STUDENT MOBILITY IN THE EU

European Integration Studies, Miskolc, Volume 2. Number 2. (2003) pp. 123-138 STUDENT MOBILITY IN THE EU JUDIT SZARKA, PhD-Student Institute for Economic Theories, University of Miskolc 3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, Hungary getintez@uni.miskolc.hu Field of research: Higher education system Keywords: student mobility, educational policy, European Union Abstract: Changes in all fields of the society and also in the labour market mean that students have to acquire new skills to be successful in coping with challenges in today s multicultural environment. Mobility during the course of studies could be the most effective tool to acquire these competencies. This paper intends to examine student mobility, by creating a synthesis of statistical and qualitative analysis. In the first section the various types of mobility are discussed, along with the respective students flows and their explanations. In the part exploring the organised student mobility also the development and the main objectives of the Socrates programme are reviewed. Succeeding this, the major obstacles to student mobility are enumerated along with the relevant solutions. In the final section, the paper shortly analyses the student flows in the Catholic University of Leuven, and gives a description of various practices there, which help foreign students to adapt themselves faster to the new environment. 1 Definition and the various types of student mobility Student mobility can be defined and measured in several ways. Previously national statistics defined mobile students as foreign students registered in a given country. This method tended to overestimate the number of mobile students since considerable proportions of these foreigners are residents in the given country (Student Mobility within the European Union, 1996). This is especially typical for countries where the acquisition of host nationality is difficult, and even third or fourth generation immigrants are considered as foreign students like in Germany and in France. To avoid the inclusion of students these kind it would be essential to identify flows of students mobile only with the sole purpose of study. Furthermore the concept of student mobility can be classified into the following categories: Spontaneous mobility referring to students registered at higher institutions under standard procedures thus not through any of the organised programme like Erasmus and Lingua. Organised mobility referring to mobility encouraged by organised educational programmes Student mobility can also be classified as short and long-term, where short terms refers to a maximum of one year s of study and long term to a complete course of study leading to a diploma.

124 Judit Szarka 2 Spontaneous student mobility in Europe As mentioned before the most important feature of spontaneous mobility is that it does not depend on any kind of organised financial or structural support. Unlike in the case of organised mobility data on spontaneous mobility is not collected and examined systematically mainly due to the differences in the statistical systems on the individual countries and due to the lack of a central organ collecting the data. The latest report for European student mobility, which contains comprehensive statistical analysis dates back to 1996 and was ordered by the European Commission (Student Mobility within the European Union: 1996). Some similar statistical surveys were undertaken afterwards, but these were only focusing on specific countries not on overall student flows in Europe. By no means can this survey be considered as recent, though the identified student flows are likely to have remained valid, since the majority of the underlying causes did not change. The report uses the following categories to analyse student mobility: 2.1. Mobile students registered in national universities through standard procedures These data refer to the stock of free-mover mobile students in a given academic year. As such it does not give any indication on the length of study. These major student flows are summarised in the table below: HOST COUNTRY INCOMING STUDENTS OUTGOING STUDENTS NET IMPORTS NET EXPORTS Germany 14.695 19.869 5.174 Austria 9.504 3.599 5.905 Belgium 7.849 3.247 4.602 Denmark 543 2.159 1.616 Spain 3.738 7.191 3.453 Finland 651 3.344 2.693 France 21.378 13.971 7.407 Greece 128 16.789 16.661 Ireland 2.359 5.458 3.099 Italy 6.980 11.888 4.908 Luxemburg 0 2.798 2.798 Netherlands 823 4.885 4.062 Portugal 1.134 2.206 1.072 United Kingdom 32.405 6.787 25.618 Sweden 4.994 1.856 3.138 Table 1 - Student flows in Europe 1993-94, Source Student Mobility within the EU, 1996 On the basis of the above data the major flows were the following:

Student Mobility in the EU 125 Five EU countries were net importers of students: UK, France, Austria, Belgium and Sweden; with UK having by far the most significant imbalance of incoming and outgoing students. This pattern is not surprising at all, in a sense that it reflects both the attractiveness of major European languages and the students language abilities. UK s strong net position can also be attributed to the very low number of outgoing students, besides the very high number of incoming ones. Both trends can be linked to the language issue. The two countries with the highest exporting balance are Greece and Germany, with Greece having significantly higher imbalance. In the case of Greece the lack of university places and the stringent numerus clausus applied explain the noteworthy outward mobility of the students (Jallade, Gordon: Spontaneous student mobility in the EU, 1996). Greek students are very keen to study abroad favouring mostly the UK and Italy in this preference order. In Germany very high number of students register abroad while the number of incoming students is relatively low. Despite the fact that German is a commonly taught language in Europe, it still has a reputation of being far more difficult than English and French. Moreover, German higher education is considered to be lengthy and ineffective. Since the UK, France and Germany altogether account for more than 50% of student mobility this kind at the examined period it is worth to analyse their mutual relative positions separately. UK was a net importer of students in relation to the other two countries, while Germany was a net exporter in relation to the other two. For every British student studying in Germany there were seven German studying in the UK. France was a net importer in relation to Germany and a net exporter in relation to the UK. 2.2. Mobile new entrants This category of student mobility is very important due to several factors. On one hand it is usually related to long-term study outside of the home country. Students generally register for the first year of study in another country, if they have the intention to complete the first degree there. The consequences of the choice of obtaining the diploma in another country will probably have a significant effect on their future career and way of thinking. This kind of student mobility is an indication of how the European free market of educational services would look like if there would not be obstacles for the mobility at all. In this category students consider the foreign diploma as an alternative to the national diploma not just a supplement to it (Jallade, Gordon: Spontaneous student mobility in the EU, 1996). If national education is deemed to be of lower quality, or the admission is too selective students decide for taking up the full course of study abroad.

126 Judit Szarka The table below contains the balance of incoming / outgoing mobile new entrants: HOST COUNTRY INCOMING STUDENTS OUTGOING STUDENTS NET IMPORTS Germany 5.328 3.134 2194 Austria 2.577 663 1914 Belgium 3.560 657 2903 NET EXPORTS Denmark 126 478 352 Spain NA 1.175 NA NA Finland 149 310 161 France 4.343 4.726 383 Greece 29 3.393 3364 Ireland NA 2.048 NA NA Italy 1.118 2.562 1444 Luxemburg NA 503 NA NA Netherlands 245 1.589 1344 Portugal 386 392 6 United Kingdom 7.074 2.109 4965 Sweden NA 810 NA NA Table 2 - Number of mobile new entrants in Europe, Source: Student Mobility within the EU, 1996 The position of countries regarding the balance of new entrants is almost the same as in the case of spontaneous mobility with the exception of Germany and France. Both of them changed their net status in this classification. Four countries are net importers of new entrants: the UK is the way ahead with a net balance of some 5000 students, followed by Belgium and Germany. Belgium s strong importing position relative to the size of the country can be explained by two major factors: the majority of mobile new entrants in French speaking Belgium arrived from France, with the intention of studying subjects which are not taught in their own country (Jallade, Gordon: Spontaneous student mobility in the EU, 1996). Dutch students represent almost two third of mobile new entrants in the Dutch speaking Belgium, taking advantage of the lack of the language barrier. Greece is again the biggest exporter, due to the restrictive procedure in the national higher education system succeeded by Italy and the Netherlands. 3 Organised student mobility This kind of mobility is also referred to as mobility during the course of studies, since students who wish to study abroad outside the exchange programmes are free to do so, but normal registration in the host country during the course of studies is likely to cause problems. They have no chance of getting accepted unless they pursue a complete course of study. Since this kind of mobility is co-ordinated by a specific institution or the network of national institutions statistical data is more available than in the case of spontaneous mobility.

Student Mobility in the EU 127 The table below contains data on students from EU countries mobile during the course of their studies. It should be noted that the imbalances of incoming and outgoing students are significantly lower than in the case of spontaneous mobility. This indicates that organised mobility helps to lessen to some extent the imbalances of spontaneous mobility (Student Mobility within the European Union, 1996). HOST COUNTRY INCOMING STUDENTS OUTGOING STUDENTS NET IMPORTS NET EXPORTS Germany 8.167 11.165 2.998 Austria 777 1.324 547 Belgium 2.654 2.843 189 Denmark 1.105 1.585 480 Spain 7.131 6.989 142 Finland 407 1.017 610 France 12.822 10.646 2.176 Greece 877 1.743 866 Ireland 2.346 1.488 858-858 Italy 4.219 6.716 2.497 Netherlands 3.895 4.294 399 Portugal 1.020 1.339 319 United Kingdom 17.088 10.842 6.246 Sweden 1.289 1.806 517 Total EU 63.797 63.797 Table 3 Students from EU countries mobile during the course of their studies, Source: Student Mobility within the EU, 1996 Though the differences between the number of incoming and outgoing students is lower than in case of spontaneous mobility, it still puts a serious financial burden on countries with a net export balance. Since Erasmus students do not pay tuition, the host university picks up the cost of any number of excess students. As the table below illustrates only the UK and Ireland suffered from such a huge imbalance in the examined period.

128 Judit Szarka COUNTRY SENT RECEIVED IMBALANCE Austria 2.301 1.618 70,3% Belgium 3.978 3.077 77,4% Denmark 1.930 1.393 72,2% Finland 2.530 1.400 55,3% France 13.336 15.177 113,8% Germany 13.638 10.299 75,5% Greece 1.897 1.056 55,7% Iceland 103 49 47,6% Ireland 1.618 3.312 204,7% Italy 9.000 4.987 55,4% Luxembourg 68 9 13,2% Netherlands 5.180 4.912 94,8% Norway 1.212 728 60,1% Portugal 1.609 1.276 79,3% Spain 10.547 10.220 96,9% Sweden 2.912 2.491 85,5% Switzerland 1.048 830 79,2% United Kingdom 11.735 21.808 185,8% Table 4 - Number of students in Europe's Erasmus programme broken down by country. At 100% the number of student received would equal the number of students sent. Source: Concern about imbalance in Erasmus students exchange numbers, 1998 The other issue hurting the UK s educational system was the practice that even free-mover students from the EU studying in the UK were exempt from paying tuition until 1998. From that year on they had to contribute app. $1600 (in 1998), which covered only part of the expenses. Students outside the EU had to pay the full cost, (approximately $9600 in 1998) which forced universities to recruit students from those regions of the world (European Communities - Twenty-Seventh Report, 1998). 4 Organised student mobility in the European Union Student mobility has been the priority of the European Union for several years already. The most significant and wide-ranging educational programme, the Socrates, was launched in 1995. Its main objectives were the following (Council decision on Socrates, March 1995): To develop the European dimension in education at all levels. To promote a quantitive and qualitative improvement of the knowledge of the languages of the European Union and to promote the intercultural dimension of education. To promote, in the Member States, wide-ranging and intensive cooperation between institutions at all levels of education. To encourage the mobility of students and teachers.

Student Mobility in the EU 129 The I. Phase of Socrates programme consisted of three separate chapters, dealing with Higher education (Erasmus), School education (Comenius) and horizontal measures like the promotion of language skills, open and distance learning and adult education. Though the objectives of the programme were clearly forward-looking and innovative several shortcomings and failed practices were identified (Court of Auditors, Special report 06/2002). The most significant ones were the following: Weaknesses in the design. The design of the Socrates program in particular was deemed to be too complex, consisting 38 actions and measures. As a result the program was interpreted in different ways and the co-operation between the member states became seriously complicated. Some actions were co-ordinated directly by the Commission, through a technical assistance office, whilst others were managed by the national agencies. In several cases the allocation of the tasks and authorities were not clearly determined. Despite these negative features the Socrates programme contributed to higher education student mobility to an enormous extent. Till the end of the first phase (December 1999) more than 460 000 students received Erasmus scholarships. The second phase of the Socrates programme was initiated by the Communication of the European Commission with the title of Towards the Europe of knowledge published in 1997. This communication put forward that EU action on education, training and youth should be based on two major concerns. Namely, that knowledge-based policies - like innovation, research and education should become one of the four fundamental pillars of the EU s internal policies. Additionally, the level of knowledge and the level of skills of European citizens should be increased to promote employment. The communication emphasises that the actions already started (Socrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Youth for Europe) should be continued, and the new phases will build upon former results but will only focus on a number of restricted objectives. The main driving force behind the idea of the Europe of knowledge is considered to be the creation of a dynamic education area, where significantly less student mobility obstacles exist. It should be noted that the promotion of transnational mobility is not limited to the European level (Passport to Mobility, May 2001). The communiqué of G8 (USA, France, Germany, Japan, Canada, Italy, UK, Russia) summit in Cologne in 1999 declares, adaptability, employability and the management of change will be the primary challenges for our societies in the coming century. Mobility between jobs, cultures and communities will be essential. And the passport to mobility will be education and lifelong learning for everyone. To reach this mobility G8 countries support an increase in exchanges of teachers, administrators and students among the nations of the Eight and with other nations. As a further step G8 education ministers in Okinawa, the ministers agreed the double number of students, teachers, research workers and educational administrators in the next ten years gaining experience abroad - based on the success of the Erasmus programme. The second phase of the programme was designed on the basis of the principles above. It clearly attempts correct the shortcomings of the former phase in a sense that it focuses on

130 Judit Szarka efficiency and the individual programmes are based on a decentralised and more effective management system. The specific objectives of the Socrates II were also modified compared to the first Phase (Decision No. 253/2000/EC on SOCRATES): strengthening the European dimension in education at all levels; improving knowledge of foreign languages; promotion of co-operation and mobility in the field of education; encouraging the use of new technologies in education; promotion of equal opportunities in all sectors of education. Implementation of these aims at European level is complementary to the policies of the Member States. 5 Obstacles to student mobility in Europe The Green Paper (1996) published by the European Commission on the obstacles on transnational mobility was the first one to analyse the issue in detail at the European level. From the list of obstacles cited by the Paper the following ones were particularly related to higher education: Lack of knowledge of a foreign language and of certain cultural aspects was considered to be the main obstacle to mobility Obstacles related to the difference and contradictions between the valid regulations of the countries and affecting the financial stability and social status of the mobile individuals. Issues like taxation of sums received from abroad, losing the unemployed status if taking up transnational education belong here. The territorially restricted nature of national grants constitutes a serious obstacle to spontaneous mobility in so far as it is difficult for students to transfer the their grants to undertake the full course of study abroad. The very limited scope of academic recognition outside the ECTS system, which is based on the co-operation of universities, was also cited as a key barrier in the Green Paper. This lack of recognition may result that periods of study abroad have to be repeated upon returning to the home country. In a more recent analysis the ADMIT (2000a) report cited before identified three key barriers common to all countries examined: language, finance and recognition and/or admission While these barriers were common their effect on mobility was highly different in case of the individual countries. In the succeeding part of the paper I collect the relevant obstacles based on the conclusions in the ADMIT (2000a) report.

Student Mobility in the EU 131 5.1. Language In all countries examined by the report language was a definite barrier to mobility. In case of France the language of the destination country was an important factor in deciding where to study. One of the most serious obstacles to mobility among young French people is, that most of them intends to study in English speaking countries. It is also noted in the report that if the UK does not accept some students they simply give up the idea of mobility. In case of Germany the knowledge of English in specific sciences like natural sciences and engineering was reported to be low. Additionally, also the motivation to learn English was also reported to be low. Concerning second and third languages, language proficiency was even weaker than in the case of English. Greek students also had a clear preference for choosing English-speaking universities (in the UK, in the Netherlands, in the Scandinavian countries or in the US). Greek students also proved to be less proficient in less widely spoken European languages, which seriously affected their mobility towards the institutions, which offer courses in these languages. Incoming mobility is also distressed by the insufficient Greek language knowledge of the students, which also explains the strong net exporter position of Greece. Not surprisingly, language concerns were not mentioned as obstacles to mobility among foreign students studying in the UK. English constitutes a barrier to mobility in a sense that students are unwilling to study in non-english speaking countries. Regarding the other side, the universality of English was also hindering outgoing UK mobility, since UK students are not forced to learn any other languages, given that their native language is widely spoken almost everywhere. 5.2. Finance Issues related to insufficient financial support were common in all examined countries. However, the effect of inadequate financing had a diverse effect from country to country. It should be noted that the average value of an Erasmus monthly grant is 140, which is only intended to cover the travelling expenses and differences between the cost of living. While the range of the monthly grant lies between 100-400, even the highest amount is scarce to cover the vast differences in the standard of living between some countries in Europe. In case of Greece, the ADMIT report concluded, that the amount of funding was considered to be completely inadequate. Specifically, the differences in the cost of living between Greece and the UK or the Scandinavian countries were perceived as enormous compared to the constantly decreasing monthly Erasmus allowance. Therefore, the exchange programme itself is regarded as not an equal opportunity programme, where mainly upper class and middle class students can participate. It should be noted that the same problem is valid for the exchange students from Eastern-European countries; the lack of parental support can deter talented students from participating in the program. Taking into account the higher living costs in the UK, not surprisingly the study concludes that foreign mobile students studying there are mostly of a high socio economic status.

132 Judit Szarka Sweden is the only country, where the grants and loans for students studying abroad are completely portable for short as well as for long periods of time. 5.3. Recognition and admissions This group of obstacles is particularly worth of attention, since it can be improved without dedication of vast financial resources. Concerning the recognition of courses attended in foreign universities the ECTS (European credit transfer system) is considered to be a suitable instrument, but still not completely sufficient. The programme itself was launched within the framework of Erasmus, and guarantees the reciprocal recognition of qualifications awarded by the institutions, which participate in it. Up to the beginning of 2003 1200 establishments in 30 countries adopted the program. Despite the high acceptance rate of ECTS the ADMIT report identified some related problems. Specifically, that the credit transfer is difficult to manage in practice. Concerning the issue of admissions the limitations for foreign students for participating in special courses were mentioned, as well as the numerus clausus system in some countries. 5.4. Other obstacles Though the above issues constitute the bulk of student mobility obstacles, we should not forget the cultural and attitudinal factors standing against mobility, as well as the lack of information and various administrative barriers, which can also hold back mobility. 6 Solutions for the identified problems In this section we enumerate all the possible solutions to the identified problems as proposed by various forums. 6.1. Language The formerly mentioned Green Paper on transnational mobility is rather short concerning recommendations on the language problem. It promotes the learning of the minimum of two European Union languages and linguistic preparation for every mobility oriented activity. The ADMIT report published four years after the Green Paper has more detailed proposals to tackle this problem: Language training should be developed and reinforced well before the university education. Obligatory English courses should be developed to accompany higher education programmes, and the development of specific language courses in languages other than English related to exchange programmes is also advisable. The EU should adopt a more comprehensive policy concerning foreign language instruction and promoting the teaching of widely spoken EU languages in secondary education at the national level. At the same time the EU should support the instruction of less spoken European languages, to ensure the multicultural character of Europe. It should be noted that the Socrates programme contained from the date of its creation a part promoting language learning (the LINGUA programme). Despite the relative size

Student Mobility in the EU 133 of the LINGUA, it was unable to significantly change language problem hindering student mobility. 6.2. Finance The first proposals (Green paper) for solving this issue mentioned the extension of the types and the sources of various financial supports as well as the creation of proper national policies for the distribution of Erasmus and Socrates grants. Even in this stage the possibility of co-financing of student mobility by various other institutions like companies, non-profit organizations etc. was mentioned. The ADMIT (2000a) report recommends additional measures for the improvement of the financial support system: Development of a fully portable financial support scheme in the EU, who wish to take a full course in another country Increased funding of teaching staff mobility to promote joint research and teaching activities Provide additional financial support for high-cost areas Provide portable loans and grants for mobile students The recommendations of ESIB (ESIB Policy Paper on mobility, 2003) rest upon the general principle that all students must have the opportunity to study abroad regardless of the family background. To ensure this, the financial support must be sufficient to cover the living cost and additional mobility related needs, these should include food, accommodation, study materials, cultural and social participation and travelling costs. The issue of full transferability of loans and funds as well special regard to those cases, when students move to higher cost areas are also mentioned here. ESIB also calls for granting the full right to work to foreign students as well as to domestic students. It should be noted that the exportability of the loans and grants was already functioning in the majority of EU countries (in Austria, Germany, Luxemburg, Iceland, Finland, France, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and in the Netherlands) at the end of 2002. Moreover France, Germany and Spain are giving extra support to increase the number or the value of the Erasmus grants. As communicated by the EC support is also received from banks and private foundations, though this additional backing should be better organised and more widespread. 6.3. Recognition and admission The Green Paper called for the general facilitation of qualifications between the member states as well as for the generalisation of the ECTS programme. Later more detailed recommendations were published on the issue (ADMIT, 2000c): Improvement of the information system, explain clearly the students the ECTS system Promotion of the establishment of a centralised body at each university for recognition of modules and courses Increase the involvement of academics with exchange schemes in order to guarantee that they take part in course recognition and evaluation on a regular basis.

134 Judit Szarka 6.4. Recent developments In the Nice summit in December 2000 a mobility action plan was accepted by the European Council, which contains several practical measures to promote mobility. The major new elements in the action plan are the following (Passport to Mobility, 2001): Providing information on Internet on various sources of mobility in Europe Training and teaching academic staff involved, so that they can deal with issues related to mobility, guidance and counselling more professionally Outlining a quality charter for the reception of foreign students and trainees Collecting the existing mobility schemes and examples of best practices for exchanges of students trainees and instructors 7 Student mobility in the Catholic University of Leuven (KUL) Catholic University of Leuven is unique in the sense that it has an enormous effect on the everyday life of the city situated only 20 kilometres of Brussels. Leuven has the population of approximately 30 000, which almost doubles during the academic year due to the arrival of students. The official language in Leuven is Dutch, though English is so widely spoken, that no foreign student supposed that (s)he speaks English faces serious challenges when performing everyday tasks. From the student population approximately 3000 students (10%) can be considered as free mover foreign student. Unfortunately, no detailed data is collected about this student group, which would make further analysis highly speculative. The only certain feature of that student flow is, that most of these students arrive from Asian countries, with China being the most frequent originator country. In contrast to spontaneous mobility, data on organised mobility is freely available. The following tables contain the distribution of incoming and outgoing students by nationality:

Student Mobility in the EU 135 INCOMING STUDENTS OUTGOING STUDENTS Country 2002-2003 2001-2002 2000-2001 Country 2002-2003 2001-2002 2000-2001 Average Imbalance Austria 12 8 11 Austria 10 13 15 123% Bulgaria 1 6 0 Bulgaria 0 3 1 57% Switzerland 8 4 5 Switzerland 0 18 13 274% Czech Republic 15 9 8 Czech Republic 4 1 2 22% Germany 61 54 60 Germany 62 66 67 111% Denmark 27 23 21 Denmark 11 7 12 42% Estonia 1 4 0 Estonia 2 2 0 80% Spain 137 119 114 Spain 129 143 119 106% 7.1.1 Fi Finland 14 16 6 nl an 10 13 11 94% d France 50 40 32 France 117 132 129 310% UK 26 36 16 UK 38 38 62 177% Greece 20 22 27 Greece 3 11 9 33% Hungary 12 9 3 Hungary 4 4 3 46% Ireland 11 11 3 Ireland 13 12 20 180% Iceland 1 3 1 Iceland 1 1 60% Italy 59 77 53 Italy 59 56 45 85% Lithuania 3 2 3 Netherlands 29 27 24 Netherlands 31 32 30 116% Norway 7 7 5 Norway 6 6 7 100% Poland 51 54 35 Poland 2 6 4 9% Portugal 29 20 17 Portugal 22 16 16 82% Romania 14 12 11 Sweden 26 21 24 Sweden 16 18 19 75% Slovakia 6 4 1 Slovakia 1 1 1 27% Total 620 588 480 Total 541 599 585 102% Table 5 - Number of Erasmus students by country between 2000-03, Source: KUL Erasmus Office Spanish students were the most eager to come to Leuven followed by the German ones. Language proficiency can explain both major flows. Spanish students usually speak English and take also English courses at KUL, whereas German students can also take courses in English and in Dutch due to the very high resemblance of the German and Dutch language (Source: KUL Erasmus Office). The distribution of outgoing students seems to be more balanced with France and Spain being the most popular destinations. The highest imbalance

136 Judit Szarka between the incoming and outgoing students could be observed in the case of France and the UK (where the number of students is significant), and both are attributable to the language issue. Students living in the Flemish part of Belgium usually speak two other languages at professional level besides their native one: French and English, which makes it clear why these countries are so popular. A traditional imbalance can be observed in the case of Eastern European countries, with high number of incoming and very low number of outgoing students. The table below describes the selected faculties (in % of total) by outgoing and incoming students in the Erasmus exchange programme: OUTGOING STUDENTS INCOMING STUDENTS 99-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 99-2000 2000-2001 2001-2002 Agriculture 5% 6% 9% 3% 6% 6% Applied Sciences 8% 8% 4% 9% 7% 11% Arts 22% 22% 23% 10% 8% 7% Economy 18% 16% 15% 18% 17% 16% Law 22% 22% 22% 37% 40% 34% Medical Studies 5% 3% 4% 2% 2% 2% Psychology and Pedagogy 8% 5% 4% 3% 4% 4% Social Sciences 5% 9% 10% 5% 5% 8% Other 7% 8% 8% 11% 12% 10% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Table 6 - Distribution Erasmus Students by Faculty 2000-03, Source: KUL Erasmus Office The distribution closely follows the popularity of faculties at KUL measured by the number of students per faculty. The number of incoming and outgoing students seems to be balanced in all but one faculty. The number of Erasmus students studying Law at KUL is significantly higher than the number of outgoing students belonging to the same faculty. This can be explained by the high reputation of this faculty at KUL and also by the accessible English courses there (Source: KUL Erasmus Office). 7.2. Support mechanisms for foreign students at KUL As discussed earlier in the paper, mobility can also be impeded by the lack of information and by the fear of the individual students, that they will not be able to adapt themselves to the new environment. The host university can undertake the task of helping the incoming students to get settled faster and thereby it can make the period of study more enjoyable. I collected some of the practices of KUL, which I think - really contribute to the faster integration of the foreign students. Though some of these practices are costly, and probably not affordable by universities in poorer countries, most of the measures just depend on the will to collect and pass on the right information. When enrolling students receive a package containing the following items:

Student Mobility in the EU 137 A student card, with a code, which gives access for the several IT rooms across the campus. The card also provides entrance for the sport facilities of KUL A season ticket for the academic year for all the public transportation in Leuven, along with the map of the city Several brochures giving information on everyday life and on specific issues like: o How to register themselves in the city, with the detailed description of the process and the necessary documents o o Information related to health insurance Information related to finding a student job and accommodation in the city. The University also manages a job agency for students and provides a service for finding accommodation via a separate advertisement board on the website of the University. Legal advice is available for free helping students to understand the housing contracts. Concerning socialisation several clubs for international students are accessible depending on nationality and interests, which organise events supported by the University. A special service is also available for renting bikes practically free, along with a repair service. The University also has a special agreement with the local cable operator, which provides cable TV and internet for KUL students practically at half of the normal rate. In my view some of the practices above could serve as an example for Hungarian Universities, on how to make the first weeks for a foreign student less problematic and the whole period spent abroad more pleasant. Bibliography ADMIT (2000a) Higher Education Admission and Student Mobility within the EU: Work package 2&4 Mobility, admission and common curriculum elements. London: London School of Economics, Centre for Educational Research and European Commission Research DG www.lse.ac.uk ADMIT (2000b) Higher Education Admission and Student Mobility within the EU: Work package 3 Students who study abroad: Perspectives on mobility. London: London School of Economics, Centre for Educational Research and European Commission Research DG - www.lse.ac.uk ADMIT (2000a) Higher Education Admission and Student Mobility within the EU: Work package 5 Obstacles and barriers to student mobility: what needs to be done? London: London School of Economics, Centre for Educational Research and European Commission Research DG - www.lse.ac.uk Communication of 13 February 2002 from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions Commission Action Plan on skills and mobility. europe.eu.int Council decision 95/819/EC of 14 March 1995 establishing the Community action programme Socrates europe.eu.int Court of Auditors, Special report No. 2/2002 on the Socrates and Youth for Europe programmes together with the Commission s replies, 07.06.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities

138 Judit Szarka Decision NO. 253/2000/EC of January 2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the second phase of the Community Programme in the field of education SOCRATES europe.eu.int Education Training Research: the obstacles to transnational mobility, Green Paper of 2 October 1996 europe.eu.int ESIB (National Union of Students in Europe) Policy Paper on mobility (May 2003) www.esib.org European Communities - Twenty-Seventh Report, Student mobility in the European Community ordered by the House of Lords, 9 June 1998 Passport to Mobility booklet issued by the European Commission, May 2001 europe.eu.int Student Mobility within the European Union: a statistical report, prepared by the European Institute of Education and Social Policy, 1996 - europe.eu.int Spontaneous' student mobility in the European Union: A statistical survey: Gordon, Jean; Jallade, Jean-Pierre ; European Journal of Education, Jun96, Vol. 31 Issue 2 Towards the Europe of knowledge, European Commission document COM 97/563, 1997 - europe.eu.int