (R7) (R8) (T1) (T2) (T8) (T9)
French language, literature & culture. German language, literature & culture. Italian language, literature & culture. Spanish language, literature & culture. Portuguese language, literature & culture. Scandinavian languages, literature & culture. Russian languages, literature & culture. Slavonic and East-European languages, literature & culture. Other European languages, literature & culture (as defined by HESA). Other language studies (as defined by HESA). Other or unspecified modern languages (as defined as HESA).
89
34. We also included students who had one subject returned as law (M3) and their program title contained any of the following words or fragments: • • • • • • • •
French German Eur Spanish M lang Modern language Italian Belgian.
90
Annex E The HEI questionnaire: supplementary tables Table E1: Non-Erasmus outward mobility by type of HEI: ratio data, 2002-03 Type of HEI
No. of outward Mobile students per students, 2002-03 HEI
Pre-1992 universities Post-1992 universities Other HEIs
2,353 908 333
Mobile students per 1,000 students
91 45 13
5.8 2.5 3.6
Table E2: Non-Erasmus outward mobility by region of destination and type of HEI, 2000-01 to 200203
2001-02
2002-03
% change 2000-01 to 2002-03
874 130 148 401 186
1,126 190 216 535 294
1,125 229 245 578 297
28.7 76.2 65.6 44.1 59.7
45.5 9.2 9.9 23.4 12.0
1,739
2,361
2,474
42.3
100.0
North America Australia, NZ Asia EU and other European Other and unspecified
531 55 71 141 40
581 85 86 151 31
614 65 110 153 20
15.6 18.2 54.9 8.5 -50.0
63.8 6.8 11.5 15.9 2.0
Total
838
934
962
14.8
100.0
North America Australia, NZ Asia EU and other European Other and unspecified
170 13 7 9 20
210 16 22 49 24
221 20 36 46 25
30.0 53.8 414.3 411.1 25.0
63.5 5.7 10.4 13.2 7.2
Total
219
321
348
58.9
100.0
Total
2,796
3,616
3,784
35.3
100.0
2000-01
% of total mobility 2002-03
Pre-1992 universities (n=31) North America Australia, NZ Asia EU and other European Other and unspecified Total Post-1992 universities (n=21)
Other HEIs (n=28)
91
Table E3: Non-Erasmus outward mobility by region of destination and UK origin, 2000-01 to 2002-03
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
% change 2000-01 to 2002-03
607 81 64 244 143
725 137 186 348 231
795 165 210 380 239
31.0 103.7 228.1 55.7 67.1
44.5 9.2 11.7 21.2 13.4
1,139
1,627
1,789
57.0
100.0
625 53 106 196 89
780 80 80 282 98
756 78 132 291 97
21.0 47.2 24.5 48.5 9.0
55.8 5.8 9.7 21.5 7.2
1,069
1,320
1,354
26.7
100.0
% of total mobility 2002-03
South East England (n=34) North America Australia, NZ Asia EU and other European Other and unspecified Total Rest of England (n=31) North America Australia, NZ Asia EU and other European Other and unspecified Total
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (n=15) North America Australia, NZ Asia EU and other European Other and unspecified
343 64 56 111 14
412 74 58 105 20
409 71 49 106 6
19.2 10.9 -12.5 -5.5 -57.1
63.8 11.1 7.7 16.5 0.9
Total
588
669
641
9.0
100.0
Total
2,796
3,616
3784
35.3
100.0
Table E4: Length of absence by type of HEI Type of HEI
< one term No.
Pre-1992 universities (n=445) Post-1992 universities (n=221) Other HEIs (n=93) Total (n=759)
%
one term to one semester No. %
> one semester No. %
variable length No. %
85 22 21
19.1 9.9 22.6
78 125 62
17.5 56.6 66.7
247 38 6
55.5 17.2 6.5
35 36 4
7.9 16.3 4.2
128
16.9
265
34.9
291
38.3
75
9.9
92
Table E5: Length of absence by destination < one term
Region of destination
No. North America (n=226) Australia, NZ (n=75) Asia (n=115) EU and other European (n=210) Other and unspecified (n=133) Total (n=759)
%
one term to one semester No. %
> one semester No. %
Variable length No. %
20 9 16 54 29
8.8 12.0 13.9 25.7 21.8
75 20 47 83 40
33.2 26.7 40.9 39.5 30.1
97 34 44 57 59
43.0 45.3 38.3 27.1 44.4
34 12 8 16 5
15.0 16.0 7.0 7.6 3.8
128
16.9
265
34.9
291
38.3
75
9.9
Table E6: Mobility by level of study, type of HEI, and destination Undergraduate no.
%
Postgraduate no.
All levels
%
no.
%
Pre-1992 universities (n=445) Post-1992 universities (n=221) Other HEIs (n=93)
424 216 83
95.1 97.4 89.3
21 1 7
4.9 0.5 7.5
4 3
2.1 3.2
North America (n=226) Australia, NZ (n=75) Asia (n=115) EU and other European (n=210) Other and unspecified (n=133)
213 71 110 199 130
94.2 94.7 95.6 94.8 97.7
9 3 5 9 3
4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 2.3
4 1 2 -
1.8 1.3 0.9 -
Total (n=759)
723
95.3
29
3.8
7
0.9
Table E7: Web-based information on study/work abroad initiatives Type of HEI
Webpage with Webpage reference to containing the information about international study/work activities of abroad the HEI opportunities
Type of information available (as % of those with information on study/work abroad opportunities) Benefits of Finance & study/work funding abroad % √ % √ %
Selection & application
√
%
√
%
√
Pre-92 universities (n=63)
59
92.2
50
78.1
36
72.0
36
72.0
23
46.0
Post-92 universities (n=41)
39
95.1
29
70.7
19
65.5
19
65.5
12
63.2
Other HEIs (n=64)
44
69.8
31
49.2
14
45.2
16
51.6
12
38.7
142
84.5
110
65.5
69
62.7
71
64.5
47
42.7
Total (n=168)
93
Table E8: Information on non-Erasmus mobility initiatives by type of HEI and region of destination Type of HEI
North America
Australia and NZ
No.
%
No.
Pre-1992 universities (n=63) Post-1992 universities (n=41) Other HEIs (n=64)
36 19 18
57.1 46.3 28.1
22 9 8
34.9 22.0 12.5
Total (n=168)
73
43.5
39
23.2
Asia
% No.
EU and other European
Other and unspecified
%
No.
%
No.
%
17 5 8
27.0 12.2 12.5
49 29 28
77.8 70.7 43.8
11 8 12
17.5 19.5 18.8
30
17.9
106
63.1
31
18.4
94
Annex F Mobility initiatives in Northern Ireland
1. Some interesting material collected on work schemes and non-Erasmus HEI placements comes from a cluster of interviews (K4, K5, K8, K9) in Northern Ireland. Despite the apparently home-bound nature of the province’s students, as noted in other interviews, there are several successful initiatives to stimulate outward mobility. 2. The Business Education Initiative is not strictly a work-placement scheme, but is geared towards training in business and management with a view to contributing to the development of the Northern Irish economy. Set up in the early 1990s by a group of US and Irish clergy, and co-funded by the Northern Ireland government, the scheme offers 165 fully funded places for Northern Ireland HE students to study for an academic year in a range of church-related liberal arts colleges in the US. There they study courses on, or related to, business and management studies. They then return for their final year in their home institution in Northern Ireland. ‘The programme is to develop future managers, to develop the business and management skills of our pre-final year degree and diploma students from any discipline, to improve the core skills of all participants, to provide students with an outward-looking international experience, and to raise the economic, political and cultural awareness of Northern Ireland.’ (K9) 3. Every year around 400 students from HEIs in Northern Ireland apply for the scheme. Some of them – a disproportionate number – have been Erasmus students the previous year. This indicates that once Northern Irish students can be persuaded to be mobile, they want to do more of it. However, the risk of an immediate ‘brain drain’ is countered by the requirement to return for their final year in Northern Ireland: ‘Our aim is not that these people go and see America as a land of opportunity and the place they want to make their future life … We want them to bring it home, and that’s why we take them out at undergraduate level, they must come back to do one final year of their degree programme. If that wasn’t there, I think you might find some of them staying on, in large numbers. Of course, that would be contrary to our goals … to really bring back what they learn over there …’ (K9) 4. Northern Irish students are also major participants in the British Council’s IAESTE scheme (International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience). The scheme is based on matching in- and out-movers and so must be based on the availability of industrial/technical placements and on the availability of students willing to go to particular destinations. Placements are of 12 weeks duration. ‘So basically what happens is every January, somewhere in the world, all the IAESTE people come together at one conference for one week of intensive, bilateral exchanges – we bring all our offers together, we make our appointments with the various countries we want to exchange with. So I would go with 100 Northern Ireland offers with the UK’s 100 … and we would go, do our business, and I would return then with foreign offers … Then my job is to match those offers with the students who’d applied … And this year I exchanged with 62 nations!’ (K8) 5. The geography of exchanges reflects the somewhat restricted global perceptions of Northern Irish students, and their lack of knowledge about, and unwillingness to go to, certain places. According again to 95
the manager of the scheme, this remains a problem, but the ambassadorial role of returning IAESTE students can help to overcome it. ‘… to get our students to go I have to be very careful. I mean, there’s no point in me taking an offer from Kazakhstan because nobody will go to Kazakhstan. And then of course depending on what’s happening in the world – we lost our placements this year in the Middle East … Our students are very reserved. Whereas the GB students, a lot of them actually come from some of those countries, they are foreign nationals at UK universities. Whereas all my students, it sounds awful, are white and British or Irish … I think I sent one Hong Kong student to Oman simply because a Northern Ireland student wouldn’t go, and he didn’t have any problems with going, it’s a wonderful placement. But there is that element to it … and I match them very carefully … If they’ve never been abroad before, I couldn’t send them somewhere like, well, Japan – you know, too big a difference culturally for them – but if they have travelled a little, then Japan is an option. But for the ones that haven’t you try to stick to Scandinavia, Europe. And of course then they don’t have the language skills either, so that’s restricting them as well. So we have to pick our placements carefully with our home-grown students … So they come in and … I read them the job descriptions … I say to them, listen to the job description … I don’t tell them where they are … and tell me which one suits you best. Well, actually, this one’s in Slovenia and they look blankly at you, they have no idea (where Slovenia is). Or you mention Croatia, which is a wonderful place for placements – oh, panic, there’s a war going on there. So what I’ve had to do over the years is to give them the emails of the students who’ve been the year before, get them to speak to them, and they’re sold.’ (K8) 6. From the rest of this interview it becomes clear that the success and high level of intensity of IAESTE placements in Northern Ireland is due to the way in which the scheme has been embedded in the local economy and in the local business society. The coordinator knew all the heads of firms offering placements, who often also knew each other, and the scheme rolled on from year to year. Close monitoring of the satisfaction levels of the incoming and outgoing students, and of the employers offering placements, ensured smooth running. Careful induction and debriefing meetings were carried out. 7. The scheme is potentially self-sustaining in another way too, over the longer term, especially if the political situation does not deteriorate. ‘I think Northern Ireland has been put on the map in a much more positive way, both for the ones going out and the ones coming in. The ones coming in have become ambassadors for this part of the world, there’s no doubt about that. And the other thing is: these are the crème de la crème of the world’s future engineers, scientists and politicians. We don’t know who we’re hosting, it’s exciting. And hopefully in years to come, this will pay off … we’ve had two guys who came back, from 1998, they’re now architects in the South of Ireland and they want to give placements.’ (K8) 8. Two university-based interviews – in the Computer Science and Business Studies areas – enabled us to triangulate the BEI and IAESTE interviews with the departmental perspective. Finance students have a compulsory placement as part of their degree. Most placements would be UK-based, in Belfast, other UK locations, and Dublin. But there is a language version of the finance and accountancy degrees which involves a foreign placement. The languages offered, in terms of enrolment popularity, are French, Spanish
96
and German. Numbers now stand at around 15 students per year to be placed abroad. According to the department’s placement coordinator, ‘these students are that wee bit more willing to go abroad and work … also, it’s a lot easier to travel now than it was in the past … but I think that one of the reasons for the growth in European placements would have to be the quality of the placements that have taken place … lots of students are seeing the worth of that.’ (K5) 9. The business department does not guarantee to get any students placed but it tries to facilitate as many as possible. This is easier in some years and some countries than others. Spanish placements are harder to secure, perhaps because of the scale and nature of the economy, and because the culture of offering paid placements to foreign students is not so developed. K5 also noted that, since 9/11, big companies seem less willing to take on as many students. As a result, Erasmus and Leonardo exchange placements are sometimes used as back-ups. The BEI scheme can also be used to the same end, if students get through the selection process. 10. As with BEI and IAESTE, the placement students in this department are carefully monitored. Students keep portfolios on their placements, which are then held in the department for future reference by other students in subsequent years. The placements themselves are in three phases with reports and gradings: at the end of the third phase the students return and present on their experiences. Employer contact is also critical, although more difficult to manage: ‘there’s an awful lot of employer contact … especially with the French and Spanish employers, but it’s awful hard to keep that contact up, with the language barriers and so on. But … I always think it’s our students out there who are our main marketing tool that we have to use, the students who are in the companies at the moment, you know, they feed information back to us … what state the company’s in at the moment and whether they would be considering offering more placements.’ (K5) 11. Across in the School of Computer Science, the scale of the outflow of work placements is larger – up to 160 students per year, seeking placements between level 2 and level 3. The students are on various degree programmes in computer science, electronic engineering, information technology and so on. On this scale, information and access to placement possibilities is provided on web-sites and via the university’s Careers Service. According to the school’s careers and placement officer, ‘where students go really depends on the individual – some are really keen on getting away from Northern Ireland. We’ve arranged placements in Northern Ireland in both small businesses, non-IT companies, right through to very technical placements in IT companies. (We have) … arranged for employment in the South of Ireland, in Britain, and we’ve also had some students go to France, to Germany, and Denmark … Some students engage in programmes that operate within the university, like the Business Enterprise Initiative … although (we find) that students prefer a year in industry as opposed to studying business at university because they see that as more beneficial when applying for graduate jobs … We also have a lot of students going on the IAESTE scheme … This year, for the first time, we’ve got three students on year-long placements in Boston … Over the summer we arranged students on placements in Thailand, Brazil, Croatia, Lithuania, and we’ve another student out in Hong Kong at the moment … (these are) the short-term summer placements … a lot of these students have tied in a year-long placement with that, so maybe they spend the summer in Thailand and they’re working in Dublin now …’ (K5) 97
12. We focus more explicitly on the benefits of such schemes in the main report (Chapter 5), but it is worth quoting this interviewee on this aspect here: ‘Going internationally, I think it’s the whole cultural experience and also just getting out of Northern Ireland, for a year or twelve weeks depending on the scheme … Just, it gives them a taste of what’s beyond Northern Ireland … And very often when you speak to them when they come back, it changes their whole future plans basically … (For some) they may have been in a research lab, and many want to go on and do a PhD now. Others, it has confirmed that they do wish to work abroad. But they bring back so much and I think it’s the confidence that comes with it, and also the effect that they’re away from home, and sometimes they’re on their own, and they become very mature in outlook. Coming back into university they’re much more motivated to actually complete their degree and actually do much better … The School has undertaken a study and they have noticed that the students … when they go out on a placement, in fact present better in their overall degree award.’
98
Annex G Promotion of mobility on HEI web-sites Below is a selection of extracts from HEI web-sites, generally from the International or Study Abroad offices, which illustrate the approach HEIs take to providing relevant information and ‘selling’ mobility to their students. The examples range from those which are factual and downbeat to those which attempt to enthuse and excite students. They replicate many of the messages conveyed by the quotes given in Chapter 5, stressing above all the positive aspects of a foreign stay. ‘Studying abroad is also a superb chance to discover a different culture, make new friends and learn a foreign language. … Students who study abroad under the SOCRATES programme are often more employable upon graduation as they have gained confidence, understanding and have proven they are not afraid to take on a new challenge.’ University of Paisley ‘Just think about it: this is a fantastic opportunity to spread your wings and learn about other cultures as part of your studies.’ Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh ‘By spending part of your degree course abroad, you can benefit from the challenges and rewards of living, working and studying in one of the most commercially and technologically advanced parts of the world. Different horizons, different approaches, different encounters can only enrich you both personally and educationally and improve your future career prospects. Most students will take taught courses but others may be on research placements.’ University of Hertfordshire ‘You have a unique opportunity to spend a year studying in Australia, Canada, Hong Kong or the United States as a full part of your degree programme. Spending a full year or a semester abroad is an opportunity which few people have in their lives and, for those who do, that time can be the most important one for them in terms of personal development and establishing their direction for the future.’ University of Stirling ‘Participating in an exchange programme is an investment in your future. Going from the familiar to the unfamiliar provides a unique opportunity for your personal development. The following reasons give you a glimpse of what you will gain by participating in an exchange programme. - It is a chance of lifetime! It is an adventure that you can only do when you are a student!! After you graduate, you will have fewer opportunities to experience the world because you will be tied down with a career and commitments. Seize the moment! - Looks great on your CV!! Going on an exchange will help prepare you for the challenges of a global marketplace. Employers look favourably on applicants who have international experience or demonstrate the ability to adapt to new environment. - It is an amazing opportunity to meet people from all over the world and immerse yourself in an exciting new culture and society.
99
- It is a great way to improve your language skills. Broaden your perspective and outlook on life!’ University of Westminster ‘. . . enjoy a different culture and way of life, get a different perspective on your studies, develop new skills and attitudes to impress a future employer, gain credit towards your University award for all exchanges and make new friends! Need any more?’ University of Teesside ‘When you graduate you will be competing in a huge employment market with people from other member states of the European Union and beyond. We take seriously our responsibility to prepare you to be competitive in seeking employment throughout Europe. We are helped in this aim by participating in the mobility programme Socrates-Erasmus … The aim of the Socrates-Erasmus programme is to help improve the quality and relevance of education for children, young people and adults by enhancing European co-operation and increasing access to the range of learning opportunities available across the Union. It seeks to provide learners of all ages and social groups with insights into the European dimension of the subjects which they are studying, to increase opportunities for personal experience of other European countries, to develop a stronger sense of sharing a European identity, and to foster the ability to shape and adapt to the changes in the economic and social environment.’ University of Wales, Aberystwyth
100
Annex H Extracts from staff interviews about language and mobility ‘There is a much wider issue here – it’s the perception of languages at the national level. We still have this reluctance to take up languages … We are officially a bilingual society here [in Wales] but there is still insufficient motivation for learning foreign languages … Students say that the other countries all speak English anyway! A lot of professionals express the same opinion …’ (G3) ‘Yes, I think the impact on languages nationally has been acute. Some of the language departments in (name of university) have been hit very hard … and we will be hit even harder by the ideas in the pipeline. We have kept our heads above water and I hope we are over the worst and that we can sustain our numbers. I think our profile is sufficient and that we will not be seriously threatened. There are two factors. One, the way the department (of French) has responded to the changes in train and tried to make contact with schools. The second is our location in Central London. Every year we see the numbers of students in the Greater London area increase, and this is for financial reasons. It is cheaper for parents to put their kids through university if they can live at home … and we are at the centre of the transport hub. It gives us an advantage over campuses 30 miles outside of London.’ (A1) ‘Well, let me tell you something, you’re talking to a linguist, I taught languages. I am not at all happy that the UK government are saying that languages are no longer to be part of the formal curriculum … I really feel I should be going into the schools and saying, look, wake up here. All right, maybe we don’t want to do formal GCSEs but let’s do grade objectives, or something like that. Let’s make Spanish fun, let’s make French fun. Whereas they give it up: as soon as they can they drop it. And they’ll be able to drop it now before GCSE, they can drop it in the third year. So it makes our life much more difficult when we are exchanging offers.’ (K8) ‘I don’t think the importance of languages is strong at the national level. If you look at A levels in languages, the statistics on enrolments are going down. More students are doing languages at AS levels, but they haven’t converted to A level or degree candidates … I hope they will introduce languages in the primary schools … that would engender a more linguistically competent UK. Even if it’s not made compulsory, by the time they get to 15 they will have a feeling for languages. It’s a different learning process to learning history or geography, it’s like music – the longer you do it, the better you get … In terms of policy, I think the government must realise that language learning is expensive, you cannot effectively teach languages in big classes … Funding must continue and if we want to encourage mobility generally, and in a quality-assured way, then we have to help the students financially … and also bring in scholarships. It must be done at the national level, this would engender outward mobility … Employers also need to be educated that they could get a better deal if there is a language competence in their workforce, but it’s hard to convince a lot of companies.’ (D3)
101
Annex I The student questionnaire survey: supplementary tables Table I1: Destinations by subject area Country US Canada France Spain Germany Other European country Other non-European country Source: Authors’ survey
% Languages % Social Science/Science (N=192) (N=22) 3.6 2.6 43.8 21.4 17.2 9.4 2.1
% Total (N=214)
40.9 9.1 22.7 4.5 4.5 18.2 0.0
7.5 3.3 41.6 19.6 15.9 10.3 1.9
Table I2: The relationship between perceptions of financial means as problematic and the type of exchange (percentages) Type of exchange
Very problematic
Erasmus Teaching assistant/work placement Source: Authors’ survey
27.6 15.7
Slightly or problematic 67.2 84.3
not
Table I3: Main reason for studying/working (final-year mobile students) or for wanting to study/work abroad (first-year students) Reason Language Course requirement Country (culture/landscape/climate) Professional experience Personal development Life experience Other Total Source: Authors’ survey
First year
%
98 23.0 2 0.5 53 12.4 14 3.3 19 4.4 204 47.8 37 8.7 427 100.0
Final year
%
74 35.2 82 39.0 15 7.1 3 1.4 2 1.0 23 11.0 11 5.2 210 100.0
Table I4: Finance for HE studies Finance Purely self-finance and/or loan Parental support only Mixtures of finance/loan/parental support Other Total
First year N % 244 40.7 84 14.0 249 41.5 23 3.8 600 100.0
Final year N % 265 44.2 61 10.2 263 43.8 11 1.8 600 100.0
Source: Authors’ survey For this and all subsequent tables N=number
102
Table I5: Final-year students with a temporary job Finance N None 266 Less than 8 hours a week 78 8 to 18 hours a week 196 More than 18 hours a week 40 Total 600
% 47.7 13.0 32.7 6.7 100.0
Source: Authors’ survey Table I6: Frequency of travel outside the UK First-year students N %
Frequency Never Once 2-5 times More often
All final-year students N %
Total N
%
8 26 145 420
1.3 4.3 24.2 70.1
7 15 111 467
1.2 2.5 18.5 77.8
15 41 256 887
1.3 3.4 21.3 74.0
Total 599 Source: Author’s survey
100.0
600
100.0
1199
100.0
Table I7: Gap year for first- and final-year students Gap year Had a gap year Had no gap year
First-year students N %
All final-year students N %
Total N
%
142 458
23.7 76.3
115 485
19.2 80.8
257 943
21.4 78.6
Total 600 Source: Authors’ survey
100.0
600
100.0
1200
100.0
Table I8: Destinations of short-duration visits abroad organised by the selected departments in the 10 selected HEIs Destinations Belgium France Germany Ireland Italy Portugal Spain Switzerland Tunisia Other European countries US Other non-European countries Total Source: Author’s survey
Frequency
%
1 8 9 24 6 10 47 1 7 17 20 20
0.6 4.7 5.3 14.1 3.5 5.9 27.6 0.6 4.1 10.0 11.8 11.8
170
100.0
103
Table I9: Intention of taking a gap year after graduation among students who did not go abroad during their studies Gap year after graduation
N
%
Yes No Don't know
112 154 117
29.2 40.2 30.5
Total Source: Authors’ survey
383
100.0
Table I10: Level of satisfaction for the time spent abroad by faculty Arts
%
Social science + science
%
Very satisfied or satisfied Neutral or dissatisfied
175 15
92.1 7.9
22 0
100.0 0
Total Source: Authors’ survey
190
100.0
22
100.0
Country
Table I11: The relationship between perception of financial means as problematic and gender (percentages) Gender (N=193) Female Male Source: Authors’ survey
Problematic 61.1 51.0
Not problematic 38.9 49.0
Table I12: The relationship between perceptions of financial means as problematic and ways of financing study at university (percentages) Finance Purely self-financing and/or loan (N=84) Parental support only (N=14) Mixtures of self-financing /parental support and loan (N=91) Other (N= 4)
Problematic Not problematic 66.7 33.3 35.7 64.3 56.0 44.0 25.0 75.0
Source: Authors’ survey Table I13: Comparison of socio-economic background of mobile and non-mobile final-year science and social science students Socio-economic background of the parents
Significant difference between mobile and non-mobile 1
Father in professional or managerial work Mother in professional or managerial work
Significant Very significant
1
As measured by the chi square test. ‘Very significant’ differences were those evident at the 0.01 level, and ‘significant’ those at the 0.05 level Source: Authors’ survey
104
Table I14: Feelings about international mobility held by all final-year students who had not been abroad Feeling Regret not having been abroad Do not regret not having been abroad Total Source: Authors’ survey
N
%
165 220 385
42.9 57.1 100.0
Table I15: Relationship between language proficiency and having been abroad for study or on work placement (all final-year students) Speak another language 206
Do not speak any other language 7
Total 213
% of students speaking another language 96.7
259
128
387
66.9
Studied abroad Did not study/work abroad Source: Authors’ survey
Table I16: First-year students’ mobility aspirations Mobility aspirations
All faculties
%
Science/ social science
%
Would definitely spend time abroad Would perhaps spend time abroad Would not spend time abroad Don't know
240 240 93 26
40.1 40.1 15.5 4.3
86 204 86 23
21.6 51.1 21.6 5.8
Total Source: Authors’ survey
599
100.0
399
100.0
Table I17: Final-year students’ ideal type of visit abroad Type of study Study abroad Work abroad Mixture of both Total Source: Authors’ survey
N
%
34 38 91 163
20.9 23.3 55.8 100.0
Table I18: Relationship between ability to speak another language and having been abroad for study or on work placement (All final year students) Speak another language Studied abroad 206 Did not study/work 259 abroad Source: Authors’ survey
Do not speak any another language 7 128
Total 213 387
% of students speaking another language 96.7 66.9
105
Table I19: Relationship between language proficiency at the written level and having been abroad for study or on work placement (All final year students) Proficient in Not proficient in writing writing Studied abroad Did not study/work abroad
181 83
32 304
Total
% of students proficient in writing a language
213 387
85.0 21.4
Source: Authors’ survey Table I20: Science and social science students and their proficiency in at least one other language, absolute numbers Destination Proficient in % Not proficient % Proficient % Not proficient % speaking in speaking in writing in writing Science 69 34.5 131 65.5 52 26.0 148 74.0 Social 37 18.5 163 81.5 32 16.0 168 84.0 science Total 106 26.5 294 73.5 84 21.0 316 79.0 Source: Authors’ survey Table I21: First year students and their proficiency in at least one other language (percentages) Faculty Speak excellent/good Write excellent/good Social science/Science, quota sample (N=400) Arts (N=200) Source: Authors’ survey
31.5 79.0
23.8 77.5
Table I22: Relationship between language proficiency at the written level and the desire to go abroad for study or on work placement (All first year students, including language students) Proficient in Not proficient in writing writing Definitely 151 89 Perhaps 74 166 No 21 72 Don't know 4 22 Source: Authors’ survey
Total 240 240 93 26
% of students proficient in writing a language 62.9 30.8 22.6 15.4
Table I23: Relationship between language proficiency at the written level and the desire to go abroad for study or on work placement (First year science and social science students) Proficient in Not proficient in writing writing Definitely Perhaps No Don't know Source: Authors’ survey
26 50 16 3
60 154 70 20
Total
% of students proficient in writing a language
86 204 86 23
30.2 24.5 18.6 13.0
106
Table I24: Favourite destination of first year science and social science students who definitely or perhaps would like to go abroad per language ability Destination Proficient in Not proficient in Proficient in Not proficient in speaking (N=72) speaking (N=133) writing (N=54) writing (N=151) European country 34.7 23.3 35.2 24.5 English-speaking 54.2 65.4 51.9 64.9 countries Other non European 11.1 11.3 12.9 10.6 country Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Source: Author’s survey Table I25: Final-year students' gender, all respondents Gender
First year Final year
Female Male Total
329 271 600
368 232 600
Source: Authors’ survey Table I26: Final-year students’ age profile, all respondents Age group Younger than 20 20-24 25-29 Older than 30 Source: Authors’ survey
N
%
3 580 12 5
0.5 96.7 2 0.8
Table I27: Final-year students’ place of residence, all respondents Accommodation Parental home On my own University hall of residence With my partner Flat sharing with friends Other Source: Authors’ survey
N
%
113 13 72 32 358 11
18.8 2.2 12.0 5.3 59.7 1.8
Table I28: Final-year students’ nationality, all respondents Nationality British Irish European nationality Non-European nationality Source: Authors’ survey
N
%
562 20 11 5
93.7 3.3 1.8 0.8
107
Table I29: Final-year students' type, all respondents Type Home EU student Overseas students Source: Authors’ survey
N
%
577 14 8
96.2 2.3 1.3
Table I30: Final-year students’ language skills, all respondents Number of languages with a knowledge of 1 2 3 4 Source: Authors’ survey
N
%
202 180 69 16
33.7 30.0 11.5 2.7
Table I31: Number of countries visited during the gap year: all students spending one month or more abroad 1 Number of countries First year Final year Total % (N=122) % % 1 48.4 46.7 47.5 2 27.4 23.3 25.4 3 6.5 13.3 9.8 4 6.5 13.3 9.8 5 3.2 3.3 3.3 6 8.1 0.0 4.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 The first-year questionnaire asks about the countries visited for more than three months and final-year questionnaire asks about the countries visited for more than one month Source: Authors’ survey Table I32: Four most popular countries visited during gap year: all students spending one month or more abroad 1 Country (N = 122)
First year %
Final year %
Total %
France 19.6 23.3 21.4 Australia 23.2 21.7 22.4 US 15.8 15.7 15.8 Canada 10.7 6.7 8.7 1 The first-year questionnaire asks about the countries visited for more than three months and final-year questionnaire asks about the countries visited for more than one month Source: Authors’ survey Table I33: Mobility rates for students by gender (final-year science and social science students) Gender
N
Mobile students
Mobility rate per 1,000 students
Female 215 Male 185 Source: Authors’ survey
14 8
65.1 43.2
108
Table I34: Relationship between the different samples and the socio-economic background of the mother (final-year students) Sample Quota sample (non-mobile science and social science) Booster sample (mobile science and social science) Total Source: Authors’ survey Chi-square Value df 9.158 1
Sig. .002
Prof/Manager/ Director 128 22 150
Other
Total
209 12 221
337 34 371
Cramer's V Value Sig. .157 .002
Table I35: Relationship between the different samples and the socio-economic background of the father (final-year students) Sample Quota sample (non-mobile science and social science) Booster sample (mobile science and social science) Total Source: Authors’ survey Chi-square Value Df .361 1
Sig. .548
Prof/Manager/ Director 179 20 199
Other
Total
156 14 170
335 34 369
Cramer's V Value Sig. .031 .548
Table I36: Mobility rates for students by parents’ university education (final-year science and social science students) Parents’ university education Mother Father Neither Source: Authors’ survey
N 125 102 204
Mobile students 10 7 10
Mobility rate per 1,000 students 80.0 68.6 49.0
Table I37: Mobility rates for students by location of university (final-year science and social science students) Region England Rest of the UK Source: Authors’ survey
N 240 160
Mobile students 14 8
Mobility rate per 1,000 students 58.3 50.0
109
Table I38: Mobility rate by number of languages for final-year social science and science students Number of other languages 1 language 2 languages More languages
N 172 74 22
Mobile students 9 5 2
Mobility rate per 1,000 students 52.3 67.6 90.9
Source: Authors’ survey Table I39: Mobility rates for students by language ability of the father (final-year science and social science students) Father's ability to speak another language Speaks other language No other language Source: Authors’ survey
N 83 216
Mobile students 6 10
Mobility rate per 1,000 students 72.3 46.3
Table I40: Mobility rates for students by mother tongue (final-year science and social science students) Mother tongue English only Other tongue Source: Authors’ survey
N 379 20
Mobile students 20 2
Mobility rate per 1,000 students 52.8 100.0
Table I41: Reasons deterring first-year students from going abroad (percentages, students from all faculties) First-year students Reasons Very Slightly Not N/A important important important Not enough financial means (N=587) 40.9 40.7 15.8 2.6 Not confident enough with the language (N=586)
37.6
35.8
17.2
9.4
I have (had) a boyfriend/girlfriend (N=585)
13.3
22.2
37.3
27.2
I would have had to prolong my degree (N=585)
16.2
30.9
40.9
12.0
Studies not recognised (N=579)
18.5
34.4
30.7
17.0
Wary of living in another country/culture (N=589)
10.4
33.3
51.9
4.4
Commitment to partner and/or children (N=582)
8.1
4.1
25.1
62.7
10.7
30.8
53.2
5.3
I (would have) had to leave my job (N=583)
4.8
13.2
46.8
35.2
I (would have) had to leave my flat (N=586) Source: Authors’ survey N/A = Question is not applicable
3.2
10.8
50.7
35.3
Difficult to leave parental family (N=588)
110
Table I42: Reasons deterring final-year students from going abroad (percentages, students from all faculties who have not been abroad) Final-year students Reason Very Slightly Not N/A important important important Not enough financial means (N=382) 50.3 27.5 18.1 4.2 Not confident enough with the language (N=383)
43.3
26.4
22.5
7.8
Insufficient information on possibilities to go abroad (N=381)
22.3
38.3
27.3 12.1
I have (had) a boyfriend/girlfriend (N=381)
18.1
17.6
36.5 27.8
I would have had to prolong my degree (N=385)
14.5
20.4
57.1
Studies not recognised (N=382)
12.8
23.8
34.0 29.3
Wary of living in another country/culture (N=382)
10.5
28.3
53.9
Commitment to partner and/or children (N=380)
7.6
4.5
Difficult to leave parental family (N=383)
7.3
25.9
58.2
I (would have) had to leave my job (N=381)
7.1
18.9
42.5 31.5
I (would have) had to leave my flat (N=383)
7.1
12.8
49.1 31.1
7.9
7.3
29.7 58.2 8.6
Source: Authors’ survey Table I43: Test for significant difference between mobile and immobile students for factors inhibiting or problematic about mobility (final-year Social Science and Science students) 1 Chi-square Cramer's V Reasons Value df Sig. Value Significance Not confident enough with the language 11.770 2 .003 .177 .003 Difficult to leave parental family
3.502
2
.174
.095
.174
Wary of living in another country
2.416
2
.299
.079
.299
I have (had) a boyfriend/girlfriend
5.640
2
.060
.138
.060
Commitment to partner and/or children
3.863
2
.145
.151
.145
Not enough financial means
22.449
2
.000
.237
.000
Studies not recognised
14.235
2
.001
.217
.001
I had (would have) to leave my flat
1.608
2
.448
.075
.448
I had (would have) to leave my job
5.302
2
.071
.137
.071
22.554
2
.000
.252
.000
Prolongation of the degree 1
For mobile students, the test was carried out using data from the booster sample. Source: Authors’ survey
111
Annex J References
Adia, E., Stowell, M. and Higgins, T. (1994) Higher Education Sans Frontières: Policy, Practice and the European Student. Leeds: Heist and UCAS. Altbach, P.G. and Teichler, U. (2001) Internationalisation and exchanges in a globalised university, Journal of Studies in International Education 5(1): 5–25. Beck, U. and Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization. London: Sage. Böhm, Davis, Meares and Pearce (2002) Global Student Mobility 2025: Forecasts of the Global Demand for International Higher Education. Sydney: IDP Education Australia. Bruch, T. and Barty, A. (1998) Internationalising British higher education: students and institutions, in Scott, P. (ed.) The Globalisation of Higher Education. Buckingham: OUP and SRHE, pp. 18-31. Carlson, J., Burn, B., Useem, J. and Yachimowicz (1990) Study Abroad: the Experience of American Undergraduates in Western Europe and the United States. Westport: Greenwood Press. Commission of the European Communities (2000) Survey into the Socio-Economic Background of Erasmus Students. Brussels: Directorate General for Education and Culture. Davis, D., Milne, C. and Olsen, A. (1999) Becoming Internationally Competitive, the Value of International Experience. Canberra: IDP Education Australia. Favell, A. (2004) Eurostars and Eurocities: free moving professionals and the promise of European integration. European Studies Newsletter 33(3/4): 1–11. Findlay, A. (2002) From Brain Exchange to Brain Gain: Policy Implications for the UK of Recent Trends in Skilled Migration from Developing Countries. Geneva: ILO, International Migration Papers 43. HEPI (2004) Projecting Demand for UK Higher Education from the Accession Countries. Oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute. King, R. (2003) International student migration in Europe and the institutionalisation of identity as ‘Young Europeans’, in Doomernik, J. and Knippenberg, H. (eds) Migration and Immigrants: Between Policy and Reality. Amsterdam: Aksant Academic Publishers, 155–179. King, R. and Ruiz-Gelices (2003) International student migration and the European ‘Year Abroad’: the effects on European identity and subsequent migration behaviour, International Journal of Population Geography 9(2): 229–252. Kwieck, M. (2001) Globalization and higher education. Higher Education in Europe 26: 27–38. Maiworm, F., Steube, W. and Teichler, U. (1991) Learning in Europe: the Erasmus Experience. London: Jessica Kingsley.
112
Maiworm, F. and Teichler, U. (1996) Study Abroad and Early Careers: Experiences of Former Erasmus Students. London: Jessica Kingsley. Mitchell, I.V. (2001) Doctoral Student Mobility in the Framework of the Socrates/Erasmus Programme 1995-2000. Working Paper prepared for the Meeting of Directors-General for Higher Education and Presidents of Rectors’ Conferences , Halmstad, Sweden, 6–8 May 2001. Brussels: European Commission. Morgan, B. (2003) Personal communication. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002) Student Mobility and Narrative in Europe: The New Strangers. London: Routledge. OECD (2001) Student Mobility Between and Towards OECD Countries. Report prepared for the Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Paris: OECD. OECD (2002) Education at a Glance, Paris: OECD. Schnitzer, K. and Zempel-Gino, M. (2002) Euro Student: Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe 2000. Hannover: Hochschul-Informations-System. Teichler, U. and Jahr, V. (2001) ‘Mobility during the course of study and after’, European Journal of Education 36(4): 443–458. Teichler, U. and Maiworm, F. (1994) Transition to Work: The Experiences of Former Erasmus Students. London: Jessica Kingsley. Teichler, U. and Maiworm, F. (1997) The Erasmus Experience. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Commission. UNESCO (1998) World Statistical Outlook on Higher Education. Paris: UNESCO. Watson, E.E. (2004) ‘What a dolt one is’: language learning and fieldwork in geography, Area, 36(1): 59–68. West, A. et al. (2001) ‘Higher Education Admissions and Student Mobility within the EU- ADMIT’. Final Report of TSER Programme. London: LSE.
113
Annex K List of acronyms
BEI
Business Education Initiative
BUTEX
British Universities Transatlantic Exchange Association
DEL
Department for Employment & Learning Northern Ireland
DfES
Department for Education and Skills
Erasmus
European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students
EU
European Union
FDS
First Destination Survey
HE
Higher education
HEFCE
Higher Education Funding Council for England
HEFCW
Higher Education Funding Council for Wales
HEI
Higher education institution
HESA
Higher Education Statistics Agency
HEURO
Association of UK Higher Education European Officers
IAESTE
International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Expertise
ISM
International student mobility
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
QAA
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education
RAE
Research Assessment Exercise
SHEFC
Scottish Higher Education Funding Council
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
114
Annex L List of sponsors and steering group members Organisations supporting the study British Council British Universities Transatlantic Exchange Association Department for Education and Learning, Northern Ireland Department for Education and Skills The Association of UK Higher Education European Officers Higher Education Funding Council for England Higher Education Funding Council for Wales Scottish Higher Education Funding Council UKCOSA The Council for International Education UK Socrates-Erasmus Council Universities UK
Membership of the steering group Dr Cloud Bai-Yun, Deputy Head, UK National Academic Recognition Information Centre Tish Bourke, Manager, UK HE Europe Unit Roger Carter, Head of Economic Development, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales Celia Chambers, Higher Education Policy Branch, Department for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland Jannette Cheong, Head of International Collaboration and Development, Higher Education Funding Council for England (Chair) Adrian Hawksworth, International Office, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine (Chair, The Association of UK Higher Education European Officers) Triinu Holman, Policy Officer, HE Strategy, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Annette Kratz, Head of International Office, Keele University (British Universities Transatlantic Exchange Association) Beatrice Merrick, Director of Services & Research, UKCOSA The Council for International Education Benson Osawe, National Postgraduate Committee Steve Phillips, Senior Policy Adviser, Standing Conference of Principals Judy Powell, Director of Higher Education, British Council John Reilly, Director, UK SOCRATES/ERASMUS Council Beth Steiner, International Manager, Higher Education Funding Council for England (Secretary) Andrew Walls, Head of the International Students Team, Department for Education and Skills Chris Weavers, Vice President Education, National Union of Students Jane Wild, Director of Operations, Higher Education Statistics Agency
115
