Living and

Learning 
– Exchange
Studies
Abroad
A study of motives,
barriers and experiences
of Finnish, Norwegian
and Swedish Students
Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

© Centre for International Mobility (CIMO), Swedish Council for Higher

Education and Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU), 2013.

Graphic design: Matador kommunikation AB

Printed in Sweden by Edita Västra Aros, Västerås, 2013

ISBN 978-91-7561-000-9

www.cimo.fi
www.uhr.se
www.siu.no
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................5
Student mobility – drivers and barriers...................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Mobility in Finland, Norway and Sweden.................................................................................................................................................................. 6
The survey and the respondents.................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

2. Reasons for not ­going abroad........................................................................................................9

Main findings ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Who are the non-mobile students?............................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Reasons for not going abroad ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
Discouragement and lack of encouragement as a reason
for not going abroad ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Regrets of not going abroad ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Participating in short term mobility and internationalisation at home ...................................................................................................... 15

3. Motives for going abroad..................................................................................................................17

Main findings...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17
The mobility group ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17
What motivates students to go abroad?.................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Personal growth........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Career .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Academic motives....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Nationality........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Gender..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................20
Age......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Encouragement and support.......................................................................................................................................................................................22
Encouragement............................................................................................................................................................................................................22
Guidance and support...............................................................................................................................................................................................23

4. Value of ­studies, placement or i­ nternship abroad......................................................... 25

Main findings......................................................................................................................................................................................................................25
What benefits do students see in international mobility?................................................................................................................................25
How important is the destination?............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Good mobility, bad mobility........................................................................................................................................................................................ 27
All students’ evaluation of exchange studies abroad.........................................................................................................................................28
Comparing students who have/have not been abroad.....................................................................................................................................30
What makes international mobility valuable?........................................................................................................................................................ 31

ConclusionS......................................................................................................................................................33

REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX 1 – ABOUT THE SURVEY, METHODOLOGY AND THE RESPONDENTS.......................37

Contents 3
Introduction their full degree abroad, exchange students have their
sojourn abroad as part of their study in the home
In the Nordic countries as well as in Europe as country. For the purpose of the survey, exchange
a whole, increased student mobility is a political mobility is defined as having at least three months’
priority. As members of the Bologna process, Finland, duration, including mobility for study as well as for
Norway, and Sweden share the target that at least placement.
20 per cent of those graduating in Europe in 2020
should have been on a study or training period Student mobility – drivers and barriers
abroad. Research into the driving forces behind student
The present report is the result of a cooperation mobility focuses on background factors of students,
project by the Centre for International Mobility on subjective motives for going or not going, and on
(CIMO) in Finland, the Swedish Council for Higher different types of more objective obstacles making
Education and the Norwegian Centre for Interna- a sojourn abroad difficult or even impossible to
tional Cooperation in Education (SIU). The three accomplish.
offices are national agencies for the Lifelong Learning Studies from Europe suggest that the educational
Programme in their respective countries, and they and cultural background of parents is more important
have the common task of promoting internationali- than family economy. Evidence from Norway and
sation in education, including international student Sweden shows that mobile students (both degree and
mobility. exchange students) are a selected group in the sense
The cooperation project aims to provide com- that they are more likely to have parents with higher
parable data from Finland, Norway and Sweden to education (Rodrigues 2012: 10; Saarikallio-Torp and
increase our understanding of the driving forces of Wiers-Jenssen 2010: 29). Other background factors
student mobility. The following are the main ques- frequently pointed to are language competency and
tions addressed: prior international experience of students themselves
as well as of their parents (Rodrigues 2010).
• What characterises the group of students going In our survey we asked the mobile respondents about
on exchange in comparison with the non-mobile their motives for becoming exchange students. The
students, with regard to background factors, study
orientation, and ambitions? “What characterises the group of
students going on exchange in
• What factors can be identified as important comparison with the non-mobile
­motivators and barriers for mobility? students?”
• What sources of encouragement or discourage- Nordic Graduate Survey from 2007 identified the
ment are students exposed to, and how do they following as the two most widespread motives among
influence students’ choices? internationally mobile Nordic students: interest in
experiencing different cultures, and to live and study
• How do students experience the exchange period in a foreign environment. This is in line with other
with regard to outcome on social and academic studies in the Nordic countries involving degree seek-
related expectations? ing as well as exchange students.1 Getting access to
education not available in the home country can be an
• How do students experience the return to their important motive for degree mobility, with the large
home institutions with regard to recognition of number of Norwegian medical students in Poland
studies, and with regard to recognition, use and and Hungary and other countries as an example.
relevance of the exchange experience in further For exchange mobility this should not be expected
study activity? to be among the most important motives. That being
said, motives related to educational outcome are also
This report focuses on exchange mobility as opposed frequently given by our respondents.
to degree mobility. While mobile degree students take

See Garam (2000), Hietaluoma (2001), Søvik and Eldøy (2010), Sifo (2008).
1

Introduction 5
 Regarding obstacles to mobility, research literature to draw the attention to those factors that can be
identifies two main barriers, namely financial limita- influenced by policies and strategies or practices at
tions and language. On a global level these are clearly the higher education institutions. To what extent are
very important. For the countries covered in our sur- the students’ propensities to go abroad for exchange
vey, however, there is reason to assume that both econ- studies the result of their experiences at their home
omy and language are less important barriers than for institutions? Is it possible to point to practices,
many other countries. This is supported by the recent national or institutional, that clearly influence the
Eurostudent survey (Orr, Gwosc and Netz 2011).2 students’ mobility patterns?
While economy on a general level is the main Based on the results from this survey we find that
obstacle for mobility, the Eurostudent IV survey con- mobility patterns are at least partly explained by such
cludes that Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden practices. We find that students in the three countries
are the only countries where the expected economic do not experience any single major obstacle, and
burden is not the obstacle most frequently identified that increased encouragement and motivation can
by students. Rather, students from these countries make some of the non-mobile students mobile. While
point to the separation from family and friends as students generally assume that studying abroad for a
the main obstacle to enrolment abroad. period can be rewarding as far as personal experience
As economic limitations are not as important and development is concerned, institutions should
for Nordic students as for students in many other probably work harder to make sure that exchange
parts of the world, other barriers are given relatively is understood to be academically rewarding for the
more weight when accounting for non-mobility, students.
such as social/family obligations. For many students,
however, even the non-mobile, that kind of relations Mobility in Finland, Norway and Sweden
or obligations will not represent a definitive obstacle Before discussing the driving forces and barriers
similar to for example lack of entry visa or inability more in detail, we will present a general picture of
to finance accommodation or in some countries international student mobility from the three coun-
tuition fees. Students who choose to go abroad do not tries, as this can represent a useful background when
necessarily have less developed social ties than their analysing the results of the survey.
non-mobile co-students. The result from a survey Student mobility is resource demanding, and stu-
on international mobility among PhD candidates at dents in Finland, Norway, and Sweden can enjoy sup-
Norwegian higher education institutions is a case in port from various sources, national loans and grants
point. While family ties and child care were given as as well as programmes and funding schemes, with
the number one reason by non-mobile candidates for Erasmus as the single most important programme.
not going abroad during their PhD studies, the actual Table 1.1 presents some basic information about
mobility rate was somewhat higher for candidates international student mobility in the three countries.
with children than for those without (SIU 2011)3. For Mobility patterns differ quite significantly. Finland
some students, pointing to family and other social ties stands out from the other two in the relation between
can be a way of rationalising non-mobility. exchange students and degree seeking students.
Trying to answer why student X chooses to study While in the latter countries degree seeking students
abroad while student Y stays in his or her home coun- clearly outnumber exchange students, the situation in
try throughout the study period, several factors must Finland is the opposite. The country has the highest
be taken into account. The mentioned background number of exchange students in absolute terms. Dif-
factors produce a part of the picture. The subjective ferences in funding schemes are a likely explanation.
motives given by the students themselves can increase While students from Norway and Sweden can get
our understanding. Furthermore, there is no doubt support for tuition fees abroad, this is not the case for
that personality matters – some seek adventures and students from Finland (Saarikallio-Torp Wiers-Jens-
challenges, while others are just as keen to avoid sen 2010: 25). From this perspective it makes sense in
them. From our perspective, however, it is crucial Finland to focus particularly on exchange mobility.

2
Eurostudent is a project with the main aim to collate comparable data on the social dimension of European higher education, and includes
­questions about barriers and obstacles for international mobility.
International Mobility among PhD Candidates at Norwegian Higher Education Institutions. SIU Report 02/2011. 
3

6 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

 Table 1.1 Key statistics on student population and mobility in Finland, Norway, and Sweden.
Finland Norway Sweden
Total student population 2010. 308,000 226,000 469,000
(Source: Nordic Education Key Data 2012)
Share of female vs. male students in student population (%) F: 54 F: 61 F: 59
(Source: Nordic Education Key Data 2012) M: 46 M: 39 M: 41
Outgoing exchange students 2011–2012* 9,931 8,114 6,233**
(min.)
Outgoing degree seeking students 5,457 15,169 21,705**
(Source: Nordic Education Key Data 2012) (max.)
Outgoing exchange students as share of student population (%) 3.2 3.6 1.3**
(min.)
Outgoing degree seeking students as share of student population (%) 1.7 6.3 4.4**
(max.)
Outgoing Erasmus Mobility 2011–2012 – studies 3,966 1,547 3,210

Outgoing Erasmus mobility 2011–2012 - placement 1,115 145 383

Outgoing Erasmus exchange students (studies and placement) as share of exchange 51 21 58
students 2011–2012

* Source: CIMO, Finland, State Educational Loan Fund, Norway; CSN, Sweden.
** Figures for Sweden not directly comparable, as Swedish statistics do not clearly distinguish
between degree mobility and short term mobility.

Finland is an active user of the Erasmus pro- be lower than the number given In table 1.1, and the
gramme, and slightly more than half of the outgoing number of short term mobile students correspond-
students have their sojourn abroad organised through ingly higher.
that programme. The greatest difference between
Finland and the two other countries is found in sta- The survey and the respondents
tistics on Erasmus outgoing mobility for placements. The survey was sent to a total of 48,934 e-mail
In Norway and Sweden such mobility is relatively addresses of individuals enrolled as degree seeking
low, while in Finland more than 1,100 students went students with or without previous mobility experi-
abroad for Erasmus placement in 2011–2012. ence or plans to become an exchange student.4 To the
Norway is the country with the highest level of extent that incoming exchange students to the three
outgoing mobility relative to the total student popu- countries are included in the survey, their response
lation, for both exchange and degree mobility. At the has been taken out in order not to disturb the picture.
same time, the Erasmus programme plays a relatively 6,531 students responded to the survey, which gives a
limited role in exchange mobility from Norway. response rate of 13.5 per cent. The response rate was
While half of the exchange mobility from Finland highest in Sweden (16.9 per cent) followed by Norway
is Erasmus mobility, the same programme accounts (14.3 per cent) and Finland (9.0 per cent).
for no more than 20 per cent of outgoing exchange The survey included 75 closed and open questions,
mobility from Norway. covering the following areas:
For Sweden, it is not possible to distinguish pre-
cisely between degree seeking students and the kind • Background information on students
of short term mobility which is the concern of the • Account for actual or planned mobility
present report. Probably, the distribution between the • Why they chose to go abroad
two mobility types is somewhat different than what • Why they have not gone abroad
table 1.1 suggests. The group ‘outgoing degree seeking • Organisation of the stay abroad
students’ apparently includes some students enrolled • To what extent they have been encouraged/
in Sweden with a short term sojourn abroad outside discouraged
of programmes or institutional agreements. Thus, the • Experiences before, during, and after the
number of degree seeking students from Sweden must stay abroad

4
For a more detailed description of the survey and the methodology, see appendix.

Introduction 7
 • Experienced benefits and bad experiences In all three countries, but particularly in Finland,
• Questions on attitudes towards studying abroad students with mobility experience are overrepre-
• Separate battery on short term mobility (less than sented in the survey, cf. figure 1.1. Still, this should
3 months) not significantly affect the representativeness of the
respondents. Throughout the survey we distinguish
The questionnaire was structured according to between the mobility groups, and apart from the
different student groups, based on the respondents’ issues mentioned above, there is no reason to assume
experiences with or plans about studying/placement/ that our mobile and non-mobile respondents are not
internship abroad, for at least three months. otherwise representative of their groups.
The report is organised into three thematic chap-
1. MOBILITY GROUP: respondents who had pre- ters. In chapter 2 we focus on non-mobile students
viously been abroad studying or doing a placement/ and reasons for not going abroad. Chapter 3 draws
internship or who were abroad for such purposes at attention to mobile students’ motives for going
the time of the survey. abroad, while chapter 4 discusses evaluations of
studying abroad – by students with, as well as without,
2. PLANNING TO GO GROUP: respondents without personal mobility experience. A final, concluding
previous mobility experience but who had specific chapter summarises the main findings of the project.
plans for this during the last part of their studies.

3. PLANNED BUT DIDN’T GO GROUP: Students

who neither were nor had been on an exchange, but
who at some point had planned to go abroad for
Figure 1.1 Distribution of respondents according to mobility groups
­studies/placement/internship. (N=6432)

4. NEVER PLANNED GROUP: Students who neither

were nor had been, nor at any point had planned to go
Mobility group
abroad for studies/placement/internship.
32% 33%
Planning to
Two main issues have been identified as concerns go group

representativeness. Among the Swedish respondents,

Planned but
students from ‘Engineering, manufacturing and didn't go group
construction’ are heavily overrepresented, and female 22% 13%
Never planned
students are significantly overrepresented among the group
respondents from Finland.

8 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

2. Reasons for not ­ articipate slightly less actively in those various
p
forms of international activities at the home
­going abroad institution, such as courses with an international
focus, international buddy projects, and social
Main findings activities with foreign students. Participating in
• Non-mobile students come from slightly lower different kinds of international activities seems to
educational background and they have less encourage students to go ‘a step further’ and enrol
experience in moving to another place to study in in longer study exchanges.
their home country than mobile students. There
are also some differences between subject areas Non-mobile students form the majority of respond-
in students’ propensity to go abroad. ents in this survey. More than 54 % of the students
either have never planned to go abroad or planned
• There is a big variety of reasons for not going to go abroad but did not carry out their plans. This
abroad, but none of them is agreed upon by a chapter looks in more detail at these students: who are
majority of students. There is not one single reason they, what are their reasons for staying home and how
affecting all non-mobile students’ decision. do they evaluate afterwards their decision not to go
abroad.
• The most important experienced barrier to
mobility is personal relations. Academic reasons Who are the non-mobile students?
are also considered relatively important. These are There are some differences between mobile and
more common among students in fields leading non-mobile respondents. Male students go abroad less
to a regulated profession or in ‘hard sciences’, often than female students. There are also some differ-
for example, medical sciences, law, engineering, ences between subject areas. On the whole, the biggest
natural sciences, or education. proportions of non-mobile respondents are in the
field of education and teacher training and in many
• Encouragement or discouragement from other ‘hard science’ fields, e.g. medical sciences, mathemat-
people has a role in students’ decision to go ics and informatics, communication and information
abroad. Students who have not been abroad and sciences and agricultural sciences. Respondents in
especially those who have never planned to go ‘soft’ subjects such as humanities, social sciences and
abroad report significantly less encouragement business are on average more mobile. Different sub-
from all sources than do mobile students. ject fields have different study cultures and this may
Teachers, student counsellors and international be reflected also in students’ mobility plans. Therefore
coordinators are important when aiming to over- different subject areas should be focused differently
come academic barriers to mobility. Students who when aiming to promote mobility. Similar gender and
experience low level of encouragement from these subject field differences are found also in the mobility
sources also emphasise academic reasons for not statistics1 of the participating countries.
going abroad. Non-mobile students report slightly lower edu-
cational levels for their parents (figure 2.2). This
• A majority of non-mobile students do not regret
Figure 2.1. Mobility groups (N=6432)
at all or only a little the fact that they have not
been abroad during their studies. If we think that Mobility group 33%
studying abroad is a good experience, we should
Planning to
more clearly articulate its added value also to these go group 13%

students. Planned but

didn't go group 22%

• Non-mobile students, and especially those who Never

planned group 32%
never planned to go abroad, participate less
actively in shorter mobility periods. They also 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

1
CIMO (2011): Kansainvälinen liikkuvuus yliopistoissa ja ammattikorkeakouluissa 2011 [International mobility in universities and universi-
ties of applied sciences 2011] http://www.cimo.fi/palvelut/julkaisut/selvitykset/tietoa_ja_tilastoja_-raportit_3_2012_kansainvalinen_liikku-
vuus_ammatillisessa_koulutuksessa_2011

Reasons for not going abroad 9

 Figure 2.2. Parents’ educational level, by mobility group (N=6432)

Mobility group
Father’s highest education

Planning to
go group

Planned but
didn't go group

Never planned
group

Mobility group
Mother’s highest education

Planning to
go group

Planned but
didn't go group

Never planned
group

0 20 40 60 80 100

Compulsory education Upper secondary school Vocational education Higher education Don't know

finding is in line with results from the Eurostudent

survey 2011 which also pointed out social imbalance Reasons for not going abroad
in study abroad experience: study abroad experience Personal relations (didn’t want to leave family or boy/
is more common among students from a high social girlfriend) is the most frequent reason for not going
background than among students from a lower social abroad (figure 2.4). This is emphasised more often
background. This was the case also in the Nordic than average by Finnish students, by female students,
countries, with Sweden as an exception, (Orr & Gwosc by older students, and by students who never planned
& Netz 2011). to go abroad. Personal relations as an obstacle to
mobility is also more important than average to stu-
“Mobility within national ­borders dents who have stayed in the same city/place in their
may thus facilitate mobility home country for studies. These students may have
across borders later on.” more ties to their home town making it more difficult
to go abroad.
Another interesting difference between mobile and
non-mobile students is that non-mobile students, and
especially those who never planned to go abroad, tend Figure 2.3. Proportion of students who have moved from another city/
to have less experience in moving to another place place in the same country to study, by mobility group (N=6423)

to study in their home country (figure 2.3). Mobility Mobility group 65%
within national borders may thus facilitate mobility
Planning to
across borders later on, whereas staying at home ena- go group 64%
bles students to create established connections in their Planned but
62%
home town preventing them from moving. Students didn't go group
who have stayed in their home town may also be less Never
planned group 55%
flexible in the first place when it comes to changing
environment. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

10 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

 Academic concerns (didn’t want to be delayed in tant to notice that there are also students who report
studies, didn’t want to miss part of studies at home, lack of self-confidence and language proficiency as
would be difficult to fit into studies at home institu- important reasons for not going abroad. Even if more
tion) can also be found at the top of the list of barriers and more students are connected to international
to mobility. This indicates that in many cases there is communities, this group should not be forgotten.
still a lot of work to do if study abroad possibilities are They may need extra support and motivation. The
to be an integral part of study programmes. Academic added value of international experience could be
concerns are emphasised especially by Finnish stu- especially big to this group.
dents and younger students. Lack of guidance and information from home
Uncertainty about the quality of education abroad is institution is reported as a reason for not going
not a very strong reason for not going, according to abroad more often in Sweden and Norway than in
Finland. As mentioned before, students who have had
“Academic concerns can also mobility plans find this reason more important than
be found at the top of the list those who never planned to go abroad.
of barriers to mobility.” Work related barriers (didn’t want to lose income
from job, wanted to keep career relevant job) are
this study, but those students who estimate their own neither among the most important obstacles nor at
academic level above average are more concerned the bottom of the list. Older students find the risk of
about it. Neither is the risk of getting worse grades losing income a more important reason than younger
than at home a very strong reason for not going students. Students who have stayed in the same city/
abroad. This reason is slightly more important to place for their studies also find work related barriers
students who estimate their academic level below more important than students who have moved to
average. another city/place in home country.
There are some differences between subject areas Negative influence from others in the institution
as regards academic reasons. Students in subject areas (teachers and lecturers advising against mobility,
leading to regulated professions and students in ‘hard negative stories from other students) is not an impor-
sciences’ have more academically related concerns tant reason for not going abroad. Only a few students
about studying abroad. Thus, students who study emphasise such reasons. However, there are some sub-
medical sciences, law, engineering and technology, ject areas where respondents experience their teachers
natural sciences or agricultural sciences are more having more negative attitudes towards mobility than
concerned about the quality of education abroad on average. These fields are engineering, medical
than students in other subject areas. Students in these sciences and social sciences.
subject areas are also more concerned than others But even for the most important reasons for
about missing parts of their studies at home and not going abroad the score is near neutral. In fact,
being delayed in their studies. Fitting studies abroad personal relations are the only reason for not going
into studies at the home institution seems to worry abroad with which respondents agree more than disa-
students in medical sciences and in education and gree. This indicates that there are not specific reasons
teacher training. that are particularly important in preventing students
Financial concerns (didn’t have enough money) from going abroad. Instead, different respondents
is the fourth most frequently reported obstacle for emphasise different reasons. This result suggests that
international mobility. This is reported more often by a policy seeking to increase student mobility should
female students, and by those students who estimate take several kinds of obstacles into account, and not
their own academic level below average. concentrate on just one.
Concerns related to self-confidence (it would The different barriers are connected, and one
be too stressful to participate in an exchange pro- respondent may emphasise many barriers at the
gramme, uncertain about studying in a foreign lan- same time. Those students who are uncertain about
guage) can also be found relatively high on the expe- studying in foreign languages also find getting worse
rienced barriers list. These concerns are emphasised grades abroad a big risk and participating in exchange
more than average by those students who estimate programmes stressful. Moreover, uncertainty about
their own academic level below average and by those the quality of education abroad correlates with con-
students who never planned to go abroad. It is impor- cerns about missing parts of the studies at home.

Reasons for not going abroad 11

 Figure 2.4. Reasons for not going abroad, by country, (1 strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree) (N=3457-3466) *significant differences between
countries

Because of family, boy-/girlfriend, friends or other

personal relations*

Didn't want to miss parts of studies at home*

Didn't want to be delayed in studies*

A lack of guidance and information from home institution*

Didn't have enough money to study abroad*

Would be difficult to fit into studies at home institution

Uncertain about studying in a foreign language

Couldn't find courses/internships that were relevant

Uncertain about the quality of education abroad *

Didn't want to lose income from job*

Thought it would be too stressful to participate in

exchange program*

Didn't want to risk getting worse grades that at home*

Difficulties getting study abroad preapproved

Didn't want to live in another country for a longer period

Wanted to keep career relevant job*

Has never thought of studying abroad

Didn't get into the wanted study program or institution

Didn't get the wanted internship

Didn't get approved for a student place and/or a

scholarship

Heard negative stories from other students*

Teaches, lecturers and/or student counselors advised

against it*

Didn't go abroad because of health problems

or disability*

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Finland Norway Sweden

When comparing the reasons for not going The major difference can be found in the alterna-
between different non-mobility groups, students who tive ‘has never thought of studying abroad’ – a reason
planned to go abroad at some point of their studies that the never planned group emphasise more often.
tend to emphasise the same more ‘general’ reasons as Students who never planned to go abroad also find
students who never planned to go abroad – personal going abroad more stressful, do not want to live in
relations, risk of missing part of studies or being another country for a longer period, are uncertain
delayed in studies, or lack of money. Figure 2.5 pre- about their language proficiency, and experience
sents the reasons for not going abroad with a signifi- family ties as a greater barrier.
cant difference between students who planned to go The non-mobile students who planned to go abroad
abroad at some point and those who never planned. at some point were asked separately about four pos-

12 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

sible reasons for not carrying out their plans. These of international experience. They have, e.g., lived
were all practical-institutional reasons related to the abroad, studied abroad, travelled a lot, or partici-
application process and approval, like ‘difficulties pated in a shorter exchange period. Because of this
getting study abroad approved’, ‘didn’t get into the they feel that they have already had their share of
wanted study program or institution’, or ‘didn’t get international experience. This reason is interesting
approved for a student place or internship’. because it underlines the fact that some students value
None of these four reasons is very important for studying abroad mainly as a personal and cultural
preventing students from carrying out their mobility experience, not as an academic one. Therefore, any
plans (figure 2.6). A majority of the students who kind of international experience can fulfil a student’s
planned to go abroad disagree with them. There are ‘international quota’. Linking study periods abroad
no significant differences between the three countries more closely to academic added value could motivate
on these possible reasons for not carrying out mobility these students to go abroad again.
plans. As for gender, male students find all four
reasons slightly more important than female students. I had lived abroad for two years during high school
Age is not significant, although younger students and therefore I didn’t feel such a strong need to move
emphasise these reasons more often than older stu- abroad again so soon.
dents. There were no significant differences between
subject areas either. I spent 11 months in London as an au pair for an
In the questionnaire, respondents were also able to English family of 4 children. It was amazing time, but
write other reasons for not going abroad in answer to it kind of gave me the adventure I wanted and now
an open question. This makes it possible to broaden I satisfied with completing my studies and starting a
the picture of different factors behind the decision new chapter in my life.
of not going abroad as part of a study programme.
About 13 percent of the respondents (825) gave addi- Flat/apartment or house in home country was also
tional reasons for not going abroad. given as a reason for not going by some students.
The most often mentioned other reason is that These respondents underline that they have an
students have not been abroad because they simply apartment they have been waiting for or investing in
are not interested in it and cannot find a reason why and do not want to let or sell while abroad. They also
they should go. This includes answers like ‘I’m not cannot afford having two apartments at the same
interested’, ‘why bother’, ‘I like it here’, and ‘I was too time, one at home and another in the host country.
lazy to organise it’.
Another relatively frequently mentioned additional
reason is that students already have other kinds

Figure 2.5. Reasons for not going abroad by non-mobility group

(1 strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree) (N=3442-3466)
Because of family, 3.6
boy-/girlfriend,
friends or other 3.1
personal relations
Figure 2.6. Reasons for not going, planned but didn’t go group, mean
Uncertain about 2.7 (1 strongly disagree – 5 strongly agree) (N=1369-1374)
studying in a
foreign language 2.4 Difficulites getting
study abroad 2.3
preapproved
Didn't want to live 2.6
in another country Didn't get
for a longer period 1.9 approved for
student place or 2.1
Thought it would scholarship
be too stressful to 2.6
participate in 2.2
exchange program Didn't get the
wanted 2.1
internership
Has never thought 2.6
of studying abroad 1.6 Didn't get into the
wanted study
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 programme or 2.1
institution
Never planned Planned to go, but didn't 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Reasons for not going abroad 13

 It would be difficult to keep my apartment during There are some interesting connections between
abroad period. It would be too much arrangement the (lack of) encouragement students report from dif-
for that. ferent sources and the reasons for not going abroad.
Students reporting a low level of encouragement from
I have my own apartment and I did not like the idea of teachers also emphasise barriers related to academic
renting it out when it is so new and I have just settled in. matters, like the risk of getting lower grades and wor-
ries about getting delayed in studies. Little encour-
Other reasons for not going abroad that were not so agement from student counsellors and international
frequently mentioned as the ones listed above include: coordinators is reported when fitting studies abroad
into studies at the home institution is an important
• Students have pets they do not want to leave reason for not going abroad. This points out that
behind. teachers, students counsellors and international coor-
dinators are all crucial when wanting to overcome the
• Students have a hobby, sports career, position of academic barriers to international mobility.
trust, or other activities outside their studies they When there is hardly any encouragement from the
are engaged in and do not want to interrupt. international coordinators, the lack of guidance and
information from home institution is a significant
• Students feel their grades are not good enough for reason for not going. Lack of encouragement from
them to qualify for studies abroad. other students or friends and family is strongly
related to more personal reasons for not going – stu-
• Students feel that the period abroad would give no dents who report the former, also report the latter.
added value to their studies or further career and Moreover, when it comes to encouragement from
that it is more important to build contacts in their friends and family, the financial issues (didn’t want to
home country. lose income from the job/ didn’t have enough money
to study abroad) were significant. Students who did
• Some students did not go abroad because they feel not get any encouragement from family and friends
they are too old or because they were foreign born. were thus more often concerned about the money
issues than other students.

Discouragement and lack of

encouragement as a reason
for not going abroad
Students can be encouraged – or discouraged – to go
abroad by a variety of sources: friends, other students,
international coordinators, student counsellors and/
Low level of → Tendency to emphasise the f­ ollowing
or teachers. In the questionnaire, students in the three encourage- reason for not going abroad:
countries were asked to evaluate whether they had ment from …
experienced encouragement or discouragement from teachers – Didn’t want to risk getting worse grades
these sources. The role of encouragement for the deci- – Didn’t want to get delayed in studies
sion to go abroad is discussed further in chapter 3.
student – Difficult to fit into studies at home institution
The overall picture is that students, including ­counsellors
non-mobile students, have experienced very little dis- international – Difficult to fit into studies at home institution
couragement when it comes to international mobility. coordinators
Friends and family are the most important sources – Lack of information and guidance from home
institution
of discouragement. This goes well together with the
result that personal relations are the most important other – Personal relations
students (family, boy/girlfriend)
reason for not going abroad. But even here the average
friends and – Personal relations
score is very low. There are no differences between family (family, boy/girlfriend)
mobile and non-mobile students in experienced
– Didn’t want to lose income from a job
discouragement. Thus, on the whole, experienced
– Don’t have enough money to study abroad
discouragement is not a reason for not going abroad.

14 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

Regrets of not going abroad In comparison, students who do not regret very
Most students (two out of three) who have not been much not going abroad agree more often with reasons
abroad during their studies do not regret their deci- for not going abroad related to academic matters
sion at all, or regret it just a little. This is an important (uncertain about the quality of education abroad,
message to educators aiming to increase international didn’t want to be delayed in studies, didn’t want
mobility: a majority of non-mobile students do not to miss studies), personal relations (family, boy/
feel that they have missed a lot by not going abroad. girlfriend), and the fact that they never thought about
When comparing the three countries, Norwegian going abroad.
students show some more regret than Swedish and
Finnish students (figure 2.7). Participating in short term mobility and
There is clear difference between students who internationalisation at home
never planned to go abroad and those who planned Short-term mobility periods and various forms of
but did not go: students who planned to study abroad international education at the home institution may
but for some reason did not manage to carry out their offer international experience to those students
plans regret the lack of international experience much who cannot or do not wish to go abroad for a longer
more often than those who never planned to go. There period. Do non-mobile students take advantage of
is no gender difference as regards regret. Students these opportunities? In fact, non-mobile students who
who evaluate their academic level above average never planned to go abroad also have less experience
report regret slightly more often than students who in shorter stays abroad. However, for students who
rate themselves below average. According to this did not go abroad but planned to do so, the situation
study, students from business studies and languages is somewhat different. They have as much experience
and philological sciences regret more often than in shorter stays abroad as mobile students. For some
others that they did not go abroad for studies. of them, short visits seem to work as an alternative to
When comparing reasons for not going abroad get international experience (figure 2.8).
with regret, there are some significant differences. Students can also get relevant international and
Students who regret not going abroad experience intercultural experience at their home institutions.
more often lack of guidance and information from International education at the home institution
their institution as a barrier to mobility. The outcome can be an alternative way of having international
is the same for all countries. This is understandable, experience for those students who cannot or do not
since the lack of information could make students feel want to go abroad. In the questionnaire, respondents
that the decision of not going abroad was, in a sense, were asked to evaluate how often they participate in
not their own. These results stresses the need for high different forms of internationalisation at home. The
quality institutional support. most common forms are participating in courses

Figure 2.7. Regretted not going abroad for studies/placement/intern-

ship, by country (N=3480)
36%
Not at all 27%
31%

38%
Just a little 36%
39% Figure 2.8. Proportion of students who have been on shorter stays
abroad as part of their studies, by mobility group (N=6432)
22%
Mobility group 17%
28%
Some
24%
Planning to
go group 13%
5%
9% Planned but
didn't go group 17%
A lot 6%
Never
0 10 20 30 40 planned group 10%

Finland Norway Sweden 0 10 20

Reasons for not going abroad 15

 taught in E­ nglish by the home institution’s lecturers According to the findings above, there is a small
and courses where foreign students are present (figure tendency that international mobility periods, short
2.9). term mobility and some forms of international educa-
There are not significant differences between tion offered by the home institution accumulate in the
non-mobile and mobile students when it comes same mobile student group. Extra efforts should thus
to participating in courses where foreign students be made in order to persuade non-mobile students
were present, in group work with foreign students, to participate in these activities. Internationalisation
in courses taught in English, or in courses given at home and shorter mobility periods may motivate
by visiting lecturers. These forms of international students to go abroad for a longer period.
education are provided by the institutions and study Non-mobile students who have participated in dif-
programmes equally to all students. ferent forms of international education at their home
There are some differences between non-mobile institutions report less often uncertainty about study-
and mobile students in participating in international ing in a foreign language as a barrier to international
buddy programmes, social activities with foreign mobility. This indicates that participating in different
students, and courses with an international focus. modes of international education may also increase
Non-mobile students participate less in these activ- students’ confidence in using foreign languages and
ities than mobile students. These activities depend may thus help them decide to go abroad.
more on the student’s own choice. It seems that When scrutinising the participation in interna-
non-mobile students are not as interested as mobile tionalisation at home between different subject areas
students in participating in international possibilities there are some differences. These differences are not
offered by their home institution. very important, but they point out, once again, a
difference between ‘harder’ and ‘softer’ study fields.
Participating in courses with foreign students, par-
ticipating in group work with foreign students and
participating in courses taught in English is slightly
more common among students in natural sciences,
Figure 2.9. Internationalisation at home, by mobility group (1 not at geography and geology, engineering and technology,
all – 4 a lot) (N=6377-6401)
and mathematics and informatics. This indicates that
Courses where the largest group of international degree students
foreign students
were present have been recruited from these subject areas. Business
studies and languages and philological sciences are
Group work with the subject areas where students participate in ‘buddy/
foreign students
mentor’ programmes for foreign students more often
than students among other subject areas. Business
Courses taught by studies and social sciences stand out as subject areas
a visiting lecturer
from abroad where participation in courses with an international
focus is more common than in other areas.
Courses taught in
English by home
institution's
lecturers

Participation
in ‘Buddy’/’mentor’
program for foreign
students
Participation in
social activities
with foreign
students

Participation in
courses with
a particular
international focus

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Mobility Planning to Planned but Never

group go group didn't go group planned group

16 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

3. Motives for going the barriers that stop others from going abroad?
This chapter examines the characteristics of the
abroad mobility group and their motives for studying abroad.
Variation within the mobility group – and between
Main findings the mobility group and other students – will be con-
• The top three motives for the great majority of sidered across the following key factors: age, gender,
exchange students are: getting to know another nationality, and encouragement and home institution
country or culture, improving language skills, support. This analytical structure can be used to
and gaining new perspectives on studies. target specific groups of students for further research
or information efforts.
• Attainment of both academic quality and personal
growth are seen as outcomes of educational The mobility group
exchanges, but personal growth outweighs About one third of the respondents say that they
academic quality in respondents’ understanding either are or have been abroad during their studies.
of the value of studying abroad, especially among The students who take part in educational exchanges
younger exchange students. This is reflected in are very positive about the overall experience. Over
the motives describing why students take part in 80 per cent report a very positive or positive impres-
educational exchanges. sion, while less than two per cent state a negative
view.
• To a large extent, students are motivated to take Across the entire mobility group, the motives
part in educational exchanges for similar reasons, expressed for studying abroad tend to be something
regardless of age, gender, or nationality. However, other than purely academic. It seems that the stu-
older students are slightly more motivated by the dents consider educational exchanges an important
expected academic quality of the exchange. complement to their studies rather than something
that primarily strengthens their subject knowledge
• Friends and family can be both a major reason for as such. Only one in five respondents thinks that
not studying abroad and an important source of students who go abroad have an advantage when it
encouragement for exchange studies. comes to academic quality, although as discussed
below, variations within the mobility group exist, for
• Encouragement seems to play an important role in example between age groups.
a student’s decision to go or not to go abroad. Stu- The fact that academic quality does not seem to
dents who have been abroad report significantly be a primary concern is not to say, however, that the
more encouragement from all sources than those students do not find it important or rewarding to
who have not, and especially than those who have take part in educational exchanges. On the contrary,
never planned to go abroad. all respondents, mobile and non-mobile, express a
significant bias in favour of those who have studied
• The home institution’s support appears to be abroad when it comes to considering which students
perceived differently by students of different undergo greater levels of personal growth. However
nationalities. This variance might warrant further the respondents define personal growth, a concept not
investigation to shape interventions that align clarified in this study, it might be seen as something
with students’ preferences for guidance. that improves career prospects. Just as students see
educational exchanges as a way to obtain high levels
Background of personal growth, almost 40 per cent view mobile
It is the political ambition of all three countries to students as the ones with the best job opportunities –
increase outward student mobility. To encourage either in the home country or abroad. This is also in
more students to take part in educational exchanges, line with the results in a Swedish study on employers’
it is important to pinpoint the factors that enable views on study or placement abroad.1 The study shows
such mobility to happen. In other words, exactly that although Swedish employers do not explicitly
what motivates mobile students enough to overcome value such experience, they do value communication

1
Arbetsgivares syn på utlandserfarenhet 2010

Motives for going abroad 17

 skills, adaptability and foreign language skills – skills The motives as shown in figure 3.1 can be grouped
that employers perceive as benefits from studying into three main categories: motives related to personal
abroad. growth, career related motives and academic motives.
The responses are well in line with results from
What motivates students to go abroad? previous studies where personal growth, intercultural
Looking more closely at the topic of motivation, when understanding and language skills are mentioned as
students were asked directly about their motives for main motives for studying abroad.2 The career related
going abroad the top three responses were: motives were also reported as relatively important,
whereas motives related to academic quality, such as
1. Getting to know another country or culture. taking courses not available at home, or studying in a
2. Learning a language or improving language skills. well-known institution, seem to be of somewhat less
3. Gaining a new perspective on studies. importance.

Personal growth
Figure 3.1. Motives for going abroad (1 strongly disagree - 5 strongly Getting to know another country or culture can be
agree) (N=2907-2925) seen as a motive mainly, but not necessarily only
To get to know
related to personal growth; some of the open answers
another country 4.3 clearly relate this motive to career perspectives. Some
or culture
answers refer to the host country, whereas others
To learn a new might relate to getting to know other countries and
language, or 4.3
improve cultures more generally.
language skills

To have new I would like to work in this country after my

perspective 4.0
of studies
­graduation, in the future.

Better Betters my options for a good career, as well as it is a

international 3.9
career fun way to discover new cultures and meet new people.
opportunities

To improve the 3.8 Career

quality of his/her
education As for the second most important motive of learning
a new language or improving language skills, this
Better career
opportunities
3.8 could be seen at least as both a career related motive
in home country
and related to personal growth. The answers might
Needed a change refer to the language of tuition – in most cases Eng-
in life 3.5
lish - or to the language of the host country. Some of
To study in that the open answers seem to refer to the latter:
particular country
for personal 3.5
reasons I have added one more language to my CV, that’s quite
good I think!
To study
something 2.9
which he/she could
not study at home For me, a soon-to-be high school teacher of Spanish,
travelling to Spain was not only something I did to
To study in a
well-known 2.5 ‘improve my language skills’. Reading about the
institution ‘central content’ of what the different language courses
Studies abroad an in high school (and primary school, for that matter)
1.6
obligatory part
of study program
in Sweden shall contain (…) CULTURE is becoming a
bigger and bigger part of what is expected to be high-
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 lighted in the language classroom.

2
Sifoundersökning 2008: Utlandsstudier och internationellt utbyte; Eurostudent – om svenska studenter i en europeisk undersökning, hösten
2009

18 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

Academic motives result from this lack of integration of international
Academic motives are here defined as motives directly students in the ordinary academic life of institutions.
connected to the outcomes of studies. Improved qual- Overall, more work could be done to strengthen
ity of education is mentioned as a relatively important the internationalisation of education at students’
motive, but few of the open answers elaborate further home institutions. Internationalisation encompasses
how this is interpreted. Some of the answers related many facets beyond student mobility, and a number
to educational quality mention the quality of the host of the benefits that arise from studying abroad can be
institution as the main objective; however, to study in gained through interaction with non-native students
a well-known institution was not a frequent motive. and lecturers at a home institution. At the same time,
Studies abroad as an obligatory part of the studies was interaction with visiting foreign students and faculty
the least frequent motive in this survey. staff may help provide the inspiration and build the
links that can drive further student mobility.
My primarily objective with my MSc studies abroad
will be to get to an institution with a very high educa- Nationality
tion quality. In terms of specific motives for mobility, there are no
major differences across the nationalities, as shown
To improve my academic results by having studied in below in figure 3.2.
a better university than my home university. The opinions of each nationality follow the overall
trends with some minor differences.
Gaining new perspectives on studies, which is also
mentioned as an important motive, can be interpreted Figure 3.2. Motives for going abroad, by country (1 strongly disagree -
as a purely academic motive, or seen in a wider 5 strongly agree) (N=2907-2925)
perspective. To get to know
another country
or culture
To broaden my experience and perspective. To get an
To learn a new
eye opener and to be able to compare our system with language, or
that of another country’s in order to use that experi- improve language
skills
ence in my future career.
To have new
perspective of
studies
When considering the most frequent motive, ‘To
get to know another country or culture’, it is also Better international
career
interesting to examine how students socialise when opportunities
they are abroad. In fact, many students most frequently To improve the
quality of his/her
socialise with people from their home countries while education
abroad. Many students also spend more time with Better career
people from other countries than with those from the opportunities
in home country
host country, a fact which might be related to questions
Needed a change
of accommodation and the organisation of studies and in life
social activities specifically for exchange students. It To study in that
could be seen as negative that exchange students spend particular country
for personal
less time with people from the country they choose to reasons
visit than with people of other nationalities. But as long To study
as mobile students interact to a large extent with people something which
he/she could not
of any different nationality, such contact arguably study at home
helps to achieve the aims of internationalisation, at To study in a
well-known
least in an individual perspective. However, taking institution
into account national ambitions of increased interna-
Studies abroad an
tionalisation of higher education institutions, this can obligatory part of
study program
nevertheless be problematic, as can the unexploited
potential for ‘internationalisation at home’ that might 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Finland Norway Sweden

Motives for going abroad 19

 Finnish students tend to express higher motivation Gender
overall but by a small margin, with improving lan- There are both quantitative and qualitative differences
guage skills as the most pronounced motive. between female and male student participation in
educational exchanges and internationalisation more
It’s almost as if it is expected of you. (F) broadly. According to the present survey women take
more often than men part in educational exchanges,
On the contrary, to study in a well-known institution, and more men than women have never planned to
and to a smaller extent, to improve the quality of study abroad. Figure 3.3 below illustrates the different
one’s education, seem to be somewhat less important mobility groups according to gender.
motives for Finnish students. However, this might be The differences in motives for studying abroad
partly explained by the correlation between motives for men and women are rather modest. The top
and age (see section below). three motives for both sexes are improving language
Swedish students appear slightly more motivated skills, getting to know another culture, and gaining
by career-related gains, but the margins are small in a new perspective on their studies. The only aspect
this case, too. that appears to be more important in motivating
male students as compared to female students is the
I strongly thought about my carrier possibilities and chance to study in a well-known institution. Then
how it hopefully would facilitate my opportunity to get again, this motive is the second least recurrent of all
a good job after my final semester on my masters. (S) responses provided by men, and the actual difference
in its frequency between male and female responses is
Norwegian students score in between the other small. It is reasonable to conclude that the motives for
nationalities with regard to most of the motives participating in educational exchanges are principally
examined by the study, but they do express the highest the same for students, regardless of gender.
motivation when it comes to the chance to study One interesting difference that does exist between
something not available at home, go to a well-known men and women is the timing of exchange participa-
institution, and improve the quality of their education. tion. Male students tend to go abroad later in life and
later in their studies. It is not clear, however, whether
I want to apply for the Masters degree in Denmark, the men are waiting until they are older to go abroad
and I know I have better chances with an exchange-­ or simply until they are pursuing more advanced aca-
semester there! (N) demic studies, which do not commence until earlier
degrees are completed and the students are somewhat
In responding to the open questions about motives, older. The male students are fairly evenly spread over
students from the three countries mention the their bachelor’s studies (42%) and master’s studies
following additional types of reasons, more or less (45%) in terms of mobility. Female students on the
corresponding to the motives described above: other hand tend to go abroad earlier; over 50 per cent

Table 2 Additional Motivations for Student Mobility Figure 3.3. Mobility groups, by gender % (N=6411
Finland Norway Sweden
To increase con- To challenge myself/ To gain new 35%
Mobility group
fidence/courage/ to become more ­experiences.
independence. independent. 28%

To gain new To meet new people/ To meet new

­experiences. develop my profes- people. 12%
Planning to
sional network. go group
14%
To get new friends / To challenge myself.
develop an interna-
tional professional 22%
Planned but
network. didn't go group
21%
Simply for fun. For my personal
development.
Now is the last For fun. 30%
Never
chance to do this. planned group
37%
Better climate. Family reasons (e.g.,
family background
from or partner in a 0 10 20 30 40
particular country). Female Male

20 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

go during their bachelor’s studies and only 30 per cent involvement stem from existing gender imbalances
during their master’s studies. Female students tend to within certain kinds of courses and social activities
go abroad earlier in their studies than male students, that might feature a greater proportion of non-native
whereas male students stay abroad for longer periods students as well as native male students. Along these
(over six months). The students’ responses about lines, it is interesting to note that women do outnum-
motives for studying abroad appear to offer no expla- ber men – although by a small margin – within men-
nation as to the cause of this difference. toring or ‘buddy’ programmes for foreign students,
Another striking distinction between women assumedly the only type of activity on the graph with
and men concerns the integration with students of integration as the chief aim.
other nationalities – while abroad and back at the
home institution. Not only do more female students Age
participate in educational exchanges, but they are Younger students participate more often in exchange
also more active than their male counterparts in inte- mobility than older students. This difference seems
grating themselves with domestic students when they however not to be due to a lack of motivation on the
are abroad. Approximately 40 per cent of the female part of the older students. On the whole, there are few
students state that they study mainly with domestic distinctions as regards the level of motivation across
students when abroad compared to just below 30 per different age groups.
cent for the male students. It is somewhat surprising, A closer look at the results nevertheless reveals
therefore, that male students tend to be slightly more some differences in the kind of motivational factors
active within efforts related to internationalisation reported by younger and older students respectively.
at their home institutions. Figure 3.4 below shows Thus, younger students seem to deem as more impor-
the varying participation rates by gender in different
international activities at home institutions.
While further research would be required to get Figure 3.5. Motives for going abroad, by age group (1 strongly disa-
gree - 5 strongly agree) (N=2907-2925)
a clearer picture, it may be that these differences in
To learn a new
language, or
improve language
skills
Figure 3.4. Participation in different modes of internationalisation at To get to know
home, by gender (1 not at all - 4 a lot) (N=6359-6381) another country
or culture
Courses taught in 2.5
To have new
English by home
perspective of
institution's 2.8 studies
lecturers
Better international
2.4 career
Courses where
foreign students opportunities
were present 2.7 Better career
opportunities in
Courses taught by 2.1 home country
a visiting lecturer
from abroad 2.2 To improve the
quality of his/her
education
Group work with 1.9
Needed a change
foreign students
2.1 in life
To study in that
Participation in 2.0 particular country
courses with for personal reasons
a particular
2.0
international focus To study something
which he/she could
Participation in 1.8 not study at home
social activities
with foreign
2.0 To study in a well-
students
known institution
Participation in 1.4
‘Buddy’/’mentor’ Studies abroad an
program for foreign 1.3 obligatory part of
students study program

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Female Male till 25 from 25 till 30 from 31 till 40 more than 41

Motives for going abroad 21

 tant motives concerning personal growth, language seeking to increase student mobility. Friends and
skills and intercultural understanding. Older students, family is another important source of encouragement.
on the other hand, tend to attribute more importance The most important discrepancy relates to how stu-
to motives of academic quality, such as getting access dents appraise the encouragement of their home insti-
to courses not available at home or well-known tution’s international coordinator, a source of support
institutions abroad, or the need to study abroad as a that seems to have more resonance among the Finnish
compulsory part of their study programme at home. respondents. The results suggest that international
Apart from the differences noted above, the prior- coordinators play a more important encouraging role
ities made between motives are rather similar across in Finland than in Sweden and Norway. This may also
the age groups. Improving the quality of education reflect the fact that in Finland, the services provided
is the most important motive for the older students, by international coordinators are better available. It is
and only number six for the youngest group, but it is a common practice in Finnish universities that all fac-
still an important motive to all four age groups. All ulties have their own international coordinator taking
four groups also rank as overall important motives care of issues related to international mobility.
improving language skills, getting to know another Furthermore, teachers and lecturers seem to be a
culture, and getting new perspectives on their studies. more important source of encouragement to Finnish
Although fewer older students participate in educa- students than to students from Norway and Sweden.
tional exchanges, they seem to be no less positive than There appears to be no significant gender differ-
the younger ones when they do, as shown in part 4 ences regarding encouragement.
of the present study. Further, in response to the open Younger students report substantially more
questions, some students mentioned age as a barrier encouragement than older students from all the
to studying abroad, so it may be the case that some listed sources. This might also account for some of
differences in mobility for students of varying ages the national differences described above, since the
are caused by the existence of obstacles rather than by Finnish respondents are somewhat younger than the
a lack of motivation. Norwegian and Swedish respondents.
Thus, as the data show that older students are
already largely motivated and positive towards
exchange studies, perhaps most attention should be
paid to eliminating the barriers that might prevent
this particular group from going.

Encouragement and support

Figure 3.6. Encouragement to go abroad, by country
(1 not at all – 4 a lot) (N=6257-6390)
Encouragement
The encouragement by others to study abroad could 2.6
Friends and/or
family 2.4
clearly also be seen as a motivating factor for mobility.
2.3
The question of encouragement was asked to all
2.9
respondents of the survey, and it appears that the stu- Others students 2.7
dents of the mobility group consider encouragement 2.6
from various sources as considerably more important 2.5
International
than those who have not studied abroad. The results coordinator 2.0
also bring out some noteworthy differences among 2.0
the three countries. 2.1
Student
The survey found that Finnish students recognise counselors 2.0
1.9
greater levels of encouragement overall. Other
2.3
students seem to be the most important motivator for
Teachers 2.1
students in all three countries. This points towards 2.0
the importance of using students with mobility expe-
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
rience in initiatives at higher education institutions
Finland Norway Sweden

22 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

 Encouragement seems to play an important role Guidance and support
in a student’s decision to go or not to go abroad. When looking at guidance across the three countries,
Students who have been abroad report significantly the most obvious distinction is considerably more
more encouragement from all sources than those who Finnish students say that they were offered support
have not, and especially than those who have never before studying abroad. Figure 3.8 shows that nearly
planned to go abroad, as shown in figure 3.7. 70 per cent of the Finnish respondents were offered
guidance, while the equivalent figures for Sweden and
“Friends and family can be both Norway are around 50 per cent.
a major reason for not studying Teachers and supervisors have a particularly strong
abroad, and an important source influence over the mobile Finnish students, who state
of encouragement for exchange this kind of support as a factor in the decision making
studies.” with a higher frequency than their Nordic peers. As
mentioned previously, the data also suggest that inter-
Students who have been or who plan to go abroad national coordinators might play a more important
as exchange students thus report a much higher role in Finland than in the other countries (figure 3.9).
level of encouragement from various sources. This is Examining various types of guidance more closely,
particularly true of the two most important sources the students from the three countries express similar
of encouragement, i.e., other students, and friends levels of satisfaction with different forms of support.
and family. As illustrated in figure 3.10 below, the respondents
It is worth noting that according to this survey are most satisfied with the guidance they receive from
friends and family can be both a major reason for not fellow students at home that already have exchange
studying abroad, and an important source of encour- experience. The respondents are least satisfied with
agement for exchange studies. guidance from their home institution’s teachers
and lecturers. Similar to the situation with levels

Figure 3.7. Encouragement to go abroad, by mobility group (1 not at

all - 4 a lot) (N=6257-6390)

Friends and/or
family

Others students Figure 3.8. Offered guidance before going abroad, by country %
(N=2109)

69%

International Yes 50%

coordinator
49%

21%

Student 32%
No
counselors
34%

10%
Teachers
I didn’t need 19%
any guidance
17%

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Mobility Planning Planned to go, Never
group and going but didn't go planned group Finland Norway Sweden

Motives for going abroad 23

 of encouragement (figure 3.6), the most significant ing environment at the home institution. Not only
difference in terms of satisfaction with guidance is the might enhanced exploitation of mobility experiences
Finnish students’ somewhat higher approval of the inspire other students to go abroad, it might also help
assistance provided by their international coordina- build the case that educational exchanges can contrib-
tors. ute to improved academic quality.
As the Finnish students also say that they receive
more guidance at their home institutions overall, “Perhaps even more students
it would be worth considering how these colleges would choose to study abroad
and universities provide support on mobility. For if the experiences of returning
example, the Finnish students are obliged to report exchange students were better
on their period abroad to a greater extent than their integrated in the learning envi-
Swedish and Norwegian peers. Almost 90 per cent ronment at the home institution.”
of the mobile Finnish students were required to
talk about their exchange experiences with fellow An area within higher education that might be espe-
students within classroom presentations or other cially apt for better information-sharing on mobility
forums, compared to less than 70 per cent of students is represented by subjects in which comparatively
from N­ orway and Sweden. More Finnish students few students study abroad. For example, students in
also report that teachers and lecturers have shown teacher training or education belong to the group
an interest in what they have learnt while abroad. with the lowest level of mobility (18.5 per cent of
Overall, however, the respondents in the present study respondents in teacher training) compared to subjects
score fairly low in terms of whether their experiences with the highest rates: languages and philological
have been used later within their studies at their home sciences, closely followed by law and business studies.
institutions. This finding is somewhat unexpected, It would seem particularly unfortunate that students
given how positive the respondents are with regard to in education and teacher training do not participate
their time abroad. Perhaps even more students would in educational exchanges to a greater extent, as
choose to study abroad if the experiences of returning internationalisation is part of their future task as
exchange students were better integrated in the learn- educators.

Figure 3.9. Guidance, importance of guidance, by country (1 not at all Figure 3.10. Satisfaction to the offered guidance before going abroad,
important – 5 very important) (N=1127-1144). by country (1 not at all – 4 to a great extent) (N=2109)

2.7 Home fellow 3.2

Home institution's students with
student counselor 2.9 3.1
exchange
2.6 experience 3.1
2.4 Home institution's 3.1
Home institution's
2.3 international 2.8
teachers, lecturers
coordinator
2.2 2.8

Home institution's 3.8 2.9

Host institution
international 3.4 3.0
or company
coordinator 3.2 3.0

2.7 2.5
Home department 2.7 Home department
or faculty or faculty 2.5
2.5 2.4
Home fellow 3.7 2.5
students with Home institution's
exchange 3.5 student counselor 2.6
experience 3.4 2.5

3.9 2.4
Host institution or Home institution's
3.5 2.3
company teachers, lecturers
3.6 2.3

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Finland Norway Sweden Finland Norway Sweden

24 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

 4. Value of s­ tudies, Both governments and higher education institu-
tions thus see potential benefits in student mobility,
placement or but what does it look like from the students’ perspec-

­internship abroad tive? How do they assess the value of studying abroad,
and how important is actual mobility experience to
their evaluations? To address these questions in our
Main findings survey, those with mobility experience were asked
• The overwhelming majority of the students find about different types of potential benefits. Moreover,
their stay abroad very valuable. Personal and social all the students in the survey, regardless of mobility
aspects of mobility seem to be more important to experience, were encouraged to express their general
the younger students, whereas educational quality opinion on studying abroad. They were also asked
becomes somewhat more important with age. to assess the ‘added value’ of going abroad, when it
comes to attained academic quality, personal growth
• When asked about negative sides of going abroad, and job opportunities.
many students mentioned lack of socialisation
with local students. It seems crucial that interna- What benefits do students see in
tional students should not only ‘live in a bubble’ international mobility?
with other international students. Those students who had been abroad and/or were
abroad at the time of the survey were asked to rate
• There is a strong positive relationship between how they had benefited from it, on a scale from ‘not
mobility experience, or plans to go abroad, and at all’ to ‘a lot’. As figure 4.1 shows, they do not rank
the overall opinion on exchange studies. But even academic or career benefits highest. Instead, more
most of the students who never went abroad and personal and social aspects of going abroad, such as
never planned to go, express a positive view on making friends, language learning, cultural under-
exchange studies. standing and personal skills, are seen as most benefi-
cial. On these issues, the students on average answer
• All respondents lumped together assess the per- that, to them, going abroad has been somewhere
sonal growth benefits of going abroad to be very between ‘some’ (3) and ‘a lot’ (4) beneficial. Regarding
high. Many also believe that going abroad gives academic value and job effects, the students perceive
better job opportunities. Belief in the value of of these to be somewhat lower, between ‘just a little’
going abroad is lowest regarding academic quality. (2) and ‘some’ (3). These results are in line with what
we saw in chapter 3, regarding students’ motives for
• Mobile students generally assess the value of going abroad.
exchange as higher than the students who are Do Finnish, Norwegian and Swedish students with
planning to go, thus it seems that the perceived mobility experience see the same benefits in going
benefits of exchange exceed the expectations. abroad? Figure 4.2 shows the mean answers to those
questions where there are significant and substantial
From a national point of view, student mobility has national differences.
both cultural and economic value: Cultural compe- Finnish students report somewhat more benefits
tence, linguistic skills, international social networks than the other two groups regarding communicative
and impulses from abroad are crucial to a country’s skills and sense of cooperation. Norwegian students
cultural and economic development. Nordic govern- say, to a greater extent than the Finnish and Swedish
ments, in various ways, therefore try to encourage students, that studying abroad has made them more
students to go abroad. For most higher education independent and has improved the quality of their
institutions, outgoing mobility is part of a broader education. Finally, Swedish students think to a greater
strategy to connect the institution to the international extent that they have increased their chances of
academic community. Mobile students and staff getting a good job.
bring home impulses from educational and research It has to be kept in mind that this survey does not
institutions abroad. They also make contacts which measure hard facts, but the subjective impressions
might prove important in terms of international pub- and views of students who are still enrolled in higher
lications and research cooperation/funding. education. Especially the questions on job prospects

Value of studies, placement or internship abroad 25

 Figure 4.1. Benefits achieved from studies/placement/internship Figure 4.2. Benefits achieved from studies/placement/internship
abroad (1 not at all - 4 a lot) (N=2093) abroad, by country (1 not at all - 4 a lot) (N=2093)

3.4
New friends 3.5 Better
communicative 3.2
skills
Better 3.3
3.4
language skills
A better 2.9
understanding Improved sense
of cultural 3.4 of cooperation 2.6
differences
2.7
Better
communicative 3.3
skills 3.1
Has become
more independent 3.3
Better personal 3.3
skills 3.2

Has become more 2.8

3.2 Improved the
independent quality of his/her 3.0
education
Developed new 3.0
perspectives on 3.2
studies/courses
3.1
Improved the Developed new
quality of his/her 2.9 perspectives on 3.2
education studies/courses
3.3
Increased chances
of getting a good 2.9
2.6
job abroad Increased chances
of getting a good 2.7
job at home
Better self- 2.9
3.0
assessment skills

Better problem- 2.9

2.8 Increased chances
solving skills of getting a good 2.8
job abroad
Increased chances 3.1
of getting a good 2.8
job at home
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Improved sense Finland Norway Sweden
of cooperation 2.8

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

must be read from this premise, since most of the therefore on the whole experience a period abroad
students answering the survey will not yet know how as more influencial (in terms of personal skills, new
their mobility experiences will in fact affect their friends, independence) than older students, who have
careers. more experiences in the first place. Another factor is
When we look for gender differences in the that older students may have been more times abroad
perceptions of benefits, we find that there are hardly before (for studies or other purposes) than younger
any. The only noticeable one regards becoming more
independent, where female students answer a bit more “The personal and social aspects
confirmatively than male students. As for age, the of mobility are more important
younger students tend to report more benefits than to younger students, whereas
the older ones (figure 4.3). educational quality becomes a
These variations along age (and, for sense of inde- bit more important with age.”
pendence, gender) may be explained in connection to
people’s life experiences. A student’s communicative students, and that they already lived through some of
skills, independence and job prospects are related to these benefits earlier.
age, gender and life cycle, regardless of whether he/ There is, however, one noticeable exception from
she goes abroad to study or not. Younger students will the ‘younger students see more benefits’ pattern, and

26 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

Figure 4.3. Benefits achieved from studies/placement/internship Figure 4.4. Benefits achieved from studies/placement/internship
abroad, by age (1 not at all – 4 a lot) (N=2093) abroad, by destination (1 not at all – 4 a lot) (N=2093)

Better language
New friends skills

Better personal Better commu-

skills nicative skills

Has become
more independent A better
understanding of
cultural
Improved the differences
quality of his/her
education Has become more
independent
Developed new
perspectives on
studies/courses Improved the
quality of his/her
Increased chances education
of getting a good
job at home

Increased chances Increased chances

of getting a good of getting a good
job abroad jobb at home

1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

till 25 from 25 till 30 European Erasmus countries North America BRICS

from 31 till 40 more than 41 Other countries Australia, New Zealand

that is regarding the academic aspects: quality of edu- understandably, students who go outside Europe and
cation and new perspectives on studies. Here, older the Anglo-­American world rate higher.
students answer the same or more affirmatively than
younger students. To sum up, the personal and social Good mobility, bad mobility
aspects of mobility are more important to younger Students who are or have been mobile thus on the
students, whereas educational quality becomes a bit whole see it as beneficial, but what about negative
more important with age. sides of going abroad? The survey contained an open
question, after the series on benefits: ‘Would you like
How important is the destination? to add any bad experiences?’ About one in ten stu-
Do the mobile students see different types and dents chose to write something, and the contributions
degrees of benefits, dependent on where they go? As can roughly be divided into study issues and social
the next figure shows, the differences are rather small issues.
(figure 4.4). Among study related points that several students
We nevertheless see a tendency for those who mentioned were less attention from staff than at
go to North America, Australia or New Zealand to home/than expected, that they felt left to themselves,
report more benefits overall than those who go to that courses were cancelled, and that they were
other destinations. The main explanation for this delayed in their studies at home:
is probably the simple fact that these countries are
English speaking, and that it is therefore relatively The host univeristy did not facilitate any kind of tutor
easy for Nordic students to manage and succeed, activities so everything had to be figured out on your
in educational settings but also socially on and off own. The tutor activity should be encouraged in all
campus. The exception to this picture is ‘better under- universities, especially for foreign students.
standing of cultural differences’, a benefit which,

Value of studies, placement or internship abroad 27

 My host university cancelled courses during my stay, national students. This must be taken into account
which of course affected my preapproved learning regarding, for instance, housing, the organisation
agreement. This has caused that my study has been of courses, and social activities. Some students’
prolonged and in turn financial problems. Lack of com- expressed opinion that integration activities could be
munication between home and host university, shows less about partying and more about culture is some-
that student exchange at master level should have been thing that should also be taken seriously by institu-
avoided. The outcome seems solely to be of a social tions, and maybe also by students’ organisations.
kind, not academic improvements. Students’ answers about bad experiences are useful
inputs to improving the framework around exchange
Study related mobility problems such as those experi- mobility. Nevertheless, only about one in ten of the
enced by these students might be reduced through a respondents chose to report such experiences, and
closer follow-up and quality assurance by host as well most of these reports are rather undramatic. The
as home institutions. main picture is largely positive. Some of the students
Regarding social issues, many students wrote about wrote that there were indeed some problems, but that
lack of socialisation with local students, resulting they nevertheless found their stay abroad worthwhile.
in loneliness or in getting to know only other And, as one student pointed out, bad experiences can
international students. Some told about adjustment also be valuable experiences.
problems, both abroad and after returning home.
Also mentioned was language difficulties, related Even though there have been some difficulties, I don’t
either to communicating in the local language, or to a mean them as a ‘bad experience’ because I think all
lack of English skills among teaching staff and other experience is good. I would recommend to everyone to
international students. Finally, several students wrote go abroad, it will be one of the best things you have done.
that the culture among exchange students, and the
social activities organised for them, were not ‘serious’ All students’ evaluation of exchange
enough, but too party-oriented. studies abroad
In this section, we look at how all the students in the
The Erasmus program is a good program, but some- survey, and not only those with mobility experience,
times they make it too easy to not be a part of the local assess the value of going abroad.
society and you live in a bubble. The result is that the Students without mobility experience were asked
exchange students hang out with the exchange students questions about obstacles and barriers (see chapter 2),
and have a hard time getting to know other local but we also wanted to explore their opinion on the
students. value of going abroad. The following question was
therefore asked to all students, regardless of their
Social activities organized through Erasmus has got mobility plans or experience: ‘What is your overall
a focus depending on an Erasmus-myth of students
only interested in a year of party. Most fellow students
Figure 4.5. Students’ overall opinion on exchange studies abroad, by
and me would like more cultural activities focusing country and gender (N=6432)
on learning the culture, people of the host country and
maybe a closer relations with the university.
Finland
The fact that some Nordic students miss more Norway
­interaction with local students when they go abroad
Sweden
for studies should be kept in mind by governments
as well as institutions when they make policies for
mobility and for internationalisation more broadly.
Female
Institutions could, for instance, be more selective
Male
in their exchange agreements, based on research
col­laboration or feedback from students who have
engaged in them. In terms of internationalisation at
home, it seems crucial that international students Total

should not only ‘live in a bubble’ with other inter- 1 2 3 4 5

28 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

opinion on exchange studies abroad?’ The answer Academically it would probably have been better to
alternatives offered were graphic ‘mood faces’ stay at home. It seems my friends who have studied the
(figure 4.5). equivalent courses here have a broader knowledge and
There are only minor differences between Finnish, understanding of the subject. Personally it was great
Norwegian and Swedish students in their answers. to go on an exchange. To learn more about another
The averages are clearly on the positive side, some- culture, to improve my language skills, to make new
where between the smiling and the laughing face. We friends and all of those things.
also see that female students are a bit more positive
than male students. The academic level of the university was high. The
It would be surprising if the overall opinion on courses were demanding and required active partici-
mobility was not positively related to mobility expe- pation, which also allowed for getting direct feedback
rience: those going on an exchange will, presumably, on your thoughts from the professors as well as your
be more positively inclined in the first place than fellow students. This way they improved my academic
those not going, and it would take a lot of negative confidence significantly and gave me a chance to also
experience to reverse this. As figure 4.6 shows, there is realise that my studies until then (mostly consisting of
indeed a strong positive relationship between mobility book exams and passive lecture courses) had actually
experience/plans to go abroad and the overall opinion given me knowledge and tools to work with.
on exchange studies. But even most of the students
who never went abroad and never planned to go, The comments from the ‘planning to go’ group give a
either, express a positive view on exchange studies. similar picture as those from the mobility group, but
the expectations are a bit more about the academic
Figure 4.6. Students’ overall opinion on exchange studies abroad, by outcome. This probably reflects the home institution
mobility group (N=6432)
discourse about exchange, as seems expressed in the
following quote:

Mobility group It would be a great experience in many ways. It would

improve the versatility of my degree, I could study
things I can’t study in my home country. It would most
Planning to go likely be a great adventure, to learn how to cope in a
group
new international environment and ‘live your life’ in
a new culture and through a foreign language. It is
Planned to go,
but didn't group eye-opening to study and function in a new country
and you experience things you will benefit from in
Never planned
the future. The benefits can be seen in personality and
group private life, as well as in the professional life, as many
employers appreciate exchange-studies or internships
1 2 3 4 5 abroad.

After the ‘mood faces’ question, the respondents were Among the relatively few ‘planned but didn’t go’ and
invited to write more in depth about their general the ‘never planned’ students who answered this ques-
opinion on exchange studies abroad: ‘Please feel free tion, a common concern was having their studies pro-
to elaborate’. About one in four students chose to do longed. Some connected their fear of being delayed to
so – mostly those with mobility experience, but also the idea that exchange is more about ‘having fun’ than
many of those without. Confirming what we saw ear- about improving the education, and that they therefore
lier in the chapter from the questions on benefits, stu- could not justify the extra spent time (and money).
dents with mobility experience are more concerned
with personal growth, improved language skills and/ I do not see exchange years (that prolong the time it
or a general ‘widening of the horizon’ than with more takes to get my degree) granting me enough of an edge
explicit academic quality. Quite a few nevertheless in the job market, to justify the extra time they take.
also wrote about academic outcome, as exemplified in I also strive for competence, and everyone I know who
the second quote below. has been an exchange student has told me that it is

Value of studies, placement or internship abroad 29

 not so much of a learning experience, it is more about All respondents lumped together assess the personal
having fun abroad and making new friends. growth benefits of going abroad to be very high. Many
also believe that students who go abroad have better
It feels like many students do not take it seriously. job opportunities than those who do not, but here
It is rather looked at as a kind of vacation and an many also answer that it does not matter, or that they
opportunity for students with higher grades to spend do not know. Belief in the value of going abroad is
half a year on having fun. Quite often they come back lowest regarding academic quality: here only about
without having any new credits, leaving them half a one in five thinks that students who go abroad have
year behind in their studies. an advantage.
On this comparison there are no or only insig-
Many of the internationally non-mobile students also nificant differences between the three countries
mentioned practical issues, regarding family, work and between female and male students. If we divide
and housing (see chapter 2). These are factors that between the mobility groups, however, we see that
cannot easily be dealt with from a policy perspective, mobile students assess the value of exchange as higher
unless one is willing to put a lot of extra money into than students who are planning to go (figure 4.8–
mobility schemes. 4.10). In other words, it seems that the perceived
benefits of exchange exceed the expectations.
Comparing students who have/have not We also see, unsurprisingly, that students with
been abroad mobility experience and those who have/had at some
The value of studying abroad should also be seen in point plans value mobility higher than those who
relation to the value of studying ‘at home’, which, for neither went abroad nor at any point planned to go
many students, is not actually the place where they abroad. These differences are well in line with the fact
grew up and/or lived prior to their studies. In another that few non-mobile students regret not going abroad
set of questions, all respondents were therefore asked during their studies (see chapter 2). It should be taken
to compare students who have/have not been abroad into account, in measures aiming to increase inter-
according to academic quality, personal growth and national student mobility, that many students doubt
job opportunities. Again, it should be stressed that the benefits of studying abroad, especially regarding
what is measured here is the perceptions and subjec- academic quality and job prospects. If they are wrong
tive evaluations of the students, not actual quality, about this, the benefits of studying abroad should be
personal growth or job opportunities (figure 4.7). articulated more clearly to students. If they are right,

Figure 4.7. When comparing students who have and haven’t been Figure 4.8. Comparing who has attained the highest academic quality,
abroad, what do you think? (N=6400) by mobility group

7% 5%
Student who 4%
Who has attained 20% hasn`t been 9%
the highest
41% abroad 9%
academic quality?
31% 33%
Student who has 25%
1% been abroad 14%
9%
Who has 66%
experienced most 14% 41%
personal growth? 41%
19% About the same 43%
41%
2% 21%
Who has the 38% 31%
best job I don`t know 34%
opportunities? 30% 41%
30%
0 10 20 30 40 50
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Mobility Planning to Planned to go, Never
Student Student About I don`t know group go group but didn't planned group
who hasn`t who has the same
been abroad been abroad

30 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

however, there is a need to rethink the structural chiefly meant to increase the quality and relevance of
framework around student mobility, and make it education (beyond learning languages)?
more academically and work relevant. Presuming that
the truth lies somewhere in between, it would seem “We could also say that, if getting
sensible to work along both these tracks. an education is primarily about
qualifying for income-generating
What makes international mobility activities further ahead in life,
valuable? networks and personal skills are
When asked about benefits of their study abroad, as crucial as degrees and grades.”
students with mobility experience rank making new
friends, learning languages, gaining cultural under- Arguably, personal growth, language skills and
standing and improving personal skills higher than cultural understanding should all be part of higher
academic and career benefits. Younger students tend education in a broader sense. We could also say that,
to see more benefits than older ones, except when if getting an education is primarily about qualifying
it comes to the quality of education and new per- for income-generating activities further ahead in life,
spectives on studies. The cultural and social value of networks and personal skills are as crucial as degrees
mobility thus seems to decrease somewhat with age. and grades. Some of the students also seem to think
There is also a tendency for those who go to English of their studies abroad in these broader ways:
speaking countries to report more benefits overall,
than those who go to other destinations. It was a really fun, unique and educational experience.
There is thus, as we have seen also from the open I learned a lot from my student exchange on so many
questions, a widespread conception among students, levels: language skills, social skills, cultural things,
regardless of mobility experience, that going abroad perspectives and study methods I would never have
for studies does not importantly improve one’s encountered on my home university’s courses - or any-
education or enhance one’s future job prospects. How where else in my home country for that matter... I also
do we interpret the fact that students seem less enthu- learned a lot about myself. It was extremely maturing
siastic about educational and work-related outcomes and liberating, both at the same time.
of mobility, than with making friends, developing
personal skills and learning language? Should we It is an explicit political ambition in all three coun-
see it as problematic, given that student mobility is tries that internationalisation should increase the

Figure 4.9. Comparing who has experienced most personal growth, by Figure 4.10. Comparing who has the best job opportunities, by
mobility group mobility group

1% 1%
Student who 2% Student who 1%
hasn`t been 1% hasn`t been 4%
abroad 1% abroad 3%
82% 54%
Student who has 73% Student who has 47%
been abroad 63% been abroad 32%
49% 23%
6% 25%
10% 24%
About the same 17% About the same 34%
21% 33%
10% 20%
16% 27%
I don`t know 19% I don`t know 30%
29% 40%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Mobility Planning to Planned to go, Never Mobility Planning to Planned to go, Never
group go group but didn't planned group group go group but didn't planned group

Value of studies, placement or internship abroad 31

 quality of education. Less than one out of twenty
mobile students assesses the academic quality of
going abroad as lower than of not going. On the other
hand, just one in three sees it as higher. Even if quality
is difficult to assess, and the students’ subjective eval-
uations of it, abroad versus at home, do not give us the
whole truth, these results can hardly be seen as fully
satisfactory. There is no reason to believe that these
students, who are largely positive about their mobility
experiences, should underrate their academic value.
Still, there is a larger picture here, since inter-
national students may impact positively regarding
the educational quality of the host institutions. Our
respondents may affect their Nordic institutions in
this way, by bringing home new impulses from their
host environments. The amount of such academic
value for the home institutions will depend on their
use of the mobile students’ experiences. Additionally,
as there is at least to some degree reciprocity in
student mobility, Nordic institutions may also benefit
from the impulses of incoming international students.
Again, to what extent this happens will depend
on the extent to which the international students
interact with local students. Based on the answers
from Nordic students going abroad, there is reason
to believe that in many cases integration of local and
international students could function better.
About one in ten students who have studied abroad
writes about bad experiences, and this input may in
turn be useful when trying to improve the framework
around exchange mobility and internationalisation
policies more broadly. On the other hand, only about
one in ten of the students chose to write about bad
experiences, and the main picture is still that the
overwhelming majority of the students find their stay
abroad very valuable. A frequently expressed view is
that it was the best thing they ever did.

Studying abroad to me has been the most exciting

experience of my life. Not only has it broadened my
knowledge within the field of my interest medicine it
has also broadened my view of the world and con-
tributed to my independence. This, in my opinion, is
priceless.

32 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

ConclusionS ies, it is difficult to point to any single, major obstacle.
Indeed, it is tempting to conclude that students in the
three countries only to a limited degree experience
What makes some students go abroad for exchange obstacles in a definitive sense.
studies while others remain at their home institutions Among the number of possible reasons for not
for the whole study period? This is the main ques- going abroad for studies, placement or internship,
tion discussed in this report. Who are the mobile family, (boy-/girl)friends is the one mostly agreed to.
students? Do they have any particular characteristics Such relations can, but do not necessarily represent
compared with their non-mobile fellow students? objective barriers. We know that mobile students
What are the driving forces leading to international have such relations too, but still choose to become
student mobility, and what prevents students from exchange students. Moreover, such relations can even
becoming exchange students abroad? play a positive role for mobility. According to our sur-
Looking at different background factors of our vey, friends and family cannot only be a major reason
respondents, we find that mobile students differ for not studying abroad, but also an important source
a little from the non-mobile. Female students are of encouragement for exchange studies.
somewhat more mobile than male students, and older Next on the list among most agreed-to reasons for
students more sceptical of mobility than the younger non-mobility we find more academic concerns, such
ones. In line with other studies, we find that parents as the fear of being delayed in studies or missing parts
of mobile students have a slightly higher educational of the studies at home. These are barriers or obstacles
level than those of non-mobile students. Students with that can be dealt with at higher education institutions
exchange experience more often than non-mobile stu- by improving the organisation of studies abroad. It
dents have some experience of international mobility should be emphasised, however, that the significance
prior to their studies. Interestingly, students who have students contribute to these academic barriers is
moved within their own country for study purposes only marginally above ‘neutral’ from unimportant to
are significantly more mobile than those who are important. Again, students do not appear to perceive
students in their home location. Finally, there is a any major barriers to exchange mobility, while they
connection between the students’ self-evaluation and give a number of reasons for not going.
their propensity for international exchange mobility. An interesting approach to the comparison of
Non-mobile students estimate their own academic the mobile and non-mobile students is the general
level slightly more modestly than mobile students. opinion of international student mobility. The main
While there are some patterns concerning picture is that student mobility has a high standing
background factors to be found, we would maintain among mobile as well as non-mobile students. Mobile
that their implications are relatively limited. For an students in particular are very positive to mobility,
understanding of different mobility patterns it is more but even students who do not go abroad value
relevant to focus on the students’ motives, attitudes exchange mobility positively.
and experienced barriers, and to ask whether or not More striking differences between mobile and
different experiences as students can help explain the non-mobile students are found in terms of expe-
different choices made by mobile and non-mobile rienced encouragement to study abroad. Students
students. who have been or who plan to go abroad as exchange
In many countries and parts of the world language students report a much higher level of encouragement
and economy are major obstacles for international from various sources. There appears to be a clear
student mobility. This is not the case in Finland, correlation between encouragement of students and
Norway and Sweden. Generally, students in these the students’ propensity to opt for a study abroad
three countries have good opportunities for financial period. At least to some extent, the difference
support. While there are some differences between between a mobile and a non-mobile student is that
the countries in this respect – respondents from the former has been encouraged and motivated, and
Finland are somewhat more concerned about finan- the latter not. At the same time, it may well be the
cial constraints – economy and language are not case that students who are already motivated for a
perceived to be the most important obstacles. Having study abroad period are more likely to remember and
asked students to identify the barriers to mobility and report experienced encouragement. Among the three
their reasons for not going abroad for exchange stud- countries in the project, systematic encouragement

Conclusions 33
 seems to be more developed in Finland than in the ‘educational aspects’ or ‘career related’ motives.
two other countries, and there is evidently a potential Learning about other cultures or cultural differences
for improvement for institutions. may have an educational dimension and certainly be
relevant from a career perspective. However, given the
“At least to some extent, the political emphasis on quality in internationalisation,
­difference between a mobile and it is worth underlining that ‘improving quality of
a non-mobile student is that the education’ follows further down the list of motives
former has been encouraged and given by the respondents.
motivated, and the latter not.” When asking mobile students about the experi-
enced benefits, we see even more clearly that social
The institutional structures for the facilitation of experiences and generic personal skills are the most
exchange mobility differ between the countries, as prominent ones. Improved quality of education is far
well as between institutions within a given country. from the top of the list. Altogether, however, mobile
Teachers, student counsellors and international students value their study abroad experiences very
coordinators can all play important roles. Our survey highly. While students who have not been abroad
suggests that there are significant differences as to have a positive view of exchange mobility in general,
the practice of encouragement to mobility by those they do not believe that the educational or academic
involved, which has consequences. Lack of encourage- outcomes are very significant. To the extent that they
ment from teachers and staff appears to be connected believe they miss something by staying home, they
with a greater fear of being delayed in studies. focus almost entirely on the social aspects and per-
Teachers and other staff have a crucial role in assuring sonal skills. Among the mobile students, one in three
the students that they will benefit academically from believes that the mobile students have attained higher
going abroad. academic quality than the non-mobile students.
Nevertheless, the most important source of
encouragement is other students. From this perspec- “It may very well be the case
tive, higher education institutions aiming to increase that any significant increase
mobility rates should focus more on students with in mobility rates in the three
mobility experience. This is all the more true as countries would presuppose
returned mobile students themselves are somewhat more inclusion of stays abroad
disappointed at the interest taken in them by their as integral parts of future study
home institutions. They seem prepared to share their programmes.”
experiences to a greater extent than they are usually
invited to do. An implication of these findings is that efforts should
Increasing and more systematic encouragement at be made to put mobility and exchange studies within
institutions, whether from teachers, staff or students, a framework of academic quality and educational
should focus more clearly on the academic and outcome. Typically, non-mobile students do not regret
educational benefits of exchange. As stated, academic that they have not been abroad, probably because they
concerns are among the most frequently mentioned do not believe that they have missed out on anything
reasons given by non-mobile students for not going important. Young people in the Nordic countries
abroad. The picture is further developed when we enjoy rich possibilities to experience the world in
look at the motives given by the mobile exchange stu- different ways. We cannot exclude that student
dents. Our respondents particularly emphasise what mobility framed in a context of personal experience
could be called reasons of ‘personal development’, and adventure may be exposed to competition from
such as getting to know another culture and learning other kinds of cross border activities and experience.
languages (which for most students is not their field Indeed, some of our respondents indicate that this is
of study per se). Educational or academic aspects in the case.
a narrower sense are important motives, too, though Different students have different reasons for not
much less emphasised by respondents than the more choosing mobility. Some are uncertain and need
generic skills. personal encouragement, some do not see the added
It is not always easy or even meaningful to dis- academic value, while others are discouraged by the
tinguish between motives of ‘personal development’, application process. Promoting exchange mobility,

34 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

one must be aware of and address the variety of expe-
rienced barriers.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that
mobility in the three countries is well developed in an
international perspective. The Eurostudent IV report
uses the term ‘mobility reserve’, that is, the share of
enrolled students who – more or less specifically –
plan to go abroad during the remainder of their study
period. The ‘mobility reserve’ is calculated by dividing
the share of students who plan to be mobile with the
share of students who have been mobile. The report
concludes that: ‘Countries where a lot of students’
willingness to enroll abroad temporarily has been
‘exploited’ already are Norway, Denmark and Aus-
tria.’ Sweden is not far behind Norway, while Finland
from this perspective has a greater ‘mobility reserve’,
according to Eurostudent IV.
This represents a relevant background for the pres-
ent study. Definitive obstacles are relatively scarce and
possibilities for mobility are good. One possible way
forward would be to increase the ‘mobility reserve’ by
strengthening encouragement, focusing more on the
academic and educational values of exchange studies
abroad. Given the relationship between obstacles
and possibilities, it may very well be the case that
any significant increase in mobility rates in the three
countries would presuppose more inclusion of stays
abroad as integral parts of future study programmes.

Conclusions 35
 REFERENCES
Garam, Irma (2000). Kansainvälisyyttä käytännössä. Suomalaisten
vaihto-opiskelijoiden kokemuksia ulkomailla opiskelusta [Interna-
tionality in practice. Experiences of Finnish exchange students.
In Finnish]. Opiskelijajärjestöjen tutkimussäätiö Otur rs 18/2000.
Monila: Helsinki.

Hietaluoma, Hanna (2001). Selvitys ulkomaisten vaihto-opiskeli-

joiden hakeutumisesta Suomeen. [Study on international exchange
students in Finland, in Finnish]. Centre for International Mobility
CIMO Publications 3/2001. Multiprint: Helsinki.

Orr, Dominic, Gwosć, Christoph and Netz, Nicolai (2011). Social

and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe, ­Eurostudent IV
Final Report 2008–2011. ­Bielefeld: W. ­Bertelsmann Verlag.

Rodrigues, Margarida (2012). Determinants and Impact of Student

Mobility: A Literature Review. ­European Commission: Joint
Research Centre.

Rurling, Åsa and Gillström, Per (2010). Eurostudent: om svenska

studenter i en europeisk undersökning, hösten 2009. [Eurostudent:
on Swedish students in a European survey. In Swedish.] Hög-
skoleverkets rapportserie 2010:20 R.

Saarikallio-Torp, Miia and Wiers-Jenssen, Jannecke (2010).

Nordic students abroad. The Social Insurance Institution of
­Finland, Research Department.

Sifo (2008): Utlandsstudier och internationellt utbyte. [Studies

abroad and international exchange. In Swedish]. The International
Programme Office for Education and Training.

SIU (2011). International Mobility among PhD Candidates at

Norwegian Higher Education Institutions. Norwegian Centre for
International Cooperation in Education. SIU Report 02/2011.

Søvik, Margrete and Eldøy, Svein (2010). Hvorfor studere i

utlandet? Norske studenters motivasjoner og barrierer for å ta et
studieopphold i et annet land – en kvantitativ analyse. [Why study
abroad? Motives and barriers to international mobility among
Norwegian students. A quantitative analysis]. Norwegian Centre
for International Cooperation in Higher Education.

Arbetsgivares syn på utlandserfarenhet. [Employers’ view on

international experience. In Swedish]. Internationella program-
kontorets rapportserie nr 27, 2010. The International Programme
Office for Education and Training.

36 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

APPENDIX 1 – 1. MOBILITY GROUP: respondents who had pre-
viously been abroad studying or doing a placement/
ABOUT THE SURVEY, internship or who were abroad for such purposes at

METHODOLOGY AND the time of the survey.

THE RESPONDENTS 2. PLANNING TO GO GROUP: respondents without

previous mobility experience but who had specific
plans for this during the last part of their studies.
For the purpose of our project an electronic survey
was developed. The target group was identified as 3. PLANNED BUT DID NOT GO GROUP: students
follows: students enrolled in the final year of the bach- who neither were nor had been studying abroad,
elor or master degree programme at higher education but who at some point had planned to go abroad for
institutions in Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In studies/placement/internship.
Norway, all 45 member institutions of the Norwegian
Association of Higher Education Institutions were 4. NEVER PLANNED GROUP: students who neither
invited to participate in the project and to provide were nor had been studying abroad, nor at any point
contact information to the mentioned groups of stu- had planned to go abroad for studies/placement/
dents. 20 institutions responded positively, and a total internship.
of 17,934 e-mail invitations to the survey were sent.
In Sweden, the State Educational Loan Fund (CSN) Mobile students were strongly overrepresented among
provided a random sample of 15,000 individuals in respondents (figure A1), but this does not affect the
the two relevant groups of students, enrolled at 44 respondents representativeness of their respective
different institutions. In Finland, altogether 10 higher mobility groups.
education institutions were selected for the study.
There were two ways to contact the Finnish respond- Some questions (such as background information,
ents. Of the higher education institutions seven encouragement/discouragement and shorter term
sent the addresses to CIMO, which then sent the mobility) were put to all students. However, most
questionnaire to the selected students. The remaining questions were relevant only to one or several of these
three sent the questionnaire to the selected students groups, and therefore only asked to them.
themselves. A total of 16,000 students received the More women than men answered the survey.
invitation to the survey. For Norway and Sweden, the percentages roughly
The survey addressed students enrolled as degree correspond to the one in the total student population
seeking with or without previous mobility experience (cf. table 1.1 in Introduction and figure A2 below).
or plans to become an exchange student. To the extent Among the Finnish respondents, however, female
that incoming exchange students to the three coun- students are significantly overrepresented. While
tries are included in the survey, their response has 54 per cent of students enrolled in higher education
been taken out in order not to disturb the picture.
The survey was open from 17 April to 6 May 2012, Figure A1 Proportion of students that study abroad at the
moment or had studied abroad previously (N=6432)
and two reminders were sent during this period.
In all three countries, the survey was sent to a total
Finland 42%
of 48,394 students. 6,531 students responded to the
survey, which leaves us with a response rate of 13.5
per cent. The response rate was highest in Sweden
(16.9 per cent) followed by Norway (14.3 per cent) and Norway 36%

Finland (9.0 per cent).

The questionnaire was structured according to
different student groups, based on the respondents’ Sweden 24%
experiences with or plans about studying/placement/
internship abroad, for at least three months.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Appendix 1 – About the survey, methodology and the respondents 37

 in Finland are female – the lowest number among
the involved countries – female students constitute as
much as 73 per cent of the respondents from Finland.
We see that respondents from Finland were sig-
nificantly younger than the Norwegian and Swedish
respondents. However, age differences do not have
any major impact on the results.
Figure A4 shows the distribution of respondents
according to subject area.
For most subjects the country variations are
relatively limited. The main exception is ‘engineering,
manufacturing and construction’. For Finland and
Norway less than 10 per cent of the respondents
belong to these fields, while in the case of Sweden
students in this group constitute 23 per cent of the
respondents.

Figure A2 Gender of respondents by country (N=6432)

63%
Female 73%
64%
57%
37%
Male 26%
36%
43%
0.3%
Not answered
0.8%
0.1%
0.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Total Finland Norway Sweden Figure A4 Distribution of respondents according to subject area
(N=6432)

Education and 7,8%

training 6,4%
Figure A3 Respondents’ age group by country (N=6432)
6,6%
50% Humanities and 18,2%
Art 16,7%
till 25 64% 10,5%
46% 28,7%
Social sciences,
45% 34,6%
business, law
39% 31,8%
Science, 11,4%
27%
from 25 till 30 mathematics and 11,6%
40% computing 5,2%
45% Engineering, 7,1%
manufacturing 9,5%
8%
and construction 23,7%
6%
from 31 till 40 Agriculture and 1,4%
9% 1,6%
8% veterinary fields
0,7%
3% 14%
Health and 8,4%
3% welfare fields
more than 41 13,8%
5%
11,3%
2% Other 11,2%
7,7%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Total Finland Norway Sweden
Finland Norway Sweden

38 Living and Learning – Exchange Studies Abroad

What makes some students go abroad for exchange
studies while others remain at their home institutions for
the whole study period? Who are the mobile students? Do
they have any particular characteristics compared with their
non-­mobile fellow students? What are the driving forces
leading to international student mobility, and what prevents
­students from becoming exchange students abroad? These
are some of the main questions addressed in this Nordic
study on student exchange mobility.

In the Nordic countries as well as in Europe as a whole, increased

student mobility is a political priority. As members of the Bologna
process, Finland, Norway, and Sweden share the target that at least
20 per cent of those graduating in Europe in 2020 should have been
on a study or training period abroad.
The present report is the result of a cooperation project by the
­Centre for International Mobility (CIMO) in Finland, the Norwegian
Centre for International Cooperation in Higher Education (SIU)
and the Swedish Council for Higher Education. The three offices
are national agencies for the Lifelong Learning Programme in their
respective countries, and they have the common task of promoting
internationalisation in education, including international student
mobility. The cooperation project aims to provide comparable data
from Finland, Norway and Sweden to increase our understanding
of the driving forces of student mobility.

ISBN 978-91-7561-000-9