'Spontaneous' Student Mobility in the European Union: A Statistical Survey

Author(s): Jean Gordon and Jean-Pierre Jallade

Reviewed work(s):
Source: European Journal of Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, Student Mobility (Jun., 1996), pp. 133-
151
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1503593 .
Accessed: 05/01/2013 21:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Journal of Education.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EuropeanJournal of Education, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1996 133

'Spontaneous' Student Mobility in the European

Union: a statistical survey

JEAN GORDON & JEAN-PIERRE JALLADE

Since the 1980s, the quantitative and qualitative issues surrounding the mobility of
students in higher education in the EU have taken on increasing significance. The
number of students participating in the mobility programmes organised by the EU
increased considerably during the life cycle of ERASMUS, LINGUA, COMETT
and TEMPUS, to mention only the largest. It is possible to trace most aspects of
the development of what is called 'organised' mobility in terms of movement
between countries, gender and fields of study as well as length of stay, since
provision for the collection and analysis of data on the participating students exists
within the structures of the programmes themselves (see Ulrich Teichler's contri-
bution in this issue).
However, many more students than those benefiting from an ERASMUS,
LINGUA, TEMPUS or other EU grant study outside their home country in an
EU higher education institution. This second type of mobility has sometimes been
called 'spontaneous', referring to the fact that it is not dependent on organised
financial or structural support. Insufficient data were available on who these
students were, where they came from, where they registered and in which fields of
study. If comparisons of the relative importance of 'organised' and 'spontaneous'
mobility were to contribute to policy development for the 'Europeanisation' of
higher education, more recent, compatible and complete data needed to be
collected to assess the dimensions and key characteristics of this second type of
mobility.
This was the basis of the brief given to the European Institute of Education and
Social Policy (EIESP) by the Directorate General XXII in 1994. The task
consisted in carrying out a survey on student mobility in the EU to:

-map out the different types of student mobility, both 'organised' and 'spon-
taneous', within the EU with a view to contributing to policy development;
-supply statistical trends over recent years and provide an analysis of the data;
-determine the relative position of EU programmes within overall student mo-
bility;
-propose scenarios for future policy development in this area.

This article is based on the analysis of selected data collected by this survey [1].
It concentrates on 'spontaneous' mobility of university students, that is mobile
students registered in EU universities through standard procedures during the
academic year 1993-94, unless specified otherwise. For information on trends in

0141-8211/96/020133-19 ? 1996, European Institute of Education and Social Policy, Paris

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
134 EuropeanJournal of Education

'organised' mobility, the reader is referred to the article by Teichler mentioned

above.

The Methodological Framework

Analysing 'spontaneous' student mobility implies both knowledge of student flows
between countries as well as an appropriate set of explanations for the causes of
this mobility and its outcomes. The present article concentrates on the former
issue, while occasionally reflecting on the latter, which is analysed in more detail
in the article by Philippe de Ville also included in this issue.

Defining Mobile Students

Previous studies on student mobility concentrated on foreign students as such on
the assumption that all foreign students registered in a given country were mobile.
This is clearly not true to the extent that some EU countries have substantial
populations of residentforeign students due to patterns and policies of immigration
over recent decades. These students who have lived in the host country for many
years before registering in university cannot be considered as mobile students in
the true sense of the word. It is essential, therefore, to identify mobile foreign
students within the overall population of foreign students in order to identify flows
of students mobile for the sole purpose of study. It was this data in particular that
the present survey sought to highlight to give, first, a snapshot of flows of mobile
students among EU countries, second to highlight their key characteristics, and
third to begin formulating trends over a period of half a decade.
In order to define mobile students in relation to the total foreign student
population, the national statistical offices contacted in this survey used the
following criteria:
-foreign students with a foreign secondary education diploma: Germany, French-
speaking Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands and Portugal;
-foreign students with permanent residence abroad: Flemish-speaking Belgium.
In Germany and Ireland a double criterion was used: diploma and residence;
-students from abroad (overseas students) in the UK and Greece. In these two
countries, the statistics show only the number of mobile students and not the
number of foreign students, some of whom are resident and therefore included
with home students;
-other criteria: in Italy, the Foreign Students' Office of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, which until recently centralised foreign student registrations, estimates
that 70% of foreign students are actually mobile and 30% resident;
-all foreign students registered in Spanish universities were regarded as mobile
because the statistics do not enable any distinctions to be made between them.
The collected data refer to in-coming students to a particular country, rather than
to those going abroad, the host country rather than the home country. This makes
it possible to comment on the relative positions of EU countries as 'receivers' or
'senders' of students. Some countries, most notably Belgium, expressed the
opinion that their higher education systems were carrying a heavier financial
burden than others, as a result of the high numbers of students from other EU
countries registered in their universities.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jean Gordon & Jean-PierreJallade 135

Types of Mobility
The framework established for the survey by the EIESP identified three aspects of
student mobility:
(1) The total number of mobile students registeredin national universities through
standardproceduresin relationship with the total number of foreign students.
These data refer to stocks of mobile students for a given academic year and
provide a 'snapshot' of the general situation but without indication of the
length of the mobility. Because those mobile students may remain registered
for more than a year, stocks for one year cannot be added to those for
preceding or following years.
(2) The number of mobile new entrants in national universities.These data give an
indication of the mobility at the start of higher education in terms of 'flows'
of students (i.e. students who are new entrants the year under consideration).
The motivations of the students are obviously very diverse: lack of provision
in the home country, numerusclausus for admission in the home institutions,
personal interest in the culture of the host country. The information collected
on new entrants contains no indication of the total length of the stay, whether
it will be for a year, a full cycle or a degree. It is likely though, that many
students who register abroad in the first year do so with the intention of
completing a full course of study. Studying abroad is seen in this case as an
alternative to studying at home. Information about fields of study is important
in that it makes it possible to decipher a pattern of registration in terms of
attractiveness of courses in host countries, or, on the other hand, problems
due to numerusclausus in home countries.
(3) The numberof mobilepostgraduates.This category aims at highlighting the flows
of students more advanced in their course of study and who are studying
abroad at postgraduate level for the purpose of specialisation. The encourage-
ment or discouragement of this type of mobility is closely linked to national
research policies and the training of research personnel. Though numbers tend
to be limited at this level, the impact on the future scientific capacity of a
country may be significant.

Data Collection
Collection of data was organised through a network of consultants working in close
cooperation with national statistical offices in host countries. This stage of the
project was carried out in conjunction with the Liaison Committee of the Confer-
ence of Rectors. The study, which commenced in the spring of 1994, was designed
to cover the then 12 member states of the EU. Data were collected for the first
four academic years of the 1990s in order to trace recent developments and also
by field of study. A gender breakdown was requested for all years and categories
of students.
A first analysis of provisional results was presented to the Conference on
Student Mobility in Europe organised in Brussels by the Ministry of Education of
French-speaking Belgium (henceforth, Belgium-Fr.) with the support of the Eu-
ropean Commission in December 1994. The draft report was then presented to
the meeting of the Directors of Higher Education and Presidents of the Confer-
ence of Rectors, held in Paris in June 1995.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136 EuropeanJournal of Education

The rest of the article presents a summary of the results concerning 'spon-
taneous' mobility of university students in 1993-94 in the 12 (pre-1995) EU
countries.

Mobility of Students Registered through Standard Procedures

Foreign Students
Most national statistical services define foreign students using the criteria of
nationality. Following that definition, the total population of foreign students
registered in universities in the (then) 12 countries of the EU was about 400,000
in 1993/94, of which about one-third (130,000) came from Western European
countries. The UK is the largest receiving country of European students with
about a quarter of the total, i.e. about 35,000 students, followed by France and
Germany with about 30,000 foreign students respectively (see Table I). Italy ranks
far behind (12,000 foreign students), followed by Belgium (8,000), and particu-
larly Belgium-Fr, which receives a comparatively high number of foreign European
students, given the size of its higher education population.
Mobile students account for 73% of all foreign students, with a total of 95,000
people duly registered in EU universities. The proportion of mobile students
within the total number of foreign students varies considerably from one country
to another. It is noticeably lower than the Community average in Germany,
Belgium-Fr, Denmark and the Netherlands, which reflects the existence of a large
population of resident foreign students in those countries. By contrast, the 100%
figure obtained for the UK, Greece and Portugal is simply due to the fact that the
statistical apparatus does not make any distinction between foreign and mobile
students.
The UK is still the largest receiving country of mobile students with 37% of the
total, followed by France (23%) and Germany (13%). Thus, altogether, these
three countries account for nearly three-quarters (73%) of all mobile students
registered in EU universities.

GenderBreakdown
Not all countries were able to provide a gender breakdown. Nevertheless, the data
presented in Table I show that women account for 51% of all mobile students in
the nine countries for which data are available. The proportion of women differs
widely across countries. It is low (45%) in the UK, below parity (46%-47%) in
Belgium-Nl, Denmark, Spain and Italy. Parity between genders is achieved in
Belgium-Fr and the Netherlands. It is above parity in Greece (56%) and especially
in France where close to two out of three mobile students registered in French
universities are women.

Net Balances Between In-coming and Out-going Students

Balances between in-coming and out-going students by country are shown in
Table II. Only three countries are 'net' importers of mobile students, having more
mobile students coming in than nationals going out. The UK ranks first by far,
with a net balance of 27,000 students, largely due to the high number of male

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jean Gordon & Jean-PierreJallade 137

TABLEI. Total number of mobile foreign students from EU member states and other
Western European countries, compared with the total number of foreign students,
1993-94
Mobile foreign
Foreign students students Mobile foreign
(registered through (registered through students as percentage of
standard standard total number of
Host country procedures) procedures) foreign students

Total numberof students

Germany 1992-93 29,159 12,472 43
Belgium Fr 5,754 3,331 58
Belgium N1 2,366 1,675 71
Denmark 1,708 1,102 65
Spain 4,371 4,371 100
France 29,562 21,851 73
Greece 1992-93 2,670 2,670 100
Ireland 3,388 2,485 73
Italy 11,842 8,289 70
Netherlands 2,629 915 35
Portugal 1992-93 1,134 1,134 100
UK 1992-93 34,816 34,816 100
Total EU 129,498 95,111 73
Womenonly
Germany 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Belgium Fr 2,788 1,676 60
Belgium NI 1,099 785 71
Denmark 790 512 65
Spain 2,027 2,027 100
France 18,555 14,002 75
Greece 1992-93 1,506 1,506 100
Ireland n.a. n.a. n.a.
Italy 5,532 3,872 70
Netherlands 1,333 446 33
Portugal 1992-93 n.d. n.d. n.d.
UK 1992-93 15,568 15,568 100
Total EU 49,198 40,394 82

in-coming students (see Figure 1). France, with a net balance of 8,400, is second
and Belgium third with 1,800. These patterns are not surprising. They reflect both
the attractiveness of major European languages and student language abilities, that
is the fact that English and French are the most frequently studied foreign
languages in European secondary schools.
The number of in-coming students registered in Italian universities is about the
same as the number of Italian students going abroad, but it is comparatively low
in both cases, given the size of the higher education system in this country.
All other countries are 'net' exporters of mobile students, with out-going
students outnumbering in-coming students. Greece is by far the biggest 'net'
exporter of students, most of whom are men, with a net balance of about 16,000
students. It is followed by Germany where the number of German students going
abroad is also much higher than the number of foreign students coming in, with
a balance of nearly 7,000.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 28000
26000
24000
22000
20000
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
-2000
-4000
-6000
-8000
-10000
-12000
-14000
-16000
D B DK E F G IRL I L N P

FIG. 1. Net balance between in-coming and out-going mobile students register

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jean Gordon & Jean-PierreJallade 139

TABLEII. Net balances between in-coming and out-going mobile

students registered through standard procedures in universities in
EU member states, 1993-94

Country In-coming Out-going Net imports Net exports

Total numberof students

Germany 8,907 15,676 6,769
Belgium Fr 3,216
Belgium N1 1,612
Belgium-total 4,828 3,068 1,760
Denmark 329 1,334 1,005
Spain 3,552 6,675 3,123
France 19,824 11,288 8,356
Greece 71 16,020 15,949
Ireland 2,202 5,292 3,090
Italy 6,785 6,368 417
Luxembourg 2,418 2,418
Netherlands 758 3,797 3,039
Portugal 1,134 2,038 904
UK 32,405 5,689 26,718
Total EU 80,795 79,661 37,431 36,297
Womenonly
Germany n.a. 7,467
Belgium Fr 1,602
Belgium Nl 762
Belgium-total 2,364 1,235 1,129
Denmark 163 727 564
Spain 1,594 3,104 1,510
France 12,558 4,052 8,506
Greece 49 5,584 5,535
Ireland 2,341
Italy 2,991 2,586 425
Luxembourg 0 687 687
Netherlands 371 1,734 1,363
Portugal 908
UK 14,502 2,584 11,918
Total EU 34,592 32,989 21,978 9,659

Net outflows are higher than 3,000 students in three other countries, namely
Spain, Ireland and the Netherlands. Luxembourg, despite its small size, is also a
major exporter of students (2,400).
Obviously, these patterns of student mobility reflect a mix of factors, such as
the relative attractiveness of EU universities, linguistic barriers, the limitations of
higher education provision and restrictive policies of university admission at home.
The UK's strong net position as a host country can be attributed not only to
the very high numbers of students coming in from other EU countries, but also to
the comparatively low number of British out-going students: only one British
student goes out to register abroad for three German students. Furthermore, since
64% of the British students who go abroad to study are women, the low figures are
indicative of a lack of mobility on the part of British men.
The French case is interestingly different. The 'net' position as a host country
is largely due to the very high numbers of women going to study in France (63%),
while comparatively few French women study abroad (36%).

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
140 EuropeanJournal of Education

The Belgian balance is perhaps not as high as expected because, while relatively
high numbers of EU students are registered in its universities in terms of the
overall population, high numbers of Belgian students also study abroad.
The two countries with the highest exporting position balance are Greece and
Germany. In the former case, insufficient provision of university places and a
stringent numerus clausus explain the high level of expatriation among Greek
students, and especially among male students. Germany is also a net exporter of
students, as a result of both the high number of German students registered
abroad, while in-coming students registered in German universities are relatively
few, owing to the size of the university system. Many more German students
register abroad than the contrary. Though German is also a commonly taught
language at secondary level, it still has a reputation of being more difficult than
English or French. In addition, the German university system is often held to be,
rightly or wrongly, long and arduous.
In other EU countries, the 'net' exporting position can be explained either by
the high number of outgoing students, as in the case of Spain and Ireland, or by
the low number of in-coming students (probably because of the linguistic barrier),
as in the case of Denmark, the Netherlands and Portugal. In these three cases, the
negative balance is also linked to a high number of outgoing students. The lack of
provision at home, already mentioned in the case of Greece, is also a pertinent
factor to explain the strong 'exporting' position of Luxembourg.

Student Flows among EU Countries

Student flows among EU countries are depicted in Table III. Overall, 85% of all
mobile students registered in EU universities, that is 80,000 students, come from
other EU countries, the other 15% originating from other Western European,
non-EU, countries. When read vertically, Table III shows the distribution of
mobile students registered in a country according to home countries. Horizontally,
it shows the destinations of mobile students from one country according to host
countries. Among other things, the table also shows a number of interesting
imbalances between bilateral flows of mobile students:
Almost 7,000 mobile German students are registered in UK universities but
fewer than 800 British students are registered in German universities (excluding
the Fachhochschulen).This gives a ratio of 1:9.
A similar imbalance occurs between Germany and France, though to a much
lesser extent: over 5,000 mobile German students are registered in France as
against fewer than 2,000 French students in Germany. The ratio is 1:2.5.
-Between the UK and France, the flows of mobile students are as follows: 3,500
British students go to France, while 6,300 French students are registered in
British universities (a ratio of 1:1.8).
Thus, the relative positions of the three most important countries involved in
student mobility in the EU are the following: the UK is a net importer of students
in relation to the other two, while Germany is a net exporter in relation to the
other two. France is a net importer in relation to Germany and a net exporter in
relation to the UK. These mobility patterns are clearly linked to the foreign
language issue, whether in terms of attractiveness or barrier and in terms of
student abilities.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLE III. Flows of mobile students registered in EU universities through standa

Host country

Home country Germany 1992-93 Belgium Fr Belgium NI Denmark Spain France Greece 92-93 Ireland Ital

Germany 191 116 200 1,026 5,137 38 613 1,036

Belgium 327 4 178 965 0 132 16
Denmark 93 15 9 26 379 3 39 25
Spain 929 380 63 12 2,112 0 276 108
France 1,867 1,120 39 19 1,074 8 385 458
Greece 2,325 372 93 9 29 2,619 38 4,585
Ireland 175 30 21 1 48 498 2 1
Italy 1,142 254 46 12 373 2,252 12 177
Luxembourg 862 612 3 1 6 913 0 21
Netherlands 291 34 1,145 12 146 614 4 114 75
Portugal 131 126 28 6 173 792 2 25 1
UK 765 82 49 53 473 3,535 2 403 278
Sub-total EU 8,907 3,216 1,612 329 3,552 19,824 71 2,202 6,785
Western European
non-EU countries 3,565 115 63 773 819 2,022 2,599 283 1,504
Total 12,472 3,331 1,675 1,102 4,371 21,851 2,670 2,485 8,289

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
142 European Journal of Education

The position of Greece is interesting because this is the country from which the
highest numbers of students go abroad to study. In a way, the distribution pattern
of Greek mobile students is a forerunner of what may be a European free market
for higher education when large numbers of students choose to go abroad to study.
At present, 97% of the 16,000 Greek students studying abroad are registered in
four countries: 37% are in the UK, 29% in Italy, 16% in France and 15% in
Germany.
Despite the relationship of proximity, both geographic and linguistic, between
France and Spain, there are twice as many Spanish students (2,100) registered in
French universities as French students registered in Spanish universities (1,100).
Since both systems have rather open registration procedures, the imbalance is due
to other factors, among which is the linguistic preparation of students.
The opposite may hold true with regard to the very strong imbalance recorded
between the Netherlands and Belgium-Nl. Both countries share the same lan-
guage, but there are eight times as many Dutch students in Belgium-Nl (1,150) as
Belgian students in the Netherlands (150). This situation can only be explained by
differences in admission procedures, with numerusclausus in the latter contrasting
with open admission in the former. In this regard, there is plenty of evidence of
mounting numbers of Dutch students registering in Belgian universities in recent
years, especially in medicine.
Another strong imbalance is recorded between Ireland and the UK, despite the
commonality of language: 4,500 mobile Irish students are registered in British
universities, as against 400 British students in Irish universities, that is a ratio of
1:11. This can be explained partially by the fact that the number of HE places in
Ireland remains inferior to the demand.

Flows of Women Students

Flows of women students provoke interesting questions about selection procedures
and the spread of 'attractive' fields of study across Europe: see Table IV. Thus, in
the UK, which has the highest number of mobile students coming from other EU
countries, the proportion of women among those students hardly reaches 45%
overall. Parity between genders is seldom achieved. French students, who consti-
tute overall 20% of the EU students registered in Britain, are the exception: 50%
of them are women. However, in the cases of Germany and Ireland, only 45% of
the students are women and the Greek percentage is even lower: 33%.
These figures need to be compared with the fields of study chosen by mobile
in-coming students. The two subject areas which attract EU students most to the
UK are engineering and business studies. The former discipline remains domi-
nated by male applications. It is probably worth also speculating on how women
applicants fare in the UK system of selection. In French universities, on the other
hand, the ratio of women in relation to men among in-coming students is
consistently high (over 60%) and reaches 66% among British students. This
appears to be essentially due to the attraction of languages and humanities as
subjects of study.
In Belgium, parity between genders is more or less achieved. The main national
group of students registered in Belgium-Nl universities are the Dutch (71% of the
total) and nearly half of them (49%) are women. In the case of Belgium-Fr where
French students constitute 35% of the total, 48% of them are women. It appears

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 TABLEIV. Flows of mobile students registered in EU universities through standard regis
Host country

Home country Germany 1992-93 Belgium Fr Belgium NI Denmark Spain France Greece 1992-93 Ireland I

Germany 100 46 95 3,276 22

Belgium 2 530 0
Denmark 8 0 296 2
Spain 216 41 9 1,384 0
France 533 19 14 8
Greece 197 40 3 1,676 1,
Ireland 17 7 1 324 0
Italy 133 22 6 1,384 11
Luxembourg 260 1 0 417 0
Netherlands 19 558 9 431 3
Portugal 69 14 4 501 2
UK 50 14 20 2,339 1
Sub-total EU 1,602 762 163 12,558 49 2,
Western European
non-EU countries 74 23 349 1,444 1,457
Total 1,676 785 512 14,002 1,506 3,8

IThe breakdown by home country is not available for Spain.

No data are available for women only Germany, Spain, Ireland or Portugal.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144 EuropeanJournal of Education

that over recent years increasing numbers of French students, both men and
women who do not find places for medical studies in France register in Belgian
universities where there is no numerus clausus.
About 44% of all mobile students registered in Italian universities are women,
as against only 37% among Greek students. Women outnumber men among
mobile students coming from other EU countries.

Mobile New Entrants

Mobile new entrants are defined as mobile students registered abroad in the first
year of a first degree. This type of mobility may be supported by a grant from the
home or host country but appears to be frequently totally spontaneous with no
financial support. Its main characteristic is that it is often the first step towards
longer-term mobility, that is students register abroad with the intention of com-
pleting a full course of study and obtaining a recognised university diploma. The
consequences for students in terms of future professional orientations and general
cultural outlook are multiple.
Mobility at the first stage of HE is usually an alternative to study in the home
country for whatever reason, rather than a complementary course introducing a
pluri-national or transnational element. Whether choices of destination (as in the
case of an ERASMUS supported placement) indicate or not comparative levels of
the attractiveness of HE in different countries is a moot point. Going abroad to
study for the first degree is often a palliative for lack of places in the home country
or for courses seen to be (rightly or wrongly) less competitive or of a lower
standard. In this, the mobility of new entrants is quite different from that of
doctoral students or those going abroad during a course of study on, for example,
an ERASMUS grant.
Ten EU countries (that is, with the exception of Spain and Ireland) were able
to provide data for mobile new entrants registered in universities in 1993-94.
Altogether, just over 21,000 students registered as mobile new entrants that year,
that is about 24% of the total number of mobile students: see Table V. The highest
number registered in British universities (8,200) followed by France (4,500) and
Germany (4,200).
The overall gender breakdownshows that the mobility of EU students at the
beginning of HE is characterised by the same proportion of women students as
among the total number of foreign mobile students registered in EU universities:
51%. As has been shown above, the gender breakdown is linked to the choice of
field of study. Thus, students going to the UK to study engineering and undertake
business studies are more likely to be men, while France attracts high numbers of
women students, who register in language and arts or humanities courses. Only
two countries (France and the UK) have a positive balance in terms of new
entrants.
The Dutch- and French-speaking parts of Belgium hold contrasting positions.
Over 49% of the total number of mobile students registered in Belgian-Nl
universities are new entrants, essentially due to the high number of Dutch students
registered to study medicine. Their number has doubled over the last four years,
but it is impossible to know how many of them will complete the full course until

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jean Gordon & Jean-PierreJallade 145

TABLEV. Mobile new entrants from EU member states and other Western European
countries registered in EU universities, 1993-94

Mobile new entrants
(registered through
Host Country standard procedures)
Total number of
foreign mobile Mobile new entrants as
students (registered percentage of total
through standard number of foreign
procedures) mobile students

Total numberof students

Germany 1992-93 4,226 12,472 34
Belgium Fr 371 3,331 11
Belgium N1 816 1,675 49
Denmark 301 1,102 27
Spain n.a. n.a. n.a.
France 4,448 21,707 20
Greece 1992-93 526 2,670 20
Ireland
Italy 1,868 8,289 23
Netherlands 273 915 30
Portugal 1992-93 386 1,134 34
UK 1992-93 8,213 34,816 24
Total 21,428 88,111 24

Womenonly
Germany 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Belgium Fr 181 1,676 11
Belgium N1 391 785 50
Denmark 137 512 27
Spain n.a. n.a. n.a.
France 3,175 12,237 26
Greece 1992-93 284 1,506 19
Ireland n.a. n.a. n.a.
Italy 909 3,872 23
Netherlands 138 466 30
Portugal 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.
UK 1992-93 3,355 15,568 22
Total 8,570 36,622 23

the degree. The situation is quite the opposite in Belgium-Fr where mobile new
entrants account for only 11% of the total, which would suggest that mobile
students tend to register in French-speaking universities at a later stage in their
studies. Two-thirds of the new entrants come from France or Luxembourg.
Language and proximity obviously play an important role in the factors affecting
registrations in Belgium, along with the absence of numerus clausus in medical
studies. A quarter of the French students are registered to study medicine. Both
the French and the Luxembourg students are predominantly male, less than 40%
of the students from Luxembourg are women and only 43% from France. Since
a quarter of the French women students are also registered in medicine, the
analysis of fields of study does not explain fully this low percentage. In the case of
Luxembourg, there is a fairly even spread of fields of study with a slight preference
for economics.
Mobile new entrants registered in the UK account for only a quarter of the
total number of mobile students. This suggests that mobile students are evenly
spread across the years of HE and that students, once accepted, complete their

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146 European Journal of Education

diploma. This is consistent with the selective admission process implemented in

British universities.
Almost 80% of the mobile new entrants registered in Italian universities are
Greek and half of them are registered to study medicine. Studying in Italy is,
therefore, clearly seen by expatriate Greek students as an alternative to lack of
provision and/or numerusclausus in Greece. But only 43% are women, a situation
in line with the traditional over-representation of men among Greek students
registering abroad.

Postgraduate Mobility
Postgraduate mobility attracts only small numbers of students but is highly
significant in terms of national and European research policies. Establishing a valid
data base for comparison among EU countries proved even more difficult than for
the other categories of mobile students, in so far as the different HE systems define
'postgraduate' students in quite diverse ways. In the English-speaking countries,
postgraduate studies usually correspond to the notion of doctoral studies with the
caveat that a student is often registered as a postgraduate from the master's degree
on. France, Belgium and Spain organise university studies by cycle with the third
one covering the courses deemed to be postgraduate (doctoral studies or an
equivalent level diploma). The cases of Germany and the Netherlands are more
problematic. German universities neither distinguish between undergraduates and
postgraduates nor do they organise university studies by cycle. Therefore, they
keep no specific statistical information on students preparing a doctorate. In the
Netherlands, doctoral students have teaching hours and are on the payroll of the
universities. They only appear in the statistics if they are also following a course.
Another important difficulty which needs to be taken into account is the
definition of a mobile postgraduate. Ideally, only those students who pursue the
first years of HE in their home country and then go abroad to specialise should be
considered as mobile. It was not possible to use this definition in the framework
of this study. The same criteria were used as for the other categories of mobility:
mobile postgraduates are postgraduate students holding a foreign secondary dip-
loma and/or permanent residence abroad.
The data collected suggest a population of about 16,000 mobile postgraduates
registered in EU universities, i.e. about 25% of the total number of mobile
students from the EU and other Western European countries: see Table VI. This
figure is certainly an underestimation,since only seven countries out of the 12
surveyed were able to provide information. If Germany and Italy in particular, had
been able to provide suitable data on postgraduate registrations, the figures would
no doubt be substantially higher. An estimate of approximately 20,000 Western
European mobile postgraduates registered in EU universities would be closer to
the truth.
Over 10,000 of these registrations are in the UK and another 5,000 in France.
Whereas postgraduates represent a third of all mobile students registered in the
UK, they account for less than a quarter of the total number in France. They do
not cover exactly the same categories of students in both countries, since the term
'postgraduate' in the UK includes students registered for a master's degree,
whereas in France this group of students is registered exclusively in the third cycle
of studies. There is, once again, a contrasting relationship between France

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jean Gordon & Jean-PierreJallade 147

TABLEVI. Mobile postgraduates from EU member states and other Western

European countries registered in EU universities, 1993-94
Total number of
foreign mobile Postgraduate mobility
Mobile postgraduates students (registered as percentage of total
(registered through through standard number of foreign
Host country standard procedures) procedures) mobile students

Total numberof students

Germany 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Belgium Fr 223 3,331 7
Belgium Nl 442 1,675 26
Denmark 43 1,102 4
Spain n.a. n.a. n.a.
France 5,034 21,707 23
Greece 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Ireland 218 2,485 9
Italy n.a. n.a. n.a.
Netherlands 92 915 10
Portugal 1992-93 21 1,134 2
UK 92-93 10,412 34,816 30
Total 16,485 67,165 25

Womenonly
Germany 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Belgium Fr 86 1,676 5
Belgium Nl 181 785 23
Denmark 12 512 2
Spain n.a. n.a. n.a.
France 2,608 13,912 19
Greece 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Ireland n.a. n.a. n.a.
Italy n.a. n.a. n.a.
Netherlands 45 466 10
Portugal 1992-93 13 n.a. n.a.
UK 1992-93 n.a. n.a. n.a.

and the UK. Whereas high numbers of British students (2,500) register in the first
year of university in France, very few (330) register as postgraduate students.
Conversely, French postgraduate students register in British universities in-
significant numbers (1,200), although not as numerous as new entrants (2,500). In
other words, the figures suggest that postgraduate studies in the UK are far more
attractive to French students than postgraduate studies in France for British
students.
In Belgium-Fr, the percentage of mobile postgraduates is very low (7%), but
unlike new entrants who come predominantly from France and Luxembourg, the
220 postgraduate students registered in Belgium-Fr. come from a broader range of
home countries (Germany, Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg and Portu-
gal). The same observation holds true in Belgium-Nl. where mobile postgraduates
(440) come from a wide range of EU countries, while mobile new entrants are
predominantly Dutch. These statistics confirm that the linguistic barrier is a less
important obstacle to student mobility at the postgraduate level than at the
beginning of university education.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
148 EuropeanJournal of Education

Flow data-not included in this article-show that Greece is, by far, the largest
exporter of postgraduate students. Over a quarter of all mobile postgraduates from
Western European countries are Greek (4,600) and of these 3,500 (75%) are
registered in UK universities (Greek students account for 37% of the total number
of mobile postgraduates received in that system), and another 20% are in French
universities. Unfortunately, data on Greek postgraduate students registered in
German and Italian universities are not available.
In general, it appears that women are under-represented among mobile stu-
dents at postgraduate level, but since only six countries out of 11 were able to
provide a gender breakdown, it is not possible to make anything more than very
approximate estimations.
The net balance between incoming and outgoing postgraduate students should
be of interest to EU countries in the development of high level human resources
and research policies. The difficulties encountered in collecting data for the
present survey make it impossible to establish net balances with any sort of useful
precision. A specific survey targeted on postgraduate mobility would have to be
carried out to assess more accurately flows of mobile postgraduates in the real
sense of the term, that is students who have obtained their first degree in the home
country and then go abroad to study for a doctorate.

A Summary of Trends
The two major countries receiving mobile students in 1993-94 were the UK and
France. They appear to attract different groups of students for different reasons.
In the UK, the data suggest an even spread of mobile students across the different
stages of HE, with many postgraduate students. Engineering and business studies
attract high registration rates perhaps because the UK is one of the few countries
offering a three-year first degree. This is certainly backed up by the accessibility of
the language, English being the language most frequently taught in secondary
schools within the EU countries. In France, a high proportion of mobile students
are women and many of them register in humanities, social services and foreign
language courses.
Belgium has an interestingly specific position among the EU countries. Though
it can certainly be counted among the 'net' 'receiving' countries, substantial
numbers of Belgian students study abroad. The results of the data analysis suggest
a better balance between in-coming and out-going students than had been
expected. In both the French-speaking and Dutch-speaking communities, a com-
mon language (French and Dutch) and proximity with two larger countries
facilitate student mobility towards Belgium. One of the specificities of both
language communities is the absence of a numerusclausus in medical studies, while
it does exist in France and the Netherlands. This leads to a high level of
registration of French and Dutch mobile students in those fields. To the extent
that these students are concentrated in a few Belgian universities, this may create
financial difficulties which would best be overcome via bilateral arrangements
between Belgium-Nl and the Netherlands on the one hand, and Belgium-Fr and
France on the other. In the latter case, the data for the non-university sector (not
included in this article) suggest a large 'net' inflow of French students in Belgian
non-university institutions (para-medical studies among others).

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jean Gordon & Jean-PierreJallade 149

Four types of 'exporting' countries can be distinguished. First, there is the case
of countries where large numbers of students go abroad for lack of suitable
provision at home. Greece is a case in point. It is the major sending country at all
levels of HE. The students register in four countries in particular: France,
Germany, Italy and the UK. Insufficient provision and a numerus clausus for all
subjects explain the massive emigration. On-going reforms to increase the places
in HE should lead to fewer Greek students going abroad to study in the coming
years. Students from Luxembourg also tend to follow their studies abroad, since
HE institutions in the country offer essentially short-cycle courses only. They go
mainly to the neighbouring countries which correspond to the teaching languages
used in Luxembourg, i.e. Belgium-Fr., France and Germany.
The second type refers to countries which receive low numbers of mobile
students because of the language barrier. They are Denmark, the Netherlands and
Portugal. The mother tongues of these three countries are little taught in EU
secondary schools. In Denmark, it is noticeable that the highest numbers of mobile
students come from other Scandinavian countries. On the other hand, outgoing
students from these three countries correspond roughly to the size of their
university population.
The third type includes Germany and Spain. In both countries, the propensity
of students to go and study abroad is high, while their universities seem to
experience difficulties in attracting many foreign students. The language may
be both an obstacle, although not to the same extent as countries with
minority languages, and an asset to the extent that German and Spanish are
considered by students as major European languages 'worth studying'. Other
obstacles, such as admission requirements, the length of study or the organisation
of courses might explain the low level of in-coming students in these two
countries.
Lastly, there is the case of Ireland, which is a major sending country, despite
the attraction of the English language. Large numbers of Irish students take their
degree in British universities due to a lack of places in the Republic of Ireland
where competition is high.
Italy more or less evens out in-coming and out-going students, albeit at a
rather low level, given the overall student population. Furthermore, Italian
universities attract few EU students outside Greek students, indicative of a low
level of 'attractiveness'. Fields of study such as languages, humanities and social
sciences account for a major part of non-Greek registrations. On the other hand,
out-going Italian students spread among France, the UK, Belgium-Fr and Ger-
many.

The Outlook for Spontaneous Mobility

Spontaneous mobility takes place outside EU programmes or other support. As
such, it reflects a demand for foreign higher education that can be attributed to a
mix of 'push' and 'pull' factors. Numerus clausus, restrictions on provision at home,
certain social practices such as delaying entry into higher education for a year
aftercompletion of secondary education, are among the 'push' factors.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150 EuropeanJournal of Education

But student mobility cannot be explained solely by differences in access

conditions among EU countries, as the somewhat conventional wisdom would
have it. If that were the case, flows of mobile students would be systematically
oriented from countries where access is selective to those where access is free, via
a natural process of overspill.
This is far from being the case, however. There is a genuine demand for higher
education abroad which exists independently from restrictions on access at na-
tional, institutional or subject level. Mobile students choose their host country on
the basis of a mix of 'pull' factors, such as linguistic abilities, cultural aspirations,
the real or supposed attractiveness (quality) of higher education in the host
country, the costs incurred, etc. It is clear that the language factor plays an
important role in shaping student decisions. But it is by no means the only factor,
especially with regard to postgraduate mobility. The transparency and flexibility of
the supply of courses, the requirements for degrees, the conditions of work are
important determinants of choice among out-going students. Progress in those
areas can do a lot to improve the competitiveness of universities.
The European debate about student mobility is very much dominated by
discussions over the language issue and the imbalances in student flows resulting
from differences in linguistic attractiveness. In this regard, 'organised' mobility
should yield a more balanced picture than 'spontaneous' mobility because it is
based on the concept of exchange of students. The data actually confirm that
student flows among EU countries are more balanced under EU mobility pro-
grammes than under spontaneous mobility. In other words, EU programmes act
as a 'corrector' of the spontaneous mobility patterns examined in the present
article.
The number of mobile students has increased by 10% each year over the last
three years and one may expect this trend to continue in the future. But it is
difficult to foresee future patterns of spontaneous mobility. Part of it, as we have
seen, is due to commonality of language and differences in admission require-
ments, and appropriate bilateral measures taken by higher education authorities
could easily dry out some student flows. But the major part of it reflects differences
in the relative attractiveness of European universities which can improve or
deteriorate over time, according to measures taken by university management and
national education authorities.

NOTE
[1] The full report, La mobiliteetudiante dans I'EU: une analyse statistique,is now
available in both English and French at DG XII of the European Commision
and at EI ESP. Unlike this article, the full report includes the three new
member states (Austria, Finland and Sweden) and the non-university sector.

REFERENCES
BALIGANT, I., DE VILLE, P., MARTOU, F. & VANDENBERGHE,
V. (1994) Analyse
Economique de la Mobilite Etudiante a l'Echelle de l'Union Europeenne (IRES,
Universite Catholique de Louvain).

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Jean Gordon & Jean-PierreJallade 151

DE COUNE,M. (1995) Presenceetrangereet mobiliteetudiantedans quelquesuniversites

membresdu reseau UNICA. Universite Libre de Bruxelles for the Direction
Generale de l'Enseignement Superieur et de la Recherche Scientifique de la
Communaute Franqaise de Belgique.
GORDON, J. and JALLADE, J.-P. (1995) La mobilite etudiante au sein de l'Union
Europeenne: une analyse statistique; rapportprovisoire. European Institute of
Education and Social Policy for DGXXII of the European Commission.
Student Mobility in Europe. Proceedingsof the Colloquium30.11-2.12 1994, organised
by the Communaute Fran;aise de Belgique and DGXXII of the European
Commission.

This content downloaded on Sat, 5 Jan 2013 21:03:27 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions