Higher education students on the MOVE

(1)

Higher education

students on the MOVE

Preconference MOVE, 7th March 2018 Belval/Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg

Emilia Kmiotek-Meier Julianna Kiss

Zsuzsanna Dabasi Halasz Klaudia Horvath

MOVE has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and

innovation programme under Grant Agreement No. 649263

(2)

Overview

I. Student mobility in the Hungary and Luxembourg – short introduction

II. Survey findings for MOVE countries III. Findings from Interviews

IV. Summary / policy recommendations

(3)

I Background

(4)

Student mobility (in the EU)

student mobility degree mobility

complete programme abroad

credit mobility

part of programme abroad

• Recent ‘boom’ in migration/mobility studies

• In the EU more research on credit mobility (ERASMUS)

• some gaps -> personal perspective

(5)

Student mobility in Hungary

5 Main destination countries for the Hungarian student: Austria, Germany, United Kingdom (2013: 1655, 1611, 1213 student base of UNESCO data).

Popular destination countries too Holland, France. Most of the students come from Europe and Asia. The majority of Europeans are from Germany, Romania and Slovakia.

Total inbound and outboundinternationally mobile students (in Hungary) Forrás: own work base of UNESCO data

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 7.000

9.000 11.000 13.000 15.000 17.000 19.000 21.000 23.000

incoming mobility outgoing mobility

N u m b er o f st u d en ts ( th o u sa n d p er so n )

(6)

Student mobility in Luxembourg

2003 foundation of the University of Luxembourg

degree mobility from LU

• 75 % of all enrolled in tertiary education study abroad

• Degree mobility from LU: mainly DE, FR, BE

degree mobility into LU

• + 50% of students enrolled have no LU nationality

• mainly other EU-countries credit mobility from LU

• an obligatory semester abroad for undergraduates

(7)

II Survey findings

7

(8)

Social network (I)

(9)

Social network (II)

9

(10)

Programs

Erasmus None Others Mundus, Tempus, Alfa, Edulink, etc.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Programs used in mobility

Germany (N=348) Hungary (N=114) Luxembourg (N=439) Norway (N=155) Romania (N=278) Spain (N=670) All (N=2004)

(11)

Reasons (I)

11

To learn/improve languages In order to improve opportunities for personal/professional development Studies related reasons 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

What reasons do you consider most important to spend some time/move abroad? % of yes

(12)

Reasons (II)

Feeling attracted to the culture /country Previous knowledge of the language To improve working conditions 0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

What reasons do you consider most important to spend some time/move abroad? % of yes

Germany (N=981) Hungary (N=334) Luxembourg (N=1221) Norway (N=436)

(13)

Financing (I)

13

Family assistance European mobility programmes Private funds/savings National study grants 0

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

How did you finance your stay? Mean (1= non-existent; 5=very important)

Germany (N=337, 302, 342, 307) Hungary (N=113, 111, 114, 108) Luxembourg (N=394, 427, 431, 371) Norway (N=142, 148, 143, 118) Romania (N=274, 253, 275, 240) Spain (N=655, 623, 666, 530) All (N=1915, 1864, 1971, 1674)

(14)

Financing (II)

Loan Working full time or part time Other grants and awards Business programmes/funded by employer 0

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

How did you finance your stay? Mean (1= non-existent; 5=very important)

Germany (N=338, 312, 319, 307) Hungary (N=111, 110, 110, 111) Luxembourg (N=398, 378, 384, 398) Norway (N=149, 120, 132, 141)

(15)

Obstacles (I)

15

Lack of financial resources to move abroad Lack of sufficient language skills Lack of support or information 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Main obstacles; % of yes

(16)

Obstacles (II)

I did not experience any barrier or difficulty Psychological well-being Obstacles or differences in recognition of qualifications 0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Main obstacles; % of yes

(17)

III Interview findings

17

(18)

Peers

• Peers can influence decisions on mobility: impact of

students with mobility background on potential students

(but also wish to stay home)

• Collective mobility: common decision as it is easier to travel and to stay abroad together

• Communication with international students/co-nationals is more frequent, than with native students, (similar

experiences, institutional organisation; life in the bubble)

• Support function (substitute to family)

• Source of information / network

(19)

Process Towards Mobility

• Languages: to learn / to improve / is easy

• English programmes (rather Hungary)

• Conscious/planned mobility: process

• Eagerness to go

• Obligation to go abroad / only way to study

• Social norm (country / class) – distinction

• Think twice to go – professional life afterward

• Academic aspects (seldom, rather degree)

19

(20)

Funding, Money, Paperwork, Bureaucracy

• Paperwork at universities (lengthy process)

• Strong bureaucracy in some countries

• Lack of information; lack of contact with host/home institution

• Getting lost (and found!) in the new system

• High costs / uneven funding

• Transfer of Erasmus scholarship (time)

• Credit recognition

• Money and autonomy (to spend money alone)

(21)

Youth parctices

• Wish for international environment – „popular to go abroad”

• Social media

• Life experience (against all odds)

• Personal development

• Freedom / autonomy (parents)

• Learn to adapt: to the new environment, other culture, quality of the accommodation, etc.

• Transition

21

(22)

IV Summary

(23)

Policy recommendation (I)

23 Structure

 a well-developed institutional support structure: Student mobility within Europe mostly short-term character (one or two semesters abroad)

 enough and competent staff providing information

 reasonable timeframe, both at sending and receiving institutions

 preestablished / transparent procedures

Inclusion / integration

 increase numbers of scholarships

 adjust mobility scholarship (Erasmus+)

 in particular, for students coming from less wealthy countries

 reconsider country groups in regard to the amount of scholarship provided

(24)

Policy recommendation (II)

Language skills

 better integration of foreign students at the hosting institutions

 more vivid exchange with native students,

Do not forget about foreign degree students

 different support than native regular students / or credit studnets

Enable easy and swift recognition of foreign European (EHEA) diploma and credits (ECTS) in other European countries.

-> are all obstacles really bad? (learn aspect)

(25)

Thank you for your attention!

Contact:

Emilia Kmiotek-Meier emilia.kmiotek@uni.lu

The research from the MOVE project leading to these results has received funding

from Horizon 2020 under Grant Agreement N° 649263. ²⁵

University of Luxembourg

Faculté des Lettres, des Sciences Humaines, des Arts et des Sciences de l'Education Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning

http://www.move-project.eu

Zsuzsanna Dabasi Halasz Julianna Kiss Klaudia Horváth Horvath.klaudia@uni-miskolc.hu

University of Miskolc Faculty of Economics

Institute of World and Regional Economics