B Explanatory memorandum
by the Earl of Dundee, rapporteur
1 Introduction
1. In 2012, the Parliamentary
Assembly noted how European governments had reduced immigration
levels without making exceptions for academic mobility (see
Resolution 1906 (2012) on the consolidation and international openness of the
European Higher Education Area (EHEA)). It recommended measures
to reverse this trend, namely to encourage mobility of students,
teachers, researchers and university managers by reducing administrative
constraints. As a result, it would become easier to obtain visas
and social security benefits. Proper recognition would be given
to qualifications, and co-operation would improve with countries outside
the EHEA.
2. More recently,
Resolution
2044 (2015) and
Recommendation
2066 (2015) on student mobility recommended that member States remove
obstacles to mobility which, as strongly emphasised by the Bologna Process,
has contributed to economic progress, social development and intercultural
understanding. The resolution stressed the importance of raising
students’ interest and motivation and also of explaining how private
businesses might support student mobility.
3. Previous Assembly work on student mobility has been done in
the context of education (Committee on Culture, Science, Education
and Media). The 2014 report on student mobility which led to the
above adopted texts advised providing more funds for student mobility,
improving recognition of learning outcomes, and reducing red tape.
Higher education institutions were called upon to provide more information
about academic mobility programmes and to include these programmes
as part of university courses, joint degrees and foreign language
courses as well as sponsorship programmes between incoming and outgoing
students.
4. However, since this report is in the context of migration
it thus considers more closely associated aspects such as cultural
diversity, broadening the range of skills and transition from study
to labour markets.
5. I would like to thank Ms Lucie Cerna, Research Associate at
the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society (COMPAS) in Oxford (United
Kingdom). Her valuable work has allowed me to make recommendations
based on reliable facts and supported by expert sources.
6. As a follow-up to this report and in order to examine the
challenges for student movement to and from the United Kingdom following
the country’s departure from the European Union, the Sub-Committee
on Refugee and Migrant Children and Young People of the Committee
on Migration, Refugees and Displaced Persons will hold a hearing
in March 2018 in London, with the participation of relevant parliamentary, government
and university institutions.
2 Student mobility in Europe and beyond
2.1 Benefits
of international student mobility
7. Academic mobility has benefits
for students, higher education institutions, employers and host
countries. For students, learning abroad is an opportunity to access
quality education, acquire skills that may not be taught at home
and to get closer to local labour markets appreciative of good education.
Studying abroad is also seen as a way to improve employment credentials
within increasingly globalised labour markets.
8. While studying abroad assists the transition from school to
work,
Note it also
develops understanding between different cultures
Note along with the confidence of “give and
take”, diplomacy and co-operation.
Note Not least does it build up language
skills, particularly English.
Note
9. Although what is taught abroad may not be offered at home,
it might well be valued all the same by local employers who increasingly
look for qualifications with an international component.
Note
10. For host countries, mobile students may be an important source
of income.
Note In the
short term, international students often pay tuition fees; and in
some countries incur higher registration fees than domestic students.
They also contribute to the local economy through paying for their
living expenses. In the long term, highly educated mobile students
are likely to join domestic labour markets. Attracting mobile students, especially
if they stay permanently, is a way to tap into a global pool of
talent, support the development of new production systems and mitigate
the impact of an ageing population upon future skills supply in
many countries.
Note
11. Student movement which promotes diversity
Note and the awareness of different cultures,
Note enriches innovation
and creativity,
Note thereby
boosting quality and opportunities. Regions with a diverse workforce
often produce improved results, their firms proving to be a fertile
source of ideas and better at problem solving.
Note
12. Despite numerous advantages that international student mobility
can bring to individuals, higher education institutions, employers
and countries, not all countries and other stakeholders have been
able to reap these benefits.
2.2 An
increase in overall mobility, yet corresponding to a lack of incentives
for non-European students
13. Currently there are strong
incentives to study abroad. There is a global demand for tertiary
education. As a result, a growing number of students spend at least
part of their studies abroad.
Note Labour
market demand for skilled people has become much more international
while transportation and communication costs are now much lower
than they were. Many governments and international institutions,
including the European Union, have also formed academic, cultural,
social and political ties among countries.
14. Student mobility worldwide has risen from 800 000 million
foreign students enrolled in higher education programmes in 1975
to 4.6 million in 2016.
Note Between
2000 and 2012, the European Union more than doubled its international
student population.
15. However, these figures fail to reflect considerable differences
between countries in attracting international students.
Note In addition, while student mobility
in Europe is facilitated by the European Union’s Erasmus student
exchange programme and the EHEA set up by the Bologna Process, these
measures are not sufficient to attract non-European students to
European universities in the long term.
2.3 Mobility
patterns of international students
16. In 2015, English-speaking countries
overall received most, with four countries receiving over half the number
of mobile students. The United States had 907 000 international
students; the United Kingdom 431 000; Australia 294 000; Canada
172 000. International students going to these countries mainly
came from Asia, which thus accounted for 87% to Australia, 76% to
the United States and 54% to the United Kingdom.
Note
17. In 2015, Australia, Austria, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Switzerland
and the United Kingdom showed the highest levels of incoming students,
measured as a proportion of the total number of international students
in higher education. In Europe, international students represent
15.9% of total enrolments in Austria, 18.5% in the United Kingdom,
45.9% in Luxembourg, 11.2% in the Netherlands, 10.3% in Denmark,
9.9% in France and 7.7% in Germany. Foreign enrolments also form
a large group of university students in the Czech Republic at 10.5%
Note.
By contrast, incoming students represent less than 3% of total tertiary
enrolments in Slovenia, Spain and Poland.
18. Some 1.52 million international students enrolled in programmes
in the European Union in 2015. Yet there is great divergence among
EU member States. France (239 000) and Germany (229 000) are major
host countries, followed by the Netherlands (86 000) and Spain (75
000). Yet while a majority of mobile students entering France come
from Africa (41%), other European countries provide the main source
for Germany (42%). However, for both France (23%) and Germany (35%)
respectively, Asia accounts for their second highest proportion
of incoming students. International students to the Netherlands
are also mainly European (57%). Spain is notably different – as
many as 37% come there from Latin American countries. Smaller European
countries rely much more on student mobility within Europe itself.
For example, more than 80% of students going to Austria, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic
come from Europe.
Note
19. In 2010, by contrast, Europe was the preferred destination:
41% of all international students went there. The fastest growing
regions of destination were Latin America and the Caribbean, Oceania
and Asia, reflecting the internationalisation of universities in
an increasing number of countries.
Note
20. In 2010, the United Kingdom, France and Germany were major
host countries, followed by Spain and Austria. Yet, then as now,
there were many differences. For while a majority of mobile students
to France came from Africa (42.8%), again other European countries
were the source of incoming students to Germany (46.4%). A large
proportion to the United Kingdom came from Asian countries (42.7%).
International students to Austria were also mainly European (83.8%),
while inflows to Spain from Latin American countries represented
50%. More than 80% of students going to Austria, the Czech Republic,
Estonia, Luxembourg, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia came from
other European countries.
Note
21. For different reasons outlined in this report (tuition fees,
the language of instruction, the quality of higher education institutions
and immigration policy), many EU countries continue to find it difficult
to attract non-European students. All of these considerations influence
the numbers of international students and the duration of their
stay.
2.4 Limitations
of existing data
22. For measuring international
student levels, data is inconsistent. In a number of States, in
particular the United Kingdom, statistics do not differentiate between
students and other migrants, i.e. students are counted within general
migration statistics. Some countries such as Australia, Canada and
the United States reclassify students as temporary migrants, thus
not counting them within a permanent migrant category.
23. For the OECD and the United Nations Educational, Scientific
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), data on international and foreign
students are obtained from enrolments within their countries of
destination. This is the same method used for collecting data on
total enrolments, i.e. records of regularly enrolled students in
an education programme. Students enrolled in countries that do not
report to the OECD or to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics are
not included. As a result, for their countries of origin, the total
number of national students enrolled abroad may be underestimated.
24. OECD international statistics on education tend to overlook
the intervention of distance and e-learning, especially fast-developing
MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) students who commute from one
country to another on a daily basis and short-term exchange programmes
which take place within an academic year, such as the Erasmus programme.
Other concerns may arise from the classification of students enrolled
in foreign campuses and European schools in host countries’ student
cohorts. And the OECD does not collect (harmonised) trend data on
international students by origin.
Note
3 Factors
for variation in countries’ ability to attract international students
25. There are many reasons why
countries vary in their ability to attract international students.
Student migration is often influenced by differentials in education
capacity, i.e. a lack of educational facilities in the country of
origin, or the prestige of educational institutions and their courses
in the country of destination. It is also driven by comparisons
between the returns to or rewards for education and skills in the
origin and destination countries respectively. Cultural, linguistic
and historical connections between countries as well as existing
networks of communities also play a part in guiding international
students.
Note Other
explanations range from tuition costs, the perceived quality of
institutions abroad, the language of instruction, the compatibility
and comparability across education systems, immigration policy as
well as the perceived economic, political and social climate in
possible host countries.
26. As already indicated, tuition fees play a major part. More
often than not their levels are set by universities themselves,
but governments can control or cap fees through regulation or by
increasing public appropriations of educational institutions. They
can also reduce the financial impact on individuals by subsidising
students (e.g. loans and scholarships).
27. In some countries, tuition fees are the same for both national
and international students. For example, within the EHEA, international
students from other EU countries are treated as domestic students
for paying tuition fees. Outside Europe, countries such as Brazil,
Colombia, Israel, Korea and Switzerland also charge the same fees
for both domestic and foreign students. However, other host countries
(for example Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Canada and New Zealand) differentiate
international from domestic students and charge international students
higher tuition fees. They thus avoid placing an extra burden upon
domestic taxpayers, instead receiving revenue from the international
trade of educational services.
Note
28. International students are less willing to go to countries
with high tuition fees. For instance, Sweden introduced tuition
fees for international students for some university courses in the
academic year 2011/12. The number of non-European Economic Area
(EEA) new entrants to these programmes dropped by almost 80% in 2012.
It went up slightly by 6 percentage points from 2012 to 2014. At
the same time, there was an increase in the number of entrants from
the EEA – 28% in the year in which the reform came into effect.
There were similar effects after Denmark’s reform of tuition fees
in 2006.
Note
29. The most motivated students enrol regardless of fees, since
the perceived quality of instruction abroad and the assessed value
of host institutions are key criteria for keen international students
when selecting their country of destination. Thus popular choices
include a large number of high-ranking tertiary educational institutions.
Note
30. Language, as already observed, is another determinant. Countries
whose language of instruction is widely spoken and read, such as
English, French, German, Russian and Spanish, have great appeal
for international students. English is the lingua franca of the
world, with one in four people speaking it.
Note Countries where English is an official
language (either legally or
de facto)
– such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, the United
Kingdom and the United States – are priority destinations for international
students. English is increasingly mandatory in school curricula,
even during early education. Thus many want to improve their English
by going to where it is the official language. Moreover, a growing
number of institutions in non-English-speaking countries (such as
the Nordic countries) offer tertiary education programmes in English.
Note The Netherlands offers
the largest number of English-taught programmes in continental Europe:
about 30% of all undergraduate courses and more than half of all
masters programmes in the country.
Note
31. Compatibility across national education systems is another
factor, as also are educational accreditation and information: the
latter in removing barriers to student exchanges and supporting
the global market for advanced skills. The Bologna Process demonstrates
co-operation at European Union level. It has boosted student mobility
in Europe by harmonising degree structures, strengthening quality
assurance and easing the recognition of qualifications and periods
of study across EU countries as well as promoting different mobility instruments.
Note
32. Immigration restrictions and complex related procedures often
deter students from going to certain countries. These continue to
revise their legal systems in order to attract and retain international
students.
Note Reforms mainly consist of issuing
student visas, amending or simplifying immigration procedures and
easing restrictions on short-term work permits for students.
33. For example, in Australia, the simplified student visa framework
(SSVF) was implemented in July 2016. It is designed to make the
process of applying for a student visa easier to navigate for students
and to reduce red tape for businesses.
Note The number
of student visa subclasses has been decreased from eight to two,
while a simplified single immigration risk framework has been introduced
to help students meet financial and language requirements.
Note In May 2016, the Australian
Government announced its 10-year roadmap for attracting foreign
students. This is an initiative for improving the quality of teaching,
providing much better support and building partnerships – with the
aim of attracting 720 000 new enrolments by 2025.
Note
34. A pathway student visa pilot in New Zealand enables a student
to undertake up to three consecutive programmes of study on a single
student visa, which may be granted for up to a maximum of five years.
Note In 2014, Canada revised its
International Student Programme and streamlined work permit access
for international students enrolled in a Canadian institution to
allow them to work part-time (20 hours per week) off campus.
Note
35. The decision to study abroad may also be influenced by economic,
political and social factors, such as economic growth and employment
opportunities; political stability; political climate (feeling welcome
or not); the robustness of institutions in the host country; cultural
and religious affinities between countries of origin and destination,
and networks in the destination country
Note.
Recent social factors such as the financial recession, migration
and refugee crisis, Brexit, the rise of populist parties, and reduced
economic growth in China have also all influenced international
student mobility.
36. International student mobility can be identified in three
stages. The first (1999-2006) was shaped by the terrorist attacks
of 2001 in the United States, which led to an increase in the numbers
of international students studying science and technology. The second
stage (2006-2013) reflected the global financial recession, which also
motivated traditional destinations to recruit international students.
The third stage (2013-2020) is now formed by the slowdown in the
Chinese economy, the United Kingdom’s referendum to leave the European Union
and by American policies. This stage reveals growing competition
among new and traditional destinations to attract international
students.
Note
4 Legislative
framework and existing policies in the European Union
37. To encourage student mobility,
the European Union has implemented a number of programmes and initiatives,
most notably the European Union’s Erasmus student exchange programme
and the EHEA set up by the Bologna Process. These are all tools
for economic progress, social development and intercultural understanding.
The EHEA has led to changes which make it easier to study and train
abroad while the bachelor-master-doctorate structure and advances
in quality assurance have facilitated student and staff mobility
and strengthened institutions and systems.
38. The most famous programme, Erasmus, provides direct help to
those wishing to study or train abroad and to projects which encourage
cross-border co-operation between higher education institutions.
It focuses upon students’ skill acquisition, dealing with macro-economic
challenges at national and regional levels.
Note The programme
also seeks to “enhance the attractiveness of higher education in
Europe and support European higher education institutions in competing
on the higher education market worldwide”.
Note
39. Since it began, in 1987-88, the Erasmus programme has provided
over three million European students with the opportunity to go
abroad and study at a higher education institution or train in a
company.
Note Erasmus mobility,
with its emphasis on skills development for employability and active
citizenship, is a central element of the European Commission’s strategies.
In 2015, 33 States participated in the programme, including 28 EU member
States. The most popular destination for inward mobility was Spain,
which received over 44 000 students, followed by Germany, the United
Kingdom, France and Italy.
Note The
popularity of these five countries has remained more or less constant
in recent years.
40. However, existing programmes do not sufficiently facilitate
student mobility within and to the European Union. Both Erasmus
and EHEA mostly promote short-term stays (average of six months)
of students from European institutions to others within the European
Union.
41. That is why the European Commission has introduced revised
rules in 2016 “to attract non-EU students, researchers and interns
to the EU”. They are a combination of two previous directives concerning
students and researchers. The amended directive extends and improves
intra-EU mobility for students and researchers and labour market
access for members of the families of third-country researchers
(but not students). It grants them coverage under the EU Family
Reunification Directive, but exempts researchers from many of its
most restrictive conditions (those related to integration measures
before reunification and waiting periods). Mobility provisions for
both students and researchers are increased. The amended directive
also allows both students and researchers to stay on for an additional
nine months after completion of studies or research in order to seek
work or to start a business.
Note
42. Although the European Union is a major destination for international
students, so far it has not provided all that much work for foreign
graduates. The revised EU Students and Researchers Directive can
ensure a job-search and setting-up a business period, but more should
be done to attract students to the European Union in the first place
and to help those who find a job to remain after their studies,
by facilitating work permits and making it easier for them to search
for work across the European Union.
Note
5 International
students and pathways to labour migration
43. International students benefit
local economies through their skills and abilities. They are thus
often encouraged to find jobs in the countries where they have studied.
In 2014, the duration of job-search periods varied between six months
in countries such as Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland, Denmark and
Finland to one year in the Netherlands.
Note
44. However, other countries offer no special facilities for staying
on, thus graduates have to use the same job search channels as those
available to migrants. In 2014, this was the case in Belgium, Estonia,
Greece, Hungary, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Israel
and the United States. In Sweden, foreign students can try to find
jobs during their studies. If successful, they may switch to work
status even before they have completed their studies.
45. Since 2014, more OECD countries have adopted measures to encourage
international students to take on jobs after graduation. Norway,
for example, has extended its job search permit for international
students and researchers from six to 12 months. Since March 2016,
international graduates in the Netherlands may apply for a residence
permit within three years of graduation – previously it had been
one year. The requirement of obtaining a work permit within the
first year has been dropped. In Italy, the government has promoted
the programme Startup Hubs, which was launched at the end of 2014.
This helps foreign students, as well as other migrants already living
in Italy, to stay on, by simplifying procedures for those starting
up their own business.
Note
46. Estonia now allows international students, as well as researchers,
teachers and lecturers, to stay and work for 183 days after their
residence permits have expired. In Latvia, since July 2016, undergraduates
may work for 20 hours per week. Masters or PhD students can work
without any time limitations. Those who have graduated at Masters
or PhD level can request a temporary residence permit for a period
of six months, during which time they may search for employment.
In 2015, Lithuania made it easier for international students to
take on jobs after graduation. If employed in highly qualified work,
they are entitled to a Blue Card. This enables them to stay on without
having to provide evidence of work experience.
Note
47. Yet such employment-search concessions have not necessarily
led to increases in the number of jobs for international students.
To complicate matters further, in many countries reliable data is
lacking on how many remain. For example, in 2008/2009, about 17%
of international (non-EU) students changed status and stayed on
in Austria, while over 30% of international students did so in France,
the Czech Republic and Canada.
Note
48. Between 16.4% and 29.1% of international students from non-EU
countries remain in the European Union after graduation. The highest
proportion is from north-western Africa and the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS). However, large enrolment numbers do not necessarily
reflect large numbers who stay on. For instance, while Chinese students
are the biggest group of international students, only between 13.7%
and 15.5% stay on in the countries where they have studied. Current
data reveal short-term stay rates (6-12 months after the end of
studies). Thereafter analysis becomes difficult.
Note Different
factors can influence stay rates of international students, such
as similarity between host and source countries’ language, institutional
quality and governance effectiveness, and countries’ technological
readiness and levels of innovation.
6 Some conclusions
and recommendations
49. This report concludes that
academic movement benefits students, higher education institutions, employers
and countries alike. International students contribute towards economic
sustainability, greater diversity and a broader range of skills.
Therefore, all stakeholders should seek to attract and retain international students.
50. Key issues to be addressed include tuition fees, accreditation
of diplomas and compatibility between education systems as well
as the ease or difficulty for graduates to find work in the countries
where they have studied. Host countries supported by their political
leadership should provide a welcoming environment for students.
51. Many EU member States receive a majority of students from
other EU-countries rather than from different parts of the world.
This report identifies several factors influencing international
student mobility in Europe: tuition fees, the language of instruction,
the quality of institutions, immigration policy, cultural and historic
patterns, and the economic, political and social background in countries.
52. Offering more programmes in English would help countries,
in particular smaller ones whose language is not spoken elsewhere,
to attract more international students.
53. Setting an appropriate level of tuition fees for international
students or charging them the same fees as domestic students would
also bring many more of them to Europe.
54. Improving the quality of institutions and creating more world-class
universities would give Europe greater appeal as a destination for
study.
55. The development of an innovative and competitive environment
would also attract international students.
56. Introducing immigration policies that ease the admission of
international students, allowing them to gain work experience and
prolong the job-search period after graduation, would clearly influence
the decision of many more of them to seek to study and work outside
their home countries.
57. Other measures include removing language barriers during studies
and providing support for those wishing to move from study to work.
58. Once jobs have been secured, international graduates could
be offered help in finding accommodation and in dealing with local
labour market requirements.
59. It is important to provide a positive environment so that
from the outset international students are motivated both to study
and find jobs in host countries, being made more welcome in their
communities and higher education institutions.
60. Improving data collection with consistent definitions of student
mobility across countries and creating subdivisions to distinguish
immigration statistics by category is essential.
