Student Mobility: Where Do We Come From, Where Are We,

Where Are We Going to Inside the EHEA?

Keynote Speech at the Bologna Conference “Fostering Student Mobility: Next Steps? Involving

Stakeholders for an Improved Mobility Inside the EHEA”

Brussels, 29-30 May 2008

Ulrich TeichlerINCHER-KASSELUniversity of Kassel, 34109 Kassel

GermanyTel. ++49-561-804 2415Fax ++49-561-804 7415

E-mail: teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty2

The Bologna Declaration: Mobility – a Prime Aim, not a Prime Action

The prime reform measure is a structural one: to establish a convergent system of stages of study programmes and degrees in European countries

The prime aims are mobility-directed1.to make higher education in European countries more

attractive for students from other continents2. to facilitate intra-European student mobility (even more

ambitiously advocated in the Sorbonne Declaration) Some of the supportive measures advocated for the

structural reforms aim to support student mobility1.A credit system – most important for recognition of

study achievements abroad of temporarily mobile students upon return (within Europe)

2.The “Diploma Supplement” – important for students spending the total study programme abroad

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty3

Mobility up to the Late 1990s: The Situation Prior to Bologna

The total number of foreign students world-wide was about 200,000 in the mid-1950s, about 500,000 in 1970, 1.2 million in 1987 and moved towards 2 million in the late 1990s

The share of foreign students among all tertiary education students remained more or less constant at 2%, but the proportion of foreign students among all students in Europe has more than doubled over the years: From less than 3% to more than 6% (estimates)

“Vertical mobility” dominated all the time, i.e. towards countries with advanced economy and advanced level of quality in higher education, and mostly was “degree mobility”

ERASMUS, inaugurated in 1987, supports temporary and “horizontal” mobility, i.e. more or less on “equal terms”. Increase from about 10,000 in 1988/89 to almost 100,000 ten years later

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty4

Factors Contributing to the Bologna Concept

Experts agree: There was not any trend of structural convergence in Europe prior to the Sorbonne Declaration and the Bologna Declaration

“Bologna” would not have happened without ERASMUS: The “success story” of ERASMUS fuelled the idea that intra-European mobility should expand beyond the potentials of ERASMUS and the countries involved in ERASMUS and that remaining barriers should be reduced.

“Bologna” would not have happened either without growing attention to “globalisation” and trends of worldwide student mobility: Since the mid-1990s, concern spread that continental European countries would loose out as host for foreign students to Anglo-Saxon countries.

Structural convergence: More important for attracting students from other parts of the world than for facilitating intra-European mobility?

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty5

Changes Conducive to Student Mobility in the Bologna Process Most observers are convinced that a multitude of changes

occurring in the Bologna Process are supportive for student mobility

Growing internationalisation policies and activities of governments and HEIs

Gradual spread of credits Gradual spread of conferring Diploma Supplement Increased number of “joint study programmes” EU programme “ERASMUS Mundus” More emphasis on quality assurance and the establishment

of accreditation systems Increasing number of programmes taught in English in non

English-speaking countries Curricular changes (?) Increasing portability of national scholarships Increased emphasis on the “social dimension” of Bologna

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty6

Increasing Mobility as a Consequence of Bologna?On the Search for Evidence

Deficient statistics The slow process of implementation and

the protracted evidence of impact The “push effect” in study abroad of

student from outside Europe Intra-European mobility: Some increase

of mobility, but not consistently

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty7

Deficient statistics

The official student statistics collected by UNESCO,OECD and EUROSTAT

Mostly provide information only on “foreign students” and “study abroad” and only in a few cases (mostly in addition) on “mobility for the purpose of study”

Do not make distinctions between degree mobility and temporary (credit) mobility

Include only some of the temporarily mobile students

Are incomplete with respect to tertiary non-higher education students and doctoral candidates

Do not make distinctions between bachelor and master students

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty8

Different Proportions of Foreign/Mobile Students 2003

CH UK A D E

a. Foreign mobile students 14.1 13.0 10.6 8.5 1.7

b. Home country mobile students

2.0 0.6 1.3 1.5 0.1

All mobile students (a, b) 16.1 13.6 11.9 10.0

1.8

c. Foreign non-mobile students 5.4 4.6 2.7 3.4 1.0

All foreign students (a, c) 19.5 17.6 13.3 11.9

2.7

(Source: Kelo/Teichler/Wächter. EURODATA. 2006)

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty9

Remaining Concernsin the Bologna Process

Six issues Serving the heterogeneity of foreign students? Divergent conditions and motives for HEIs in

different European countries Short and highly structured study

programmes: A new barrier? Curricular convergence: A trend or not? An

attraction or a loss of attraction? A trend towards stratification of higher

education? A new barrier? Declining exceptionality of mobility

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty10

Serving the Heterogeneityof Foreign Students

Different needs of (a) degree mobile students from economically disadvantaged countries, (b) degree mobile students within Europe or between economically advanced countries, and (c) temporarily mobile students

Some observers claim that students from economically disadvantaged countries are the “forgotten majority” of the Bologna Process

Other observers point out that too little is done by HEIs to keep and increase the attractiveness of temporary student mobility within Western Europe

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty11

Divergent Conditions and Motivesfor HEIs

Are there conditions unfavourable for increasing mobility for certain HEIs in certain countries?

e.g.

Lack of encouragement of British students to study abroad

High costs for service and intense educational support of mobile students not covered by fees and governmental support

Concerns about quality

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty12

Short and Highly Structured Study Programmes: A New Barrier?

Bachelor and master programmes are shorter than previous long university programmes in many European countries

Curricular reforms often moved towards most highly structured programmes with little space for “detours” in recognition: Declining readiness to recognize study achievements abroad

A comparative survey (DAAD) undertaken in 2005 show that this concern is harboured by large minorities in a few countries and small minorities in other countries

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty13

Curricular Convergence?A Loss of Attraction?

The Bologna Declaration calls for a preservation of curricular variety across Europe

Experts’ view differs whether measures taken in the Bologna Process (“qualifications frameworks”, quality assurance measures, the “employability” debate etc.) and trends favour curricular convergence or keep variety

In Europe, learning from contrasts was a major motive and a major factor causing beneficial impact of temporary student mobility: Is this endangered by curricular convergence?

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty14

Stratification of Higher Education? A New Barrier to Mobility? Many observers believe that the continuous expansion

of tertiary education along “globalisation”, increasing “competition between HEIs and the “rat race” for being among “world-class universities” leads to a steeper stratification of the higher education systems

Many experts argue that the underlying philosophy of the Bologna Process is in favour of flat hierarchies within higher education systems, while the Lisbon Process favours steep stratification

Problem of stratification: The “zones of mutual trust” become smaller; recognition of study abroad can be expected only among relatively small networks of institutions similar in quality. Thus, stratification reduces the options for students

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty15

Declining Exceptionality

A comparison of various surveys on the professional value of temporary study abroad in Europe suggests a declining value over time in some aspects

The authors’ interpretation: Declining exceptionality of study abroad – non-mobile students are increasingly exposed to internationalisation

The authors’ recommendation: Student mobility should be more closely tied to curricular reforms aimed at enhancing the value of international experience

Ulr

ich T

eic

hle

r: S

tudent

Mobili

ty16

The Future: The EHEA after 2010A doubling of mobile students within a decade? Will this leadtowards a more responsive HE?

Divergent curricular efforts: instrumentalism? “Not trusting a singly professor and paradigm anymore”? Emphasis on international competences? Others?

Related to it: will Europe adapt to “globalisation” as interpreted elsewhere, or strive for a specific character of HE in Europe (cf. the Ghent conference of 19-20 May 2008)?

Student mobility grows, but “internationalisation at home” will grow more substantially?

The more structural convergence progresses the more other features might be viewed as crucial barriers and areas of intervention?

The history of student mobility in Europe since WWII is atrend in terms of figures, but a history of repeated changesof emphasis as regards the students involved, the aims, thesupportive mechanisms, etc. Therefore, the future cannot bepredicted through extrapolation.