Temporary Study Abroad: the life of ERASMUS students

Abstract

For young Europeans who decide to embark on higher education studies, studyingin another country has become a normal option. Statistics suggest that, of thegenerations who graduated in the mid-1990s, about 10% had studied abroad forsome period or the whole study period (Jahr, Schomburg & Teichler, 2002). Sincethen, this proportion has increased. Available data also suggest that almost 5% ofthe European graduates are awarded their degree by a university outside theirhome country. These figures could seem low if we take into consideration theimportance that is now placed on internationalisation and globalisation. But theyare certainly high compared to estimates that only 3% of highly qualified EUcitizens are employed abroad. Although international student mobility is not amass phenomenon, it is no longer just an exotic option.Today, we tend to believe that international student mobility has substantiallyincreased in recent years. This is not true. The number of students studyingabroad, according to UNESCO statistics, has increased more or less in line withthe overall increase in student numbers in the last four decades. This share(although today foreign citizenship is no longer a reliable measure for internationalmobility, the only worldwide mobility data available are still based on it) remainedmore or less constant at about 2%. But the proportion of European studentsstudying abroad increased and the world’s largest support programme for inter-national student mobility — the ERASMUS programme inaugurated by theEuropean Community in 1987 — has clearly contributed to the fact that studyingin another European country is no longer viewed as exceptional for the studentsof the participating countries.The functioning and impact of student mobility in the framework of ERAS-MUS (which became a sub-programme of SOCRATES in the mid-1990s) havebeen analysed frequently. Both its immense popularity and the fact that Europeanpolicies are confronted with a stronger expectation to legitimise their success thanmost governmental policies in individual European countries have led to a relativewealth of information. For example, surveys were undertaken in the mid-1980sof the students mobile within the predecessor of ERASMUS (the Joint StudyProgrammes) in comparison to other mobility programmes (Baron & Smith,1987; Opper, Teichler & Carlson, 1990; Teichler & Steube, 1991), of theERASMUS students around 1990 (Maiworm, Steube & Teichler, 1991, 1993;Teichler, 1996) and again of the ERASMUS students under the umbrella ofSOCRATES who studied in another European country in 1998–99 (Maiworm &