See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282571735

The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility. Final Report. Presented to the

European Commission - DG Education and Culture

Article · January 2006

CITATIONS READS

104 2,099

6 authors, including:

Constanze Engel Kerstin Janson

Universität Kassel IU International University of Applied Sciences
4 PUBLICATIONS 168 CITATIONS 22 PUBLICATIONS 431 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Harald Schomburg Ulrich Teichler

Universität Kassel
63 PUBLICATIONS 1,052 CITATIONS
864 PUBLICATIONS 14,101 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

"An Examination of Academic Job Satisfaction and Motivation in Portuguese Higher Education"- ESMAESP View project

KaWuM-Survey - Onlinebefragungen zu Karrierewegen und Qualifikationsanforderungen im Wissenschafts- und Hochschulmanagement View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ulrich Teichler on 03 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Professional Value
of ERASMUS Mobility
By Oliver Bracht, Constanze Engel,
Kerstin Janson, Albert Over, Harald Schomburg and
Ulrich Teichler

International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel)

University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

Final Report
(Revised version: November 2006)
External (interim) Evaluation of the Impact of ERASMUS Mobility (action 2 of the
SOCRATES Community action programme; 2000 - 2006) on Students’ Access to
Employment and Career Development, on Teachers’ Career Development and on Two
Areas of Study to be Specified.
(Contract No. 2004-3297)
Presented to the European Commission - DG Education and Culture
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table of Contents
Executive Summary xi
Executive Summary (Français) xxv
Executive Summary (Deutsch) xli
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Aims and Design of the Study 1
1.2 Modes of Inquiry 2
2 The ERASMUS Programme 6
2.1 The History of the Programme 6
2.2 The Initial ERASMUS Approach 7
2.3 The SOCRATES Approach 7
2.4 Implementing ERASMUS as a Sub-Programme within SOCRATES 9
2.5 SOCRATES/ERASMUS 2000-2006 12
3 Findings of the Expert Survey 13
3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 The ERASMUS Expert Survey 14
3.3 Competences of Mobile Students Upon Return 16
3.4 Impact of ERASMUS Student Mobility on Competences Upon Graduation 20
3.5 Impact of ERASMUS Student Mobility: Transition to Work 22
3.6 Career Impact of ERASMUS Student Mobility 27
3.7 Suggestions for Improvement (Student Mobility) 31
3.8 Good Practices (Student Mobility) 33
3.9 Direct Impact of ERASMUS Mobility on the Mobile Teachers 34
3.10 Impact on the Teachers’ Subsequent Activities at the Home Institution 37
3.11 Impact on Teachers´ Career 40
3.12 Suggestions for Improvement (Teaching Staff Mobility) 42
3.13 Good Practice (Teaching Staff Mobility) 43
3.14 Concluding Remarks 43
4 Former Students' Views and Experiences 46
4.1 Introduction 46
4.2 Prior Studies 46
4.3 The Survey of 2000/01 ERASMUS Students 49
4.4 The Profile of Former ERASMUS 54
4.5 The Early Career 56
4.6 Job Search and Recruitment 59
4.7 Competences, Orientations and Work Assignments 61
4.8 Competences and Job Requirements 62
4.9 International Dimensions of Employment and Work 70
4.10 Perceived Impact and Assessment of Study Abroad 75
4.11 Concluding Remarks 82

ii
 Table of Contents

5 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of

Temporary Study in Another European Country 84
5.1 Introduction 84
5.2 The Profile of the Organisations 86
5.3 Recruitment of Young Graduates 89
5.4 International Work Tasks of Graduates 93
5.5 Competences and Work 96
5.6 Position and Salary 101
5.7 Knowledge of the SOCRATES/ERASMUS Programme 103
5.8 Concluding Remarks 104
6 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences 106
6.1 Introduction 106
6.2 Prior Studies 106
6.3 The Survey of 2000/01 ERASMUS Teaching Staff 107
6.4 Characteristics of Responding Teaching Staff 111
6.5 Motives for Teaching Abroad and Actual Activities 115
6.6 The General Professional Value of ERASMUS Teaching Mobility Program 118
6.7 Institutional Conditions for Teaching Mobility 128
6.8 Impact of the Teaching Mobility on the Home Institution of Higher Education 133
6.9 Concluding Remarks 134
7 The University Leaders’ Views 136
7.1 Introduction 136
7.2 The Survey of Leaders at ERASMUS Higher Education Institutions 136
7.3 Characteristics of Responding Higher Education Institutions 139
7.4 Internationalisation of Universities: Objectives and Activities 143
7.5 Student Mobility and Employability 145
7.6 ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility 152
7.7 Concluding Remarks 157
8 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four
Selected Field of Studies 159
8.1 Aims and Procedures of the Analysis 159
8.2 Mechanical Engineering 162
8.3 Business Studies 175
8.4 Sociology 186
8.5 Chemistry 196
8.6 Concluding Remarks 208
9 Major Results and Recommendations 211
9.1 Summary of Core Results 211
9.2 A Look Back to the Initial Evaluation Questions 226
9.3 Recommendations 232
10 Literature 233

iii
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

List of Figures
Figure 1 Competences of ERASMUS Mobile Students Upon Return as Compared to Non-Mobile
Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent).......................................................................... 17
Figure 2 Competences of Former ERASMUS Mobile Students Upon Graduation as Compared to Non-
Mobile Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent) ............................................................. 21
Figure 3 Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the View
of ERASMUS Experts (percent)............................................................................................................ 23
Figure 4 Initial Employment of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in
the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent) ............................................................................................ 25
Figure 5 Employment and Work Situation of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared to Non-Mobile
Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent).......................................................................... 28
Figure 6 International and European Work Assignments of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared
to Non-Mobile Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent) ................................................. 30
Figure 7 Competences of Former ERASMUS Teachers Upon Return as Compared to Non-Mobile
Teachers in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent) ......................................................................... 34
Figure 8 Extent of Changes of the Mobile Teachers Academic Activities Upon Return as Compared to
the Situation before Departure in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent) ....................................... 38
Figure 9 Long-term Career Impact of Teaching Abroad - Opportunities of Former ERASMUS
Teachers as Compared to Non-mobile Teachers in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent) ............ 41
Figure 10 Response Rate* of the Survey with Former ERASMUS Students by Home Country (percent)............ 53
Figure 11 Gender of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (percent) .................................................... 55
Figure 12 Current Major Activity of Former ERASMUS Students (percent)........................................................ 56
Figure 13 Permanent Contract at the First Job and Current Job by Field of Study (Percent)................................. 58
Figure 14 Full-Time Employment at First Job and Current Job by Field of Study (Percent)................................. 58
Figure 15 Former ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed Competences at Time of Graduation (percent
"high"; responses 1 and 2) ..................................................................................................................... 62
Figure 16 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Required Competences at Current Work (percent
"high"; responses 1 and 2) ..................................................................................................................... 63
Figure 17 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Impact of Study Abroad (percent "positive
impact"; responses 1 and 2) ................................................................................................................... 76
Figure 18 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Study Abroad (percent "worthwhile"; responses
1 and 2).................................................................................................................................................. 78
Figure 19 Themes of the Employers' Survey ......................................................................................................... 85
Figure 20 Themes of the Questionnaire of Former Mobile ERASMUS Teachers ............................................... 110
Figure 21 Themes of the Universities' Leader Survey ......................................................................................... 138
Figure 22 Universities' Number of Academic Staff by Rank and Region (mean)................................................ 142
Figure 23 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Mechanical Engineering 1987 - 2004 ......... 164
Figure 24 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Mechanical Engineering by Country
of Home Institution 2000/01................................................................................................................ 165
Figure 25 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Business Studies 1987 - 2004 ..................... 176
Figure 26 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Business Studies by Country of Home
Institution 2000/01............................................................................................................................... 177
Figure 27 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Sociology 1987 - 2004................................ 187
Figure 28 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Sociology by Country of Home
Institution 2000/01............................................................................................................................... 188
Figure 29 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Natural Sciences 1987 - 2004 ..................... 198
Figure 30 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students - Natural Sciences by Country of Home
Institution 2000/01............................................................................................................................... 198

iv
 Table of Contents

List of Tables
Table 1 Overview about the Surveys Conducted in the VALERA Study............................................................. 4
Table 2 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of ERASMUS Experts....................................................... 14
Table 3 Response Rates by Type of Experts (Survey of ERASMUS Experts)................................................... 15
Table 4 Competences of Former ERASMUS Students Upon Graduation as Compared to Non-Mobile
Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts by Country of Expert (arithmetic mean) ......................... 22
Table 5 Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the View
of ERASMUS Experts by Country of Expert (percent) ......................................................................... 24
Table 6 Characteristics of Employment and Work of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared to
Non-Mobile Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts by Country of Expert (arithmetic
mean) ..................................................................................................................................................... 29
Table 7 Foreign Language Proficiency of Former ERASMUS Teachers as Compared to Non-Mobile
Teachers in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent and number) ..................................................... 36
Table 8 Academic Knowledge of Former ERASMUS Teachers as Compared to Non-Mobile Teachers
in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent and number)..................................................................... 37
Table 9 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of Former ERASMUS Students......................................... 49
Table 10 Themes of the Questionnaire of the Survey with Former ERASMUS Students .................................... 51
Table 11 Survey with Former ERASMUS Students - Population, Sample and Response.................................... 54
Table 12 Duration of Study Abroad During ERASMUS Period 2000/2001 of Former ERASMUS
Students by Field of Study (means) ....................................................................................................... 55
Table 13 Duration of Further Study of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (means) ........................ 56
Table 14 Current Major Activity of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (percent) ........................... 57
Table 15 Duration of Employment of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (means).......................... 57
Table 16 Number of Employers Since Graduation of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study
(percent)................................................................................................................................................. 59
Table 17 Start of Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (percent) .................................. 59
Table 18 Number of Employers Contacted During Job Search by Former ERASMUS Students by Field
of Study (means).................................................................................................................................... 60
Table 19 Duration of Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (means) ............................. 60
Table 20 Recruitment Criteria of Employers in the View of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of
Study (percent "important"; responses 1 and 2)..................................................................................... 61
Table 21 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Required Competences at Current Work by Field
of Study (percent "high"; responses 1 and 2)......................................................................................... 63
Table 22 Former ERASMUS Students' Work Orientations by Field of Study (percent "important";
responses 1 and 2).................................................................................................................................. 64
Table 23 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Professional Situation by Field of Study
(percent "high"; responses 1 and 2) ....................................................................................................... 65
Table 24 Former ERASMUS Students' Usage of their Knowledge and Skills Acquired in the Course of
Study by Field of Study (percent; arithmetic mean) .............................................................................. 66
Table 25 Former ERASMUS Students Assessment of the Relationship Between their Field of Study and
Area of Work by Field of Study (percent; multiple responses).............................................................. 66
Table 26 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Appropriateness of their Employment and
Work to Level of Education by Field of Study (percent; arithmetic mean) ........................................... 67
Table 27 Former ERASMUS Students' Satisfaction with Current Work by Field of Study (percent;
arithmetic mean) .................................................................................................................................... 67
Table 28 Links Between Study and Subsequent Employment and Work Perceived by Former
ERASMUS Students - a Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent of employed graduates)............ 68
Table 29 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of their Competences Upon Graduation as
Compared to Non-Mobile Students by Field of Study (percent "better"; responses 1 and 2) ................ 69
Table 30 Perceived Positive Impact of ERASMUS Study Period on Employment and Work - a
Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent)........................................................................................ 69

v
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 31 Former ERASMUS Students‘ Current Employment Situation – a Comparison with Previous
Surveys (percent) ................................................................................................................................... 70
Table 32 International Mobility of Former ERASMUS Students Since Graduation by Field of Study
(percent; multiple responses) ................................................................................................................. 71
Table 33 Scope of Operations of Organisation of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study
(percent; multiple responses) ................................................................................................................. 71
Table 34 Business Contacts with Other Countries of Organisation of Former ERASMUS Students by
Field of Study (percent "high extent"; responses 1 and 2) ..................................................................... 72
Table 35 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Importance of International Competences by
Field of Study (percent "important"; responses 1 and 2) ....................................................................... 72
Table 36 ERASMUS-Related Work Task of Former ERASMUS Students – a Comparison with
Previous Surveys (% of employed graduates)........................................................................................ 73
Table 37 Selected Recruitment Criteria of Employers in the View of Former Students – a Comparison
with Previous Surveys ........................................................................................................................... 74
Table 38 International Dimensions of Employment and Work of Former ERASMUS Students – a
Comparison with Previous Surveys (%) ................................................................................................ 75
Table 39 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Impact of Study Abroad by Field of Study
(percent "positive impact"; responses 1 and 2) ...................................................................................... 76
Table 40 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Study Abroad by Field of Study (percent
"worthwhile"; responses 1 and 2) .......................................................................................................... 78
Table 41 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Selected Modes of Teaching and Learning
Emphasized by the Host Institution in Selected Host Countries (percent "high"; responses 1
and 2)..................................................................................................................................................... 79
Table 42 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Academic Level of Courses at the Host
Institution as Compared to the Home Institution – a Comparison with Previous Surveys
(average percent of courses) .................................................................................................................. 80
Table 43 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Selected Problems During Study Period Abroad
– a Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent) .................................................................................. 80
Table 44 Host Countries Where Former ERASMUS Students Faced Relatively High and Low Problems
during Study Period Abroad .................................................................................................................. 81
Table 45 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Recognition of ERASMUS-Supported Study – a
Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent)........................................................................................ 81
Table 46 Economic Sector of Organisations Responding by Type of Survey (percent) ....................................... 86
Table 47 Size of the Organisation by Type of Survey (percent)........................................................................... 86
Table 48 Economic Sector of Employers by Kind of Organisation (percent)....................................................... 88
Table 49 Number of Employees and Graduates in the Organisation (percent of employers) ............................... 89
Table 50 Importance of Different Recruitment Criteria in the View of Employers by European Region
(percent "important"; responses 1 and 2) ............................................................................................... 90
Table 51 Importance of Different Recruitment Criteria of Employers in the View of Graduates and
Employers (percent "important"; responses 1 and 2) ............................................................................. 91
Table 52 Employers Rating of the Importance of Characteristics of the Study Period Abroad by
European Region (percent "important"; responses 1 and 2)................................................................... 92
Table 53 Employers' Preference of Modes of Mobility by European Region (percent; multiple
responses) .............................................................................................................................................. 93
Table 54 International Work Tasks of Young Graduates in the View of Employers by European Region
(percent "often"; responses 1 and 2) ...................................................................................................... 94
Table 55 Employers' Business or Contact with Other Countries by Size of the Organization (percent)............... 94
Table 56 Kind of International Work Tasks of Young Graduates with Respect to Their International
Experience in the View of Employers (percent "high extent"; responses 1 and 2) ................................ 95
Table 57 International Work Tasks of Young Graduates in the View of Employers by European Region
(percent "high extent"; responses 1 and 2)............................................................................................. 96
Table 58 Employers' Rating of Competences of Young Graduates with Respect to Their International
Experience (percent "high extent"; responses 1 and 2) .......................................................................... 98

vi
 Table of Contents

Table 59 Employers' Rating of Competences of Young Graduates With International Experience by

Employers and Self-rating of Competences by Graduates (percent "high extent"; responses 1
and 2)..................................................................................................................................................... 99
Table 60 Employers' Rating of Selected Competences of Young Graduates With International
Experience by Size of the Organization (percent "high extent"; responses 1 and 2)............................ 100
Table 61 Employers' Rating of Competences of Former ERASMUS Students Compared to Other
Mobile Students by Size of the Organization (percent) ....................................................................... 101
Table 62 Higher Professional Responsibility of Internationally Experienced Graduates in the View of
Employers by European Region (percent) ........................................................................................... 102
Table 63 Higher Salary of International Experienced Young Graduates in Their First Year in the View
of Employers by Kind of Organisation (percent)................................................................................. 102
Table 64 Higher Salary of International Experienced Young Graduates After Five Years of Work
Experiences in the View of Employers by European Region (percent) ............................................... 103
Table 65 Higher Salary of International Experienced Young Graduates After Five Years of Work
Experiences in the View of Employers by Kind of Organisation (percent) ......................................... 103
Table 66 Employers' Knowledge of the SOCRATES/ERASMUS Programme by European Region
(percent)............................................................................................................................................... 104
Table 67 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of Former ERASMUS Teaching Staff............................. 107
Table 68 Teaching Subject of ERASMUS-Supported Mobile Teachers by Home Region 2005 (percent) ........ 113
Table 69 Home Countries of Responding Teachers 2000/ 01 – 2005/ 06 (percent)............................................ 113
Table 70 Teachers' Reasons for Teaching Abroad in the Framework of ERASMUS by Home Country
(percent; responses 1 and 2)................................................................................................................. 116
Table 71 Teachers' Reasons for Teaching Abroad in the Framework of ERASMUS by Direction of
Mobility (percent; responses 1 and 2).................................................................................................. 117
Table 72 Professional Value of ERASMUS Teaching Assignments in the View of Mobile Teachers by
Home Region 2000/01 (percent).......................................................................................................... 120
Table 73 Effects of Teaching Abroad by Direction of Mobility in the View of Mobile Teachers
(percent; responses 1 and 2)................................................................................................................. 121
Table 74 Impacts of Teaching Period(s) Abroad in the View of Mobile Teachers by Teaching Subject
(percent; responses 1 and 2)................................................................................................................. 123
Table 75 General Academic Impact of Teaching Abroad by Home Region 2000/01 (percent; responses
1 and 2)................................................................................................................................................ 124
Table 76 Teachers' Activities Abroad by Home Country 2005/06 (percent; multiple responses)....................... 125
Table 77 Academic Impact by ERASMUS Teaching Assignments Abroad by Home Region 2000/01
(percent; responses 1 and 2)................................................................................................................. 127
Table 78 Teachers' Assessment of Teaching Mobility within the Higher Education Institution by Home
Region 2000/01 (percent) .................................................................................................................... 129
Table 79 Change of Attitudes within the Institution of Higher Education towards Teaching Mobility in
the View of Mobile Teachers by Home Region 2000/01 (percent; responses 1 and 2) ....................... 130
Table 80 Usual Proceedings Regarding Workload of Teaching Abroad in the View of Mobile Teachers
by Home Region 2000/01 (percent)..................................................................................................... 130
Table 81 Teachers’ Work Load of Teaching Abroad During the Academic Year 2000/ 01 by Teaching
Subject (percent; multiple responses) .................................................................................................. 132
Table 82 Impacts of ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility on the Home Institution in the View of
Mobile Teachers by Home Region 2000/01 (percent; responses 1 and 2) ........................................... 134
Table 83 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of Leaders at ERASMUS Higher Education
Institutions ........................................................................................................................................... 136
Table 84 Universities' Status by Number of Students Enrolled (in percent)....................................................... 139
Table 85 Universities' Fields of Study Programmes by Number of Students Enrolled (percent; multiple
responses) ............................................................................................................................................ 140
Table 86 Universities' Number of Academic Staff in the Academic Year 2000/2001 by Rank and
Number of Students Enrolled (means)................................................................................................. 141
Table 87 Universities' Degree Programmes Taught in Foreign Languages by Number of Students
Enrolled (percent) ................................................................................................................................ 143

vii
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 88 Objectives of Internationalisation in the View of University Leaders by Number of Students

Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2) .................................................................................................. 144
Table 89 University Leaders' Assessment of Increasing Employment Opportunities by ERASMUS by
Number of Students Enrolled (percent) ............................................................................................... 145
Table 90 University Leaders' Assessment of Impacts of ERASMUS on Job Opportunities by Number of
Students Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2) ................................................................................... 146
Table 91 Universities' Measures to Increase the Employability of Graduates by Number of Students
Enrolled (percent; multiple responses) ................................................................................................ 147
Table 92 Competences Reinforced by ERASMUS Study Period Abroad in the View of University
Leaders by Number of Students Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2)............................................... 148
Table 93 Assessment of Impact on the Employability of Graduates in the View of University Leaders
by Number of Students Enrolled (percent) .......................................................................................... 149
Table 94 Universities' Criteria Used for the Selection of Students to Join ERASMUS Exchange
Programme by Number of Students Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2)......................................... 149
Table 95 Competences Valued by Employers in the View of University Leaders by Number of Students
Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2) .................................................................................................. 150
Table 96 Changed Significance of Study Periods Abroad in the View of University Leaders by Number
of Students Enrolled (percent) ............................................................................................................. 151
Table 97 Universities Sources of Information on the Professional Careers of Graduates by Number of
Students Enrolled (percent; multiple responses).................................................................................. 152
Table 98 ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility in the View of University Leaders by Number of
Students Enrolled (percent; multiple responses).................................................................................. 153
Table 99 Universities' Change of Attitudes Towards Teaching Staff Mobility by Number of Students
Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2) .................................................................................................. 153
Table 100 Universities' Change of Attitudes Towards Teaching Staff Mobility by Home Region
(arithmetic mean)................................................................................................................................. 154
Table 101 Universities' Support for Mobile Teachers by Number of Students Enrolled (arithmetic mean) ......... 155
Table 102 Universities' Support for Mobile Teachers by Home Region (percent; responses 1 and 2) ................. 155
Table 103 Universities' Assessment of International Experiences During Application Procedures of New
Academic Staff by Home Region (percent; responses 1 and 2) ........................................................... 156
Table 104 Universities' Assessment of ERASMUS Activities in the Hiring of Academic Staff by Number
of Students Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2) ............................................................................... 157
Table 105 Former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS Students' Assessment of their Competences
Upon Graduation as Compared to Non-Mobile Students (percent) ..................................................... 167
Table 106 Former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed Competences at Time of
Graduation and Job Requirements about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high"; answers 1 and 2).............. 168
Table 107 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Mechanical Engineering" Seminar ............................... 170
Table 108 Typology of Mobile Students (presentation of a participant) .............................................................. 171
Table 109 Former Business Studies ERASMUS Students' Assessment of their Competences Upon
Graduation as Compared to Non-Mobile Students (percent) ............................................................... 179
Table 110 Former Business Studies ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed Competences at Time of
Graduation and Job Requirements about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high"; answers 1 and 2).............. 180
Table 111 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Business Study" Seminar .............................................. 182
Table 112 Former Sociology ERASMUS Students' Assessment of their Competences Upon Graduation
as Compared to Non-Mobile Students (percent).................................................................................. 190
Table 113 Former Sociology ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed Competences at Time of Graduation
and Job Requirements about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high"; answers 1 and 2) ................................ 191
Table 114 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Sociology" Seminar ...................................................... 193
Table 115 Former Chemistry ERASMUS Students' Assessment of their Competences Upon Graduation
as Compared to Non-Mobile Students (percent).................................................................................. 200
Table 116 Former Chemistry ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed Competences at Time of Graduation
and Job Requirements about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high"; answers 1 and 2) ................................ 201
Table 117 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Chemistry" Seminar...................................................... 203

viii
 Table of Contents

Table 118 Positive Influence of ERASMUS Study Period on Employment and Work - a Comparison
with Previous Surveys as perceived by Former Students (percent) ..................................................... 211
Table 119 Former ERASMUS Students‘ Current Employment Situation – a Comparison with Previous
Surveys (percent) ................................................................................................................................. 213
Table 120 Links Between Study and Subsequent Employment and Work Perceived by Former
ERASMUS Students - a Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent of employed graduates).......... 214
Table 121 Higher Salary of Internationally Experienced Young Graduates After Five Years of Work
Experience According Employers by European Region (percent)....................................................... 215
Table 122 Changed Significance of Study Periods Abroad as Perceived by University leadership by
Number of Students Enrolled (percent) ............................................................................................... 215
Table 123 Rating of Competences of Young Graduates With International Experience by Employers and
Self-rating of Competences by Graduates (percent; responses 1 and 2 of a 5-point scale from 1
= "to a very high extent" to 5 = "not at all") ....................................................................................... 216
Table 124 Relevance of International Competences as Perceived by Former ERASMUS Students by
Field of Study (percent "important"; responses 1 and 2) ..................................................................... 219
Table 125 ERASMUS-Related Work Task of Former ERASMUS Students – a Comparison with
Previous Surveys (percent of employed graduates) ............................................................................. 219
Table 126 Impacts of ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility on the Home Institution as Perceived by
Former Mobile Teachers by Home Region 2000/01 (percent; responses 1 and 2) .............................. 224

ix
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Overview of Abbreviations
Home and Host Country Codes

1 AT Austria 17 LI Liechtenstein
2 BE Belgium 18 LT Lithuania
3 BG Bulgaria 19 LU Luxembourg
4 CY Cyprus 20 MA Malta
5 CZ Czech Republic 21 NL Netherlands
6 DK Denmark 22 NO Norway
7 EE Estonia 23 PL Poland
8 FI Finland 24 PT Portugal
9 FR France 25 RO Romania
10 DE Germany 26 SK Slovakia
11 GR Greece 27 SI Slovenia
12 HU Hungary 28 ES Spain
13 IC Iceland 29 SE Sweden
14 IR Ireland 30 CH Switzerland
15 IT Italy 31 UK United Kingdom
16 LV Latvia 32 OT Other country

Field of Study Codes

1 Agri OTH Agricultural Sciences
2 Arch ENG Architecture, urban and regional planning
3 Art HUM Art and design
4 Bus BUS Business studies, management sciences, economics
5 Edu HUM Education, teacher training
6 Eng ENG Engineering, technology
7 Geo NAT Geography, geology
8 Hum HUM Humanities
9 Lan HUM Languages, philological sciences
10 Law SOC Law
11 Math ENG Mathematics, informatics
12 Med MED Medical Sciences
13 Nat ENG Natural Sciences
14 Soc SOC Social Sciences
15 Com SOC Communications and information sciences
16 Oth OTH Other

x
Executive Summary
Aims and Design of the Study
The VALERA project (VALERA = Value of ERASMUS Mobility) aims to establish
the impact of mobility within the ERASMUS sub-programme of SOCRATES on the
mobile students’ and teachers’ careers. For this purpose, representative surveys were
undertaken of formerly mobile ERASMUS students and formerly mobile ERASMUS
teachers. In addition, university leaders were asked to assess the role of student and
teacher mobility at their institution, and employers were requested to report about the
experience with formerly mobile students. Moreover, a broad range of actors and
experts stated their perceptions of the impact of ERASMUS mobility in an expert
survey and in discussions during general and field specific seminars.
Each survey addressed several dimensions of professional value. With respect to student
mobility, professional “success” was measured primarily in terms of:
• General and international competences,
• Transition to work,
• First and subsequent employment and work, and
• International aspects of employment and work.
Similarly, the professional impact of teacher mobility was assessed in five domains:
• General academic and teaching competences,
• International and inter-cultural competences,
• ERAMUS-related activities at the home higher education institution,
• Vertical and horizontal professional mobility, and
• International professional mobility.
The aim of the evaluation was to establish the extent of professional value of student
and teacher mobility in various respects, to identify circumstances conducive to increase
desirable results, and to assess the overall results with respect of the relevance,
effectiveness, impact and durability of the SOCRATES scheme in the area of higher
education.

Modes of Inquiry
The evaluation study was divided into two major phases. The first phase started with the
analysis of previous studies and an expert survey. The expert questionnaires were sent
to representatives of the ERASMUS programme itself and representatives of higher
education policy, student organisations, teachers, administrators and employers’
organisations. Information was provided by 67 experts, i.e. 43 percent of the 156
persons initially addressed. Both, the findings of prior studies and of the experts’
responses, are summarized in a first report of the study, the “Framework Report”. It

xi
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

provides information in its own right on the impact of mobility and helped to design the
key surveys of the evaluation study.
Subsequently, four key surveys were undertaken:
• Survey of former ERASMUS students: former ERASMUS students of the
academic year of 2000/01, selected according to count and sampled according to
higher education institutions, were contacted with the help of their home
institutions of higher education. They were asked to respond to a highly
standardized paper questionnaire. Actually, 4,589 persons responded, i.e. 45
percent of those contacted.
• Survey of former ERASMUS teachers: All mobile teachers from a sample of
higher education institutions of the academic year 2000/01 were addressed via
ERASMUS coordinators at the individual institutions of higher education and
were asked to fill out an online questionnaire. 755 persons responded, about 24
percent of 3,123 teachers contacted.
• Survey of university leaders: A paper questionnaire was sent via the ERASMUS
coordinators to all university leaders of those institutions which had signalled
readiness to cooperate with the evaluation study in prior correspondence.
Actually, 626 university leaders responded, i.e. 44 percent of the 1,437
contacted.
• Survey of employers: A paper questionnaire was sent to about 1,500 persons
supervising former ERASMUS students on their workplace (they could be
reached because former ERASMUS students had provided their names and
addresses) and to a sample of 4,500 employers from all SOCRATES-eligible
countries. Altogether, 312 responses were received, i.e. 6 percent of those
contacted.
A draft analysis of the first two surveys was presented to a seminar of experts. The
seminar provided an opportunity to explain the findings more thoroughly. Moreover, it
helped to specify the objectives of the second phase of the evaluation study and to select
the fields of study addressed in the second phase.
The second phase of the evaluation study aimed to gather in-depth information on the
professional value of mobility in select fields of study. According to the experts’ advice,
four fields of study (rather than two initially envisaged) were selected: Chemistry as an
academically oriented field and Mechanical Engineering as a professionally oriented
field in science and technology and similarly Sociology and Business studies in the area
of humanities and social sciences. Representatives of these fields and related
professional areas (students, teachers, employers and representatives of their
organisations, thereby notably persons involved in curriculum development) were
invited to one-day intensive seminars (instead of interviews initially envisaged). The in-
depth communication during the seminars helped to reveal the “tacit knowledge” of the
participants and to discuss both major findings of the surveys as well as possible
directions of improvement of ERASMUS student mobility.
Altogether, stronger and more time-consuming efforts were needed to win the
cooperation of the institutions of higher education and of the various groups of
respondents than in similar previous studies. The European Commission accepted for

xii
 Executive Summary

that reason an extension of the project to about twice the period initially envisaged.
Moreover, the research team – well experienced in studies on international mobility and
responsible for ERASMUS evaluations between the start of the programme and the late
1990s - contributed to the survival of the study with substantial additional resources not
paid by the Commission. This saved the project as such, but the response rates remained
lower than expected and lower than in previous surveys. There are reasons to assume
that response was not only affected by an evaluation fatigue within ERASMUS. The
more evaluation in higher education is accepted as highly important, the more –
ironically – the quality of systematic evaluations seem to suffer, because all persons
involved become overburdened as a consequence of frequent calls to provide
information or to support evaluation studies administratively. Though one would have
liked higher response rates, the evaluation study certainly could provide interesting
information on the professional impact of ERASMUS supported mobility and on the
views of the formerly mobile persons and various actors and experts regarding possible
improvements in the future.

Transition from Study to Employment

Temporary student mobility stimulates former ERASMUS students to be interested in
advanced education. Two out of five of the 2000/01 students – about as many as in
previous ERASMUS generations, but about twice as many as European students in
general – transferred to advanced study, most of them immediately after graduation and
a few somewhat later.
The former ERASMUS students addressed started slightly later than previous
generations to seek for employment, but the average search period - less than 4 months
- was shorter than that of previous generations of ERASMUS students surveyed. 54
percent of former ERASMUS students recently surveyed believe that the period abroad
was helpful in obtaining the first job. But this advantage declined; the respective figures
were 71 percent among the 1988/89 ERASMUS students and 66 percent of those
graduating in 1994/95 (see Figure 1).

xiii
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 1 Perceived Positive Impact of ERASMUS Study Period on

Obtaining the First Job - a Comparison with Previous
Surveys (percent)
100

80
71
Percent of students/graduates

66

60 54

40

20

0
ERASMUS students ERASMUS graduates ERASMUS students
1988/89 1994/95 2000/01
(surveyed 1993) (surveyed 2000) (surveyed 2005)
Type of survey

Question H1: What impact do you feel that your study abroad experience has had with regard to your employment?
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

During their first years of employment – at the time of the survey, the respondents were
employed less than three years on average – more than half of the former ERASMUS
students have changed their employer. According to a previous survey, this early
change is more common than among formerly non-mobile persons.
Both, former students and employers surveyed suggest that strong emphasis is placed
both on academic achievement and personality in recruitment. In comparison to
previous surveys, notably computer skills and foreign language proficiency have
become more important recently. Also international experience gained momentum
among the recruitment criteria, actually reported as important by about half of the
former students and one third of the employers.

Graduate Career and Work

Six percent of former 2000/01 ERASMUS students report five years after studying in
another European country that they were unemployed. This rate was higher than among
those formerly mobile twelve years earlier, when 4 percent were unemployed about five
years after the study period abroad. Similarly, the proportion those employed
temporarily increased from 27 percent within these 12 years to 35 percent. In contrast,
the proportion of those employed part-time remained stable at 10 percent.
72 percent of the 2000/01 ERASMUS students employed five years later believe that
the level of position and income is appropriate to their level of educational attainment.

xiv
 Executive Summary

In previous surveys, similar responses were given, whereby formerly mobile students
observed an appropriate employment more frequently than graduates who had not been
mobile during the course of study (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Links Between Study and Subsequent Employment and

Work Perceived by Employed Former ERASMUS Students -
a Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent)

High use of knowledge Appropriate level High satisfaction with current work
100

80 76 74
72 72
Percent of students/graduates

67 67 67
63 61
60 52
44 47
40

20

0
ERASMUS students Graduates Non-mobile Graduates ERASMUS students
1988/89 1994/95 1994/95 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Type of survey

The figure aggregates the responses to three questions; Question G2: If you take into consideration your current work
tasks altogether: To what extent do you use the knowledge and skills acquired in the course of study? Question G3:
How would you characterise the relationship between your field of study and your area of work? Question G5:
Altogether, to what extent are you satisfied with your current work?
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

Only 16 percent of the recently surveyed former ERASMUS students consider their
income to be higher than that of their peers not having spent any study period abroad.
This is clearly lower than in previous generations (see Figure 3): There is even a higher
proportion of those who consider their income lower than that of their mobile peers.
Employers surveyed in 2006 express a more positive view. According to more than 40
percent of them, internationally experienced graduates are likely to take over
professional assignments with high professional responsibility. 21 percent believe that
internationally experienced graduates can expect a higher income after some years than
those without international experience. Among the experts surveyed at the beginning of
the evaluation study, even about one third each believe that the former ERASMUS
students can expect a higher status, higher earnings as well as a better chance of
reaching a position appropriate to their level of education.

xv
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 3 Perceived Positive Impact of ERASMUS Study Period on

Type of Work and Income - a Comparison with Previous
Surveys (percent)

100

Type of work task involved Income level

Percent of students/graduates

80

60
49
44
39
40
25
22
20 16

0
ERASMUS students Graduates ERASMUS students
1988/89 1994/95 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Type of survey
Question H1: What impact do you feel that your study abroad experience has had with regard to your employment?
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

The university leaders rate the former ERASMUS students’ career opportunities most
favourably, and most of them expect that their career advantage will increase in the
future. Four fifth believe that a study abroad often increases the chance of getting a
reasonable job. More than half expect that ERASMUS students more often than non-
mobile students get a position appropriate to their level of educational attainment, and
one quarter that ERASMUS has a more positive impact on the employability of
graduates than any other type of study abroad.

Competences and Work of Former ERASMUS Students

Retrospectively, the former ERASMUS students rate their competences at the time of
graduation as high in many respects: academic knowledge, foreign languages and
various dimensions work attitudes and work styles. The ratings are higher in many
respects than among former ERASMUS student generations. We do not know whether
there was a general improvement of the impact of study in general or that of
international experience. One should bear in mind, though, that the most recent surveys
include a substantial number of Central and Eastern European countries where former
ERASMUS students perceive clearly a higher professional value of ERASMUS.
By and large, the employers rate the competences of internationally experienced
graduates as favourably as the former ERASMUS students their own competences.

xvi
 Executive Summary

Altogether, employers believe that internationally experienced young graduates have

clearly higher competences than those without international experience. International
experience notably seems to reinforce adaptability, initiative, the ability to plan and
assertiveness.
The experts surveyed initially even have a substantially more positive view of the
ERASMUS students. 73 percent consider the academic knowledge of ERASMUS
students upon return from the study period abroad to be better than that of non-mobile
students, and 82 percent view them as better prepared for future employment and work.
They also note higher socio-communicative competences as well as better ways of
problem-solving and leadership.
61 percent of the recently surveyed former ERASMUS students who are employed five
years later state that they can use the knowledge acquired during the course of study on
the job to a high extent (see Figure 2). This is slightly lower than among there
predecessors 12 years earlier. 39 percent of those recently surveyed note positive
influence on the type of work tasks involved. This again is a decline as compared to 49
percent and 44 percent in the previous two surveys.
About three quarters of former ERASMUS students express a high degree of
satisfaction with their employment and work situation (see Figure 2). They state most
often that they have largely independent work tasks, can use their competences, have
challenging work tasks and have opportunities for continuing learning. The majority of
experts surveyed believe that former ERASMUS students have better opportunities than
non-mobile students to take over independent work tasks, and almost half of them
assume that they have more frequently challenging work tasks.

International Assignments of Former ERASMUS Students

All studies undertaken in the past on the professional value of temporary study in
another country have shown consistently that formerly mobile students differ most
clearly from formerly non-mobile ones in taking over international assignments. This
recent study confirms this conventional wisdom.
18 percent of the 2000/01 ERASMUS students employed five years later have been
regularly employed abroad – at least for some time - after graduation; this figure is more
or less equal to that of prior surveys. Available statistics suggest that this figure is
several times as high as among non-mobile graduates. Of those surveyed, half have
considered working abroad and almost one quarter have sought employment abroad;
these figures are clearly lower than those of previous cohorts of ERASMUS students
surveyed.
About half of the recent respondents employed note that their employing organisation
has an international scope, and even a higher proportion report substantial international
activities. Almost one third see their own work as being embedded into an international
context, and even more consider their international competences as important for their
current work: About two-thirds view communicating in foreign languages and working
with people from different backgrounds as professionally important, more than half of
the formerly mobile students assess their knowledge and understanding of international
differences in cultures and societies, and almost half their knowledge of other countries

xvii
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

as important for their job tasks. These proportions mostly are somewhat higher than in
previous years.
Actually asked how much they use their international competences, a substantially
smaller proportion respond affirmatively. Only somewhat more than one third often
communicate in foreign languages, about one quarter frequently use firsthand
knowledge of other countries and cultures, and only one of seven frequently travels to
other countries. Figure 4 shows that former ERASMUS students recently surveyed
report less often visible international work tasks than the predecessor generations. Yet,
data allow us to estimate that former ERASMUS students are clearly more frequently
active in international work tasks than formerly non-mobile students.

Figure 4 ERASMUS-Related Work Task of Employed Former

ERASMUS Students – a Comparison with Previous Surveys
(percent)
Using the language of the host country orally
Using the language of the host country in reading and writing
Using firsthand professional knowledge of host country
Using first hand knowledge of host country culture/society
Professional travel to host country
80
Percent of students/graduates

60
47 47
42 40
38 38
40
30 30 32
25 25 24
17 18
20 14

0
ERASMUS students Graduates ERASMUS students
1988/89 1994/95 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Type of survey

Question F6: To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the following? Scale of answers from 1 = to
a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

The latter finding corresponds to the employers’ responses: Many of them note inter-
nationally experienced students taking over international tasks more frequently than
students without international experience. They specify this regarding international
tasks in general, use of foreign languages, international cooperation, using information
and travel abroad. Also most of the experts surveyed are convinced that former
ERASMUS students take over such assignments substantially more often than formerly
non-mobile students.

xviii
 Executive Summary

Additional Findings about the Professional Value of Student Mobility

Competences, transition to employment, career and professional assignment of former
ERASMUS students cannot be attributed predominantly to the temporary study
experience in another European country. One has to bear in mind that a substantial
proportion of them were internationally mobile prior to their course, and also many of
them were mobile during the course of study beyond the ERASMUS-supported period.
Moreover, they are a select group of students in various respects. ERASMUS has a
mobilizing and reinforcing value, and often it has some value added as regards graduate
career and notably international mobility and international work assignments, but
certainly ERASMUS has not such a strong impact on the careers of graduates as their
more favourable careers and the stronger international components of their careers per
se might suggest.
The ERASMUS programme intends to serve students from all eligible countries to more
or less the same extent. But, certainly, some graduates benefit more strongly than
others. Most strikingly, former ERASMUS students from Central and Eastern European
countries report advantageous employment and work in general and international
assignments more frequently than their peers from Western Europe. They are a more
select group, but they also benefit more strongly from the study period abroad.
There are differences according to field of study as regards the professional value of
studying for some period in another European country, but altogether they are less
striking than one might expect. Among the four fields addressed in the in-depth second
phase of this evaluation study, the lowest impact on academic and field-specific
knowledge was reported in Chemistry, while the impact perceived was relatively strong
in Business Studies and Sociology.
Across all four fields, ERASMUS mobility was not viewed as a frequent access route to
high-flying careers but rather as a "door-opener" into the labour market. In the
professionally oriented fields - Business Studies and Mechanical Engineering - the
globalisation process and the international business activities seem to make
international competences necessary even for positions in national companies. In the
other fields - Sociology and Chemistry – international competences were also viewed as
important for internationalising job roles of some graduates; more importantly, though,
international study experience was viewed as contributing to many “soft skills” in
demand also in jobs without any visible international components.

The Professional Value for Mobile Teachers

At first glance, the conditions for professional value of teaching abroad seem to be
completely different from that of study abroad. Persons already in the middle of their
career (47 years old on average) and mostly already internationally experienced spend a
short period of about two weeks on average in another country with the support of
ERASMUS. One could expect a substantially more modest impact than on the part of
mobile students.
Surprisingly, though, the formerly mobile teachers in the framework of ERASMUS note
a substantial value of temporary teaching abroad. It is seen as enhancing subsequent
academic work of the formerly mobile teachers. 58 percent of the respondents note a

xix
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

positive impact on their own professional development in general. Actually, 65 percent

report a general improvement of their research contacts, 60 percent broadened their
academic knowledge while teaching abroad, 53 percent got involved in innovative
academic discussions originating from the country or the institution of their temporary
stay, 45 percent improved their teaching in general, and 40 percent developed and
implemented new teaching methods. According to many experts surveyed, teaching
abroad contributes positively to the teachers’ general academic knowledge and formerly
mobile teachers are academically superior on average to those not mobile for teaching
purposes.
The experts surveyed at the beginning of this study have perceived a slightly stronger
spread of subsequent innovation in teaching than improvement of research and general
academic activities. The mobile teachers, in contrast, more often report a substantial
impact on their subsequent research activities or their academic knowledge in general
than on teaching.
In addition, temporary teaching abroad is viewed by the mobile teachers as reinforcing
international dimensions of their career. Subsequently, they have spent on average
altogether almost one month abroad annually – mostly to attend conferences, but often
as well to undertake research activities or to teach. Half of them believe that the
teaching period has enhanced their international scientific cooperation activities, while
one third each see invitations from abroad and cooperation in research project
increasing as a consequence of their ERASMUS teaching period abroad. The experts
surveyed present an even more favourable view. More than three quarters each believe
that mobile teachers are superior to non-mobile ones after the teaching period abroad in
their knowledge of higher education of the host country, intercultural understanding and
competences as well as foreign language proficiency.
Moreover, formerly mobile teachers are convinced that ERASMUS teaching mobility
has a positive impact on their institution of higher education. More than half of them
argue that teaching mobility has been helpful for improving advice provided to mobile
students and for providing knowledge on other countries. Almost half consider teaching
mobility beneficial to improve the coordination of study programmes between the
participating institutions, the range of foreign language teaching, the developments of
new study concepts and the growing relevance of comparative approaches (see Figure
5).
The university leaders surveyed note a very positive effect as well of teaching staff
mobility on their institution: More than three quarters consider teaching staff mobility
as contributing to the international reputation of the higher education institution. More
than half observe a positive effect on international research activities and half of them
each on various dimensions of teaching and learning.
Further, it is worth noting that 9 percent of the formerly mobile teachers are
professionally active five years later in another country than that where they had taught
prior to the ERASMUS supported period – in many cases in the country of their
temporary teaching period abroad. This is certainly a higher degree of mid-career
international mobility than one could have anticipated. Even more than two-thirds of the
experts addressed believe that teaching abroad increases the opportunity for

xx
 Executive Summary

international academic mobility. Certainly, however, one cannot expect that a similar
proportion of academics actually will be mobile.

Figure 5 Select Strong Impact of ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility

on the Home Institution in the View of Former Mobile
Teachers by and European Region (percent)

Integration of language 42
courses into the curriculum 25 Central
and
Development of 55
Eastern
new teaching methods 26 Europe
Impacts at home institution

Addressing disciplinary/theoretical discussions 43

originating from partner country/from abroad 37 Western
Europe
Use of publications 64
in a foreign language 33

Development of new concepts 64

and contents for study programmes 35

Provision of courses 64
in a foreign language 39

Providing knowledge 57
on other countries, Europe etc. 58

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of teachers

Question E6: In general, how would you rate the impact of ERASMUS teaching staff mobility on your home insti-
tution regarding the following aspects? 5-point scale from 1 = 'To a very high extent' to 5 = 'Not at all'
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey 2005.

Finally, the immediate career value of teaching abroad for status and income looks more
modest at first glance: 3 percent observe a raise of income, 6 percent an extension of a
temporary contract, and 12 percent the move towards a high-ranking administrative
position as a consequence of teaching abroad. One has to bear in mind, though, that the
overall number of teachers climbing a higher position subsequent to the teaching period
abroad has been low. On the other hand, more than one third state that teaching abroad
enhanced their career perspectives. Obviously, teaching abroad often is instrumental for
small career steps and nourishes the hope of long-term career enhancement. The
university leaders as well name moderate career enhancements, while almost half of the
experts initially surveyed expect the mobile teachers to be promoted to a higher rank at
the same institution.
Altogether, as already noted, the professional value of teaching abroad seems to be
substantially higher for academics from Central and Eastern European countries than for
academics from Western European countries. This difference is far more striking for
teachers than for students. For example, 10 percent of teachers from the former, but
only one percent from the latter countries note a raise of income level, 30 percent of the
former as compared to 7 percent of the latter perceive a contribution of teaching abroad

xxi
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

to getting a higher rank, and 81 percent as compared to 53 percent report a positive

impact on the overall professional development.

The Overall Value and Recommendations

Overall, the surveys conducted in the framework of the VALERA study elicited five
major findings.
• The triangulation of views shows that experts, university leaders and employers
note a higher professional value of temporary ERASMUS-supported study in
another European country than the former ERASMUS students themselves. We
cannot establish clearly whether the former overestimate or the latter
underestimate the impact of student mobility.
• The evaluation study confirmed the finding of previous surveys that former
ERASMUS students view the study period abroad as leading to international
mobility, international competences and visibly international work tasks while
hardly promising career enhancement as compared to formerly non-mobile
students. However, other actors and observers surveyed more often believe that
ERASMUS contributes as well to general career enhancement.
• A comparison of the responses of the survey of 2000/01 ERASMUS students
five years later to those of previous cohorts of ERASMUS students suggests that
an advantageous employment and work situation and a visibly more
international role of former ERASMUS students as compared to formerly non-
mobile students declines over time in many respects. The more international
components of employment and work become common and the more students
acquire international competences, the less pronounced is the professional value
of ERASMUS.
• The professional value of ERASMUS for former students – as well as for former
teachers - from Central and Eastern countries obviously is substantially higher
than for those from Western European countries. In contrast to this difference by
groups of countries, the differences by fields appear to be modest.
• Though mobile teachers tend to be already internationally experienced, are
mature persons often well established in their career and spend only a short
teaching period abroad, the formerly mobile teachers report a strikingly strong
professional value of the ERASMUS-supported teaching mobility period. The
majority of them observe enhancement in international research cooperation and
in their general academic competences, while a slightly lower proportion report
a substantial value for subsequent teaching activities. Some of the mobile
teachers note visible career advantages and some opt subsequently for an
academic career in another country, not infrequently that of their ERASMUS-
supported teaching period.
Overall, the findings of the VALERA evaluation study underscore the relevance of the
ERASMUS support scheme. As previous studies have also shown, a temporary period
of study in another European country helps to enhance international competences,
contributes to international mobility of graduates and places former ERASMUS
students in visibly international professional positions. This study shows in addition that

xxii
 Executive Summary

the employers consider the internationally experienced graduates superior to other

graduates as far as many other competences are concerned, and many of them believe
that formerly mobile students will be more successful in their long-term career. Finally,
the relevance of ERASMUS is strongly underscored in the study by the high
professional value reported by mobile teachers, and university leaders believe that this
contributes significantly both to the internationalisation as well as to the reputation of
the institution in general. These findings suggest that ERASMUS serves a demand on
the part of the employment system and that institutions of higher education are aware of
societal expectations.
The evaluation study confirms the finding of previous studies that ERASMUS is
effective in terms of serving high numbers of persons with the help of small funds for
the individual persons supported. Obviously, however, many experts and actors believe
that the quality could be improved, if more funds were provided notably for teachers to
teach longer periods in the host country and for curricular activities linked to student
mobility.
As far as the impact of ERASMUS is concerned, prior studies already had shown that
the “vertical” professional value of temporary study in another European country is
limited, but the “horizontal” professional value is impressive. Former ERASMUS
students hardly can count on higher status and income than their non-mobile peers, but
access to employment in facilitated, and they are more often internationally mobile and
take over visibly international work assignment. Only for former ERASMUS students
from Central and Eastern European countries a general career enhancement is the rule.
But the recent surveys as well suggest that experts and employers appreciate not only
those competences enhanced abroad which serve international job roles, but also note
above-average strengths of former ERASMUS students in various areas of academic
knowledge, general intellectual competences, work-related values and socio-
communicative skills. There is no evidence that ERASMUS has stronger impacts in
those direction than temporary study abroad by other means, but ERASMUS succeeds
in mobilize broad numbers of students which benefits from the experience abroad in the
ways named above.
With respect to teaching staff mobility, this evaluation study revealed an impressively
high impact. Many of the teachers mobile for a short period of time noted an
enhancement of international cooperation and research and various educational
activities. University leaders and other experts stated that mobile teachers often become
more active, more intellectually thriving and also in some cases more visibly successful
in their careers.
As regards durability, most of the actors and experts addressed in the study seem to
believe that ERASMUS can play an important role in the future, if the basic
characteristics of the support programme will persist. ERASMUS has so many benefits
that almost all of those concerned plea for continuation.
Therefore one set of recommendations named call for improvements with the given
logics of the established practices: more intensive preparation, more academic,
administrative and financial support for the students while abroad, better means of
assessment and recognition, closer links between higher education and the employment
system, more money and less bureaucracy on the part of the European Commission and

xxiii
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

- last but not least – stronger efforts to make the benefits visible. As regards teacher
mobility, suggestions are made to increase efforts to make longer period of teaching
abroad viable and take temporary teaching in another country more strongly into
account in decisions affecting career enhancement, such as appointment and promotion
decisions.
But there are findings as well which call into question the durability. The professional
value of temporary study in another country clearly has declined over the years.
According to the most recent survey, the impact of ERASMUS is smaller than
according to surveys of previous generations for graduates in obtaining a first job,
getting a higher income and taking over job tasks for which visible international
competences are needed. This is most likely caused by a growing internationalisation in
general that lead to a gradual decline of the uniqueness of the ERASMUS experience.
The authors of this evaluation study conclude that the ERASMUS programme will have
better chances in the future if it becomes again more ambitious as far as the quality of
the experience abroad is concerned. There were good reasons in the past why
ERASMUS gradually shifted from student mobility closely linked to curriculum
development towards an administratively smooth programme for large numbers of
students. But now the value of the experience abroad as such is declining in the wake of
the general internationalisation of the environment. Moreover, the experts addressed for
select fields of study indicate ample opportunities of strengthening the value of
temporary study abroad through a more targeted timing in the course of study and more
targeted curricular thrusts. Thus, the time seems to be ripe for another major approach
of ERASMUS student mobility, where more ambitious curricular aims will be
intertwined with the financial support for mobile students.

xxiv
Executive Summary (Français)
Objectif et structure de l’étude
Le projet VALERA est intitulé « Valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS –
Évaluation externe de l’impact de la mobilité ERASMUS sur l’accès à l’emploi et le
déroulement de la carrière des étudiants ainsi que sur le déroulement de la carrière des
personnels enseignants ». Il analyse l’impact de la mobilité intervenue dans le cadre du
sous-programme ERASMUS de SOCRATES sur la carrière des étudiants et des
enseignants mobiles. Il repose sur des enquêtes représentatives auprès d’anciens
étudiants et enseignants mobiles ERASMUS. Des enquêtes auprès de dirigeants
d’université sur le rôle de la mobilité des étudiants et des enseignants au sein de leurs
institutions, et auprès d’employeurs sur leurs expériences avec d’anciens étudiants
mobiles complètent le tout. En outre, de nombreux acteurs et experts ont été interrogés
sur leurs perceptions de l’impact de la mobilité ERASMUS dans le cadre d’une enquête
d’experts et de discussions au cours d’ateliers généraux et d’experts.
Chaque enquête concerne plusieurs dimensions de la valeur professionnelle. Le
« succès » professionnel de la mobilité étudiante a été analysé sous les aspects suivants :
• Compétences générales et internationales,
• Transition vers le monde du travail,
• Premier emploi et emplois ultérieurs,
• Aspects internationaux de l’emploi et du travail.
De façon similaire, l’impact professionnel de la mobilité des personnels enseignants fut
mesuré dans cinq domaines :
• Compétences générales et internationales,
• Transition vers le monde du travail,
• Activités liées à ERASMUS dans l’institution d’enseignement supérieur
d’origine,
• Mobilité professionnelle verticale et horizontale,
• Mobilité professionnelle internationale.
L’évaluation avait un triple objectif : la mesure de l’impact en terme de valeur
professionnelle de la mobilité des étudiants et des enseignants, l’identification des
éléments menant aux résultats souhaités et l’analyse des résultats globaux en terme
d’importance, d’efficacité et de durabilité du sous-programme ERASMUS dans le
secteur de l’enseignement supérieur.

Méthodes d’enquête
L’étude d’évaluation comprend deux phases majeures. La première phase a été conçue
en deux étapes. Une première étape d’analyse des résultats d’études précédentes et

xxv
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

d’enquête auprès d’experts. Un questionnaire « expert » a été adressé aux responsables

du programme ERASMUS, aux responsables des institutions d’enseignement supérieur,
aux organisations étudiantes, aux personnels enseignants et administratifs, ainsi qu’aux
organisations patronales. Parmi les 156 experts contactés, 67 ont rempli le
questionnaire, ce qui correspond à un taux de réponse de 43 %. Le premier rapport de
notre étude, le « rapport cadre », reprend les résultats de cette étape et a servi à définir
les questions clés de la seconde étape.
Une seconde étape en quatre enquêtes clés :
1. Une enquête auprès d’anciens étudiants ERASMUS (année universitaire
2000/2001). Ces derniers, sélectionnées par pays et par type d’institutions
d’enseignement supérieur, ont été contactés par leurs institutions
d’enseignement supérieur d’origine. 4.589 anciens étudiants ERASMUS ont
répondu au questionnaire papier, très standardisé, soit un taux de réponse de
45 %,
2. Une enquête auprès d’anciens personnels enseignants ERASMUS. Tous les
enseignants mobiles de l’année académique 2000/2001, d’un échantillon
d’institutions d’enseignement supérieur, ont été contactés par leurs coordina-
teurs ERASMUS et ont été priés de remplir le questionnaire en-ligne. 755 pro-
fesseurs (de 3.123) ont répondu, soit un taux de réponse de 24 %,
3. Une enquête auprès de responsables d’institutions d’enseignement supérieur.
Les coordinateurs ERASMUS ont transmis un questionnaire papier aux res-
ponsables qui avaient signalé, lors d’un contact préliminaire, leur volonté de
participer à l’étude. 626 dirigeants ont répondu, soit 44 % des 1.437 personnes
contactées.
4. Une enquête auprès d’employeurs. Un questionnaire papier a été adressé à
1.500 personnes, employant d’anciens étudiants ERASMUS sur leurs lieux de
travail (les adresses ont été compilées à partir des informations fournies par les
anciens étudiants ERASMUS), ainsi qu’à un échantillon de 4.500 entreprises
des pays éligibles pour le programme ERASMUS. Au total, 312 réponses nous
sont parvenues, soit 6 % des personnes contactées.
La première phase de l’étude s’est achevée par la présentation de résultats d’analyse
préliminaires lors d’un atelier d’experts. Cet atelier a servi à formuler des hypothèses
sur les résultats obtenus, à préciser les objectifs ainsi qu’à sélectionner les filières pour
la seconde phase de l’étude d’évaluation.
La seconde phase de l’étude a été consacrée à la valeur professionnelle de la mobilité
dans certaines filières. En accord avec les experts consultés, quatre filières ont été
choisies, au lieu de deux prévues à l’origine, à savoir : deux filières à orientation
académique (la chimie et la sociologie) et deux filières à orientation professionnelle
(l’ingénierie mécanique et les études de commerce), couvrant ainsi d’une part le
domaine des sciences et technologies, et d’autre part celui des sciences humaines et
sociales. Des représentants de ces filières et des domaines professionnels
correspondants (étudiants, personnels enseignants, employeurs, représentants
d’organisations professionnelles, en particulier personnes impliquées dans la conception
des programmes) furent invités à des ateliers intensifs d’une journée (ces derniers
remplaçant les interviews prévus à l’origine). Ces échanges approfondis ont servi à

xxvi
 Executive Summary (Français)

mettre à jour le « savoir tacite » des participants, à approfondir les principaux résultats
ainsi qu’à développer des suggestions pour l’amélioration de la mobilité étudiante
ERASMUS.
Dans l’ensemble, faire coopérer les établissements d’enseignement supérieur et les
différents groupes de personnes interrogés nous a demandé plus de temps et d’efforts
que lors d’études similaires précédentes. C’est la raison pour laquelle la Commission
Européenne a accepté une prolongation du projet, doublant presque la période envisagée
à l’origine. Il a été également nécessaire que l’équipe de recherche – très expérimentée
dans le domaine des études sur la mobilité internationale et responsable des évaluations
ERASMUS entre le début du programme jusque dans les années 1990– s’engage en
termes de ressources au-delà des subventions de la Commission. Cela a sauvé
l’existence du projet. Cependant les taux de réponse sont restés plus faibles que prévus
et en deçà des résultats d’enquêtes précédentes. Nous avons de bonnes raisons de penser
que les problèmes survenus au cours de cette étude ne sont pas uniquement dûs à un ras-
le-bol face aux évaluations ERASMUS. Il semble que plus on reconnaît l’importance
des évaluations dans l’enseignement supérieur, plus la qualité des évaluations
systématiques semble – ironiquement – souffrir. En effet les activités d’évaluation se
multiplient, à un point tel que toutes les personnes impliquées sont surchargées de
sollicitations visant à leur demander des informations ou un soutien administratif pour
telles ou telles études d’évaluation. Nous aurions aimé atteindre des taux de réponse
plus élevés, l’étude d’évaluation fournit, cependant, de précieuses informations sur
l’impact professionnel de la mobilité ERASMUS et présente des suggestions pour
l’amélioration de la mobilité étudiante ERASMUS à partir des réflexions de personnes
ayant été mobiles, de divers experts et d’acteurs consultés.

Transition des études vers l’emploi

La mobilité étudiante temporaire incite les anciens étudiants ERASMUS à poursuivre
leurs études supérieures. Cela concerne deux anciens étudiants ERASMUS sur cinq
(2000/2001), presque autant que dans les générations ERASMUS précédentes mais
deux fois plus que les étudiants européens en général. La plupart des étudiants ont
poursuivi leurs études immédiatement après leur diplôme et quelques-uns peu de temps
après.
Les anciens étudiants ERASMUS ont commencé un peu plus tard à chercher un emploi
que les générations précédentes mais la durée moyenne de leur recherche (moins de 4
mois) est inférieure à celle des générations précédentes d’étudiants ERASMUS
interrogées. 54 % des anciens étudiants ERASMUS sont d’avis que leur séjour à
l’étranger les a aidés à obtenir leur premier emploi. Cependant, cet avantage semble
perdre de l’importance : ce taux atteignait 71 % pour les étudiants ERASMUS de
1988/89 et 66 % parmi les diplômés en 1994/1995 (cf. figure 1).

xxvii
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

Figure 1 Influence positive d’un séjour d’études ERASMUS sur

l’obtention de premier emploi – Le point de vue d’anciens
étudiants en comparaison des résultats d’enquêtes
précédentes (en pourcentage)
100

80
71
66

60 54
Pourcentage

40

20

0
Étudiants Diplômés Étudiants
ERASMUS 1988/89 1994/95 ERASMUS 2000/2001
enquête 1993 enquête 2000 enquête 2005

Question H1: A votre avis, quel a été l’impact de votre séjour d’études à l’étranger sur votre emploi?
Source: Maiworm et Teichler 1996; Jahr et Teichler 2002; Université de Kassel, VALERA Enquête sur les Anciens
Étudiants ERASMUS 2005.

Au cours de leurs premières années d’activités professionnelles – les sondés étaient

employés depuis moins de trois ans en moyenne au moment de l’enquête – plus de la
moitié des anciens étudiants ERASMUS avaient changé d’employeur. Selon une
enquête précédente, le changement précoce d’employeur est plus répandu parmi les
anciens étudiants ERASMUS que parmi les personnes n’ayant pas été mobiles
auparavant.
Les anciens étudiants ainsi que les employeurs interrogés ont souligné que l’importance
des résultats académiques et de la personnalité lors du recrutement. La comparaison
avec les études précédentes révèle, également, l’importance actuellement grandissante
des connaissances informatiques et de la maîtrise de langues étrangères. Environ un
ancien étudiant sur deux et un employeur sur trois mentionnent l’expérience
internationale comme un critère important lors du recrutement.

Carrière et statut des diplômés

Cinq ans après leurs études dans un autre pays européen, 6 % des anciens étudiants
ERASMUS 2000/01 ont déclaré être au chômage : Un taux supérieur à celui des
étudiants mobiles il y a 12 ans (4 % de cette population était au chômage cinq ans après
leur période d’études à l’étranger). De même, le pourcentage de personnes ayant un

xxviii
 Executive Summary (Français)

emploi temporaire est passé de 27 % à 35 % au cours de ces 12 ans. Par contre la

proportion des anciens étudiants ERASMUS employés à mi-temps est restée stable de
l’ordre de 10 %.
72 % des étudiants ERASMUS 2000/01 employés cinq ans après leur période de
mobilité pensent que le niveau de leur position et de leur revenu est adapté à leur niveau
d’études. Ceci correspond aux résultats obtenus lors d’enquêtes précédentes, cependant,
les anciens étudiants mobiles font plus souvent ce constat que les diplômés n’ayant pas
été mobiles pendant leurs études (cf. figure 2).

Figure 2 Relations entre les études et l’emploi voire le travail

ultérieur – Le point de vue d’anciens étudiants ERASMUS
ayant un emploi en comparaison des résultats d’enquêtes
précédentes (en pourcentage)

Utilisation conséquente des connaissances acquises

Niveau convenable
Tout à fait satisfait avec emploi actuel
100

80 76 74
72 72
67 67 67
63 61
60 52
Pourcentage

44 47

40

20

0
Étudiants Diplômés Diplômés Étudiants
ERASMUS 1988/89 ERASMUS non-mobiles ERASMUS 2000/2001
enquête 1993 1994/95 1994/95 enquête 2005
enquête 2000 enquête 2000

Le figure rassemble les questions en trois question; Question G2: Si vous prenez en compte votre actuel emploi,
veuillez estimer dans quelle mesure vous utilisez les connaissances et les compétences acquises au cours de vos
études? Question G3: Selon vous, dans quelle mesure votre filière d’études est-elle liée à votre fonction? Question
G5: Dans l’ensemble, quel est le niveau de satisfaction que vous apporte votre emploi actuel?
Source: Maiworm et Teichler 1996; Jahr et Teichler 2002; Université de Kassel, VALERA Enquête sur les Anciens
Étudiants ERASMUS 2005.

Seulement 16 % des anciens étudiants ERASMUS, récemment interrogés, considèrent

que leurs revenus sont supérieurs à ceux de leurs pairs n’ayant pas étudié à l’étranger.
Cette proportion est nettement inférieure à celle des générations précédentes (cf. figure
3). Les employeurs interrogés font part d’une vision plus positive : pour 40 % d’entre
eux, les diplômés ayant eu une expérience internationale sont susceptibles d’assumer
des tâches professionnelles à haute responsabilité. 21 % considèrent qu’après quelques
années, les diplômés avec une expérience internationale peuvent s’attendre à recevoir un
revenu plus élevé que les diplômés sans expérience internationale. Environ un tiers des

xxix
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

experts interrogés au début de cette étude sont d’avis que les anciens étudiants
ERASMUS peuvent s’attendre à obtenir un statut et des revenus plus élevés ainsi qu’à
atteindre une position adaptée à leur niveau d’études.

Figure 3 Influence positive d’un séjour d’études ERASMUS sur

l’emploi et le travail – Le point de vue d’anciens étudiants
en comparaison des résultats d’enquêtes précédentes (en
pourcentage)

100
Type de tâches concernées Niveau de revenu
80
Pourcentage

60
49
44
39
40
25
22
20 16

0
Étudiants Diplômés Étudiants
ERASMUS 1988/89 1994/95 ERASMUS 2000/2001
enquête 1993 enquête 2000 enquête 2005

Question H1: A votre avis, quel a été l’impact de votre séjour d’études à l’étranger sur votre emploi?
Source: Maiworm et Teichler 1996; Jahr et Teichler 2002; Université de Kassel, VALERA Enquête sur les Anciens
Étudiants ERASMUS 2005.

Les dirigeants d’université sont convaincus que les anciens étudiants ERASMUS
bénéficient de meilleures opportunités de carrière, et que cet avantage ira en
s’accroissant à l’avenir. Quatre dirigeants sur cinq affirment que les études à l’étranger
accroissent souvent les chances d’obtenir un bon travail. Plus de la moitié déclare que
les étudiants ERASMUS ont plus de chances que les étudiants non mobiles d’obtenir
une position adaptée à leur niveau d’études. En outre, un quart est d’avis qu’ERASMUS
a un impact plus positif sur les chances d’emploi des diplômés que n’importe quel autre
type d’études à l’étranger.

Compétences et activités professionnelles des anciens étudiants

ERASMUS
Rétrospectivement, les anciens étudiants ERASMUS se considèrent comme hautement
compétents au moment de leur remise de diplôme au regard de leurs connaissances
académiques, des langues étrangères et des divers comportements et styles de travail.
Ces taux sont plus élevés que lors des études précédentes. Nous ignorons s’il s’agit

xxx
 Executive Summary (Français)

d’une amélioration générale de l’impact des études ou de l’impact de l’expérience

internationale. Néanmoins, un facteur est évident : les enquêtes les plus récentes
comprennent un nombre important de pays d’Europe Centrale et d’Europe de l’Est où
les anciens étudiants ERASMUS attribuent une valeur professionnelle très importante à
ERASMUS.
Tout compte fait, les employeurs considèrent les compétences des diplômés ayant une
expérience internationale aussi favorablement que les anciens étudiants ERASMUS
eux-mêmes. Ils sont d’avis que ces derniers disposent de compétences plus développées
que les diplômés sans expérience internationale. L’expérience internationale semble
renforcer la capacité d’adaptation, l’esprit d’initiative, la capacité de planifier et
l’assurance.
Les experts interrogés au début de cette étude ont une opinion bien plus positive des
étudiants ERASMUS. 73 % d’entre eux considèrent que les connaissances académiques
des étudiants ERASMUS à leur retour de séjour d’études à l’étranger sont meilleures
que celles des étudiants non mobiles et 82 % considèrent qu’ils sont mieux préparés
pour leur futur emploi et travail. Ils soulignent l’effet de la mobilité sur les compétences
socio - communicatives, la capacité à résoudre des problèmes et leur leadership.
61 % des étudiants ERASMUS 2000/2001 en poste cinq ans plus tard déclarent qu’ils
peuvent largement utiliser, pendant leur travail, les connaissances acquises durant leurs
études. Ces résultats sont légèrement inférieurs à ceux des générations précédentes, 12
ans auparavant. 39 % des étudiants ERASMUS interrogés récemment ont déclaré que la
période ERASMUS a influencé positivement le type de tâches professionnelles. Ce
pourcentage est en baisse en comparaison des taux de 49 % et de 44 % enregistrés lors
des deux études précédentes (cf. figure 3).
Près de trois quarts des anciens étudiants ERASMUS se déclarent hautement satisfaits
de leur emploi et de leur travail. Interrogés sur les caractéristiques de leur situation
professionnelle, ils déclarent le plus souvent qu’ils jouissent d’une grande
indépendance, qu’ils peuvent utiliser leurs compétences, que leurs tâches sont
stimulantes et qu’ils ont des possibilités de formation continue. La majorité des experts
interrogés pensent que les anciens étudiants ERASMUS ont de meilleures chances
d’avoir des tâches professionnelles indépendantes que les étudiants non mobiles. Près
de la moitié pense qu’ils assument des tâches plus stimulantes.

Activités internationales des anciens étudiants ERASMUS

Toutes les études menées dans le passé sur la valeur professionnelle des études
temporaires dans un autre pays montrent avec régularité que les étudiants anciennement
mobiles se distinguent le plus nettement des étudiants non mobiles en ce qu’ils
assument des activités internationales. Cette étude récente confirme ce qui peut déjà être
considéré comme un acquis.
18 % des étudiants ERASMUS de 2000/2001 en poste cinq ans plus tard ont
régulièrement travaillé à l’étranger – au moins pour un certain temps – après la fin de
leurs études. Ce pourcentage est plus ou moins identique dans les études précédentes.
Les statistiques disponibles montrent que ce taux est de largement supérieur à celui des
diplômés non mobiles. Parmi les étudiants interrogés, la moitié a pensé à travailler à

xxxi
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

l’étranger et presque un quart a cherché un emploi à l’étranger. Ces chiffres sont

nettement inférieurs à ceux des précédentes enquêtes d’étudiants ERASMUS.
Près de la moitié des étudiants interrogés récemment ayant un emploi constate que leur
organisme employeur a une envergure internationale et même un plus grand nombre
constate des activités internationales importantes. Près d’un tiers des diplômés eux-
mêmes considèrent que leur propre travail est intégré dans un contexte international. Un
plus grand nombre pense, même, que leurs compétences internationales sont
importantes pour effectuer leur travail actuel : Près de deux tiers considèrent que la
communication dans des langues étrangères et la collaboration avec des personnes aux
profils différents sont importantes pour leur travail. Pour plus de la moitié, leurs
connaissances et leur compréhension de différentes cultures et sociétés jouent un rôle
important; près de la moitié considère que leurs connaissances d’autres pays sont
importantes. Ces taux sont pour la plupart légèrement supérieurs à ceux des années
précédentes.
À la question visant la proportion de leurs compétences internationales utilisées, un petit
nombre déclare qu’ils utilisent fréquemment ces capacités. Seulement un peu plus d’un
tiers communique souvent dans une langue étrangère, près d’un quart utilise
fréquemment l’expérience personnelle d’autres pays et cultures et seulement un sur sept
voyage fréquemment dans d’autres pays. Le figure 4 illustre le fait que les étudiants
ERASMUS interrogés récemment mentionnent moins souvent que les générations
précédentes effectuer des tâches à l’international. Ces données nous permettent
cependant de constater que les anciens étudiants ERASMUS sont plus engagés dans des
activités internationales que les étudiants non-mobiles.

xxxii
 Executive Summary (Français)

Figure 4 Activités professionnelles liées à ERASMUS - Le point de

vue d’anciens étudiants ERASMUS ayant un emploi en
comparaison des résultats d’enquêtes précédentes (en
pourcentage)

Emploi de la langue du pays d’accueil ERASMUS dans des conversations professionnelles

Emploi de la langue du pays d’accueil ERASMUS pour la lecture et rédaction
Utilisation professionnelle de connaissances personnelles acquises sur le pays d’accueil
Utilisation de connaissances personnelles acquises sur la culture et la société du pays d’accueil
Missions professionnelles dans le pays d’accueil
80

60
47 47
42 40
Pourcentage

38 38
40
30 30 32
25 25 24
17 18
20 14

0
Étudiants Diplômés Étudiants
ERASMUS 1988/89 1994/95 ERASMUS 2000/2001
enquête 1993 enquête 2000 enquête 2005

Question F6: D’après les propositions suivantes, veuillez évaluer les responsabilités qu’implique votre emploi:
Graduation des réponses de 1 = a un niveau très élevé à 5 = pas du tout.
Source: Maiworm et Teichler 1996; Jahr et Teichler 2002; Université de Kassel, VALERA Enquête sur les Anciens
Étudiants ERASMUS 2005.

Ces données peuvent être complétées par les réponses des employeurs : Beaucoup
d’entre eux notent que les étudiants ayant une expérience internationale assument plus
souvent des tâches internationales que les étudiants sans expérience internationale. Ces
réponses se fondent sur les tâches internationales en général, l’usage des langues
étrangères, la coopération internationale, la mise à profit d’informations et des voyages
à l’étranger. La plupart des experts sont également convaincus que les anciens étudiants
ERASMUS assument plus souvent de telles tâches que les anciens étudiants non
mobiles.

Résultats complémentaires sur la valeur professionnelle des études à

l’étranger
Il faut garder à l’esprit que les compétences, la transition vers l’emploi, la carrière et les
tâches professionnelles des anciens étudiants ERASMUS ne peuvent pas être
principalement attribuées aux séjours d’études temporaires dans un autre pays européen.
Il faut également garder à l’esprit que nombre d’entre eux furent mobiles à
l’international avant leurs études, et nombre d’entre eux furent mobiles à l’international
au cours de leurs études hors de la période ERASMUS. Ils forment sous différents
aspects un groupe spécifique. ERASMUS a un effet mobilisant et renforçant, il

xxxiii
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

représente un certain atout en terme de carrière des diplômés, de mobilité et d’activités

professionnelles internationales. Cependant ERASMUS n’a assurément pas un impact si
important sur la carrière des diplômés que l’analyse des déroulements et les éléments
internationaux de carrière les plus positifs peuvent le suggérer.
Le dessein du programme ERASMUS est de servir les étudiants de tous les pays
éligibles dans une mesure plus ou moins égale. Mais il convient de noter des variations
entre les différents pays. Le résultat le plus frappant dans ce contexte est le fait que les
anciens étudiants ERASMUS des pays d’Europe Centrale et d’Europe de l’Est déclarent
avoir en général plus souvent des emplois et positions avantageux et des tâches
internationales, que leurs pairs d’Europe de l’Ouest. Les participants sont plus fortement
sélectionnés et ils profitent également plus fortement de leurs séjours d’études à
l’étranger.
Selon les filières, on note des différences quant à la valeur professionnelle des études
temporaires effectuées dans un autre pays européen. Elles sont cependant moins
marquées que ce à quoi on pourrait s’attendre. Sur les quatre filières concernées dans la
seconde phase de notre étude d’évaluation, l’impact le plus faible pour une filière à
orientation académique avec des connaissances spécifiques a été établi pour la chimie
alors que l’impact est perçu comme important pour la sociologie et les études de
commerce.
Dans les quatre filières analysées, la mobilité ERASMUS n’est pas considérée comme
le billet d’entrée normal pour une carrière de haute volée mais plutôt une clé qui ouvre
les portes du marché du travail. Dans les filières à orientation professionnelle – sciences
économiques et ingénierie mécanique – la mondialisation et les structures
internationales des entreprises semblent rendre les compétences internationales
indispensables, même pour des postes dans des entreprises nationales. Dans les deux
autres filières - la sociologie et la chimie – les compétences internationales sont
également considérées comme importantes pour internationaliser les activités
professionnelles de certains diplômés ; un élément nous semble encore plus important :
l’expérience acquise à l’international lors des études à l’étranger est considérée comme
contribuant fortement aux développements des «soft skills», hautement appréciés par les
employeurs, sans nécessairement avoir des composants internationaux visibles.

La valeur professionnelle pour les personnels enseignants mobiles

Au premier abord, les conditions de valorisation professionnelle d’un séjour
d’enseignement à l’étranger semblent différer totalement de celles d’un séjour d’études.
Des personnes, ayant déjà atteint le milieu de leurs carrières (âgées de 47 ans en
moyenne) et pour la plupart possédant déjà une expérience à l’international, passent une
courte période d’environ deux semaines dans un autre pays avec le soutien
d’ERASMUS. On pourrait s’attendre à un impact plus réduit de cette mobilité que celui
de la mobilité étudiante.
Il est, cependant, étonnant que les personnels enseignants ayant été mobiles dans le
cadre d’ERASMUS accordent une valeur importante à leur expérience d’enseignement
à l’étranger. Elle contribue pour eux à l’enrichissement du travail académique ultérieur
des personnels enseignants mobiles, au développement de leurs connaissances
académiques générales et ils considèrent également que les personnels enseignants
ayant été mobiles sont meilleurs, en ce qui concerne les objectifs pédagogiques, que

xxxiv
 Executive Summary (Français)

ceux qui ne l’ont pas été. 58 % des personnes interrogées notent un impact positif sur
leur propre évolution professionnelle en général. Plus précisément, 65 % déclarent une
amélioration générale de leurs contacts pour la recherche, 60 % ont élargi leurs
connaissances académiques en enseignant à l’étranger, 53 % ont été impliqués dans des
discussions académiques innovantes initiées par leur pays ou université de leur séjour
temporaire, 45 % ont amélioré leur enseignement suite à leur expérience à l’étranger, et
40 % ont développé et appliqué de nouvelles méthodes d’enseignement. De même, les
experts sondés au début de cette étude pensent qu’enseigner à l’étranger contribue à
leurs connaissances académiques générales. La plupart d’entre eux déclarent que les
anciens professeurs ERASMUS sont meilleurs, en ce qui concerne les compétences, que
ceux qui ne sont pas mobiles dans le but d’enseigner.
Les experts interrogés au début de l’étude ont perçu un impact légèrement plus fort en
terme d’innovations consécutives à la mobilité dans le domaine de l’enseignement par
rapport à celui sur la recherche ou les activités académiques en général. Les enseignants
mobiles, au contraire, témoignent plus souvent d’un impact important sur les activités
de recherche consécutives ou leurs savoirs académiques plutôt que sur leurs activités
d’enseignement.
De plus, les enseignants mobiles considèrent qu’enseigner à l’étranger renforce la
dimension internationale de leurs carrières. Après leur expérience de mobilité, ils ont
passé en moyenne presque un mois à l’étranger – pour la plupart pour participer à des
conférences, mais également souvent pour faire de la recherche ou enseigner. La moitié
d’entre eux considère que leur période d’enseignement à l’étranger a permis de
développer les activités de coopération scientifiques internationales, alors qu’un tiers
apprécie les invitations reçues de l’étranger et les coopérations dans des projets de
recherche comme une conséquence de leurs séjours d’enseignement à l’étranger. Les
experts interrogés partagent une opinion encore plus favorable. Plus de trois quarts
d’entre eux pensent que les enseignants mobiles sont meilleurs que les enseignants non
mobiles à la suite de leur séjour d’enseignement à l’étranger, tant pour leur
connaissance du système d’enseignement supérieur du pays d’accueil et pour leur
compréhension et leurs compétences interculturelles que pour leur maîtrise des langues
étrangères.
Les enseignants ayant été mobiles sont convaincus que la mobilité d’enseignement
d’ERASMUS a des impacts positifs sur leurs établissements d’enseignement supérieur.
Plus de la moitié déclarent que la mobilité d’enseignement a été utile pour améliorer les
conseils donnés aux étudiants mobiles et pour transmettre leurs connaissances des autres
pays. Près de la moitié des enseignants interrogés considère que la mobilité
d’enseignement aide à améliorer la coordination des programmes d’études entre les
établissements d’enseignement supérieur participants, à élargir l’éventail de langues
étrangères enseignées, à renforcer le développement de nouveaux concepts d’études et
l’importance croissante des approches comparatives (cf. figure 4).
Les responsables d’établissements d’enseignement supérieur interrogés ont également
noté un effet très positif de la mobilité des enseignants sur leurs établissements : Plus
des trois quarts pensent que la mobilité du personnel enseignant a contribué à la
réputation internationale de leurs établissements. Plus de la moitié observent un effet
positif sur les activités internationales de recherche et seulement la moitié mentionne
des effets positifs sur différentes dimensions de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage.

xxxv
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

Il est intéressant de noter que cinq ans après, 9 % des anciens enseignants mobiles sont
actifs dans un pays autre que leur pays d’enseignement avant le séjour ERASMUS –
bien souvent, il s’agit du pays de leur séjour d’enseignement temporaire à l’étranger. Ce
degré de mobilité internationale en milieu de carrière est assurément plus élevé qu’on ne
l’aurait pensé. Parmi les experts interrogés, plus des deux tiers pensent qu’enseigner à
l’étranger augmente les opportunités de mobilité académique internationale. Cependant,
il est certain qu’on ne peut s’attendre à une mobilité du personnel académique dans les
mêmes proportions.

Figure 4 Sélection d’impacts de la mobilité enseignante ERASMUS

sur l’établissement supérieur d’origine - Le point de vue
d’enseignants mobiles d’Europe de l’Ouest, d’Europe
Centrale et de l’Est (en pourcentage)

Intégration de cours de langues dans 42

les programmes 25
Central &
Développement de nouvelles 55 Est
Europe
Aspects de l’institution d’origine

méthodes d’enseignement 26
Aborder des discussions 43
disciplinaires/théoriques originaires
37
des pays partenaires/de l’étranger Ouest
Utilisation de publications 64 Europe
en langues étrangères 33
Développement de nouveaux 64
concepts et contenus pour
35
les programmes d’études
64
Offre de cours en langues étrangères
39

Transmission de connaissances sur 57

d’autres pays, l’Europe etc 58

0 20 40 60 80 100
Pourcentage

Question E6: En général, comment évalueriez-vous l’impact de la mobilité ERASMUS du personnel enseignant sur
votre institution d’origine concernant les aspects suivants? Graduation des réponses de 1 = très important à 5 = pas
du tout.
Source: Université de Kassel, VALERA Enquête sur les Anciens Professeurs Mobiles ERASMUS 2005.

Enfin, au premier abord, l’impact immédiat de l’activité d’enseignement à l’étranger sur

l’évolution de leur carrière semble assez réduit : 3 % des enseignants mobiles ont
observé une augmentation de leur traitement, 6 % une prolongation de leur contrat
temporaire, et 12 % une promotion à une position administrative de haut niveau. Mais il
faut garder à l’esprit que le nombre de professeurs atteignant une position supérieure
après leur séjour d’enseignement à l’étranger n’est pas très élevé. D’autre part, plus
d’un tiers des enseignants mobiles interrogés considèrent qu’enseigner à l’étranger a
amélioré leurs perspectives de carrière. Apparemment, enseigner à l’étranger est
souvent utile pour réaliser de petits avancements de carrière et nourrit l’espoir
d’amélioration à long terme de la carrière. Les responsables d’université mentionnent

xxxvi
 Executive Summary (Français)

également un impact limité sur le déroulement des carrières, alors que presque la moitié
des experts interrogés à l’origine s’attendent à ce que l’enseignant mobile soit promu à
une position plus élevée au sein de son institution.
Comme précédemment évoqué, la valeur professionnelle d’une activité d’enseignement
à l’étranger semble être bien plus élevée pour le personnel académique des pays
d’Europe Centrale et d’Europe de l’Est que pour celui des pays d’Europe de l’Ouest.
Cette différence est encore plus éclatante pour les personnels enseignants que pour les
étudiants. Ainsi, 10 % des enseignants des pays d’Europe Centrale et d’Europe de l’Est
contre seulement 1 % de ceux venant d’Europe de l’Ouest notent une augmentation de
leurs revenus, 30 % des premiers et 7 % des seconds rapportent que l’enseignement à
l’étranger les a aidés à obtenir une position plus élevée, 81 % des enseignants de la
première catégorie contre 53 % de ceux de la seconde mentionnent un impact positif sur
leur évolution professionnelle en général.

Conclusions et recommandations
Les enquêtes réalisées dans le cadre de l’étude VALERA ont permis de mettre en
évidence cinq faits majeurs :
• Le croisement des points de vue a permis d’établir que les experts, les
responsables d’université et les employeurs octroient à une période temporaire
ERASMUS dans un autre pays européen une valeur professionnelle plus
importante que les anciens étudiants ERASMUS eux-mêmes. Nous ne pouvons
pas dire avec certitude s’il s’agit d’une surestimation ou d’une sous-estimation
de l’impact de la mobilité étudiante de la part des uns ou des autres.
• L’étude d’évaluation confirme les résultats d’enquêtes précédentes : les anciens
étudiants ERASMUS considèrent que la période d’études à l’étranger mène à
une mobilité, des compétences et des tâches professionnelles internationales
alors qu’elle mène rarement à un avancement de carrière en comparaison des
parcours d’étudiants non mobiles. Cependant les autres acteurs et experts
interrogés sont plus souvent d’avis qu’ERASMUS contribue également au
déroulement général des carrières.
• La comparaison entre les réponses de l’enquête sur les étudiants ERASMUS
2000/2001 cinq ans après et les cohortes précédentes d’étudiants ERASMUS
montre que l’effet positif d’ERASMUS sur l’emploi et la situation
professionnels ainsi que sur des activités apparemment plus internationales des
anciens étudiants ERASMUS va progressivement en diminuant par rapport aux
étudiants non mobiles. Plus l’internationalisation de l’emploi et du travail se
normalise, plus les étudiants acquièrent des compétences internationales, plus la
valeur professionnelle ajoutée d’ERASMUS s’efface.
• La valeur professionnelle d’ERASMUS pour les anciens étudiants – ainsi que
pour les anciens enseignants – originaires d’Europe Centrale et d’Europe de
l’Est est nettement plus élevée que pour les personnes originaires d’Europe de
l’Ouest. Par rapport à cette différence entre les groupes de pays, la différence
entre les filières semble très faible.

xxxvii
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

• Bien que les personnels enseignants aient tendance à disposer d’expériences

internationales, qu’ils soient des personnes adultes souvent bien établies en
terme de carrières et qu’ils passent seulement une courte période
d’enseignement à l’étranger, ces personnes confèrent à cette période de mobilité
ERASMUS une valeur professionnelle étonnamment importante. Une majorité
d’entre elles observe le développement des coopérations internationales de
recherche et de leurs compétences académiques générales, alors qu’une part
légèrement moins importante mentionne une valeur importante pour les activités
d’enseignement. Certains d’entre elles notent des avantages visibles en terme de
carrière et optent, après leur période de mobilité, pour une carrière académique
dans un autre pays, assez souvent dans celui de leur période d’enseignement
ERASMUS.
Dans l’ensemble, cette étude d’évaluation VALERA souligne l’importance du schéma
de soutien ERASMUS. Comme l’ont montré les études précédentes, une période
temporaire de séjour dans un autre pays européen contribue aux développements des
compétences internationales, à la mobilité des diplômés et place les anciens étudiants
ERASMUS dans des positions professionnelles visiblement européennes. Cette étude
montre de plus que les employeurs considèrent que les compétences des diplômés ayant
vécu une expérience internationale sont supérieures à celles des autres diplômés,
beaucoup sont d’avis qu’à long terme les étudiants mobiles auront plus de succès dans
le déroulement de leurs carrières. L’importance d’ERASMUS est également fortement
soulignée dans cette étude par le témoignage des personnels enseignants mobiles sur la
forte valeur professionnelle. Pour leur part, les responsables d’institutions
d’enseignement supérieur sont d’avis que cela contribue de façon significative à la fois
à l’internationalisation et à la réputation de leurs institutions en général. Ces résultats
suggèrent qu’ERASMUS répond à une attente sociétale sur le marché de l’emploi et de
la part des institutions d’enseignement supérieur.
L’étude d’évaluation confirme les résultats d’études précédentes sur l’efficacité
d’ERASMUS : le programme sert un grand nombre de personnes avec un financement
minimal par personne. Il est cependant évident que beaucoup d’experts et d’acteurs
croient que la qualité pourrait en être améliorée si plus financement était mis à
disposition en particulier des personnels enseignants pour qu’ils enseignent sur des
périodes plus longues dans leurs pays d’accueil et pour l’organisation de programmes
en lien avec la mobilité.
Comme les études antérieures le montrent, l’impact d’ERASMUS en termes de valeur
professionnelle « verticale » d’une période d’études dans un autre pays Européen est
limité, par contre la valeur professionnelle « horizontale » est très importante. Les
anciens étudiants ERASMUS ne peuvent certes pas compter avec un statut
professionnel ou des revenus plus élevés que leurs pairs non mobiles mais l’accès à
l’emploi est plus facile, ils sont plus souvent mobiles à l’international et ils prennent en
charge des tâches visiblement internationales. Une amélioration générale de la carrière
est une règle qui s’applique uniquement aux anciens étudiants mobiles originaires
d’Europe Centrale et d’Europe de l’Est. Les enquêtes récentes suggèrent également que
les experts et les employeurs apprécient non seulement les compétences acquises à
l’étranger, utiles pour des tâches internationales, mais également les atouts au-dessus de
la moyenne des anciens étudiants dans de nombreux domaines tels que le savoir
académique, les compétences intellectuelles générales, les valeurs liées au travail, les

xxxviii
 Executive Summary (Français)

savoir-faire socio communicatifs. Il n’y a pas de preuve selon laquelle un séjour

ERASMUS aurait plus d’impacts dans ces domaines qu’un séjour d’étude temporaire à
l’étranger autrement financé, mais ERASMUS réussit à mobiliser un grand nombre
d’étudiants qui bénéficient de cette expérience à l’étranger dans les termes mentionnés
ci-dessus.
Notre étude révèle un fort impact ERASMUS de la mobilité des personnels enseignants.
De nombreux enseignants ayant été mobiles témoignent d’une amélioration de leurs
coopérations et activités de recherche internationales ainsi que de diverses activités
d’enseignement. Les responsables d’université et les autres experts soulignent que les
enseignants mobiles sont, après leurs expériences à l’étranger, souvent plus actifs,
intellectuellement plus innovants et ont, dans certains cas, visiblement plus de succès
dans leurs carrières.
S`agissant de durabilité, la plupart des acteurs et experts impliqués dans cette étude
semblent croire qu’ERASMUS pourra jouer un rôle important à l’avenir si les
caractéristiques de base du programme sont conservées. ERASMUS présente de
nombreux avantages qui sont presque autant d’arguments pour sa continuation.
Dans ce contexte, certaines recommandations portent sur de possibles améliorations à
réaliser dans le cadre des logiques déjà mises en place : des préparations plus intensives,
un plus grand soutien académique, administratif et financier pour les étudiants lors de
leurs séjours à l’étranger, de meilleurs méthodes d’évaluation et de reconnaissance, des
liens plus étroits entre l’enseignement supérieur et le marché du travail, plus de
financement et moins de bureaucratie de la part de la Commission européenne et – une
dernière recommandation et non la moindre – des efforts plus soutenus pour mettre en
évidence les bénéfices de la mobilité. En ce qui concerne la mobilité des enseignants,
les suggestions concernent les efforts à fournir pour rendre une mobilité plus longue
viable, pour la prise en compte des activités temporaires d’enseignement à l’étranger en
termes d’avancement de carrière (offre de poste et décision de promotion).
Certains résultats mettent cependant en doute la durabilité d’ERASMUS. La valeur
professionnelle d’une période temporaire d’études à l’étranger a nettement diminué au
cours des années. En comparaison avec études réalisées auparavant auprès des
diplômés, l’étude la plus récente montre que l’impact d’ERASMUS est moindre, ce
constat concerne l’obtention d’un premier emploi, l’opportunité d’obtenir un niveau de
revenu plus élevé et la prise en charge de tâches pour lesquelles des compétences
internationales sont nécessaires.
Les auteurs de cette étude d’évaluation concluent que le programme ERASMUS aura de
meilleures chances à l’avenir si il redevient plus ambitieux en ce qui concerne
l’expérience à l’étranger. Il y a eu, par le passé, de bonnes raisons pour que ERASMUS
passe graduellement de la mobilité étudiante étroitement liée au développement des
programmes d’enseignement à un programme administrativement plus souple pour un
grand nombre d’étudiants. Dorénavant la valeur d’une expérience à l’étranger, en tant
que telle, diminue suite à l’internationalisation de notre environnement et l’exclusivité
de l’expérience ERASMUS s’efface. Selon les experts, engagés dans la sélection des
filières pour notre étude, il serait possible de renforcer la valeur des séjours temporaires
à l’étranger en ciblant plus précisément la période de mobilité par rapport au calendrier
et aux spécialisations des programmes d’enseignement. Il semble que le temps est venu
pour une autre approche de la mobilité étudiante ERASMUS au sein de laquelle les

xxxix
La valeur professionnelle de la mobilité ERASMUS

objectifs académiques et le soutien financier aux étudiants mobiles seront étroitement

liés.

xl
Executive Summary (Deutsch)
Ziele und Anlage der Studie
Das Ziel des VALERA-Projekts (VALERA = Value of ERASMUS Mobility) ist es, die
Auswirkungen der Mobilität von Studierenden und Dozenten im Rahmen des SOKRA-
TES/ERASMUS-Programms auf deren berufliche Karrieren zu untersuchen. Um das zu
verwirklichen, wurden repräsentative Befragungen ehemaliger ERASMUS-
Studierender und ehemaliger ERASMUS-Dozenten durchgeführt. Hinzu kamen
Befragungen bei Hochschulleitungen und Arbeitgebern. Darüber hinaus äußerten
verschiedene Experten und Akteure – in einer Befragung sowie in einigen Seminaren –
ihre Einschätzungen zum beruflichen Ertrag von Mobilität.
Jede Teilstudie sprach Dimensionen von möglichen beruflichen Erträgen an. Im Hin-
blick auf studentische Mobilität sollten vor allem Wirkungen in folgenden Bereichen
geprüft werden:
• generelle und internationale Kompetenzen,
• der Übergang in die Erwerbstätigkeit,
• Beschäftigung und Berufstätigkeit in den ersten Jahren nach dem Studienab-
schluss und
• internationale Aspekte von Beschäftigung und Berufstätigkeit.
Des Weiteren sollten fünf Themen zu den Wirkungen der Mobilität von Dozenten be-
handelt werden:
• allgemeine wissenschaftliche und Lehrkompetenzen,
• internationale und interkulturelle Kompetenzen,
• Aktivitäten an der Herkunftshochschule im Rahmen des ERASMUS-Pro-
gramms,
• vertikale und horizontale berufliche Mobilität und schließlich
• internationale berufliche Mobilität.
Die Evaluationsstudie sollte klären, wie hoch das Ausmaß der beruflichen Erträge von
studentischer Mobilität bzw. der der Dozenten ist, welche Bedingungen die Wirkungen
erhöhen und was die Resultate insgesamt für Relevanz, Effektivität, Wirksamkeit und
Dauerhaftigkeit des Teilprogramms ERASMUS im Rahmen des SOKRATES-Pro-
gramms aussagen.

Gewählte Untersuchungsverfahren
Die Evaluation war in zwei Hauptphasen unterteilt. In der ersten Phase wurden zunächst
frühere Studien analysiert und eine Expertenbefragung durchgeführt. Um Auskunft
gebeten wurden Verantwortliche des ERASMUS-Programms und Repräsentanten von
Studierendenorganisationen, Fachdisziplinen sowie Arbeitsmarkt, Politik und Hoch-

xli
Der berufliche Ertrag der ERASMUS Mobilität

schulen. Der weitgehend offene Fragebogen wurde von 67 Personen beantwortet – 43

Prozent der insgesamt 156 ursprünglich einbezogenen Personen. Die Ergebnisse
früherer Studien und dieser Befragung gingen in den ersten Bericht ein, den
„Framework Report“, der zugleich den inhaltlichen Rahmen für die nachfolgenden
Schritte des Projekts setzte.
Im Kern der ersten Projektphase standen vier Befragungen:
• Befragung ehemaliger ERASMUS-Studierender: ERASMUS-Studierende des
Studienjahrs 2000/2001 wurden in einer in den einzelnen Ländern nach
Hochschulen geschichteten Zufallsstichprobe befragt. Über die ERASMUS-
Koordinatoren an den einzelnen Hochschulen wurde ihnen ein weitgehend
standardisierter Fragebogen postalisch zugesandt. 4.589 Fragebogen wurden
ausgefüllt, was einer Rücklaufquote von 45 Prozent entspricht.
• Befragung ehemals mobiler Dozenten: Alle Dozenten ausgewählter Hoch-
schulen, die im Studienjahr Jahr 2000/01 am ERASMUS-Programm teil-
genommen hatten, wurden über ihre ERASMUS-Koordinatoren mit der Bitte
angesprochen, einen Online-Fragebogen auszufüllen. Von den insgesamt 3.123
kontaktierten Personen beantworteten 755 Lehrende den Fragebogen; das
entspricht einer Rücklaufquote von 24 Prozent.
• Befragung der Hochschulleiter: Die ERASMUS-Koordinatoren aller Hoch-
schulen, die sich zu einer Unterstützung dieser Evaluationsstudie bereit gefun-
den hatten, wurden gebeten, einen schriftlichen Fragebogen an ihre Hoch-
schulleitungen weiterzuleiten. Die 626 Antworten bei insgesamt 1.437 verteilten
Fragebogen entsprechen einer Rücklaufquote von 44 Prozent.
• Befragung der Arbeitgeber: Erstens wurde ein gedruckter Fragebogen an etwa
1.500 Vorgesetzte ehemaliger ERASMUS-Studierender, die hierfür eine Adres-
se bereitgestellt hatten, gesandt. Zweitens wurde an 4.500 ausgewählte Unter-
nehmen ein Fragebogen mit der Bitte gesandt, diesen an die für die Einstellung
von Hochschulabsolventen Verantwortlichen weiterzuleiten. Insgesamt gingen
312 Antworten ein, d.h. nur von sechs Prozent der Kontaktierten (10% im
ersteren und 2% im letzteren Fall).
Die Ergebnisse der ersten beiden Befragungen waren Gegenstand der Diskussion im
Expertenseminar am Ende der ersten Projektphase. Dadurch wurden nicht nur Anre-
gungen zur Interpretation der Ergebnisse gewonnen, sondern es wurden auch die Ziele
der zweiten Phase präzisiert und näher zu untersuchende Fachrichtungen ausgewählt.
In der zweiten Projektphase sollten detaillierte Informationen über den beruflichen Wert
von temporärem Studium in einem anderen europäischen Land für Studierende in
ausgewählten Fächern gewonnen werden. Entsprechend dem Ratschlag des Experten
wurden vier Fächer (nicht zwei, wie ursprünglich geplant) ausgewählt: Aus dem
Bereich der Natur- und Ingenieurwissenschaften Chemie als ein wissenschaftlich
akzentuiertes und Maschinenbau als ein berufsorientiertes Fach sowie analog Soziologie
und Wirtschaftswissenschaften aus dem Bereich der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften.
Eingeladen wurden Dozenten, ehemalige ERASMUS-Studierende, Vertreter von
Arbeitgebern und Berufsverbänden sowie andere Experten, die in Fragen der
Studiengangentwicklung erfahren sind. Durchgeführt wurden Seminare (statt der

xlii
 Executive Summary (Deutsch)

ursprünglich geplanten Interviews), um unterschiedliche Erfahrungen und Perspektiven

sowie verborgenes Wissen („tacit knowledge“) der Beteiligten „ans Tageslicht“ zu
holen und miteinander konfrontieren zu können.
Insgesamt waren mehr Zeit und Aufwand als bei ähnlichen vorangehenden Studien
erforderlich, um die Hochschulen und die anderen Adressaten zur Mitarbeit zu
bewegen. Deshalb akzeptierte die Europäische Kommission eine Verlängerung der
Projektdauer um nahezu das Doppelte der ursprünglich vorgesehenen Zeit. Darüber
hinaus trug das Forschungsteam, das im Bereich der Studien über internationale
Mobilität und Hochschulen sehr erfahren ist, mit Ressourcen, die nicht von der Euro-
päischen Kommission zur Verfügung gestellt worden waren, zur aufwändigen Reali-
sierung des Projekts bei. Trotz dieser Verlängerung und zusätzlicher Ressourcen war
die Rücklaufquote geringer als erwartet und niedriger als in vorhergehenden Studien.
Die bei der Durchführung des Projekts aufgetretenen Probleme sind wohl nicht einem
abnehmenden Interesse der Angesprochenen am ERASMUS-Programm zuzuschreiben,
sondern einer allgemeinen zunehmenden Befragungs- und Evaluationsmüdigkeit. In
dem Maße, in dem Evaluationen als Mittel der Qualitätssicherung akzeptiert werden,
scheint ironischerweise gleichzeitig die Qualität systematischer Evaluationen zu leiden,
weil die Betroffenen mit der Bitte um Information überschwemmt werden. Dennoch
konnte die Evaluationsstudie wichtige Ergebnisse über die beruflichen Wirkungen von
ERASMUS-geförderter Mobilität ermitteln und dokumentieren, welche Vorstellungen
Betroffene und Experten für zukünftige Verbesserungen haben.

Übergang vom Studium in die Erwerbstätigkeit

Zeitweilige Mobilität im Rahmen des Studiums erhöht offensichtlich das Interesse an
weiterführender Bildung. Zwei von fünf der ERASMUS-Studierenden von 2000/01 –
ungefähr so viele wie in vorhergehenden Jahrgängen, aber ungefähr zweimal so viele
wie sonst die europäischen Studierenden – begannen ein weiterführendes Studium
während der ersten fünf Jahren nach ihrem Auslandsstudium – die meisten direkt nach
Studienabschluss, andere einige Zeit danach.
Die befragten ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden begannen etwas später mit der
Jobsuche als frühere Jahrgänge, hingegen war die Gesamtdauer der Suche mit vier
Monaten etwas kürzer als früher. 54 Prozent der im Jahr 2005 Befragten glauben, dass
der ERASMUS-Aufenthalt hilfreich für die erste Anstellung nach dem Studium war.
Allerdings scheint dieser positive Einfluss geringer zu werden: Der entsprechende Wert
war 71 Prozent bei den befragten ERASMUS-Studierenden des Jahres 1988/89 und 66
Prozent bei denjenigen, die 1994/95 ihr Studium abgeschlossen hatten (siehe Abbildung
1).

xliii
Der berufliche Ertrag der ERASMUS Mobilität

Abbildung 1 Positiver Einfluss des ERASMUS-Studienaufenthaltes auf

die erste Anstellung nach Einschätzung ehemaliger
Studierender – ein Vergleich mit früheren Studien (in
Prozent)
100
Prozent der Studierenden/Absolventen

80
71
66

60 54

40

20

0
ERASMUS Studierende Absolventen ERASMUS Studierende
1988/89 1994/95 2000/01
befragt 1993 befragt 2000 befragt 2005

Frage H1: Welchen Einfluss hatte das Auslandsstudium auf Ihre Arbeit?
Quellen: Maiworm und Teichler 1996; Jahr und Teichler 2002; Universität Kassel, VALERA-Befragung ehemaliger
ERASMUS-Studierender 2005.

In den frühen Jahren der Erwerbstätigkeit – zum Befragungszeitpunkt waren die Befrag-
ten im Durchschnitt weniger als drei Jahre beschäftigt – hat über die Hälfte der ehemali-
gen ERASMUS-Studierenden ihren Arbeitgeber mindestens einmal gewechselt. Nach
Ergebnissen vorhergehender Studien ist dies unter ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studieren-
den häufiger verbreitet als unter nicht-mobilen Studierenden.
Die jüngsten Befragungen der ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden und der Arbeit-
geber bestätigen, dass auf die wissenschaftlichen Leistungen und die Persönlichkeit der
Absolventen bei der Bewerberauswahl höchsten Wert gelegt wird. Im Vergleich schei-
nen weitere Kriterien, so Computerkenntnisse und Fremdsprachenbeherrschung, an
Bedeutung gewonnen zu haben. Auslandserfahrung spielt laut der Hälfte der ehema-
ligen ERASMUS-Studierenden und einem Drittel der Arbeitgeber eine wichtige Rolle.

Beschäftigung und Berufstätigkeit

Sechs Prozent der ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden des Jahres 2000/01 berichten
fünf Jahre nach ihrem Auslandsaufenthalt, dass sie arbeitslos sind. Dieser Prozentsatz
ist höher als derjenige von ERASMUS-Studierenden zwölf Jahre früher, als nur vier
Prozent fünf Jahre nach der Auslandsstudienphase arbeitslos waren. Auch die befristete

xliv
 Executive Summary (Deutsch)

Beschäftigung stieg innerhalb von 12 Jahren von 27 Prozent auf 35 Prozent an. Der
Anteil der Teilzeitbeschäftigten blieb dagegen mit etwa zehn Prozent konstant.
72 Prozent der ERASMUS-Studierenden des Jahres 2000/01, die fünf Jahre später
erwerbstätig sind, glauben, dass ihre Position und ihr Einkommen ihrem Ausbildungs-
niveau entsprechen. Frühere Studien kamen zu ähnlichen Ergebnissen, wobei ehemals
Mobile ihre Stellung häufiger als adäquat einschätzen als Absolventen, die während des
Studiums nicht mobil waren (siehe Abbildung 2).

Abbildung 2 Zusammenhang zwischen Studium und Beruf nach

Einschätzung ehemaliger ERASMUS-Studierender - ein
Vergleich mit früheren Studien (in Prozent)

Hohe Nutzung des erworbenen Wissens Angemessenes Niveau Hohe Arbeitszufriedenheit

100
Prozent der Studierenden/Absolventen

80 76 74
72 72
67 67 67
63 61
60 52
44 47
40

20

0
ERASMUS Studierende Absolventen Nicht-mobile ERASMUS Studierende
1988/89 1994/95 Absolventen 2000/01
befragt 1993 befragt 2000 1994/95 befragt 2005
befragt 2000

Abbildung 2 aggregiert drei Frage; Frage G2: Wenn Sie Ihre derzeitigen Arbeitsaufgaben betrachten: Inwieweit
nutzen Sie die während des Studiums angeeigneten Fertigkeiten und das erworbene Wissen? Frage G3: Wie würden
Sie den Zusammenhang zwischen Ihrem (Haupt-) Studienfach und Ihren derzeitigen beruflichen Aufgaben
beschreiben? Frage G5: Wie zufrieden sind Sie mit Ihrer derzeitigen Arbeit insgesamt?
Quellen: Maiworm und Teichler 1996; Jahr und Teichler 2002; Universität Kassel, VALERA-Befragung ehemaliger
ERASMUS-Studierender 2005.

Nur 16 Prozent der ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden schätzen, dass ihr Einkom-

men höher ist als das ihrer nicht-mobilen Kollegen. Dieser Prozentsatz ist niedriger als
bei früheren Generationen (siehe Abbildung 3). Etwas höher ist die Zahl der ehemaligen
Studierenden, die glauben, weniger zu verdienen als ihre nicht-mobilen Kollegen. Die
befragten Arbeitgeber dagegen schätzen die Situation positiver ein. Nach Ansicht von
mehr als 40 Prozent haben international erfahrene Absolventen größere Aussichten,
berufliche Aufgaben mit hoher Verantwortung zu übernehmen und 21 Prozent glauben,
dass international Erfahrene nach einigen Jahren Arbeit mit einem höheren Einkommen
als ihre nicht-mobilen Kollegen rechnen können. Unter den Experten, die am Anfang
der Evaluationsstudie befragt wurden, glauben sogar ein Drittel, dass ehemalige

xlv
Der berufliche Ertrag der ERASMUS Mobilität

ERASMUS Studierende einen höheren Status und ein höheres Einkommen erwarten
können sowie bessere Chancen auf eine ihrer Ausbildung adäquate Position haben.

Abbildung 3 Positiver Einfluss des ERASMUS-Studienaufenthaltes auf

Erwerbstätigkeit und Arbeit nach Einschätzung ehemaliger
Studierender – ein Vergleich mit früheren Studien (in
Prozent)

100
Prozent der Studierenden/Absolventen

die Arbeitsaufgaben das Einkommensniveau

80

60
49
44
39
40
25
22
20 16

0
ERASMUS Studierende Absolventen ERASMUS Studierende
1988/89 1994/95 2000/01
befragt 1993 befragt 2000 befragt 2005

Frage H1: Welchen Einfluss hatte das Auslandsstudium auf Ihre Arbeit?
Quellen: Maiworm und Teichler 1996; Jahr und Teichler 2002; Universität Kassel, VALERA-Befragung ehemaliger
ERASMUS-Studierender 2005.

Die befragten Hochschulleiter schätzen den beruflichen Wert einer ERASMUS-Aus-

landsstudienphase am höchsten ein. Vier von fünf glauben, dass ein Auslandsstudium
die Chance auf einen guten Job erhöht. Mehr als die Hälfte schätzt die Aussichten ehe-
maliger mobiler Studierender, eine ihrer Ausbildung entsprechende Stellung zu
erreichen als diejenigen der nicht-mobilen Studierenden, höher ein, und ein Viertel
nimmt an, dass ERASMUS eine positivere Auswirkung auf die Berufschancen von
Absolventen hat als andere Formen der Studierendenmobilität.

Kompetenzen und Tätigkeiten ehemaliger ERASMUS-Studierender

Rückwirkend schätzen die ERASMUS-Studierenden ihre Kompetenzen zur Zeit ihres
Studienabschlusses in vielen Aspekten hoch ein: den wissenschaftlichen Kenntnisstand,
die Fremdsprachenkenntnisse sowie verschiedene Arbeitshaltungen und -stile. Die Ein-
schätzungen sind positiver als bei früheren Befragungen. Wir wissen nicht, ob dies eine
allgemeine Erhöhung des Studienerfolgs oder höhere Erträge des Auslandsstudiums
signalisiert: In jedem Falle bezieht die jüngste Befragung eine Reihe von mittel- und
osteuropäischen Ländern ein, in denen die Befragten den beruflichen Ertrag eines

xlvi
 Executive Summary (Deutsch)

ERASMUS-Auslandsaufenthaltes positiver bewerten als jene aus westeuropäischen

Ländern.
Alles in allem bewerteten die Arbeitgeber die Kompetenzen ehemaliger mobiler
Studierender ähnlich positiv. Sie halten die international erfahrenen Absolventen in
vieler Hinsicht für besser qualifiziert als ihre nicht-mobilen Kollegen. Nach ihrer
Ansicht trägt ein Auslandsstudium zu Anpassungsfähigkeit, Initiative sowie Planungs-
und Organisationsfähigkeit bei.
Die Experten, die zu Beginn dieser Studie befragt wurden, haben ein noch positiveres
Bild. 73 Prozent schätzen die wissenschaftlichen Kompetenzen von ERASMUS-Studie-
renden direkt nach ihrer Rückkehr aus dem Ausland höher ein als die von nicht-mobilen
Studierenden. 82 Prozent meinen, dass diese besser für ihre zukünftige Beschäftigung
und Beruftätigkeit vorbereitetet seien, und fast alle schätzen deren sozio-kommuni-
kativen Kompetenzen, Problemlösungsfähigkeiten und Führungsqualitäten hoch ein.
61 Prozent der ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden, die zur Zeit der jüngsten Befra-
gung beschäftigt waren, geben an, dass sie ihre im Studium angeeigneten Fertigkeiten
und das erworbene Wissen bei ihren derzeitigen Arbeitsaufgaben weitgehend nutzen
können (siehe Abbildung 2). Dieser Prozentsatz ist etwas niedriger als 12 Jahre zuvor.
39 Prozent geben an, dass der ERASMUS-Aufenthalt einen positiven Einfluss auf ihre
Arbeitsaufgaben hatte. Auch hier zeigt sich ein Rückgang gegenüber 49 Prozent bzw.
44 Prozent bei den beiden vorangehenden Studien (siehe Abbildung 3).
Etwa drei Viertel der befragten ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden sind mit ihrer
Arbeits- und Beschäftigungssituation sehr zufrieden. Sie sehen die Möglichkeit, ihre
Arbeit selbständig zu gestalten und ihre Kompetenzen einzubringen. Sie berichten von
herausfordernden Arbeitsaufgaben und Gelegenheiten zur Weiterbildung. Die Mehrheit
der befragten Experten ist davon überzeugt, dass ehemalige ERASMUS-Studierende
bessere Möglichkeiten als nicht-mobile Studierende haben, selbständige Arbeitsauf-
gaben erfolgreich zu übernehmen, und fast die Hälfte glaubt zudem, dass ehemalige
ERASMUS-Studierende eher herausfordernde Aufgaben erhalten.

Internationale Tätigkeiten ehemaliger ERASMUS-Studierender

Alle bisher durchgeführten Studien über den beruflichen Wert eines Auslandsstudiums
haben gezeigt, dass ehemals mobile Studierende später weitaus häufiger internationale
Arbeitsaufgaben übernehmen als ehemals Nicht-Mobile. Die Ergebnisse der vorliegen-
den Studie bestätigen diesen stabilen Befund.
18 Prozent der ERASMUS-Studierenden von 2000/01, die fünf Jahre später beschäftigt
waren, sind nach ihrem Abschluss zumindest für einige Zeit im Ausland beschäftigt ge-
wesen – mehr oder weniger so viele wie bei früheren Studien. Vorhandene Statistiken
lassen den Schluss zu, dass das mehrfach so hoch ist wie beim Durchschnitt der
Hochschulabsolventen in Europa. Von den jüngst Befragten hatte etwa die Hälfte über
eine Beschäftigung im Ausland nachgedacht, und etwa ein Viertel hat aktiv eine Stelle
im Ausland gesucht. Diese Werte sind allerdings deutlich geringer als bei früheren
Befragungen.
Über die Hälfte der kürzlich befragten Berufstätigen, die zuvor ERASMUS-Studierende
gewesen waren, geben an, dass ihre beschäftigende Organisation eine internationale

xlvii
Der berufliche Ertrag der ERASMUS Mobilität

Ausrichtung hat, und noch mehr haben intensive internationale berufliche Aufgaben.
Fast ein Drittel sieht ihre Arbeit in einen internationalen Kontext eingebettet, und ein
noch höherer Anteil bewertet ihre internationalen Kompetenzen als wichtig für die
alltägliche Arbeit. Etwa zwei Drittel unterstreicht den beruflichen Stellenwert der
Kommunikation in einer Fremdsprache und die Arbeit mit Menschen aus verschiedenen
Kulturkreisen. Für mehr als die Hälfte ist das Wissen und das Verstehen internationaler
Unterschiede in Kultur und Gesellschaft wichtig und für fast die Hälfte ihr Wissen über
andere Länder. Diese Werte liegen etwas über denen in früheren Erhebungen.
Auf die direkte Frage, in welchem Maße die Absolventen ihre internationalen Kompe-
tenzen in der täglichen Arbeit tatsächlich nutzen, antwortet allerdings ein weitaus klei-
nerer Anteil. Nur etwa ein Drittel kommuniziert regelmäßig in einer Fremdsprache,
etwa ein Viertel nutzt Wissen über andere Länder und Kulturen, und nur einer von
sieben Befragten reist regelmäßig in andere Länder. Abbildung 4 zeigt, dass dies selte-
ner der Fall ist als bei ihren Vorgängern. Aber weiterhin ist anzunehmen, dass
ehemalige ERASMUS-Studierende weitaus häufiger internationale Aufgaben haben als
diejenigen, die nicht temporär in einem anderen Land studiert haben.

Abbildung 4 ERASMUS-bezogene Arbeitsaufgaben von ehemaligen

ERASMUS-Studierenden – ein Vergleich mit früheren
Studien (in Prozent)
Mündliche Verwendung der Sprache des ERASMUS-Gastlandes
Verwendung der Sprache des ERASMUS-Gastlandes beim Lesen und Schreiben
Berufliche Verwendung der Kenntnisse über das ERASMUS-Gastland
Anwendung des Wissens zu Kultur und Gesellschaft des ERASMUS-Gastlandes
Geschäftsreisen in das ERASMUS-Gastland
80
Prozent der Studierenden/Absolventen

60
47 47
42 40
38 38
40
30 30 32
25 25 24
17 18
20 14

0
ERASMUS Studierende Mobile Absolventen ERASMUS Studierende 2000/01
1988/89 1994/95 befragt 2005
befragt 1993 befragt 2000

Frage F6: In welchem Maße beinhaltet Ihre Arbeit die folgenden Tätigkeiten? Antworten 1 und 2 auf einer
Fünferskala von 1 = „In hohem Maße“ bis 5 = „Überhaupt nicht“
Quellen: Maiworm und Teichler 1996; Jahr und Teichler 2002; Universität Kassel, VALERA-Befragung ehemaliger
ERASMUS-Studierender 2005.

Das letztere entspricht auch dem Ergebnis der Arbeitgeberbefragung. Demnach

übernehmen international erfahrene Absolventen internationale Arbeitsaufgaben weit-

xlviii
 Executive Summary (Deutsch)

aus häufiger als Absolventen ohne internationale Erfahrungen. Diese Aussage bezieht
sich auf internationale Tätigkeiten im Allgemeinen wie auf spezifische Arbeits-
aufgaben, so z. B. die Nutzung von Fremdsprachen, internationale Kooperation und
Auslandsreisen. Auch die befragten Experten glauben, dass ehemals mobile Studierende
derartige Aufgaben deutlich häufiger übernehmen als nicht-mobile Studierende.

Weitere Befunde zum beruflichen Ertrag studentischer Mobilität

Die Kompetenzen, der Übergang zum Beruf, die Karriere und die beruflichen
Tätigkeiten der ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden werden nicht ausschließlich durch
den ERASMUS-Auslandsaufenthalt beeinflusst. Viele von ihnen waren bereits vor dem
Studium international mobil bzw. waren während des Studiums ergänzend mobil. Sie
sind darüber hinaus in verschiedener Hinsicht eine ausgewählte Gruppe. ERASMUS hat
zwar sicherlich eine mobilisierende und verstärkende Wirkung und ist für die berufliche
Laufbahn generell folgenreich, insbesondere für die internationale Mobilität und für
spätere internationale Berufsaufgaben, aber dieser Einfluss von ERASMUS ist nicht so
stark, wie der Blick allein auf erfolgreichere Berufsverläufe und stärkere internationale
Aktivitäten vermuten ließe.
Das ERASMUS-Programm ist darauf ausgerichtet, allen Studierenden von allen
Partnerländern in mehr oder weniger gleichem Maße etwas zu bieten – aber sicherlich
bietet das Auslandsstudium für manche mehr als für andere. Auffällig ist, dass ehe-
malige ERASMUS-Studierende aus mittel- und osteuropäischen Ländern häufiger
vorteilhafte Beschäftigungs- und Arbeitsbedingungen sowie internationale Arbeitsauf-
gaben vermelden als solche aus anderen Ländern. Sie sind eine stärker selektierte
Gruppe, aber sie profitieren auch stärker von ihrem Auslandsstudium.
Es gibt Unterschiede nach der Fachrichtungsgruppe, aber diese sind nicht so stark, wie
man vermuten könnte. Bei den Fächern, die in der zweiten Phase des Projekts intensiv
behandelt worden sind, wurden von den ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden im Fach
Chemie die geringsten Erträge für die wissenschaftliche und fachliche Qualifizierung
festgestellt. Im Gegensatz dazu wurde von den ehemaligen ERASMUS-Studierenden in
den Fächern Wirtschaftswissenschaften und Soziologie der Lerneffekt hinsichtlich des
fachlichen Wissens über den Markt bzw. die Gesellschaft des Gastlandes am stärksten
betont.
In allen vier Fächern wird ERASMUS nicht als Eintrittskarte zu einer überwältigenden
Karriere gesehen, sondern eher als ein „Türöffner“ zum Arbeitsmarkt. In den mehr
berufsorientierten Fächern – Wirtschafts- und Ingenieurwissenschaften – scheinen der
Globalisierungsprozess und die internationalen Wirtschaftsaktivitäten internationale
Kompetenzen für beinahe jede Position auch im nationalen Kontext zu erfordern. In den
anderen Fächern – Soziologie und Chemie – werden internationale Kompetenzen in
manchen Fällen als bedeutsam für internationale Aufgaben angesehen, noch häufiger
aber als Beitrag zur Verbesserung so genannter „Soft skills“, die auch in Aufgaben-
bereichen geschätzt werden, die nicht als international zu verstehen sind.

Der berufliche Ertrag für mobile Dozenten

Auf den ersten Blick erscheinen die Bedingungen für einen beruflichen Ertrag von
ERASMUS bei mobilen Dozenten völlig anders als bei Studierenden. Personen, die in

xlix
Der berufliche Ertrag der ERASMUS Mobilität

der Mitte ihrer Karriere stehen (Durchschnittsalter 47 Jahre) und in der Regel schon
Auslandserfahrung besitzen, verbringen mit Unterstützung des ERASMUS-Programms
nur eine kurze Phase von im Durchschnitt zwei Wochen im Ausland. Es wäre daher
nicht überraschend, wenn der berufliche Ertrag für Dozenten deutlich geringer einge-
schätzt würde als für Studierende.
Überraschenderweise konstatieren die befragten ehemaligen mobilen Dozenten jedoch
einen beträchtlichen beruflichen Ertrag ihres Auslandsaufenthaltes. Sie bewerten ihn als
einen wertvollen Beitrag zur Verbesserung ihrer wissenschaftlichen Tätigkeit. 58 Pro-
zent heben einen positiven Einfluss auf ihre berufliche Entwicklung im Allgemeinen
hervor, 65 Prozent sehen einen Beitrag zur Verbesserung ihrer Forschungskontakte und
60 Prozent erweiterten dadurch ihre wissenschaftlichen Kompetenzen. 53 Prozent wur-
den in wissenschaftliche Diskussionen einbezogen, deren Ursprung im Land der gastge-
benden Hochschule liegt, 45 Prozent verbesserten dadurch ihre Lehrfähigkeiten, und 40
Prozent entwickelten und verwendeten nach ihrer Rückkehr neue Lehrmethoden. Nach
Auskunft verschiedener Experten trägt das Lehren im Ausland zur Erhöhung der allge-
meinen wissenschaftlichen Kompetenz bei; die mobilen Dozenten seien im Durch-
schnitt ihren nicht-mobilen Kolleginnen und Kollegen wissenschaftlich überlegen.
Die zu Beginn der Studie befragten Experten sehen vor allem Erträge für nachfolgende
Innovationen in der Lehre. Dagegen betont ein großer Anteil der Dozenten den Wert
des Lehraufenthalts im Ausland für die Forschung und für allgemeine wissenschaftliche
Kompetenzen, dagegen weniger für die Lehre.
Des Weiteren bewerten die ehemals mobilen Dozenten ihren Lehraufenthalt als nützlich
für internationale Aspekte in ihrer weiteren beruflichen Tätigkeit. Seit der ERASMUS-
geförderten Phase verbrachten sie im Durchschnitt einen Monat pro Jahr im Ausland –
meistens zur Teilnahme an Konferenzen, oft aber auch zu Forschungszwecken oder um
zu lehren. Etwa die Hälfte der Dozenten sieht einen Zusammenhang zwischen ERAS-
MUS und ihren erweiterten internationalen Forschungskooperationen, während etwa ein
Drittel sowohl mehr Einladungen aus dem Ausland als auch die Zunahme der
Forschungskooperationen als positive Folge ihres ERASMUS-Aufenthaltes nennt. Die
befragten Experten hatten sogar eine noch positivere Sichtweise. Mehr als drei Viertel
ist davon überzeugt, dass ehemals mobile Dozenten im Wissen über das Hochschul-
system des Gastlandes, ihrem interkulturellen Verständnis und in ihren Fremdsprachen-
kenntnissen ihren nicht-mobilen Kollegen überlegen sind.
Außerdem ist die Mehrheit der mobilen Dozenten davon überzeugt, dass die Mobilität
von Lehrenden im Rahmen des ERASMUS-Programms auch einen positiven Einfluss
auf die Hochschule hat. Mehr als die Hälfte berichtet, dass Dozentenmobilität hilfreich
war, um die Beratung der mobilen Studierenden zu verbessern und Wissen über andere
Länder bereitzustellen. Fast die Hälfte der Befragten betrachtet Dozentenmobilität als
hilfreich, um die Koordination der Studienprogramme zwischen den Partnerhochschu-
len zu verbessern, das Angebot von Fremdsprachenkursen zu erweitern, neue Studien-
konzepte zu entwickeln und der zunehmenden Bedeutung von komparativen Ansätzen
zu entsprechen (siehe Abbildung 5).
Auch die befragten Hochschulleiter beobachten einen positiven Effekt der Dozenten-
mobilität auf ihre Hochschule. Mehr als drei Viertel sehen darin einen positiven Beitrag
zur internationalen Reputation ihrer Hochschule. Mehr als die Hälfte schätzen die

l
 Executive Summary (Deutsch)

Effekte für internationale Forschungsaktivitäten und etwa die Hälfte für verschiedene
Dimensionen von Lehren und Lernen positiv ein.
Schließlich sollte hier angemerkt werden, dass neun Prozent der befragten ehemaligen
mobilen Dozenten zum Zeitpunkt der Befragung beruflich in einem anderen Land tätig
war als dem Land, in dem sie vor ihrem ERASMUS-Aufenthalt beschäftigt waren. In
vielen Fällen war das Land ihrer aktuellen Beschäftigung ihr ehemaliges Gastland. Dies
ist sicherlich ein höherer Grad an Mobilität als im Allgemeinen in der Mitte der
Karriere erwartet werden konnte. Des Weiteren glauben mehr als zwei Drittel der
befragten Experten, dass ein Lehraufenthalt im Ausland die Möglichkeiten für weitere
internationale wissenschaftliche Mobilität erhöht. Sicherlich kann man aber nicht davon
ausgehen, dass ein entsprechend hoher Prozentsatz des Lehrpersonals wirklich
zukünftig auch mobil sein wird.

Abbildung 5 Ausgewählte Auswirkungen der ERASMUS

Dozentenmobilität auf die Heimathochschule – nach
Einschätzung der ehemalig mobilen Dozenten aus Mittel-
und Osteuropa sowie Westeuropa (in Prozent)

Integration von Sprachkursen 42

in den Lehrplan 25
Mittel - und
Auswirkungen an der Heimathochschule

55 Osteuropa
Entwicklung neuer Lehrmethoden
26

Aufgreifen von disziplinär/theoretischen 43

Diskussionen, die ihren Ursprung Westeuropa
im Ausland/Partnerland haben 37

Verwendung von fremdsprachlichen 64

Materialien im Lehrangebot 33

Entwicklung neuer Konzepte 64

und Inhalte für Studiengänge 35

Angebot von fremdsprachlichen 64

Lehrveranstaltungen 39

Vermittlung von Wissen über andere 57

Länder/Europa etc 58

0 20 40 60 80 100
Prozent der Dozenten

Frage E6: Wie bewerten Sie im Allgemeinen die Effekte von Dozentenmobilität im Rahmen von ERASMUS an Ihrer
Heimathochschule bezüglich der folgenden Aspekte? Antworten 1 und 2 auf einer Fünferskala von 1 = „In hohem
Maße“ bis 5 = „Überhaupt nicht“
Quelle: VALERA-Befragung ehemaliger ERASMUS-Dozenten 2005.

Der Ertrag eines Lehraufenthaltes im Ausland bezüglich Status und Einkommen sieht
auf den ersten Blick bescheiden aus: Drei Prozent konstatieren als Folge eine Gehalts-
steigerung, sechs Prozent die Verlängerung des Beschäftigungsvertrags und 12 Prozent
den Wechsel in eine leitende Position. Zu bedenken ist allerdings, dass der Anteil
derjenigen, die seit ihrem Lehraufenthalt in eine höhere Position aufgestiegen ist, sehr

li
Der berufliche Ertrag der ERASMUS Mobilität

gering ist. Ein Drittel der befragten Dozenten gibt dennoch an, ihr Lehraufenthalt im
Ausland habe ihre Karriereperspektiven verbessert. Offenkundig führt die Dozenten-
mobilität oft zu kleineren Verbesserungen und nährt die Aussichten auf spätere
Karriere-Erträge. Die befragten Hochschulleiter sehen ebenfalls eher moderate Effekte
für die Karriere, während fast die Hälfte der eingangs befragten Experten glaubt, dass
mobile Dozenten gute Aussichten auf einen Aufstieg an der eigenen Hochschule haben.
Insgesamt scheint, wie bereits zuvor erwähnt, der berufliche Ertrag eines Lehraufent-
haltes im Ausland für Dozenten aus Mittel- und Osteuropa wesentlich höher zu sein als
für ihre Kollegen aus westeuropäischen Ländern. Dieser Unterschied ist bei den Lehren-
den weitaus höher als bei den Studierenden. So beobachten zehn Prozent der Dozenten
aus Mittel- und Osteuropa, aber nur ein Prozent aus Westeuropa, eine Erhöhung des
Gehalts. 30 Prozent der ersteren im Vergleich zu sieben Prozent der letzteren Gruppe
betonen, dass sie als Konsequenz des Lehraufenthalts im Ausland eine höhere Position
erhalten haben. Schließlich verzeichnen 81 Prozent der ersteren im Vergleich zu 53
Prozent der letzteren einen positiven Ertrag für die allgemeine berufliche Entwicklung.

Der Ertrag insgesamt und Empfehlungen

Insgesamt erbrachten die Erhebungen, die im Rahmen des VALERA-Evaluationspro-
jekts durchgeführt worden sind, fünf besonders bemerkenswerte Befunde:
• Die Triangulation der Einschätzungen zeigt, dass die einbezogenen Experten,
Hochschulleiter und Arbeitgeber den beruflichen Effekt der durch ERASMUS
geförderten Studienphase in einem anderen europäischen Land höher
einschätzen als die ehemals mobilen Studierenden selbst. Wir können nicht
eindeutig feststellen, ob erstere eher zu einer Überschätzung oder letztere eher
zu Unterschätzung der Erträge neigen.
• Diese jüngste Evaluationsstudie bestätigt die Ergebnisse früherer Erhebungen:
Auch frühere ERASMUS-Studierende glauben, dass die Auslandsstudienphase
häufig internationale Mobilität, internationale Kompetenzen und sichtbar
internationale berufliche Aufgaben zur Folge hat, aber kaum höhere Positionen
oder höheres Einkommen im Vergleich zu nicht-mobilen Studierenden nach sich
zieht. Die meisten anderen Befragten sind allerdings der Ansicht, dass
ERASMUS auch zu Karrierevorteilen führt.
• Ein Vergleich der Antworten, die die ERASMUS-Studierenden des Jahres
2000/01 fünf Jahre später gaben, mit den Antworten, die frühere Generationen
von ERASMUS-Studierenden bei vorangehenden Befragungen gegeben hatten,
lassen den Schluss zu, dass der Vorteil, den ERASMUS-Studierende im
Hinblick auf internationale Beschäftigung und Berufstätigkeit haben, im Laufe
der Zeit in vieler Hinsicht sinkt. Je mehr internationale Berufstätigkeiten
zunehmen und je mehr alle Studierenden internationale Kompetenzen gewinnen,
desto weniger kann ein herausgehobener Wert von ERASMUS erwartet werden.
• Der berufliche Wert einer ERASMUS-geförderten Auslandsphase ist für mobile
Studierende wie für mobile Dozenten aus mittel- und osteuropäischen Ländern
offenkundig deutlich höher als für Westeuropäer. Gegenüber diesen Unter-
schieden nach Ländern sind die Differenzen nach Disziplinen gering.

lii
 Executive Summary (Deutsch)

• Obwohl die mobilen Dozenten in der Regel bereits vorher international erfahren
waren, zur Zeit des Auslandsaufenthalts bereits im Beruf gut etabliert sind und
mit Hilfe von ERASMUS meistens nur eine sehr kurze Phase im Ausland
lehren, berichten sie von einem bemerkenswert hohen beruflichen Ertrag dieser
Lehrtätigkeit im Ausland. Die Mehrheit von ihnen ist dadurch stärker in
internationaler Forschungskooperation eingebunden und ist der Ansicht, dass
sich ihre wissenschaftlichen Kompetenzen dadurch insgesamt gesteigert hätten;
etwas geringer ist der Anteil derjenigen, die wertvolle Erträge für ihre spätere
Lehrtätigkeit sehen. Einige ehemals mobile Dozenten sehen positive Auswir-
kungen auf ihre beruflichen Karrieren, und einige entscheiden sich, ihre
Berufstätigkeit in einem anderen Land fortzusetzen, dabei in den meisten Fällen
in dem Land, in dem sie mit Hilfe von ERASMUS gelehrt haben.
Insgesamt unterstreichen die Ergebnisse der VALERA-Evaluationsstudie die Relevanz
des ERASMUS-Förderungsprogramms. Wie auch frühere Studien gezeigt haben, hilft
ein temporäres Studium in einem anderen Land, internationale Kompetenzen zu erhö-
hen, fördert die berufliche Mobilität der Absolventen und führt die ehemaligen ERAS-
MUS-Studierenden an internationale Berufsaufgaben heran. Die Studie zeigt darüber
hinaus, dass Arbeitgeber international erfahrene Absolventen gegenüber anderen
Absolventen in vielen Kompetenzbereichen als überlegen einschätzen und auch
annehmen, dass sie im Laufe ihrer Karriere erfolgreicher sind. Die Relevanz von
ERASMUS wird schließlich in dieser Studie dadurch unterstrichen, dass die mobilen
Dozenten einen hohen beruflichen Wert der ERASMUS-geförderten Phase des Lehrens
konstatieren. Die befragten Universitätsleiter sind davon überzeugt, dass dies deutlich
zur Internationalisierung wie zur Reputation der Hochschule beiträgt. Die vorliegenden
Befunde lassen den Schluss zu, dass ERASMUS einem Bedarf des Beschäftigungs-
systems entspricht und dass die Hochschulen sich der an sie gerichteten
gesellschaftlichen Erwartungen bewusst sind.
Diese Evaluationsstudie bestätigt das Ergebnis früherer Untersuchungen, dass ERAS-
MUS darin effektiv ist, dass es große Zahlen von Personen mit im Einzelfall relativ
bescheidenen Mitteln unterstützt. Allerdings sind auch viele in die Analyse einbezogene
Akteure und Experten davon überzeugt, dass eine Qualitätsverbesserung erreichbar
wäre, wenn die Lehrenden jeweils eine höhere finanzielle Unterstützung erhielten, um
längere Phasen im Ausland zu lehren, und wenn mehr Unterstützung für curriculare
Aktivitäten in enger Verknüpfung zu studentischer Mobilität vorgesehen würden.
Was die Wirkung von ERASMUS angeht, ist bereits aus früheren Studien erkennbar,
dass der „vertikale“ berufliche Wert des temporären Studiums in einem anderen euro-
päischen Land begrenzt, aber der „horizontale“ Wert eindrucksvoll ist. Ehemalige
ERASMUS-Studierende können kaum damit rechnen, dass sie höhere Positionen und
ein höheres Einkommen als andere Absolventen erreichen werden, aber der Übergang
in die Berufstätigkeit ist erleichtert, sie sind in größerer Zahl international beruflich
mobil, und sie übernehmen in hohem Maße sichtbar internationale berufliche Aufgaben.
Nur die früheren ERASMUS-Studierenden aus den mittel- und osteuropäischen
Ländern können überwiegend auch mit größeren Karriereerfolgen rechnen. Die jüngst
durchgeführten Erhebungen zeigen darüber hinaus, dass die Experten und Arbeitgeber,
die angesprochen wurden, nicht die Förderung der Kompetenzen durch ERASMUS
schätzen, die für internationale Berufsrollen wichtig sind, sondern das überdurch-
schnittliche generelle Kompetenzniveau von früheren ERASMUS-Studierenden in

liii
Der berufliche Ertrag der ERASMUS Mobilität

vielen Bereichen des wissenschaftlich-fachlichen Wissens, der generellen

intellektuellen Kompetenzen, der berufsbezogenen Werte und Einstellungen und der
sozio-kommunikativen Befähigungen. Es gibt keinen Beleg dafür, dass ERASMUS eine
stärkere Wirkung hat als andere Formen des Auslandsstudiums, aber das ERASMUS
Programm ist sehr erfolgreich in der Mobilisierung einer großen Anzahl von
Studierenden, die in den oben beschriebenen Maße von dieser Erfahrung profitieren.
Im Hinblick auf die temporäre Mobilität von Dozenten konnte diese Studie beachtliche
Erträge benennen. Die meisten mobilen Lehrenden beobachten weitreichende Wirkun-
gen im Hinblick auf ihre späteren Forschungs- und Lehrtätigkeiten. Die befragten
Hochschulleiter und andere Experten sind sogar der Ansicht, dass die mobilen
Lehrenden danach aktiver und intellektuell anspruchsvoller werden und in manchen
Fällen danach auch bemerkenswerte Karriereerfolge haben.
Was die Dauerhaftigkeit des ERASMUS-Programms angeht, sind die meisten befragten
Akteure und Experten davon überzeugt, dass ERASMUS auch in Zukunft eine große
Rolle spielen wird, wenn die Grundzüge des Programms unverändert bleiben.
ERASMUS hat so viele Vorzüge, dass beinah ausnahmslos alle Betroffenen sich für ein
Weiterbestehen einsetzen.
Jedoch fordern sie Verbesserungen im Rahmen der erprobten Praktiken, z.B. eine
bessere Vorbereitung der Studierenden, eine stärkere studienbezogene, administrative
und finanzielle Unterstützung während des Auslandsaufenthaltes, verbesserte
Anerkennung der Studienleistungen nach der Rückkehr, bessere Zusammenarbeit
zwischen Hochschule und Beschäftigungssystem, mehr Geld und weniger Bürokratie
von Seiten der Europäischen Kommission und zu guter Letzt stärkere Bemühungen, die
Stärken des ERASMUS-Programms außerhalb der Hochschulen bekannt zu machen.
Zur Mobilität der Dozenten wird vorgeschlagen, Bemühungen zu unternehmen, damit
längere Phasen des Lehrens in anderen Ländern realisiert werden können; auch wird
empfohlen, die temporäre Lehre im Ausland stärker bei Personalentscheidungen zu
berücksichtigen, so bei Berufungs- und Beförderungsentscheidungen.
Diese Studie hat jedoch auch Befunde erbracht, die die Dauerhaftigkeit der „Erfolgs-
story ERASMUS“ in Frage stellen. Der berufliche Ertrag des temporären Studiums in
einem anderen Land ist im Laufe der Jahre deutlich zurückgegangen. Die jüngste
Befragung ehemaliger ERASMUS-Studierender zeigt im Vergleich zu ähnlichen frühe-
ren Studien, dass das temporäre Studium weniger zu einem leichteren Übergang in das
Beschäftigungssystem, zum Erreichen eines höheren Einkommens und zum Zugang zu
internationalen Berufsaufgaben beiträgt als in der Vergangenheit. Das ist wahrschein-
lich durch eine wachsende generelle Internationalisierung verursacht, die die Einzigartig-
keit der ERASMUS-Erfahrung erodieren lässt.
Die Autoren dieser Studie kommen zu dem Schluss, dass das ERASMUS-Programm in
Zukunft größere Chancen hat, wenn es im Hinblick auf die Qualität der Auslands-
studienphase wieder anspruchsvoller wird. Es gab gute Gründe in der Vergangenheit,
warum das ERASMUS-Programm sich allmählich von einer engen Verzahnung von
studentischer Mobilität und Studiengangsentwicklung zu einem administrativ gut
funktionierenden Programm für große Zahlen von Studierenden entwickelt hat. Aber
jetzt sinkt der Wert der Auslandsstudienphase an sich. Darüber hinaus sehen die
Akteure und Experten, die an dieser Studie im Hinblick auf Fragen der einzelnen
Studienfächer beteiligt waren, große Spielräume, den Wert des temporären

liv
 Executive Summary (Deutsch)

Auslandsstudiums durch eine bessere zeitliche Einbettung in den Studienverlauf und

gezielter curriculare Akzente zu erhöhen. So scheint die Zeit reif zu sein für einen
Richtungswandel in der Akzentuierung des ERASMUS-Programms, wobei
anspruchsvollere Ideen zur Studiengangsgestaltung mit der Förderung der mobilen
Studierenden verbunden werden sollten.

lv
1 Introduction
This is the final report presenting the results of the project : "The professional value of
ERASMUS mobility - External Evaluation of the Impact of ERASMUS Mobility on
Students’ Access to Employment and Career Development, on Teachers’ Career
Development and on Two Areas of Study to be Specified". In short, the core objective of
this project was to evaluate the professional value of the ERASMUS programme for
mobile students and teachers participating in the programme.
The report presents the results of each project step, summarising the Framework Report,
the Report on the First Phase and on the Second Phase. The first two introductory
chapters give an overview about the aims and design of the study and the used modes of
inquiry. The following third chapter summarises the core results of the expert survey
and is a condensed version of the Framework Report. The fourth chapter presents the
findings of the student survey. The core findings of the conducted employer survey are
the objective of the fifth chapter, followed by a chapter about the results of the teacher
survey. The seventh chapter finally presents the results of the survey which was directed
to the university leaders. These five surveys formed the first phase of the project.
The major findings of the second project phase can be found in chapter eight. Here the
field-specific results on student mobility in Mechanical Engineering, Business Studies,
Sociology and Chemistry can be found. Finally, a summarising ninth chapter presents
the core results of all conducted surveys in a topic-oriented order followed and a
summary of the results according to the initially stated evaluation questions.

1.1 Aims and Design of the Study

This study “The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility” (VALERA) presents the
results of an evaluation study undertaken from December 2004 to June 2006 on the
professional impact of mobility of
• students and
• teachers
who have spent some period in another European country in the framework of the
ERASMUS sub-programme of SOCRATES. For this purpose, first, prior evaluation
studies were screened thoroughly and a broad range of actors and experts were asked to
present their views. Second, by taking available information and the results of the initial
survey into account, representative surveys were undertaken of formerly mobile
ERASMUS students and formerly mobile ERASMUS teachers who had spent a period
in another European country in the academic year 2000/01. Third, information provided
was supplemented by surveys of university leaders are asked about student and teacher
mobility at their institution and of employers to report about their experience with
formerly mobile students. Fourth, seminars were held addressing four selected fields of
study, i.e. Chemistry, Mechanical Engineering, Sociology and Business, in order to
elicit experts’ and actors’ views about the major strengths and weaknesses of temporary
student mobility and possible ways in increase its professional value.

1
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

The study takes for granted that students’ temporary mobility during the course of study
is not only important for learning up to a degree within the walls of higher education
institution, but also affects their subsequent life-course and notably their subsequent
employment and work. Since two previous similar studies have been undertaken, the
study helps to establish changes in the professional value of ERASMUS. In contrast,
prior studies on teaching staff mobility had focussed on the impact of temporary
teaching in another European country on study provisions and conditions at their home
department and well as on student mobility; this study puts emphasis for the first time
on the impact of this international experiences on the formerly mobile teachers’
employment and work.
Actually, the professional value of student mobility was analysed notably with regard to
general and international competences, transition to work, first and subsequent
employment as well as international aspects of employment and work. Similarly, the
impact of teaching staff mobility on teachers´ career development was analysed with
regard to general academic and teaching competences, international and inter-cultural
competences, subsequent activities at the home higher education institution in the
framework of ERASMUS, the teachers’ subsequent academic activities and career as
well as international mobility.
The Report was commissioned by the European Commission – Directorate General
Education and Culture as “External Interim Evaluation of the Impact of ERASMUS
Mobility (Action 2 of the SOCRATES Community Action Programme, 2000 – 2006)
on Students’ Access to Employment and Career Development, on Teachers’ Career
Development and on Two Areas of Study to be Specified (Contract No. 2004-3297)”. It
was undertaken by members of the International Centre for Higher Education Research
(INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel.

1.2 Modes of Inquiry

The evaluation study was divided in two major phases. The first phase encompassed
altogether five surveys: An expert survey as a very first step, a survey of former
ERASMUS students, a survey of former ERASMUS teachers, a survey of university
leaders and an employers' survey. The second phase was based on qualitative seminars
focusing on four specific fields of study for an in-depth field-specific analysis of the
results of the first phase. An expert seminar formed the linking point between both
phases.
The analysis of the expert survey, the first survey of the project outline, is called
“Framework Report”, because it set the agenda for all subsequent activities of the
project. It aimed to provide findings in its own right. The expert survey was undertaken
prior to the survey of former ERASMUS students and teachers in order to help prepare
the latter surveys; e.g. identifying issues which had not been taken care of in previous
student and teacher studies. The questionnaires were sent to representatives of the
ERASMUS programme itself, policy representatives, representatives of student
organisations, fields of study/disciplines, labour market representatives and higher
education institutions. Of the 156 addressed experts, 67 answered the questionnaire
which corresponds to a response rate of 43 percent.

2
 Introduction

The second step of the first project phase included on the one hand surveys of the
mobile persons themselves: ERASMUS students and teachers a few years after their
ERASMUS experience as well as university leaders and employers.
The survey of former ERASMUS students was aimed at providing information on the
actual professional impact of an ERASMUS-supported temporary study period in
another country and to identify the most conducive conditions for a high professional
value. To gather information from the formerly mobile students, this survey was
directed at students who went abroad in the framework of ERASMUS in the academic
year 2000/01 with an elaborate questionnaire on their view of their competences gained
during their ERASMUS period abroad and on the impact of the temporary study abroad
on their transition to work. By addressing ERASMUS students from 2000/01, it could
be assumed that the majority of the former mobile students had already graduated and
arrived on the labour market. Altogether, the response rate was 45 percent. 4,589 former
ERASMUS students had filled the questionnaire.
As not only student mobility but also teaching staff mobility was one of the objectives
of this study, a second survey was directed at all teachers who were mobile with the
ERASMUS programme in the academic year 2000/01. The underlying assumption was
that teaching staff mobility contributes to students’ learning and to serve the
development of the knowledge base both at the home and the host university and that it
also improves the competences of the mobile teachers themselves. Accordingly, the
teacher questionnaire covered questions about the socio-graphic background, the
teaching activity abroad, supporting structures at the home institution as well as the
perceived impact on competences and subsequent career. All outgoing teachers of the
academic year 2000/01 were addressed via their respective ERASMUS coordinator at
the institution and asked to fill out the online questionnaire. 755 teachers answered the
questionnaire which corresponds to a response rate of 24 percent.
The university leader survey delivered information about student and teaching staff
mobility in the framework of the ERASMUS programme. Due to the top position of
university leaders and their responsibility for policies related to internationalisation and
ERASMUS, they should be well informed about the potential professional impact of
teaching in the framework of ERASMUS, and they are certainly well informed about
the universities’ activities to support the transition to employment and about feedback
from the employment system about the professional value of study in another European
country. Paper questionnaires covering these topics were sent to all leaders of higher
education institutions involved in the ERASMUS programme via the institutional
ERASMUS coordinator. The response rate was 44 percent, 626 leaders had answered
and resent the questionnaire.
Additionally, an employers’ survey was undertaken. The survey of employers provides a
basis to compare the employers' view with the view of the former ERASMUS students
and the university leaders and to identify possible mismatches between the employers’
needs and graduates’ competences. Accordingly, the questionnaire included questions
about the organisation itself, the scope of operations, the positions of formerly mobile
graduates, the applied recruitment criteria and competences expected. Furthermore, the
employers were asked to compare formerly mobile and non-mobile graduates in their
organisation. This questionnaire survey was answered by 312 persons who are

3
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

responsible within the employing organisations for the recruitment of university

graduates.
These surveys of the first phase delivered the main input for the expert seminar which
took place at the end of the first project phase. The expert seminar brought together
experts from different European countries and several professional backgrounds:
representatives of National Socrates Agencies and ERASMUS coordinators, Ministries
of Education, employers' and students' organisations as well as academic and
professional organisations on both national and European level. The aim was to discuss
the findings of the first phase and to specify the objectives of the second phase. The
main conclusion of the expert seminar was to conduct seminars instead of interviews in
different fields of study during the second phase of the project. The seminars as
methodological approach were chosen to ensure a deep insight into various perspectives
and experiences and to reveal tacit knowledge of the participants in the respective
domain. Accordingly, during the second phase of the project, expert seminars in each of
the four selected fields of study were conducted: Chemistry as an academically oriented
field in the area of science and engineering, Mechanical Engineering as a professionally
oriented field in this area, Sociology as an academically oriented field in the area of
humanities and social sciences and Business Studies as a professionally oriented field in
the latter area. As seminar participants were invited teachers (favourably involved in
curriculum development), former and current ERASMUS students, employers,
representatives of academic and professional associations and experts involved in
relevant projects (e.g. TUNING, Thematic Networks).

Table 1 Overview about the Surveys Conducted in the VALERA

Study
Kind of survey Field Phase Number of Response
filled rate
questionnaires
Expert Survey March 2005 - 67 43%
Experts and Akteurs in the May 2005
ERASMUS Programme
Student Survey September 2005 - 4,589 45%
Student Participants in the February 2006
ERASMUS programme
(2000/01)
Employer Survey February 2006 - 312 6%
Employers and Recruiting April/May 2006
Managers of Higher Education
Graduates
Teacher Survey October 2005 - 755 24%
Teaching Staff Participants in February 2006
the ERASMUS programme
(2000/01)
University Leader Survey September 2005 - 626 44%
University Leaders at Higher February 2006
Education Institutions
participating in ERASMUS
"Field of Study" specific seminars Four seminars Qualitative Qualitative
Experts, Employers, conducted between data data
Teachers, Students in the end of March and
respective field of study beginning of May

4
 Introduction

Altogether, stronger and more time-consuming efforts were needed to win the
cooperation of institutions of higher education and of the various groups of respondents
than in similar previous studies and than both the European Commission promoting this
study and the research team conducting this study had expected. The European
Commission accepted for that reason an extension of the project to about twice the
period initially envisaged. Moreover, the research team – more experienced than any
other in studies on international mobility in higher education - contributed to the
survival of the study with substantial additional resources not paid by the Commission.
This saved the project as such, but the response rates remained lower than expected and
lower than in previous surveys conducted by the responsible institution.
We have good reasons to conclude that the problems which had emerged in the process
of this study are not due to ERASMUS fatigue, but are due to an evaluation and survey
fatigue in general. The more evaluation is accepted as highly important, the more –
ironically – the quality of systematic evaluations seem to suffer, because the evaluation
activities explode quantitatively to such an extent that all persons involved become
overburdened as a consequence of frequent calls to provide information for evaluation
studies or to lend support to them in other ways.
The subsequent report certainly provides valuable insights, but the results could have
been received with a higher level of confidence if the cooperation on the part of the
higher education institutions and of the various types of experts and actors had been as
impressive as it had been in prior studies conducted by the research team between the
inauguration of the ERASMUS programme and the late 1990s.
Nevertheless, this report relies on the valuable assistance of administrative staff related
to the ERASMUS programme within hundreds of higher education institutions in
Europe. We are deeply grateful for their readiness to help in the process of the surveys.
In particular we appreciate the participation of more than 6,000 persons from whom we
got a feedback as experts about the ERASMUS programme, as former ERASMUS
students, as mobile teachers, as university leaders or employers.
Besides the authors of this report, many other members of INCHER-Kassel contributed
to the study: student assistants like Adis Dewi, Martin Guist, Agnes Jäger, Stefan Kohl,
Markus Nees, Thorsten Schramm, Agnes Schreiber, Lars Söhlke, and many others
helped with the administration of the surveys; Ahmed Tubail administrated the online
surveys and did a lot of the statistical analysis; Cristian Ivan developed and
administrated the web site of the project and, together with Roman Schmidt, he did a lot
of work related with the formatting of questionnaires and production of charts and
tables for the reports; Dagmar Mann and Christiane Rittgerott supported the report with
text-editing, and Sandy Mui was our right hand for all organisational and secretarial
matters.
Finally, the project team is very thankful regarding the fruitful cooperation with
members of the EU Commission, DG Education and Culture, during the project,
especially Mr. Pedro Martinez-Macias.

5
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

2 The ERASMUS Programme

2.1 The History of the Programme

The European Economic Community, after its foundation in the 1950s, initially
addressed educational matters only in the areas of vocational training and the transition
from education to employment. When higher education became part of the European
agenda during the 1970s, one of the first activities was to promote student mobility. The
Joint-Study Programmes (JSP) were established in 1976 and remained operative for
about a decade. This pilot programme provided financial support for networks of
departments that exchanged students for a period of up to one year and also included
some funds, though on a moderate scale, for mobile students. The JSP programme was
widely viewed as successful in creating a fruitful academic and administrative
environment for student exchange between cooperating departments of higher education
institutions in different countries. All of them established various modes of
organisational and academic support for mobile students, many were active in joint
curricular development, and the most ambitious departmental networks even developed
double degrees. However, the limited time-span of institutional support and the extra
costs incurred by students during study periods abroad constituted barriers to far-
reaching success.
Subsequently, in 1987 the ERASMUS programme was inaugurated. Its name not only
reminded of the Dutch humanist and theologian Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus
(1466-1536), but also served as an acronym for European Community Action Scheme
for the Mobility of University Students. ERASMUS was not only aimed to increase the
quantity of European higher education activities but also to broaden their scope. It
rapidly became the most visible of the various newly emerging European educational
programmes. Though the financial basis of the programme did not reach the volume
needed for pursuing the ambitious aim initially set by the European Community of
supporting a temporary study period in another European country of 10 percent of
students in higher education, ERASMUS became the largest student mobility
programme hitherto established.
A new chapter in the history of European support for temporary student mobility and
transborder cooperation of higher education institutions was expected to begin when the
SOCRATES programme – named after the Greek philosopher and educational reformer
of the fifth century B.C. – was established in 1995. Implemented in the area of higher
education as from the academic year 1997/98, SOCRATES brought together the various
education programmes, thus aiming at increased administrative efficiency and
substantive cross-fertilisation of education activities in various sectors. When
ERASMUS became a sub-programme of SOCRATES, support for student mobility and
cooperation in higher education was substantially increased. In addition to student
mobility, teaching staff mobility and curricular innovation were now promoted as well
to place special emphasis on a broad development of the European dimension in higher
education and to make the non-mobile students profit from the programme as well. The
responsibility for administering student mobility and cooperation was moved away from
the networks of cooperating departments previously supported, named Inter-University
Co-operation Programmes (ICPs), to the centre of the higher education institutions. The

6
 The ERASMUS Programme

European Commission and the individual higher education institutions became partners
by concluding so-called Institutional Contracts (IC).

2.2 The Initial ERASMUS Approach

Financial support for temporary student mobility within Europe – more precisely: grants
aiming to cover the additional costs for study abroad – has been the most visible
component of the ERASMUS programme from the outset. More than half the
ERASMUS funds were allocated to student mobility grants. The European Commission
also provided initially some funds for the departments involved in student exchange.
Additional actions of the programme provided support for staff exchange, notably
teaching staff mobility, as well as for curriculum development, short intensive
programmes and some other activities. As from 1989/90, funds were also made
available to departments cooperating in the establishment of the European Credit
Transfer System (ECTS).
The characteristics of ERASMUS during that period were described in the major
evaluation study addressed the first seven years of the programmes: regional (i.e. intra-
European) mobility, temporary student mobility (up to one year), collective mobility
(between certain institutions and departments), mobility and cooperation within
networks, organized study abroad (institutional support for preparation,
accommodation, administrative matters etc.), curricular integration, an inclusive
approach towards temporary study abroad (recognition as a key criteria ), as well as
partial and incentive-funding.
ERASMUS was quickly considered the flagship of the educational programmes
administered by the European Union. Despite widespread criticism of bureaucratic
hypertrophy and too little funding for individual students and universities, ERASMUS
was seen as having helped student mobility in Europe become of the normal options for
students instead of an exception and cooperation in higher education being upgraded
from a marginal phenomenon toward an activity that was intertwined with almost all
issues of the regular life of a university.

2.3 The SOCRATES Approach

The SOCRATES programme, above all, aimed to create links between various areas of
support in education. As a large umbrella programme, it should symbolise the extension
of responsibility of the European Union to all education areas since the 1992 Treaty of
Maastricht. Also, the administrative load associated with the management of the
programmes should be reduced through a merger of individual programme structures.
Last but not least, SOCRATES should stimulate cooperation in European matters of
education across different educational sectors.
SOCRATES therefore integrated the more than a dozen educational programmes which
had been established in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were revised or
supplemented to form two new large European programmes, namely SOCRATES for
the different sectors of general education and LEONARDO DA VINCI for vocational

7
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

education. SOCRATES absorbed ERASMUS and LINGUA, which became two of a

total of five sub-programmes.
As regards ERASMUS, the most visible changes of ERASMUS envisaged under the
new umbrella of SOCRATES were of a managerial nature:
(a) Each individual institution of higher education had to submit one
application encompassing all its exchange and cooperation activities, thus
replacing the previous pattern of submission of applications by networks of
cooperating institutions. This application became the basis for an
“Institutional Contract” between the European Commission and the
individual institution of higher education.
(b) Bilateral cooperation agreements between partner institutions substituted the
inter-university agreements between networks of departments. The
institutions of higher education applying for SOCRATES were expected to
keep and provide on request written traces of the cooperation that had been
established between them and other European institutions.
(c) Each institution submitting an application for SOCRATES support was
requested to include in its application a European Policy Statement (EPS).
This statement was designed to provide a framework for all the actual
European activities to be carried out by the applying institution and to
define the role SOCRATES support would play in this framework.
This managerial change of the SOCRATES programme was generally conceived to
imply more salient changes than a mere amendment to bureaucratic procedures.
Implicitly, SOCRATES challenged the institutions of higher education wishing to be
awarded grants for cooperation and mobility to reflect and put a stronger emphasis on
the coherence of goals to be pursued and the coherence of European activities to be
undertaken, to strengthen the responsibility of the central level of the higher education
institutions regarding European activities, and to develop and reinforce strategic
thinking in terms of setting clear targets and pursuing them successfully.
ERASMUS under the umbrella of SOCRATES was expected to take further steps
towards cooperation and the qualitative development of course provisions in European
higher education. For example, stronger efforts were envisaged to foster a common
substance of knowledge across Europe. “The European dimension“ was advocated as a
goal to be pursued more vigorously than in the past.
While ERASMUS in the past had clearly focused on the learning opportunities of
mobile students, SOCRATES aimed to also address the non-mobile of students, i.e. to
make the majority of students benefit from the European dimension in higher education.
Notably, curricular innovation and increasing teaching staff mobility was expected to
contribute to European experiences on the part of the non-mobile students.
For these purpose, activities supported in addition to student mobility were given an
increasing share of the resources and were expected to play a greater role. Financial
support for teaching staff exchange was substantially increased. Support for Curriculum
Development and Intensive Programmes was extended and newly structured. Promotion
of the European Credit Transfer System became one of the priorities of the targeted
measures to improve the conditions of student mobility. In addition, Thematic Networks

8
 The ERASMUS Programme

projects were introduced. They were expected to stimulate innovative concepts of

educational change through joint deliberation and development activities in networks of
experts and key actors focusing on individual fields of study or special cross-cutting
issues.
Some measures taken or recommended were intended to contribute to improved
academic and administrative support of student mobility. The growing responsibility of
the institutions of higher education as a whole should increase the degree of
administrative support both for out-going and in-coming mobile students. Also, the
bilateral cooperation agreements between partner institutions of higher education were
expected to ensure that a certain minimum quality of academic and administrative was
universal by being less at the mercy of a few individuals than they were in the past.
Further, greater teaching staff mobility and growing activities of curricular innovation
also should contribute to a better learning environment both for mobile students and
non-mobile students. Finally, the further spread of ECTS was expected to be not merely
a mechanism to assess study achievements abroad, but also to lead to better information
and growing European cooperation in curricular matters.

2.4 Implementing ERASMUS as a Sub-Programme within

SOCRATES
The European Community action programme on education, SOCRATES, was adopted
by the European Parliament and Council Decision No 819/95/EC of 14 March 1995 for
the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 December 1999. This decision set in motion the
implementation of the first overall programme in the field of education at the European
level.
The general objective of the SOCRATES programme is described in Article 1 of the
corresponding Council Decision: “This programme is intended to contribute to the
development of quality education and training and the creation of an open European
area for cooperation in education”. In the perspective of lifelong learning, its aim is to
optimise the skills and competences of the citizens of Europe, to strengthen equal
opportunities and to encourage the development of active and responsible citizenship
with a European dimension. These general objectives are made operational by nine
specific aims described in Article 3 of the Council Decision:
“a) to develop the European dimension in education at all levels so as to strengthen the
spirit of European citizenship, drawing on the cultural heritage of each Member State;
b) to promote a quantitative and qualitative improvement of the knowledge of the
languages of the European Union, and in particular those which are least widely used
and least taught, leading to greater understanding and solidarity between the peoples of
the European Union, and to promote the intercultural dimension of education;
c) to promote wide-ranging and intensive cooperation between institutions in the
Member States at all levels of education, enhancing their intellectual and teaching
potential;
d) to encourage the mobility of teachers, so as to promote a European dimension in
studies and to contribute to the qualitative improvement of their skills;

9
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

e) to encourage mobility of students, enabling them to complete part of their studies in

another Member State, so as to contribute to the consolidation of the European
dimension in education;
f) to encourage contacts among pupils in the European Union, and to promote the
European dimension in their education;
g) to encourage the academic recognition of diplomas, periods of study and other
qualifications, with the aim of facilitating the development of an open area for
cooperation in education;
h) to encourage open and distance education in the context of the activities of this
programme;
i) to foster exchanges of information and experience so that the diversity and specificity
of the educational systems in the Member States become a source of enrichment and of
mutual stimulation.”
Various sub-programmes other than ERASMUS were relevant for higher education as
well. Among others, COMENIUS and LINGUA addressed teacher training. OPEN and
DISTANCE LEARNING as well as ADULT EDUCATION were open to participation
of higher education institutions. Obviously, however, ERASMUS remained the core
(sub-)programme for mobility and cooperation in higher education.
After a number of amendments to its original structure under SOCRATES had been
made, from the introduction of Institutional Contracts in 1997/98 on, the ERASMUS
programme was structured into two broad fields of support, the so-called “Actions”:
Action 1: Support to universities to enhance the European dimension of studies;
Action 2: Student mobility grants.
Action 1 was subdivided into six ”Activities“ on the one hand and Thematic Network
projects on the other hand. The six Activities could be granted financial support by the
European Commission within the framework of Institutional Contracts, whereas
Thematic Network projects had to be organised separate from Institutional Contracts.
Institutional Contracts between the European Commission and individual institutions of
higher education determine the nature and the amount of support to be provided by the
former for the development and implementation of European cooperation activities by
the latter. They normally run over three years and have to include a European policy
statement of the higher education institution for this period. Funding for Activities is
granted on a yearly basis and runs from July on. All Activities must involve
transnational cooperation between higher education institutions and must be based on
prior agreements between departments, faculties or institutions.
The six Activities for which higher education institutions could receive financial
support under Institutional Contracts were the following:
• Activity 1: Support for organising the mobility of students
Higher education institutions were expected to create optimal conditions for
students who wanted to spend study periods at partner institutions abroad.
Therefore, among others, the linguistic preparation of their students, the
provision of information on the host institution, the monitoring of outgoing

10
 The ERASMUS Programme

students and help for incoming students were eligible for financial support.
Since study periods abroad had to be recognised at the home institution,
discussions of academic and organisational arrangements with partner
institutions could also be supported. The level of support depended on the size
of an institution, the number of mobile students involved and the extent to which
the priorities of an institution coincided with the interest of the European
Commission for a balanced participation of students among countries, regions
and subject areas.
• Activity 2: Teaching staff mobility
As regards teaching staff mobility, assignments of short duration (one to eight
weeks) and fellowships of medium duration (2 to 6 months) had to be
distinguished. Participating academics had to be fully integrated into to the
department or faculty of their host institution; they were required to make a
substantial contribution to the host institution’s programme of study in terms of
the number of teaching hours involved. Their lecturing should refer to courses
which were assessed as part of a degree offered by the receiving institution.
Teaching fellowships of medium duration were meant to especially stimulate the
debate on pedagogical approaches.
• Activity 3: Intensive programmes
Intensive programmes were short programmes of study lasting between 10 days
and 3 months and bringing together students and staff from institutions in at
least three countries (research activities or conferences, however, were not
eligible for support). Their stress was on efficient teaching of specialist topics,
students working in multinational groups and teaching staff exchanging views
on teaching content and approaches.
• Activity 4: Preparatory visits
This activity should enable academic or administrative staff to spend up to 3
weeks abroad in order to establish cooperation with departments, faculties or
institutions which had not been involved in ERASMUS before.
• Activity 5: European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)
ECTS is meant to provide an effective and generally applicable mechanism for
recognition of students’ academic achievement between partner institutions from
different countries. Higher education institutions could be granted support for
developing the use of ECTS within those departments in which the system had
not yet been applied.
• Activity 6: Joint curriculum development
As regards this Activity, support could be granted for the joint development of
curricula at initial or intermediate level, for the development of advanced level
university programmes (“Masters“ type), for the joint development of European
modules or the joint development of integrated language courses. Institutions
from at least three countries have to be involved. Cooperation with the
professional world at regional, national and European level as well as the use of
new media was desired.

11
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Additionally, Thematic Network projects could also be supported under Action 1, but
separate from the Institutional Contracts. Thematic Network were to facilitate the
definition and the development of a European dimension within a given academic
discipline or other issues of common interest (including administrative ones) through
cooperation between faculties or departments as well as academic or professional
associations. It was expected to relate to curriculum innovation, improvements in
teaching methods or to the development of joint programmes and specialised courses.
Outcomes should have lasting and widespread impact across a range of institutions
within or between specific discipline areas.
Under Action 2 of ERASMUS within SOCRATES, student mobility grants were
awarded to help students cover the extra costs incurred during study abroad (travel,
language preparation and differences in the cost of living). Direct financial aid could be
granted for a study period abroad of 3 to 12 months duration to be recognised at the
home institution. The level of grants depended on the arrangements defined by National
Agencies in the participating countries. The number of student grants awarded to an
institution was decided by considering not only the number of outgoing students which
a university entered in its application for an Institutional Contract to the Commission,
but also the available overall budget, the balance of student flows between countries and
in single subject areas, the availability of funding from other sources etc. Not all
ERASMUS students necessarily had to be awarded a Community-funded mobility
grant.

2.5 SOCRATES/ERASMUS 2000-2006

The decision no. 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 24
January 2000 establish the second phase of SOCRATES for the years 2000 until 2006.
The general objectives of Socrates II are described in Article 2 of the Council Decision:
"In order to contribute to the development of quality education and encourage life-long
learning, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States, the objectives
of the programme shall be:
(a) to strengthen the European dimension in education at all levels and to facilitate wide
transnational access to educational resources in Europe while promoting equal
opportunities throughout all fields of education;
(b) to promote a quantitative and qualitative improvement of the knowledge of the
languages of the European Union, in particular those languages which are less widely
used and less widely taught, so as to lead to greater understanding and solidarity
between the peoples of the European Union and promote the intercultural dimension of
education;
(c) to promote cooperation and mobility in the field of education, in particular by:
• encouraging exchanges between educational institutions,
• promoting open and distance learning,
• encouraging improvements in the recognition of diplomas and periods of study,

12
 Findings of the Expert Survey

• developing the exchange of information, and to help remove the obstacles in

this regard;
(d) to encourage innovation in the development of educational practices and materials
including, where appropriate, the use of new technologies, and to explore matters of
common policy interest in the field of education."
The ERASMUS action comprises now three areas:
• Action 2.1 European interuniversity cooperation,
• Action 2.2 Mobility of students and university teachers,
• Action 2.3 Thematic networks.
It was decided to continue with the Action 2 (ERASMUS) until 2006 without big
changes besides the administration of the programme: with the academic year
2000/2001 the administration of the funds for mobile teaching staff was transferred
from the European Commission to the National Agencies and the ERASMUS University
Charter (EUC) was introduced 2003/2004, which substitutes the former Institutional
Contract. Now higher education institutions apply for the ERASMUS University
Charter to the European Commission, and after the awarding of an EUC the institution
has the right to participate in activities supported by the ERASMUS programme.
Institutions of higher education that are not holders of an EUC may participate as
partners in a multinational project, but they are not allowed to submit themselves a
project proposal for a funding by the Community.
The ERASMUS University Charter sets out the underlying fundamental principles
behind all the ERASMUS activities of an institution of higher education, and represents
the commitment of the institution to these principles and obligations.

3 Findings of the Expert Survey

3.1 Introduction
As a first step of the project, a broad range of actors and experts was asked to state their
perceptions of the impact of ERASMUS mobility. The analysis of the expert survey was
called “Framework Report” in the project outline, because it sets the agenda for all
subsequent activities of the project. This expert survey, first, aims to provide findings in
its own right. Experts’ views ideally are based on a broad information base and on an
in-depth understanding of the issue at stake. Second, the expert survey was undertaken
prior to the survey of former ERASMUS students and teachers in order to help prepare
the latter survey; issues might be newly addressed in the expert survey which had not
been taken care of in previous student and teacher studies. Thus, the expert survey is
supposed to serve as methodological tool for developing the questionnaires of the
subsequent surveys.

13
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

3.2 The ERASMUS Expert Survey

Table 2 gives an overview about the key information about the expert survey
undertaken in spring 2005.

Table 2 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of ERASMUS

Experts
1 Target population Experts and actors in the field of Mobility, the
ERASMUS Programme and Labour Market
2 Start of field phase March 2005
3 End of field phase May 2005
4 Sampling strategy No sampling; Selection of experts based on
expertise, recommendations of National
Agencies and literature and document research
5 Questionnaire (see ANNEX A.6) – Highly standardized, 14 pages, 89
questions
– Translated in English, French and
German
– Online versions
6 Number of filled questionnaires 67

7 Gross response rate 35 %

(based on 190 experts who
received the questionnaire)
8 Net response rate 43 %
(based on 156 experts, 34 declined
to participate)

The questionnaire was only sent to selected experts and actors. As a rule, the National
Socrates Agencies were asked to recommend experts in their respective home country.
The target group were representatives from the following types of institutions:
• National Socrates Agency
• Ministries of Education
• Conference of rectors/presidents/vice chancellors
• Umbrella organisations of employment agencies
• Companies
On a supra-national level, the project team identified relevant European bodies with the
help of direct information from experts within the European Commission, of a directory
of relevant European associations provided by the European University Association
(EAU) and with the help of some other experts known to have a broad knowledge of the
European higher education “scene”. In addition, an internet search was undertaken
notably in order to identify relevant employers’ associations.

14
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Mailing procedure: The experts’ survey was conducted online and the experts were
addressed initially by email. However, experts were also offered to answer the
questionnaire offline, but only few of them opted for this alternative. The questionnaire
was presented in English, French and German. This, again, was undertaken to minimize
costs based on the assumption that the experts surveyed were highly versatile in at least
one of these languages. The experts were made available all three versions; thus, they
could choose themselves.
The questionnaire covered student and teaching staff mobility. The content was similar
to the later developed student and teacher questionnaire. Questions referred to
competences of former mobile students/teachers compared to non-mobile
students/teachers, the students´ transition to work, the subsequent career as well as the
possibility to state suggestions for improvement. It comprised open and “closed”
questions. Various closed questions were taken from similar prior surveys in order to
facilitate the comparison of the results of this study with findings of previous studies.
Response rate: The questionnaire was mailed to 190 experts. Only 29 experts got the
questionnaire about ERASMUS student mobility, 162 got a questionnaire consisting of
questions regarding ERASMUS student and teacher mobility. Of these 190 experts 34
declined to answer the questionnaire (among them 4 belonged to the group which were
only addressed regarding ERASMUS student mobility). 43 percent of the remaining
156 answered the questionnaire (67 of 156). Of the expert groups, the response rates
were highest among experts from the National Agencies. Here, 90 percent answered the
questionnaire:

Table 3 Response Rates by Type of Experts (Survey of ERASMUS

Experts)
Sample Number of Number of Number of Response Corrected
size responses refusals to filled ques- rate in %* response rate
participate tionnaires in % **
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Employer organisation 25 5 3 2 20 9
Employment umbrella or-
ganisations 7 2 1 1 29 17
Ministries 37 17 7 10 46 33
National agency 33 30 3 27 91 90
Rectors` conferences 26 11 7 4 42 21
Others 62 36 13 23 58 47
Total 190 101 34 67 53 43
* The response rate is based on the number of responses (2) in relation to the sample size.
** The corrected response rate is based on the number of filled questionnaires (4) in relation to the sample size
reduced by the number of refusals (3).

In the following analysis the single countries have been grouped into four country
groups to secure a statistical significant size of respondents. The experts of supra-
national organisations were treated separately.
Northern Finland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland
Europe
Middle Germany, UK, France, The Netherlands, Lichtenstein, Luxemburg,

15
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Europe Austria, Belgium, Ireland

Southern Portugal, Italy, Spain, Greek, Cyprus, Malta
Europe
Eastern Bulgaria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland. Latvia, Estonia,
Europe Lithuania, Slovakia, Romania, Slowenia
SUPRA Supra-national organisations (e.g. European Association of..)

3.3 Competences of Mobile Students Upon Return

Almost all of the 67 surveyed experts rate the mobile students’ competences upon return
to the home institution of higher education as better or even much better than their non-
mobile fellow students’. Of the 67 experts responding, between 73% and 99% each
rated them superior in the five areas addressed:
• Foreign language proficiency (99%)
• Intercultural understanding and competences (97%)
• Knowledge of other countries (94%)
• Preparation for future employment and work (82%)
• Academic knowledge and skills (73%)

In contrast, only between one quarter and none rate the mobile students as on even
terms with the non-mobile students, and hardly any expert rated the mobile students as
worse.

16
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Figure 1 Competences of ERASMUS Mobile Students Upon Return

as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the View of
ERASMUS Experts (percent)

Worse No difference Better and much better

Knowledge of
5 94
other countries

Foreign language
99
proficiency
Competences

Intercultural
understanding 97
and competencies

Academic
25 73
knowledge and skills

Preparation for future

17 82
employment and work

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question A1: At the time of return, how do you rate mobile students as compared to non-mobile students in the
following areas? (n=67); 5-point scale from 1 = "Much worse" over 3 = "no difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

Mobile students are considered superior to non-mobile students almost consistently with
regard to foreign language proficiency, intercultural understanding and knowledge of
other countries, i.e. areas directly linked to international experience. It is worth noting
that most experts also consider the general academic and professional competences of
mobile students as better than those of their non-mobile fellow students. The expert
ratings hardly differ by country of origin. Two exceptions are worth noting, as Table 3
shows. Foreign language proficiency was extremely highly assessed by experts from
Eastern European countries. Experts from Northern Europe less frequently assessed
mobile students as superior to non-mobile students with regard to general academic
knowledge and skills.
In this expert survey, 38% of respondents rate the mobile students’ knowledge of other
countries as much better and 56% as somewhat better than those of non-mobile
students. Only three of the respondents observe no difference in this respect and one
person rates the knowledge as somewhat worse on the part of the mobile students.
In the comments provided to these rating, several experts point out that living and
studying in another country and socialising with its citizens will enhance the knowledge
about culture, society and economy of the host country and at the same time of other
countries as well. However, some experts are more critical and point out that
enhancement of the knowledge on other countries might vary according to areas of
knowledge and might depend on specific circumstances, such as the length of the stay

17
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

or the personality of the mobile student and that those students not studying abroad
might have similar opportunities of acquiring knowledge of other countries.
Overall, the surveyed experts rate the impact of an ERASMUS supported study period
abroad on the knowledge on other countries as very positive and confirm hereby
previous studies on ERASMUS. However, critical comments refer to the need of
differentiation, as the learning process and its outcomes can not be generalised and as to
a certain degree similar knowledge can be gained at the home university.

3.3.1 Foreign Language Proficiency

Almost half of the experts surveyed rate the foreign language proficiency of formerly
mobile students upon return as much better (51%) and as somewhat better (48%) than
that of their fellow non-mobile students. Only one expert observes no difference in this
respect, and not a single expert rates the foreign language proficiency of mobile
students as inferior. Experts point out that living in another country and using a foreign
language every day contributes significantly to the improvement of foreign language
proficiency beyond mere study.
It can be summarized that the experts assess the impact of an ERASMUS study period
abroad as quite strong and confirm, hereby, the results of prior studies. As explanatory
factors, they mainly mention the need to use the foreign language in the daily and
academic life which has a much stronger impact on the language proficiency than just
studying a language. Still, the critical aspects should not be neglected. It is important to
distinguish between the gain in foreign language proficiency (mainly in a lingua franca)
in general and the language of the host country.1

3.3.2 Intercultural Understanding and Competences

Again, about half of the experts surveyed in this study rate the intercultural
understanding and competences of formerly mobile students as much better (50%) or
somewhat better (47%) than those of their non-mobile fellow students. Only one
respondent notes no difference in this respect. One respondent even rates the cultural
understanding of mobile students as substantially worse than that of non-mobile
students. The experts see a positive impact of an ERASMUS supported stay abroad on
the intercultural understanding and competences. They argue that living in another
country, in another cultural system, getting along with people from different cultures
raises the tolerance and intercultural understanding, which is not possible by staying in
the home country. But equally important are the few comments which point out that
there may also occur negative effects as e.g. confirming prejudices and intolerance
which is known in the literature as cultural shock.2 These negative side-effects show the
necessity of a good preparation before and counselling during the stay.

1
The results of the survey of the 1998/99 cohort shows that around 35% used some other language during their
ERAMUS stay besides of the host and the home country language, in: Maiworm, F., Teichler. U., The Students`
Experience, in: Teichler, U. (edit.), ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an Evaluation
Study, ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education, Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft mbH,
Bonn 2002, p. 103.
2
Müller, S., Die Psyche des Managers als Determinante des Exporterfolges, M&P Verlag für Wissenschaft und
Forschung, Mannheim, 1991, p.48.

18
 Findings of the Expert Survey

3.3.3 Academic Knowledge and Skills

In contrast to the three areas of international competences addressed, a superiority of
mobile students to non-mobile students in general academic and professional
competences is not so obvious. Therefore, it is worth noting that 16% of the experts
surveyed in this study rate the academic knowledge and skills of formerly mobile
students after their return as much better and 57% as somewhat better than those of their
non-mobile fellow students. Only one quarter of the respondents rate the academic
knowledge and skills of formerly mobile students as equal to those of non-mobile
students and only one of them rates them as somewhat worse.
Comments of the experts surveyed on the professional competences are more diverse
than comments on other areas of competences. Some experts notably perceive a growth
of “soft skills”, such as problem-solving ability, openness and flexibility. Some experts
point out explicitly that professional competences reinforced by a temporary study
period in another European country are appreciated by employers. Additionally,
formerly mobile students are seen as better prepared for job search due to a greater
maturity.
Most experts see a positive impact of the ERASMUS study period abroad and, hereby,
confirm the results of previous studies. Still, the comments in the open part of the
question show that different arguments lie behind this assessment. One group of
comments refer to the external effect of a study period abroad on the employer. Other
comments take a different perspective and emphasize the impact on the students’
personality which leads to an advantage in the job search. Therewith, the experts agree
with the results of earlier student surveys, in which students rated their study abroad
experience as worthwhile for career prospects. Still, 17% of the experts do not see a
difference. Unfortunately, no open comments give further explanations for these
assessments. Suggestions for improvement of the impact on future employment and
work refer to the planned merger of the LEONARDO and ERASMUS programme
which foster the practical and working experiences abroad.

3.3.4 Areas in which ERASMUS Students lag behind in comparison to

non-mobile students
The surveyed experts were explicitly asked whether they consider the formerly mobile
students as inferior upon return in some respects to the non-mobile students. Almost all
respondents do not rate the mobile students as inferior with respect to any area of
competences addressed. Many of them deny the question emphatically.
However, some experts address the fact that some mobile students face problems of
recognition and credit transfer and a substantial number of them prolong their overall
period of study as a consequence of temporary study abroad even if it is also argued that
this is more than compensated by the positive experience during the ERASMUS stay.
Recognition problems are one of the main topics in each ERASMUS evaluation. The
student and employer questionnaire will further deepen this problem by asking in detail
if there was a prolongation because of recognition problems and the duration of that
prolongation.

19
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

3.3.5 Factors Affecting the Immediate Impact of an ERASMUS Period

Abroad
Most experts respond affirmatively to the question addressing factors possibly
explaining differential impact of the temporary study period of another country. Some
respondents perceive students’ individual characteristics as crucial, for example
motivation, openness, outgoing personality, etc. Overall, the answers mainly repeat the
categories individual characteristics, field of study and institution of higher education
given as example in the question. All answers confirm that these categories have to be
considered in a differentiated view. Only a few answers state further factors which have
an influence on the success of a study period abroad as for example the possibilities of
making contacts in the accommodation.

3.4 Impact of ERASMUS Student Mobility on Competences

Upon Graduation
Temporary study in another European country is expected to be valuable for former
ERASMUS students’ career, because formerly mobile students are considered to be
superior to non-mobile students with respect to various professionally relevant
competences not only immediately after the study period abroad, but also upon
graduation (as well as subsequently in the course of employment and work).
Almost all experts surveyed are convinced that former ERASMUS students as a rule are
better than non-mobile students as far as “international competences”, such as
knowledge of other countries, foreign language proficiency and understanding of
cultures and societies are concerned. Moreover, the majority of experts believe that
formerly mobile students are at least somewhat superior as well upon return from the
study period abroad with respect to other academically and professionally relevant
competences.
The experts were asked to rate the formerly mobile students’ competences upon
graduation – again in comparison to non-mobile students. Responses to this question
allow us to analyse whether experts consider the mobile students' superior competences
upon return from the study period abroad as short-lived or persistent.
Figure 2 shows that almost all experts rate the formerly mobile students’ competences
as superior against students which were not mobile during their study at time of
graduation. The "international competences" foreign language proficiency and
intercultural competences are conceived as much better by a majority of the experts.
The most striking finding with respect to the perceived competences upon graduation is
the fact that almost all experts as well consider the formerly mobile students superior to
non-mobile students with respect to socio-communicative competences.

20
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Figure 2 Competences of Former ERASMUS Mobile Students Upon

Graduation as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the
View of ERASMUS Experts (percent)

No difference Better and much better

Specific academic competencies 40 60

General cognitive competencies 36 64

Problem-solving competencies 21 79
Competences

Foreign language competencies 100

Intercultural competencies 5 95
Socio-communicative
6 94
competencies
Work-relevant values and attitudes 44 56
Field specific
43 57
knowledge and competencies
Leadership competencies 25 75

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question B1: How do you rate the competences of former ERASMUS students at the time of graduation as compared
to non-mobile students? (n=63)
5-point scale from 1 = "Much worse" through 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

The ratings of the competences upon graduation by the respondents are fairly similar to
the ratings with respect to time of return after the study period abroad. First, study
abroad seems to have a strong effect in fostering "international competences". More or
less all experts believe that most mobile students benefit in those respects and that this
is visible in higher respective competences upon graduation. Second, most experts
believe as well that students having studied for some period in another European
country turn out to be somewhat better than non-mobile students with regard to all other
major academically and professionally relevant areas of competences. This difference
visible upon return from the study period abroad does not disappear up to the time of
graduation. On the contrary, the superiority of formerly mobile students seems to
increase with respect to one area, i.e. socio-communicative competences. Though the
experts were not explicitly asked to rate the extent to which differences already existed
prior to the study period abroad, the comments provided by the respondents suggest that
the differences can be viewed primarily as an indication of an impact of the study period
abroad.
As with respect to the competences upon return to the home institutions, experts from
Northern European countries again rate the formerly mobile students’ competences
upon graduation somewhat more cautiously than experts from other European regions,
as Table 1 shows. Previous evaluation studies suggest that the impact of study abroad is

21
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

viewed as less positive, if the academic quality of the host university is rated as lower
than that of the home university. As the Northern universities are viewed on average as
academically more demanding than the European average both by Northern students
and teachers as well as by students and teachers from other regions, this seemingly
regional difference might reflect primarily quality differences between home and host
university.

Table 4 Competences of Former ERASMUS Students Upon

Graduation as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the
View of ERASMUS Experts by Country of Expert (arithmetic
mean)
Country Group Total
North Middle South East Supra No answer
(1) Specific academic competences 3.4 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.5 4.0 3.6
(2) General cognitive competences (e.g.
analytical thinking, reflective thinking
etc.) 3.4 3.5 3.9 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.7
(3) Problem-solving competences 3.4 3.9 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.1
(4) Foreign language proficiency 4.7 4.4 4.5 4.8 4.5 5.0 4.6
(5) Intercultural competences (e.g.
understanding and tolerance of international
differences in culture, society and mo 4.2 4.4 4.9 4.5 4.3 5.0 4.5
(6) Socio-communicative competences 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.0 4.3
(7) Work-relevant values and attitudes (e.g.
motivation, working ethic etc.) 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.5 4.0 3.8
(8) Field specific knowledge and competences 3.4 3.2 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.6
(9) Leadership competences (e.g. ability to
take initiative; taking responsibilities, etc.) 3.7 3.9 4.2 3.9 4.3 4.0 4.0
Count (n) (9) (14) (16) (19) (4) (1) (63)
Question B1: How do you rate the competences of former ERASMUS students at the time of graduation as compared
to non-mobile students?
Arithmetic mean of a 5 point scale from 1 = "Much worse" over 3 = "no difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

3.5 Impact of ERASMUS Student Mobility: Transition to Work

The impact of ERASMUS student mobility on the transition to work covers two
different aspects: Job search and characteristics of the first job. Both aspects will be
analysed separately.
Job search
Many experts surveyed are convinced that former ERASMUS students are in a better
position in the search for a job than graduates who had not been internationally mobile
in their course of study. Notably, most of them believe that former ERASMUS students
have a better opportunity of being taken into consideration as one of the final candidates
on the part of the employers, as Figure 3 shows. A slight majority of experts as well
believes that former ERASMUS students, as compared to formerly non-mobile

22
 Findings of the Expert Survey

students, have a better chance to get a job offer after a short period or with limited
search efforts and to get employed soon after graduation.

Figure 3 Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared to

Non-Mobile Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts
(percent)

Worse No difference Better and much better

Being taken into

consideration as one
of the final 21 79
candidates by
Job search opportunities

employers

Getting a job offer

after a short
42 55
period/limited search
efforts

Getting employed
43 54
soon after graduation

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question C1: In your opinion, how do you rate the opportunities of former ERASMUS students regarding the
following areas of transition to work as compared to their non-mobile fellow students? (n=63); 5-point scale from 1 =
"Much worse" through 3 = "no difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

The ratings by experts are surprisingly similar to those expressed by former ERASMUS
students in prior evaluation studies. Both findings suggest that study abroad makes the
CV more interesting and substantially increases the opportunity to be considered in the
recruitment process. Study abroad finally seems to increase the opportunity for
graduates to a certain extent of eventually securing a job.
Experts from Middle European countries consider the former mobile students’
opportunity most favourably to be taken into consideration as one of the final candidates
by employers. Yet, as Table 2 shows, they do not differ significantly from experts from
other European regions in their assessment of the actual opportunities of getting
employed soon and without substantial efforts in the search process.

23
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 5 Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students as Compared to

Non-Mobile Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts by
Country of Expert (percent)
Country Group Total
North Middle South East Supra No answer
(1) Being taken into consideration as one of
the final candidates by employers
No difference 22 7 27 32 0 0 21
Better 78 93 73 68 100 100 79
(2) Getting a job offer after a short
period/limited search efforts
Worse 0 0 0 11 0 0 3
No difference 44 62 44 32 25 0 42
Better 56 38 56 58 75 100 55
(3) Getting employed soon after graduation
Worse 0 0 0 11 0 0 3
No difference 33 50 53 39 25 0 43
Better 67 50 47 50 75 100 54
Count (n) (9) (14) (16) (19) (4) (1) (63)
Question C1: In your opinion, how do you rate the opportunities of former ERASMUS students regarding the
following areas of transition to work as compared to their non-mobile fellow students?
5 point scale from 1 = "Much worse" over 3 = "no difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

Job characteristics
Only a minority of the surveyed experts in this study perceives the first job
characteristics of formerly mobile students as more favourable than that of graduates
not having studied abroad for some period. Actually, as Figure 4 shows, an advantage of
former ERASMUS students in getting a full-time job was noted by 30% of the
respondents (among them 8% much better), and in getting a long-term/permanent
contract by 24% of the respondents (among them 8% much better as well). Most experts
rated the opportunities of initial employment of former ERASMUS students as being
more or less the same as those of formerly non-mobile students.
The ratings by the experts surveyed can be viewed, notwithstanding, as relatively
positive, as former graduate surveys suggest that formerly mobile students have hardly
any advantage over formerly non-mobile students as far as the general employment
conditions are concerned.

24
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Figure 4 Initial Employment of Former ERASMUS Students as

Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the View of
ERASMUS Experts (percent)

Worse No difference Better and Much better

Taking over a job

assignment closely
linked to their
56 41
academic knowledge
Employment conditions

Getting a full-time
job
70 30

Getting a long-
term/permanent 73 24
contract

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question C1: In your opinion, how do you rate the opportunities of former ERASMUS students regarding the
following areas of transition to work as compared to their non-mobile fellow students? (n=63); 5-point scale from 1 =
"Much worse" through 3 = "no difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

A somewhat higher proportion of experts (41%) are convinced that formerly mobile
students have a favourable opportunity of taking over work assignments closely linked
to their expertise. This, again, confirms the findings of prior evaluation studies
according to which ERASMUS temporary student mobility is quite successful in
assuring access to work assignments linked to one’s knowledge and otherwise desirable
assignments.

3.5.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Former ERASMUS Students in

Transition to Employment and Work
The assessments of the experts surveyed on advantages and disadvantages of former
ERASMUS students in the transition process to the labour market are overall positive.
The open comments elaborate the reasons for this assessment. An ERASMUS
supported study period is seen as having an impact on the attractiveness of students in
the application process, because of indirect effects on their personality and soft skills or
because of the general attractiveness of mobility and international experience for
employers. Only a few critical comments remind the generality of these assumptions,
stating that the attractiveness of an ERASMUS stay depends on the kind of job and
organisation.

25
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

With regard to possible disadvantages, the respondents do not see major problems for
former ERASMUS student in their transition to work process. At the same time, some
comments imply that the ERASMUS programme does not have the attractiveness which
some students expect from it. Possible reasons may be the non-elite character of
ERASMUS (no brand name) as well as the growing demand of international experience
as a prerequisite for the application process in some areas. Still, the non-elite character
and the lacking knowledge of employers about the programme are the only two
arguments for a disadvantage of former ERASMUS student in their search process. In
particular, the non-elite character has to be interpreted in comparison to application
processes of other mobility programmes as earlier studies have already shown that more
than 80% of the ERASMUS students were selected by some kind of criteria.3

3.5.2 Fields of Study with Major Advantages and Disadvantages

In response to a question whether certain fields of study stand out regarding former
ERASMUS students` advantages and disadvantages on their way from higher education
to employment, Business Management and Social Sciences were most frequently named
as fields where a study period abroad is advantageous for the transition to employment
and work. This was stated by 38 respondents. Human Sciences and Languages follow
on the second place (30 votes) and Communication and Information Sciences (13) on
third place, followed by the Mathematics and IT (9) as well as Engineering, Technology
and Architecture (9). Other fields of study named were Education (7), Art (5), Natural
Sciences (4), Agriculture (4), Law (4) and Geography and Geology (2) as well as
Medicine (1) among the groups of fields of study named in the questionnaire.
Additionally, "European Studies" (1), Economics (1) and "Health Professions in
general" (1) were named as groups of fields of study which were not stated in the
questionnaire.
Consistently, most explanations for advantages of former ERASMUS students were
given in the area of Business Management. In discussing the professional value of
temporary study abroad during the course of study in Business Management, most
experts refer to the labour market situation and the job requirement. In contrast, experts
pointing out the advantage of mobility during course of study in Languages and Human
Sciences primarily refer to the nature of the subject calling for a study period abroad.
Many responses refer to the professional relevance of foreign language proficiency.
In response to the question whether the respondents note any disadvantages of former
ERASMUS students` on the labour market, substantially fewer references (35 as
compared to 128 references about advantages) were made. Disadvantages were named
several times as regards law. Any other fields were named at most three times:
Medicine (3), Architecture, Technology and Engineering (3), Geography and Geology
(3), Agricultural Science (2), Human Sciences and Languages (2), Other Sciences (2),

3
88% of the ERASMUS students were selected by criteria as linguistic skills, motivation, general knowledge,
knowledge of the chosen country etc., in: Rosselle, D., Lentiez, A., The ERASMUS programmeme 1987 - 1995 -
A qualitative review looking to the future (Vol. 1 summary), Lille-North Pas de Calais European Academic
Network, France 1999, p. 64.

26
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Education (3), History (1), Art and Design (1), Mathematics & IUT (1), Social Science
(2), Natural Sciences (1).
Overall, the outstanding position of Business Management and Social Sciences as well
as the importance of a study abroad period for Languages is not surprising and was well
known before. In regard to disciplines with a possible disadvantage, fewer respondents
have answered this part of the questions. If they did, most referred to subject areas with
strictly structured national examinations and orientation such as Law, Medicine and
Education. Interesting are the two German comments which indirectly argue that
students are mobile to improve their professional value and that, hence, the motivation
to be mobile decreases when the Labour market situation changes.

3.5.3 Further Factors

The experts were asked for further relevant factors possibly explaining differences of
the professional value of temporary student mobility as far as the transition from study
to employment and the initial employment situation are concerned.
A substantial number of respondents referred to individual characteristics and
personality of the students as one of the key factors. Other responses addressed
contextual factors in the life of ERASMUS students and the external environment.
Some experts explicitly raise the “egg-hen” question about the extent to which
characteristics of former ERASMUS students are the result of the ERASMUS
experience and the extent to which they are due to the fact that students of those
characteristics opt for an ERASMUS-supported study period abroad.
The experts distinguish three main groups of factors having an influence on the
transition process of students: Personality and individual characteristics (e.g.
motivation) and study performance. Points of discussion are the effect of ERASMUS on
the students' personality and the degree of influence on higher education institution
reputation. Overall, the answers mainly focus on general influencing factors (besides the
ERASMUS stay) which are valid for non-mobile students as well.

3.6 Career Impact of ERASMUS Student Mobility

In this study, the experts also were asked to rate the employment and work situation of
former ERASMUS students some years after graduation in comparison to formerly non-
mobile students. In contrast to the previous questions, this question refers to the regular
employment and work situation, i.e. clearly after the initial stages without specifying the
actual career stage to be taken into consideration (“a couple of years after graduation”).

27
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 5 Employment and Work Situation of Former ERASMUS

Students as Compared to Non-Mobile Students in the View
of ERASMUS Experts (percent)

To a lower extent No difference To a higher and much higher extent

High use of knowledge acquired

60 38
in the course of study
A position appropriate
61 39
Employment and work situation

to the level of education

High social status 70 30

High earnings 65 33
Opportunity of pursuing
53 47
own ideas
Largely independent
56 44
disposition of work

Challenging task 44 56
Coordination and
49 51
management task

High job security 79 18

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question C7: To what extent do the following characteristics of employment and work apply to former ERASMUS
students as compared to their non-mobile fellow students a couple of years after graduation? (n=58) - 5-point scale
from 1 = "To a much lower extent" through 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "To a much higher extent"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

As could be expected both on the basis of prior studies and on the basis of the experts’
responses to issues of job search, transition and initial employment, the status and the
employment conditions of former ERASMUS students are rated as advantageous only
by a minority. The majority of respondents does not perceive any difference in this
respect, while only one or two respondents each perceive a below-average status and
employment situation of former ERASMUS students.
The responses provided by the experts surveyed, however, suggest that the career
impact of ERASMUS study abroad is more impressive and might be also more
impressive in some aspects than various prior studies have indicated. With regard to the
content of work, i.e. according to dimensions which are usually viewed as a desirable
job, a substantial proportion perceives the formerly ERASMUS mobile students to be in
a (most somewhat) better situation than formerly non-mobile students.
The perceptions vary by regions, as Table 3 shows. Experts from Eastern and from
Southern European countries more frequently conceive the careers of former
ERASMUS students as advantageous than experts from Northern and Middle European
countries. Compared to this, the experts' views vary only moderately according to their
institutional base.

28
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Table 6 Characteristics of Employment and Work of Former

ERASMUS Students as Compared to Non-Mobile Students
in the View of ERASMUS Experts by Country of Expert
(arithmetic mean)
Country Group Total
North Middle South East Supra No answer
(1) High use of knowledge acquired in the
course of study 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.3 4.0 3.4
(2) A position appropriate to the level of
education 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.0 3.5
(3) High social status 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.3
(4) High earnings 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.0 3.4
(5) Opportunity of pursuing own ideas 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.3 4.0 3.5
(6) Largely independent disposition of work 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.0 3.5
(7) Challenging tasks 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.8 3.5 4.0 3.6
(8) Coordination and management tasks 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.8 4.0 3.6
(9) High job security 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.1
Count (n) (9) (12) (15) (17) (4) (1) (58)
Question C7: To what extent do the following characteristics of employment and work apply to former ERASMUS
students as compared to their non-mobile fellow students a couple of years after graduation?
Arithmetic mean of a 5-point scale from 1 = "To a much lower extent" over 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "To a much
higher extent"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

Overall, one can observe that the respondents assess the differences between formerly
mobile and non-mobile students regarding the core job conditions of status, income and
job security as lower than the more task oriented characteristics. Here at least one third
of the respondents would assess that these characteristics apply to a higher extent to
formerly mobile students. The interpretation of this differentiation could be that
respondents are more willing to see positive differences for ERASMUS students in the
areas which are more difficult to measure whereas they are more cautious in the "hard-
facts" areas of income, job security and status. Interestingly, the job characteristics
"opportunity of pursuing own ideas" and "challenging task" are assessed by around 50%
of the experts as applying to a higher extent to formerly mobile students.

3.6.1 International and European Careers and Assignments

Almost all surveyed experts are convinced that former ERASMUS students are more
likely to be internationally mobile in the course of their career. Moreover, almost all
respondents believe that former ERASMUS students are more likely to take over work
assignments with visible international components – irrespective whether they are
internationally mobile or not. This holds true for all international components of work
assignments addressed in the questionnaire:

29
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 6 International and European Work Assignments of Former

ERASMUS Students as Compared to Non-Mobile Students
in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent)

No difference To a higher and much higher extent

Using foreign language

in conversations 7 93
and work-related
Using information
about other countries, 10 90
international/European
Work assignments

Working with
colleagues/clients 7 93
from other countries

Getting employed
7 93
in another country

Being sent
abroad for extended 16 84
work assignments

Professional travel
20 80
to other countries

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question C5: To what extent do former ERASMUS students take over the following European/International aspects
in their work assignments as compared to their non-mobile fellow students? 5-point scale from 1 = "To a much lower
extent" through 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "To a much higher extent"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

Experts vary somewhat in their assessment of former ERASMUS students’ careers

according to their region of origin. The differences, however, are too small to be viewed
as highly relevant. As regards the function of experts we note that the few labour market
experts underscore the former ERASMUS students’ advantage in taking over
international assignments even more strongly than the other experts surveyed.
When asked to explain their ratings, again a small number of experts added extended
comments. Some respondents concentrate on describing the international competences
of former ERASMUS students which are valuable in an international organisation.
Other experts point out the frequent international professional mobility of former
ERASMUS students and, hence, the higher chance of former ERASMUS students to be
sent abroad by their employers. Also, the experts assess that the chances for
employment in another country increase. A few experts, however, caution the view that
former ERASMUS students are eager primarily to take over international assignments.
They argue that ERASMUS students are not looking primarily for the most
international job but for that one which is appropriate to their study.
The experts assess the impact of an ERASMUS supported study period abroad as
having a very positive impact on the degree of international job characteristics of former
ERASMUS students which is in concurrence with earlier studies. Similar to these

30
 Findings of the Expert Survey

studies, the characteristic "getting employed in another country" was assessed, in

particular, as applying to a very high extent to formerly mobile students.

3.7 Suggestions for Improvement (Student Mobility)

3.7.1 Suggestions for Improvement regarding the
SOCRATES/ERASMUS programme as a whole
More than half of the surveyed experts suggested improvements of the overall
ERASMUS sub-programme of SOCRATES in order to strengthen the professional
value of temporary study in other European countries. Two suggestions were most
frequently made:
• Better promotion, information and dissemination of the ERASMUS programme
• More mobility funds and support of a larger number of students.
• For giving a better overview, the suggestions made by the experts are structured
under the following headings: Suggestions regarding the:
• Promotion and Marketing of the ERASMUS programme
• Cooperation with the Labour market/Employers
• Administration and communication
• Recognition of study period abroad
Promotion and marketing: Some respondents believe that the ERASMUS programme
needs a better and stronger marketing campaign. One expert called for "establishing
ERASMUS as a quality brand name!" Various respondents demand better information
about ERASMUS to the universities but also and in particular to employment agencies
and employers as well as ministries and policy makers to make the people aware of the
importance and significance of the ERASMUS programme.
Funding: More funds are advocated for various purposes: to increase the participation
of students, to increase the funds per mobile students, to provide the opportunity to
study abroad twice, to support socially disadvantaged students and to support various
activities, such as language preparation.
Employment system: Some experts point out that information about the benefits of
ERASMUS can be spread more successfully, if co-operation with employers was
improved. More information campaigns and meetings should be held. This could also
comprise cooperation in the programme evaluation and programme development.
Internship/practical experiences: Some respondents suggest extending students’
opportunities of spending short practical periods abroad. Some of them refer to the
LEONARDO programme and suggest installing closer links between both.
Administration and communication: Several respondents see the need to make the
ERASMUS administration less bureaucratic and more flexible and transparent. Some
demand improved communication and a stronger customer orientation.

31
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Recognition: Some respondents point out recognition is not yet self-evident and needs
further improvement e.g. introducing the Diploma Supplement.

3.7.2 Suggestions for Improvements at Institutional Level regarding

Incoming Students

More than two-third of respondents suggested to improve activities within the

institutions themselves to take care of the incoming students in a better way. Some
referred primarily to the purpose of such activities without further specification,
notably:
• Better integration of the incoming students - in the classroom by teamwork and
also in the leisure time
• Better services (language courses, dormitories etc.) to the incoming students
• Make teachers aware of the added value of ERASMUS students
Other experts suggested specific measures of improvement, among them:
• More foreign language and cultural courses
• More and cheaper dormitories
• Free internet access
• Better information packages about the host university and the host country
• Improvement of guidance
• Improvement of tutoring systems (e.g. former ERASMUS students as tutors)
• Family programmes with local families
• Earlier information about courses
• More courses and study programmes in foreign languages
Various experts suggest that efforts should be strengthened to improve the integration of
mobile students into the academic and social life at the host institution and in the host
country – a point strongly emphasized as well in an earlier qualitative study questioning
former ERASMUS students 4. Suggestions refer to mentoring system, Welcome Events,
more student accommodations and language courses. Up to now, the quality of student
support services is quite different in each country and at each higher education
institution.

3.7.3 Suggestions for Improvements at Institutional Level regarding

Outgoing Students
About two-thirds of the experts surveyed as well suggest improvements with respect to
outgoing students in order to increase the professional value of temporary study abroad.

4
Rosselle, Dominique and Lentiez, Anne, The ERASMUS programme 1987 - 1995 - A qualitative review looking to
the future (Vol. 1 summary), p. 46f.

32
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Though the proposals are quite diverse, four directions of change seem to be viewed as
most desirable:
• Ensure a good preparation before departure
• Support, guidance, and counselling to maximize the ERASMUS experience
• More flexible and less bureaucratic procedures
• Ensuring re-integration of the ERASMUS students after return
Some specific suggestions were made to enhance support for outgoing students:
• Better language and cultural preparation
• Better information packages about the host university and better information by
the international office
• Ensure recognition, e.g. by most frequent use of Study Agreements and by
making teachers more aware of the importance of academic recognition
• Home higher education institution should keep contact with the outgoing student
during their study period abroad
Finally, some experts argue that improved evaluation and quality management
processes also from the side of the home institution could contribute to the professional
value of temporary study in another European country.
Overall, the experts suggested a broad range of measures to improve ERASMUS
students` mobility in various respects. In most cases, no immediate link to the
professional value of study abroad was addressed, but the arguments seemed to be
based on the assumption that most general improvements of the ERASMUS sub-
programme of SOCRATES are likely to strengthen its professional value for mobile
students. Only a selected number of experts made suggestions thereby explicitly stating
the link between the improvement proposed and the expected enhancement of the
professional value of student mobility.

3.8 Good Practices (Student Mobility)

Finally, the experts surveyed were asked to name cases of good practice in the higher
education institutions in their country aiming to enhance the professional value of an
ERASMUS-supported period abroad. Only a minority of respondents provided
information in this section of the questionnaire.
Some respondents named general activity of quality enhancement in student exchange.
Others referred to targeted action of reinforcing professional competences or placing
graduates.
Again, some respondents referred to general improvements of the ERASMUS sub-
programme. Hardly any example was provided which addresses directly the
professional value of ERASMUS mobility.

33
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

3.9 Direct Impact of ERASMUS Mobility on the Mobile

Teachers
Most of the experts surveyed consider mobile teachers upon return to their home
institution as more competent than their non-mobile colleagues in all the four areas
addressed in the survey. Accordingly, as Figure 7 shows,
• knowledge of structures and modes of higher education in the host country is
viewed as better by all experts (among them 50% much better),
• intercultural understanding and competences by 86% of the experts (among
them 22% much better)
• foreign language proficiency by 77% (among them 27% much better)
• academic knowledge by 69% (among them 33% much better).

Figure 7 Competences of Former ERASMUS Teachers Upon Return

as Compared to Non-Mobile Teachers in the View of
ERASMUS Experts (percent)

No difference Better and much better

Knowledge of structures
and modes of higher 100
education in the host country
Competences

Foreign language proficiency 23 77

Intercultural understanding
14 86
and competencies

Academic knowledge 31 69

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question A1 (teacher): At the time of return, how do you rate mobile teachers as compared to non-mobile teachers in
the following areas?
5-point scale from 1 = "Much worse" through 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

The results are not surprising, as far as the three aspects of “international competences”
are concerned. Here, the experts note somewhat higher competences on the part of the
teachers, while they often rated the mobile students’ competences much higher than
those of the non-mobile students. This certainly reflects the facts that many mobile
teachers were already internationally experienced and competent and that short periods

34
 Findings of the Expert Survey

of teaching abroad of mostly one or two weeks are less likely to have profound effects
than the study period abroad of half a year or one year.
As compared to prior surveys of mobile teachers, this expert survey shows a
surprisingly high confidence on the part of the experts surveyed that mobile teachers are
better than non-mobile teachers with regard to their general academic knowledge. 69%
consider the mobile teachers to be superior in this respect which is certainly not
generally viewed a prime aim or a prime spin-off of teaching abroad, i.e. almost as
many as those noting a higher level of foreign language proficiency.

3.9.1 Knowledge of structures and modes of higher education in the

host country
The surveyed experts rate the impact of the teaching period abroad as very positive on
the knowledge of structures and modes of higher education in the host country: 100% of
the valid answers agree that the knowledge is better or much better than those of non-
mobile teachers.
Asked to explain their rating various experts point out that mobile teachers tend not
only to absorb knowledge of the host country, which they acquire through contacts with
the staff of the host institution and their own daily experiences. Rather, many of them
seem to use it for comparative observation and reflection after returning to the home
institution. This comparison is likely to initiate changes.
The experts assess the impact of an ERASMUS supported teaching period as positive
on the teachers' knowledge of structures and modes of higher education in the host
country and agree, hereby, with results of previous ERASMUS teacher surveys. Despite
the high consent about this fact in the standardised part of the question (100%) the open
comments express several critical aspects. These critics argue that the impact depends
on the preparation before the teaching stay and the overall length of the stay.
Furthermore, it is argued that the knowledge is limited to the situation at the host
institution. Even so these critics cannot be totally neglected, the overall agreement about
the positive impact of the teaching stay displays that all experts think that at least some
kind of knowledge gain happens.

3.9.2 Foreign language proficiency

Teaching abroad can contribute so obviously to the teachers’ foreign language
proficiency that most experts did not see any need to explain such a notion. Table 4
shows that some of those experts, however, who raised doubt about such a result of
teaching abroad (23%), were inclined to explain their critical view in the open
comments. These explanations mainly refer to the short period of the stay, a selection or
self-selection process as only teachers with a good command of foreign language go
abroad for teaching purposes.

35
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 7 Foreign Language Proficiency of Former ERASMUS

Teachers as Compared to Non-Mobile Teachers in the View
of ERASMUS Experts (percent and number)
Percent Count (n)

Foreign language proficiency

No difference 23 (11)
Better 50 (24)
Much better 27 (13)
Total 100 (48)

Question A1: At the time of return, how do you rate mobile teachers as compared to non-mobile teachers in the
following areas?
5-point scale from 1 = "Much worse" over 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Out of the 49 valid answers in table 13 only 48 were valid for this sub-question.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

The majority of experts agree that the ERASMUS teaching period has a positive impact
on the foreign language proficiency and are, hereby, in agreement with the results of
earlier teacher surveys. The general formulation of the question does not specify if this
foreign language needs to be the language spoken in the host country, hence, the gain in
foreign language proficiency can be in the host country language but will be mostly in
one of the lingua franca. Earlier studies have showed that most teaching is conducted in
English, French or German. Teachers are not in the same degree as students expected to
learn the language of the host country. Furthermore, there is a selection process. The
results of earlier studies show that teachers with language competences are more likely
to teach abroad5.

3.9.3 Intercultural understanding and competences

The majority of experts assess the impact of an ERASMUS supported teaching period
abroad as having a positive impact on the intercultural understanding and competences.
They argue that such learning occurs due to the direct contact with foreign students and
teacher colleagues. The teacher gets more tolerant and broadminded through his work
abroad and his/her experiences of the daily life in a foreign country. Critical aspects are
as described the shortness of the stay and the difficulty to separate the effects of the stay
from the effects of the selection processes during the application process of the
ERASMUS programme. The shortness of the stay is a reasonable criticism as earlier
surveys show that the average duration of the teaching stay was slightly over 8 days.6

5
Maiworm, F., Teichler, U., The Academics` Views and Experiences, in: Teichler, U. (edit.), ERASMUS in the
SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an Evaluation Study, ACA Papers on International Cooperation in
Education, Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft mbH, Bonn 2002, p. 148.
6
Results for the 1995/96, 1996/97; 1997/98, 1998/99, in: Maiworm, F., Teichler, U., The Academics` Views and
Experiences, in: Teichler, U. (edit.), ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an Evaluation
Study, ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education, Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft mbH,
Bonn 2002, p. 146. .

36
 Findings of the Expert Survey

3.9.4 Academic knowledge

As already pointed out, the proportion of experts not expecting any visible gain of
general academic knowledge as a result of teaching abroad is somewhat larger than
those not expecting a growth of “international competences“. They argue that the
enhancement of academic knowledge is rather limited due to the shortness of the stay.

Table 8 Academic Knowledge of Former ERASMUS Teachers as

Compared to Non-Mobile Teachers in the View of
ERASMUS Experts (percent and number)
Percent Count (n)

Academic knowledge (theories, methods, disciplinary

knowledge, reflection, etc.)
No difference 30 (15)
Better 37 (18)
Much better 33 (16)
Total 100 (48)
Question A1: At the time of return, how do you rate mobile teachers as compared to non-mobile teachers in the
following areas? 5-point scale from 1 = "Much worse" over 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "Much better";Out of the 49
valid answers in table 13 only 48 were valid for this sub-question.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

Yet, the majority of experts assess the ERASMUS teaching period as having a positive
impact on the academic knowledge of teachers. They argue that the teachers get to
know new teaching methods abroad; they can discuss teaching methods and contents
with colleagues at the host institution and can evaluate their teaching methods by using
them in their teaching at the host institution. This assessment confirms the result of the
earlier surveys that the teachers assessed their teaching period as being worthwhile for
their acquaintance with other teaching methods and the enhancement of the content of
their lectures.

3.10 Impact on the Teachers’ Subsequent Activities at the

Home Institution
Almost all experts are convinced that ERASMUS mobile teachers are more active after
the teaching period than prior to it in international activities of teaching and research
and improving their activities on the basis of their experiences acquired during the
period of teaching abroad. This holds true for all five areas of activities addressed in the
questionnaire: International networking, international perspective in teaching, teaching
new contents and methods, conducting work tasks related to the ERASMUS programme
and international research activities.

37
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 8 Extent of Changes of the Mobile Teachers Academic

Activities Upon Return as Compared to the Situation before
Departure in the View of ERASMUS Experts (percent)

About the same More and Much more

Conducting work
tasks related to the 15 85
ERASMUS programme

Teaching new
13 87
Academic activities

contents and methods

International
10 90
perspective in teaching

International
17 83
research activities

International networking 2 98

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question B1 (teacher): In your opinion, in how far do the following activities of ERASMUS mobile teachers change
after their return as compared to the situation before their departure? 5-point scale from 1 = "Much less" through 3 =
"About the same" to 5 = "Much more"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

It should be noted that among those perceiving such changes, about two-thirds do not
have substantial changes in mind, but rather moderate ones. Altogether, experts from
Eastern European countries more frequently note changes of mobile teachers’ activities
upon return than their colleagues from other European regions. Similarly, experts
professionally active in ministries and those representing companies and employers’
organisations are more inclined than other experts to assume that mobile teachers
intensify their international activities after the teaching period abroad.

3.10.1 Undertaking activities related to the ERASMUS programme

It is generally known that many teachers opt for a teaching period abroad who had been
already involved actively in various ERASMUS-related activities. Most experts believe
that the teaching period abroad will lead to even more frequent and more intensive
activities in this domain. The experience of being mobile and living in a foreign country
helps and motivates to be a counsellor or advisor for ERASMUS students and teachers.
Former ERASMUS teachers often work as promoters for the ERASMUS programme.
Some experts also report that mobile teachers are working as representatives of the
home institution at the host institution and prepare and broaden the cooperation.
The majority of respondents assess an ERASMUS teaching period abroad as having an
impact on the teachers' activities and involvement in the ERASMUS programme after

38
 Findings of the Expert Survey

returning. More than 80% see a positive change and argue that teachers get more
involved, motivated and enthusiastic about the programme after they themselves have
experienced it. Critical comments represent the nearly 15% of experts assessing that
there is no difference. They argue that the involvement does not change because of
participation in the programme but is merely determined by personal characteristics and
engagement.

3.10.2 Teaching new contents and methods

Most experts note a positive change on the usage of new contents and methods in
teaching after returning. Various experts point out that teaching abroad and the contact
and discussion with foreign colleagues stimulates the teachers to develop new substance
and methods in order to improve teaching and learning at home. Most comments
formulated aim to describe this creative consequence of the teaching experience abroad.
The majority of experts assess that an ERASMUS teaching period abroad has a positive
impact on the teachers with regard to teaching new contents and methods after return.
Still, the analysis should be more differentiated. Firstly, method and contents are two
different concepts. The open comments refer mainly to both, whereas the last comment
remarks that introducing new contents is easier than introducing new methods.
Secondly, the already stated differentiation between gain of new knowledge of new
teaching methods and the actual application of that knowledge at the home institution
needs to be considered.

3.10.3 International perspectives in teaching

The majority (90%) of respondents believe that mobile teachers put "more" or "much
more" international perspective into their teaching after return. Various experts point
out that formerly mobile teachers are likely to contribute to a stronger international
dimension of teaching through increased use of foreign textbooks and other foreign
publications. Other respondents take a wider perspective and refer in their answer to a
broad range of international views, comparisons, theories and good practices.

3.10.4 International research activities

International research activities are working tasks where the experts surveyed perceive a
relatively lower change after returning than in other areas. Still, more than 83% think
that "much more" or "more" international research activities are conducted after the
ERASMUS teaching period than before the departure. These experts who are noting
increasing international research activities mention the possibility of improving
international networking during an ERASMUS stay, the possibility of learning about
new research projects in the host country and the gained international experience which
helps when writing a proposal for an international project.
The more sceptical remarks by experts are similar to those regarding other possible
consequences of teaching staff mobility: the period of teaching mobility is too short to
have a major impact, those teaching abroad were already highly active and international
prior to teaching abroad and it depends on the personality of the mobile teachers.

39
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

3.10.5 International networking

Positive changes in sense of much more or more international networking of mobile
teachers after their return to the home institution is supported by the wide majority of
the surveyed experts. Experts who are providing comments on increasing international
networking after the teaching period abroad name either major areas of activities, e.g.
invitations to international events, joint publications etc., or providing examples for
successful networking.
Some respondents underscore that teaching abroad does not only trigger off the
networking between individuals but also between institutions. They state as examples
the development of inter-university networks, bi-lateral agreements and a more intense
contact in general.
All experts assess an ERASMUS teaching period has a strong positive impact on the
international networking. The comments underline the 98% approval of the standardised
question and emphasize that international networking is a very important point which
has an influence on future research contacts and invitations to scientific events. The
impact of an ERASMUS supported teaching period on the international networking of
teachers is seen by the experts as one of the main advantages of teacher mobility.

3.11 Impact on Teachers´ Career

The experts were asked to state whether they rate the long-term (“in about a 10 years
period”) career opportunities of ERASMUS mobile teachers more favourably than non-
mobile teachers. Certainly, first, one hardly could expect that a short activity of teaching
abroad would turn out as career break-through for a large number of academics.
Therefore, it does not come as a surprise that hardly any expert surveyed did perceive
“much better” career opportunities for ERASMUS mobile teachers.
Second, one could have expected that teaching abroad could facilitate one direction of
“horizontal” career change, i.e. moving to a higher education institution abroad without
climbing upwards on the career ladder. Actually, a surprisingly high quota (70%) of the
respondents assesses such an opportunity of former mobile teachers as (mostly
somewhat) better than those of their non-mobile colleagues.
With regard to other, mostly vertically upward career opportunities, the respondents
were less optimistic than with regard to enhanced opportunity for international mobility.
Yet, again, a surprisingly high proportion of the experts surveyed rate the career
opportunities of mobile teachers as better in many respects, as Figure 9 shows.

40
 Findings of the Expert Survey

Figure 9 Long-term Career Impact of Teaching Abroad -

Opportunities of Former ERASMUS Teachers as Compared
to Non-mobile Teachers in the View of ERASMUS Experts
(percent)
Worse No difference Better or Much better

Getting a higher
54 44
rank at the same institution
Taking over a high
ranked administrative 71 29
position in the home country
Getting a chair at
another higher education 79 19
Career impact

institution in the home country

Moving to a higher
30 70
education institution abroad

Reaching a
86 12
higher income level

Extension of a temporary
70 28
employment contract
Taking over of regional/
national responsibilities 60 40
in the higher education system

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Percent of experts

Question C1 (teachers): In about a 10 years period, how do you rate the opportunities of former ERASMUS mobile
teachers regarding the following career aspects as compared to non-mobile teachers? 5-point scale from 1 = "Much
worse" through 3 = "No difference" to 5 = "Much better"
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Experts 2005.

3.11.1 Major advantages and disadvantages

Eventual career advantages for formerly mobile teachers depend substantially,
according to the respondents’ comments, on the various procedures and customs of
recruitment, assessment and promotion of academic staff in the individual countries and
institutions of higher education. Various respondents underscore in general that an
ERASMUS teaching period abroad is beneficial for the long-term career due to contacts
established and international activities triggered off. Whereas, other experts expect
individual career advantages because their institution of higher education has had long-
term gains as a consequence of the teaching activities abroad.
Some experts point out possible career disadvantages of teaching abroad temporarily
even though they expect these to hold true only for a minority of mobile teachers. They
are convinced that teaching staff mobility often is not sufficiently appreciated. The open
comments about advantages and disadvantages of former ERASMUS teachers in their
further career present an oppositional picture to the results of the standardised question.
Even so the result of the standardised question gives the impression that overall the
career impact is rated as moderate, only a few make comments about disadvantages
whereas many make favourable comments about advantages. It seems like ERASMUS

41
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

teaching mobility has some kind of neutral position. It can enhance the career
opportunities in some aspects but only a minority thinks that there are any negative
impacts. Overall, the open comments about advantages further imply that most
respondents would welcome a systematic approval of mobility in the career evaluation
and promotion processes.

3.11.2 Differences by Fields

About half of the respondents named disciplines in which mobile teachers were more
likely to expect career advantages than in other fields. Several respondents pointed out
explicitly that mobile teachers of all disciplines have some career advantages. Not a
single expert named any discipline in which a teaching period is seen as unfavourable to
others as far as career prospects are concerned. The following groups of fields are most
frequently named: Business Management and Social Sciences (8), Communication and
Information Science (7) as well as Languages and Human Sciences (7). In addition,
Engineering and Architecture (5), Mathematics & IT (4), Law (4), Education (4) and
Arts (3), Natural Sciences (3) and Medicine (1) were named as well.
Overall, out of the experiences and in the opinions of the respondents there are only
fields of studies with advantages regarding the future career of former mobile teachers.
In congruence with the results in the student mobility part, the most often stated study
fields are Business Management and Social Sciences. These seem to be the classical
internationally oriented study fields. Also, the high nomination for advantages for study
fields in the area of Communication and Languages could be expected. Interestingly,
the third most stated field of study belong to the field of Engineering and Architecture.
In contrast to the field of Business Management the argument for this choice is the gain
in new technical knowledge which can be transferred by teaching to the students.

3.12 Suggestions for Improvement (Teaching Staff Mobility)

The majority of experts surveyed took the opportunity to formulate changes which,
according to them, might contribute to a higher professional value of ERASMUS
teaching staff mobility for the mobile teachers.

3.12.1 Suggestions for improvement regarding the

SOCRATES/ERASMUS programme as a whole
With regard to the overall SOCRATES/ERASMUS programmes, the respondents
named desirable improvements – similarly as in the survey on the professional value of
student mobility – bureaucracy, language preparation and notably limited funds as
major barriers. Several proposals directed to the SOCRATES/ERASMUS as a whole
turn out to be primarily in the domain of the participating higher education institutions.
They refer to a better promotion of ERASMUS teaching mobility at the universities, a
higher appreciation of the institution and improved organisation of teaching substitutes.

3.12.2 Suggestions for improvement regarding the "receiving" institution

Various experts suggest in this framework that the host universities should increase
their efforts in order to make teaching periods more beneficial for all persons and

42
 Findings of the Expert Survey

institutions involved. One can infer from these statements in this context that the expert
would expect also a higher career impact for the mobile teaching, if their teaching
period abroad itself was made more valuable by the host institution. Notably efforts
could be made to provide a better service for incoming mobile teachers and to take care
for a better academic and social integration at the host institution.

3.12.3 Suggestions for improvement regarding the "sending" higher

education institution

The proposals made to integrate teaching mobility abroad into regular work assignments
and into the regular career are directed by the experts, as a matter of course, to the home
universities. They suggest, among other things, to increase the incentives to go abroad,
to promote the value of being mobile and to introduce "being mobile" as an element in
evaluation and promotion processes.
A few additional comments refer to better preparation, support and funding scheme for
the outgoing staff. These comments are similar to those made referring to improvements
regarding incoming staff.

3.13 Good Practice (Teaching Staff Mobility)

Asked to name good practices known to them aiming to increase the professional value
of teaching for some period in another European country in the framework of
ERASMUS, less than 10% of the surveyed experts responded affirmatively. And among
the few examples presented, the prime emphasis is on making results of the teaching
period better visible rather than directly on assuring an impact on the subsequent career.

3.14 Concluding Remarks

The expert survey was the first evaluation step in the project "The professional value of
ERASMUS mobility - External evaluation of the impact of ERASMUS mobility on
students’ access to employment and career development, on teachers’ career
development and on two areas of study to be specified". The objective of this survey
was to gain a broad understanding of the topic and to use the results and the expertise of
the experts for the further steps of the evaluation.
The experts’ survey was directed to representatives of the ERASMUS programme itself
(National Agencies), policy representatives (Ministries of Education), representatives of
student organisations (e.g. AIESEC), fields of study/disciplines (e.g. Association of
history teachers), labour market representatives (Unions, employer organisations) and
higher education institutions (conferences of rectors). 190 experts were addressed via
email and asked to participate in an online survey about the professional value of
ERASMUS teaching and study mobility. 43% answered the questions about ERASMUS
student and/or teachers mobility. Overall, the participating experts represent 29
European countries and even more different organisations and institutions.

43
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

The online questionnaire consisted of closed and open questions and was available in
English, German and French. In the questionnaire, the experts were asked to rate the
former ERASMUS students’ competences, activities and education and professional
paths as compared to students not having been internationally mobile. Such a rating was
asked for different stages of the biography: Immediately upon return from study in
another country, at the time of graduation and job search, during the first steps and
employment and work and finally “a couple of years” after graduation. They were asked
to express whether and to what extent they considered former ERASMUS students to be
superior and to what extent subsequent education, competences, employment and work
could be viewed as an impact of ERASMUS student mobility.
It can be said from the outset, first, that the responses of the experts provided in spring
2005 in this first step of this project primarily confirm the results of prior studies.
According to the experts’ views, ERASMUS students are immediately upon return from
the study period abroad, obviously superior to most non-mobile students with respect to
knowledge on other countries and notably on the host country. Their foreign language
proficiency has improved substantially, and their intercultural understanding was
significantly enhanced. Undoubtedly, they gained academically from study abroad but
not to a level that they excel other students by far. A substantial proportion of experts
are aware that one has to qualify such ratings with respects to different home and host
countries, different fields of study, different individuals and circumstances at the
various home and host institutions of higher education. Independent of those
differences, several of them underscore strongly what former student, teacher and
coordinator surveys have pointed out: the strongest immediate impact of ERASMUS
student mobility is its eye-opening, strengthening of comparison and reflection and
other new perspectives as a result of creative provocation of prior established views.
Also at time of graduation, experts consider former ERASMUS students clearly
superior on average to non-mobile students, as far as “international competences” are
concerned: knowledge on other countries, foreign language proficiency, intercultural
understanding etc. On the other hand, it is not surprising as well that they observe some
above-average level of academic knowledge and general competences.
The surveyed experts are convinced that former ERASMUS students are far better on
average than non-mobile students in the search process and in the transition to
employment. Study abroad is generally seen as an asset in the CV of the job seekers
which will make them more interesting for those recruiting graduates. More than three
quarters of experts state that former ERASMUS students have a better chance to be
considered as candidates in final stages of selection. More than half of them belief that
the search process will be smoother and that former ERASMUS students will be more
successful in eventually getting employed for the first time after graduation. In
addressing the former ERASMUS students’ employment and work a couple of years
after graduation, the experts view the impact of student similarly in various respects as
the findings of previous surveys of the careers of former ERASMUS students had
suggested. First, former ERASMUS students clearly more frequently take up visibly
international job tasks, such as international travel, communication with persons from
other countries, employing foreign languages, using knowledge on other countries, etc.
Yet, the experts do not overlook that there are many former ERASMUS students as well
who do not end up in visible international job assignments. Second, the experts note
some advantages of former ERASMUS students, as far as status, income, job security

44
 Findings of the Expert Survey

etc. are concerned. But the percentages of experts stating such advantages are clearly
smaller: 33% with respect to income, 30% regarding the social status and 18%
regarding job security. Moreover, most of them note only somewhat of an advantage: a
moderate one and not necessarily for most former ERASMUS students. Altogether, the
experts surveyed express somewhat more favourable views of the professional value of
ERASMUS study abroad than former ERASMUS students surveyed earlier in two
respects. The experts considered those former ERASMUS students’ competences as
relatively high which often had been called in recent discussions as “key skills”,
“employability” skills, i.e. competences at the cross-roads of cognitive knowledge and
personality development, and they noted good opportunities of former ERASMUS
students to take over desirable work tasks and assignments close linked to their domains
of knowledge. It will be interesting to compare these findings with the responses to the
survey of former ERASMUS students scheduled for 2005.
In the second part of the expert survey, the focus lied on teacher mobility. The core
question was how strongly teaching abroad and related activities shape the competences
and subsequent activities of former mobile teaches and how this is reflected in their
subsequent careers. The experts were, hence, asked to rate the competences, activities
and careers of formerly mobile teachers. They were encouraged as well to explain the
impact of teaching staff mobility and discuss possible means of improvement.
The results show that experts are convinced that temporary teaching in another
European country is beneficial for the competences of the teachers themselves.
According to areas of knowledge, views and attitudes, a similar pattern is viewed as had
been pointed out with respect to mobile students: As a rule, mobile teachers – according
to experts’ views - increase their knowledge of the host country and possibly other
countries. In many cases, teaching staff mobility is valuable for the foreign language
proficiency and for the intercultural knowledge and understanding of mobile teachers.
Finally even more than two-thirds of the surveyed experts believe that formerly mobile
teachers are afterwards somewhat superior to non-mobile teachers as far as academic
knowledge is concerned.
Experts point out as well that the ERASMUS teaching period in another European
country contributes substantially to an increase of international activities on the part of
the formerly mobile teachers. Almost all experts consider them as more active than non-
mobile teachers with respect to international networking, doing research in international
context as well as increasing international, European and comparative dimensions in
teaching and study programmes in general. Last but not least it is generally assumed
that formerly mobile teachers are often quite active in various ERASMUS-related areas.
Many of the surveyed experts are convinced as well that mobile teachers have ample
long-term career opportunities. They are clearly viewed to have better opportunities of
being internationally mobile. But almost half the respondents state as well that mobile
teachers have better opportunities for career advancement at their home higher
education institution or otherwise within their home countries. For example 44 percent
argue that mobile teachers have better chances than their non-mobile peers to get a
higher rank within their institution. It should be noted though that the opportunities of
reaching a higher income level are rated as quite low. In explanations of their ratings
many experts point out that many mobile teachers have acquired competences and
undertaken activities subsequently which deserve to be taken into consideration in mid-

45
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

term and long-term reward, appointment and promotion policies. A substantial number
of them believe that these competences and activities are undervalued in many
institutions of higher education.

4 Former Students' Views and Experiences

4.1 Introduction
Studying in another country is viewed as beneficial for the learning process of the
students and their growth of competences in various respects, notably:
• acquisition of academic knowledge (theories, methods and basic disciplinary
knowledge) in areas of expertise which are not taught in the home country at all
or only on a substantially lower level,
• gathering and experiencing field knowledge of the economy, society and culture
of the host country of study,
• successful study in fields which are genuinely border-crossing (e.g. International
Law),
• learning internationally comparative approaches,
• broadening the mind and improving reflection through contrasting experiences
of different countries, different academic cultures, etc.
• acquisition of international/inter-cultural communication techniques, e.g. foreign
languages, inter-cultural communication styles, etc.
Moreover, studying abroad is expected to have a valuable impact on the personal
development of the students. Naturally, ERASMUS supported temporary study in
another European country is expected to have a positive impact on life after graduation,
notably on their employment and work, but also on their activities as citizens, for their
family life and for other life spheres. Although higher education as a rule is not geared
closely to professional preparation, the professional value of ERASMUS was high on
the agenda from its inauguration.
The rationale of the graduate survey is to provide information about the active
professional impact of ERASMUS-supported temporary study period in another
country. Moreover, it aims to identify the most conducive conditions for a high
professional value.

4.2 Prior Studies

This study on the professional impact of the ERASMUS-supported study period in
another European country on subsequent career can draw from the results of prior
studies. For the European Commission already had supported surveys in the past
addressing the transition from higher education to employment and the early careers of
former ERASMUS students. As the number of eligible countries has increased over

46
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

time, it is not surprising to note the prior studies comprised a smaller number of
countries.
First, more than 1,300 former ERASMUS students of the academic year 1988/89
provided information in spring 1992, i.e. about three years later, on study upon return
from the ERASMUS-supported period abroad and on the transition to employment
(Teichler and Maiworm 1994). Two years later, in spring 1994, more than 1,200 former
ERASMUS students of the academic year 1988/89 provided information on their early
career (Maiworm and Teichler 1996). These surveys were part of a longitudinal study
ranging from the academic year 1989/90, i.e. shortly after the ERASMUS supported
period abroad, until about five years later.
The major findings of the two studies were summarized as follows: "The study showed
that the respondents perceived study abroad as a help for transition to work, but not
necessarily as a boost for a high-flying career. Most considered it useful for their
working life. Professional contacts with the former host country were more likely if
they had spent the study period in a large EU member state. The academic value of
study abroad was appreciated to a lesser extent five years later than shortly after the
study period abroad, but all other impacts were seen as similar at all stages of the
survey. Also, former students believed five years later that their course of study had
been prolonged slightly less as a consequence of the study period abroad than they had
expected during the academic year after their return. Altogether, former ERASMUS
students rated the study period abroad as rather more valuable five years after returning
to their home country than during the academic year immediately after returning to their
home institution.” (see Jahr and Teichler, 2002, p. 117).
Second, a follow-up survey was undertaken in spring 2000 of the largest internationally
graduate survey hitherto, the so-called CHEERS survey (sponsored by the European
Commission in the framework of the TSER Programme). In the CHEERS survey, more
than 35,000 graduates of the academic year 1994/95 from 11 European countries and
Japan were surveyed in 1999, i.e. about four years after graduation. The follow-up
survey undertaken in the framework of the SOCRATES 2000 evaluation addressed
graduates from five countries who had reported in 1999 that they had studied abroad
during the course of their study. Thus, it was possible to compare the careers of about
400 former ERASMUS students with about 400 former European students who had
been mobile during the course of study with others means (self-supporting or the with
help of other support schemes) in the early 1990s and with thousands of graduates who
had not been internationally mobile during the course of their study (see Jahr and
Teichler 2002).
The major findings of this study were summarized as follows (see Teichler 2002,
p.220): “In examining the impact of temporary study in another European country on
subsequent employment and work we noted that more mobile students than non-mobile
students eventually
• took on job assignments with international components
• were more often employed abroad, and
• were more often assigned work abroad, if employed by a home country
employer.

47
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

• Former mobile students also assessed their professionally relevant competence

somewhat higher than the non-mobile students, and
• they also experienced a smoother transition from study to employment.
However, few formerly mobile students believed hat they had a more successful career
than their fellow students who had not been mobile, and few had a higher income. But
the contribution of ERASMUS is impressive when it comes to European and
international assignments of graduates. In most respects, the findings of a recent survey
of 1994-95 graduates who had studied abroad with ERASMUS support around 1992-94
confirmed those of the longitudinal study of the 1988/89 cohort. In most respects, the
change over time was marginal.
But caution is called for. First, as the recent survey shows, former ERASMUS students
are not better prepared for employment and work in general or for international
assignments than European graduates who studied abroad with other means of funding.
Second, the number of former ERASMUS students who do not find significant
European or international job assignments is fairly high and seems to grow slightly over
time.”
Altogether, all prior surveys suggest that students who were mobile during the course of
study are also more likely to work abroad after graduation. They also more frequently
take over professional assignments which require knowledge of other countries, foreign
language proficiency and other areas of knowledge and competences which cross the
national borders. Study abroad also seems to have a favourable signal effect in the
period of job search.
However, there were three cautions to the “success story” of ERASMUS, as far as the
professional value is concerned. First, it seems to be questionable according to these
studies undertaken in the past whether ERASMUS has a clear positive impact on the
status and remuneration of the beneficiaries. One might consider this as disappointing,
but one might also view this as normal: ERASMUS can be viewed as a public
investment to strengthen European and international competences increasingly needed
on the labour market rather than as a measure to increase private return for study in
another country.
Second, a considerable number of former ERASMUS students are disappointed that
they cannot make more use of their European and international competences on the job.
One might raise the question whether the employment system calls for fewer
competences of this kind, for different competences or whether the former ERASMUS
students do not find the appropriate job where their competences are required.
Third, ERASMUS is not superior to other modes of study abroad, as far as the
professional value is concerned. One might consider this as disappointing in the face of
all the activities undertaken in the framework of ERASMUS to make study in another
European country successful. In contrast, one might argue that ERASMUS notably is
successful in mobilizing large numbers of students to spend a study period in another
country. Therefore, a professional impact of an ERASMUS supported study period
abroad similar to the impact of study abroad through other means can be viewed as a
success of ERASMUS.

48
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

4.3 The Survey of 2000/01 ERASMUS Students

Table 9 provides the key information on the survey undertaken from autumn 2005 until
spring 2006 on subsequent study and early career of ERASMUS students of the
academic year 2000/01. Actually, almost 4,600 former ERASMUS students provided
the information on which the subsequent analysis is based.
The target population of the survey are persons who have been supported in the
framework of ERASMUS to spend a period of study in another European country in the
academic year 2000/2001. This year was chosen, because, on the basis of prior studies,
one could expect that the respondents can report about three years of professional
experience on average at that time.

Table 9 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of Former

ERASMUS Students
1 Target population Students who have been supported in the
framework of ERASMUS in the academic year
2000/2001 (N=108,505)
2 Start of field phase September 2005/October 2005
3 End of field phase February 2006
4 Sampling strategy Two stage sampling: first institutions (511) and
then students (20,500) stratified by country
5 Questionnaire (see Annex A.6) – Highly standardized, 16 pages, 110
questions, 277 variables
– Translated in 23 official languages of the
European Union
– Online and paper versions
6 Number of co-operating institutions 244
7 Number of filled questionnaires 4,589
from ERASMUS students
(1.3.2006)
8 Gross response rate 27 %
(confirmed sent out of 16,819
questionnaires)
9 Net response rate 45 %
(assumption that only 60% of the
used addresses were valid)

According to the KENT database 108,505 students from 30 countries have been mobile
with ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/2001. Thereby, the number of students
from individual countries varied from more than 15,000 in three cases to less than 500
in ten cases.
In order to ensure that a certain absolute number responses are made available, an
uneven stratified sample according to home country was drawn: 1,500 students each
from the five biggest countries, 800 each from a second group of countries with about

49
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

2,500 to 4,500 mobile students, 650 each from a third group, and all outgoing students
from the fourth group of the smallest countries.
Since there was no central address register of former ERASMUS students available, the
mailing of questionnaires to the former ERASMUS students had to be done with the
help of the institutions from which the students went abroad in 2000/01. Therefore the
sampling was realised as a two step cluster sampling: In the first step, a sampling of
institutions per country was realised. In the second step, individuals within these
institutions were sampled. In order to reduce the overall work load, the numbers of
institutions of higher education institutions was kept low, and the institutions sampled
were requested to send out questionnaires to almost all of their former ERASMUS
students. However, the strategy chosen increases the standard error because of cluster
effects, because the variance within a cluster is likely to be smaller than across the
clusters.
A random sampling was undertaken in the first step and a manual adjustment in the
second step. The representativeness was mainly controlled according to home country
and field of study, the latter aggregated in 16 categories.
In sampling the institutions, they were sorted according to their number of outgoing
students, and draws were made of the start number and interval numbers. In a second
step, an adjustment was taken in order to include appropriate numbers according to field
of study.
Altogether, 511 institutions thus sampled were asked through e-mail correspondence to
trace addresses to mail eventually the questionnaires. This choice had been initially
made on the assumption that 30 percent of the institutions will cooperate. Actually, 244
institutions of higher education, i.e. 48 percent of those approached, mailed the
questionnaires. Cooperation was highest among institutions in Romania, Norway,
Portugal, Czech Republic and Spain. In contrast, support was rather weak in the United
Kingdom as well as in Denmark, Slovenia and Estonia.
The addresses of the institutions were available in the TAO database. However, about
ten percent of the email addresses had to be updated. A high response rate was strived
for through two reminder mailings, the second by the European Commission, and
finally phone calls to the ERASMUS co-ordinators to ask for their support. Some
institutions never responded and other declined cooperation, thereby naming work
overload, shortage of personnel and unavailability of addresses of former ERASMUS
students as major reasons.
The cooperating institutions received from the project a sufficient number of envelops
with the questionnaires and with reminder letters to be mailed two to three weeks later.
They sent the envelopes to the last available address, whereby some institutions were
active in updating available addresses. The overall period of surveying ranged from late
August 2005 over a period of more than six months. Partially extending periods of
shipping as well as delays in the mailing procedures as a consequence of shortage of
staff time at the participating institutions as well as the necessary reminder procedures
caused such a long time span.
The questionnaire addresses primarily the career of former ERASMUS students after
graduation, i.e. the transition to employment, the early employment history thereafter

50
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

and the actual employment and work situation at the time the survey is conducted (see
Table 10). A broad range of indicators of professional success was employed:
(a) graduation and job search,
(b) initial employment,
(c) present activity,
(d) employment situation and status at the time of the survey,
(e) links between study and work assignment,
(f) links between orientations and assessment of the professional situation,
(g) international aspects of employment and work (working in an international
context, international tasks, European and international mobility).

Table 10 Themes of the Questionnaire of the Survey with Former

ERASMUS Students
background
biographic
Socio-

Age, gender, citizenship, mobility prior to study, parental educational

background

Study prior to The ERASMUS period Subsequent studies

Course of study

ERASMUS period (host country, duration,

study/work placement, quality (country of further study and of
(study period, field of of preparation, support by host graduation, duration up to
study, home institution, language, graduation, field of graduation,
institution) problematic characteristics of self-assessment of
home and host, achievement, language
teaching/learning styles, proficiency, degree)
ECTS)
Transition

Major activities after graduation, job search, unemployment, time until first
employment

Employment Work European/international

Current employment

dimension
(position, income, sector of (major assignments,
and work

employment, working time, utilisation of knowledge and (country of employment,

kind of contract, skills, job satisfaction, life- international work tasks,
appropriateness, career long learning) role of foreign languages,
prospects) out-of-job activities)

In addition, the questionnaire comprises a large number of other questions possibly

explaining the professional value:
(a) socio-biographic background (age, gender, citizenship, mobility prior to study,
parental educational background),
(b) study prior to ERASMUS period,

51
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

(c) the ERASMUS period,

(d) subsequent study,
(e) competences upon graduation.
Where appropriate, the questionnaire took up questions employed in prior surveys of
former ERASMUS students. This makes it possible to establish changes over time. The
questionnaire, initially developed in German and English was translated into all the
official languages of the 30 ERASMUS-eligible countries. A complex procedure of
translation, retranslation and various modes of communication were chosen in order to
ensure a high quality of translations. Respondents received a paper version of the
questionnaire comprising 13 pages and additional pages for an integrated cover letter
and explanations and were informed about the possibility of responding the online-
version with the help of a PIN code.
The process of the field phase of the survey with former ERASMUS students was very
heterogeneous in the different countries.
By March 1, 2006, 4,589 responses were received. The gross response rate is about 27
percent. As available information suggest that only about 60 percent of the students
initially sampled were sent the questionnaire and actually were reached, the net
response rate is estimated to be 45 percent. Highest net response rates can be estimated
for Denmark (66%). In contrast, response rates were low in Iceland and Ireland, and
even no responses were received form Estonia (see Figure 10).

52
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Figure 10 Response Rate* of the Survey with Former ERASMUS

Students by Home Country (percent)

DK
IT
RO
DE
CZ
FI
SE
AT
PL
FR
BE
Home country

NO
HU
PT
UK
LV
ES
NL
GR
LI
SI
SK
MT
LT
BG
LU
IE
IS

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percent

* The response rate was calculated on the basis of the gross response rate with the assumption that 60 % of the
students could be delivered a questionnaire.

53
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 11 Survey with Former ERASMUS Students - Population,

Sample and Response
Country Group Population and sample Response from graduates
Institutions Students
Total Target Total Target Number of Absolute Gross Net response
sample sample sent out response response rate
quest. rate

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DE 1 228 30 15,777 1,500 1424 478 29% 56
ES 1 74 9 16,383 1,500 1482 334 22% 38
FR 1 293 39 17,153 1,500 1699 446 23% 44
IT 1 100 17 13,237 1,500 1308 499 30% 64
UK 1 157 39 8,87 1,500 676 168 12% 41
AT 2 61 23 2,886 800 720 206 28% 48
BE 2 64 15 3,99 800 362 93 16% 43
FI 2 49 18 3,285 800 626 203 26% 54
NL 2 48 14 3,509 800 529 111 12% 35
PL 2 82 24 3,682 800 802 219 18% 46
PT 2 71 35 2,567 800 936 228 19% 41
SE 2 37 18 2,72 800 822 257 22% 52
CZ 3 23 11 2,001 650 724 239 25% 55
DK 3 66 33 1,634 650 478 188 27% 66
GR 3 29 14 1,834 650 725 150 13% 34
HU 3 32 15 1,996 650 589 149 28% 42
IE 3 24 18 1,648 650 670 92 10% 23
RO 3 38 18 1,899 650 435 160 27% 61
BG 4 23 23 376 398 131 24 11% 31
EE 4 14 14 255 255 0 0 0% 0
IS 4 6 6 134 134 132 15 13% 19
LI 4 1 1 12 12 10 2 8% 33
LT 4 20 20 616 624 370 68 25% 31
LU 4 1 1 28 28 28 5 14% 30
LV 4 15 15 182 182 115 26 38% 38
MT 4 1 1 92 92 92 17 20% 31
NO 4 34 26 1,007 1.007 579 145 24% 42
SI 4 3 3 227 227 118 23 7% 32
SK 4 14 14 505 505 237 44 29% 31
Total 1608 511 108,505 20.464 16,819 4,589 22% 45
(1) ISO-Country Code
(2) Group according to our sampling strategy
(3) Total number of institutions having outgoing students in the reference period according to Kent Database
(4) Target sample of institutions in consideration of gross student sample
(5) Total number of outgoing students in the reference period according to Kent Database
(6) Target number of sampled students according to the sampling strategy
(7) Outgoing students within participating institutions = realised student gross sample:
(8) Absolute response of students
(9) Gross response rate, non participating institutions excluded: (10) / (9)
(10) Net response rate, non participating institutions excluded and assumption that 60% of the sent out questionnaires
could be delivered

4.4 The Profile of Former ERASMUS

63 percent of former ERASMUS students responding are female. Only in engineering
and science fields, they formed the minority (see Figure 11).

54
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Figure 11 Gender of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study

(percent)

100%

20
32 33
80% 38 37
42
54
Percent of students

63
60%
Male
Female
40% 80
68 67
62 63
58
46
20% 37

0%
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER Total
Field of study

Question I1: Gender

Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005;

Former ERASMUS students had spent on average 6.8 months abroad with the help of
ERASMUS. Medical students had a clearly shorter duration of the study period abroad
than students from other fields of study

Table 12 Duration of Study Abroad During ERASMUS Period

2000/2001 of Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study
(means)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Arithm. mean 6.6 7.3 6.8 7.2 6.7 5.4 6.3 6.8
Median 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 4.0 6.0 6.0
Count 1245 (749) (789) (610) (455) (261) (444) 4553

Question A3: How many months did you spend abroad during your ERASMUS supported period in the academic
year 2000/2001?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

9 percent of the surveyed former ERASMUS students had not yet been awarded a
degree about five years of the ERASMUS-supported study period and thus might be
considered as drop-outs. The corresponding figure had been 6 percent among 1988/89
ERASMUS students five years later.
40 percent of the graduates had been enrolled (or are still enrolled) in advanced study.
This is as frequent as among graduates of the 1988/89 ERASMUS cohort (41%). One of
the most striking impact of ERASMUS is the relatively high advancement rate to
further study – about twice as high as among non-mobile students (21% among the

55
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

1994/95 graduates). The duration of subsequent study was on average about two years
(see Table 13).

Table 13 Duration of Further Study of Former ERASMUS Students

by Field of Study (means)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Arithm. mean 23.8 22.6 23.4 26.1 28.2 29.1 25.9 24.8
Median 18.0 18.0 18.0 24.0 24.0 24.0 21.0 20.0
Count (449) (285) (291) (216) (221) (77) (149) 1688

Question B9: How many months did you study for that degree?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

4.5 The Early Career

72 percent were employed or self employed at the time the survey was conducted. 6
percent were unemployed and 23 percent active in studies, training and other areas (see
Figure 12).

Figure 12 Current Major Activity of Former ERASMUS Students

(percent)

Unemployment
and seeking 6
employment
Current major activities

Other 9

Further study/
14
training

Employment/
72
Self-employment

0 20 40 60 80
Percent of students

Question E1: What is your current major activity?

Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

56
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 14 Current Major Activity of Former ERASMUS Students by

Field of Study (percent)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Employment 59 59 79 74 61 66 63 66
Self-employment 7 6 4 8 3 9 7 6
Unemployment
(not employed and seeking employment) 8 6 5 4 5 2 7 6
Further study 11 12 6 8 19 8 10 11
Professional training 3 6 0 2 2 6 2 3
Family care 2 2 0 1 1 2 1 1
Other 10 9 5 4 9 8 9 8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) 1197 (720) (777) (590) (437) (252) (339) 4312

Question E1: What is your current major activity?

Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

On average, the respondents have been employed slightly more than two years (see
Table 15).

Table 15 Duration of Employment of Former ERASMUS Students by

Field of Study (means)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Arithm. mean 23,8 25,8 29,2 30,7 27,5 28,7 28,4 27,1
Median 24,0 24,0 30,0 30,5 25,0 27,0 28,0 26,0
Count 1006 (611) (716) (538) (357) (221) (289) 3738

Question E3: How long in total have you been employed since graduation?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

On the first job after graduation, 36 percent of the former ERASMUS students were
employed on fixed-term contract (see Figure 13). This ratio inclined to 57 percent at the
time the survey was conducted. Full-time employment is already dominant on the first
job after graduation (79 percent), it increased to 87 percent currently (see Figure 14).

57
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 13 Permanent Contract at the First Job and Current Job by

Field of Study (Percent)

First job Current job

100

80 76
Percent of students

66

60 57
52 51 51 53
49
45
40
40 35 36
31 31
28 28

20

0
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER Total
Field of study

Question D2: What was the type of your contract? Question E5: What is the type of your current contract? Source:
University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Figure 14 Full-Time Employment at First Job and Current Job by

Field of Study (Percent)
First job Current job
100

80
Percent of students

60

96
89 89 92 87 87 91 87
40 79 80 84 81
76
81 79
66

20

0
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER Total
Field of study

Question D3: Did you work full-time or part-time? Question E6: Do you work full-time or part-time?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

During the first years after graduation, more than half of the 2000/01 ERASMUS
graduates have changed employers – more than a quarter even more than once (see
Table 16). Change of employers is less frequent in professionalized fields of study.
Available data suggest that former ERASMUS students seem to somewhat more
frequently change employers in their early years of employment than formerly non-
mobile students.

58
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 16 Number of Employers Since Graduation of Former

ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (percent)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
One employer 37 38 44 49 44 45 34 41
Two employers 27 31 30 28 26 25 32 28
Three employers 16 15 15 14 13 16 19 15
Four employers 8 8 5 4 6 5 7 6
Five and more employers 8 4 3 3 4 5 4 5
Other 5 4 4 3 6 4 4 4
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) 1135 (681) (768) (572) (419) (243) (319) 4137

Question E2: How many employers have you had altogether since graduation? - including yourself if you have been
self-employed - including current employer.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

4.6 Job Search and Recruitment

Many of the former ERASMUS students surveyed started their job search relatively
late: 32 percent of the job seekers started only some time after graduation as compared
to 24 percent of European 1994/95 graduates (see Table 17).

Table 17 Start of Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students by Field

of Study (percent)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Prior to graduation 29 30 35 29 29 30 32 30
Around the time of graduation 21 23 24 27 22 22 23 23
After graduation 33 32 31 31 31 28 32 32
I was not looking for employment 17 15 11 12 18 20 12 15
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) 1226 (727) (788) (602) (443) (255) (345) 4386

Question C1: When did you start looking for a job? Exclude search for casual and vacation jobs.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

In contrast, the former ERASMUS students surveyed spent a short time span to seek for
their first regular job: only 3.7 months on average (see Table 19). This period is quite
short in comparison to the 5 months average job search period of mobile students and 7
months of non-mobile students among 1994/95 graduates. The job-seeking former
ERASMUS students also contacted fewer employers before taking up their first job: 19
on average (see Table 19) as compared to 25 on the part of the 1994/95 graduates.
The average job search period for 2000/01 students was clearly the shortest in Medicine
(2.4 months) and the longest in Humanities (4.5 months). It varied from less than 2
months in some Central and Eastern European countries to about 6 months in Spain and
Italy.

59
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 18 Number of Employers Contacted During Job Search by

Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (means)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Arithm. mean 18.9 18.7 23.3 20.2 22.1 7.4 16.1 19.3
Median 5.0 5.0 9.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 5.0
Count 1013 (619) (696) (531) (369) (206) (334) 3768

Question C2: How many employers did you contact (e.g. by letter) before you took up your first job after graduation?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 19 Duration of Job Search of Former ERASMUS Students by

Field of Study (means)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Arithm. mean 4.5 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.9 2.4 3.8 3.8
Median 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.0
Count 1003 (616) (695) (531) (366) (205) (334) 3750

Question C3: How many months did you seek all-together (before or after graduation) for your first job after
graduation, which you consider not to be a casual job?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

According to the former ERASMUS students, their employers considered academic

knowledge and personality most frequently as recruitment and criteria when they
decided to employ them. In addition, aspects closely related to study abroad played a
substantial role (see Table 20), i.e.
• foreign language proficiency (60%) and
• experiences abroad (53%), among them the ERASMUS study period abroad
(37%).
These figures hardly differ from that of former ERASMUS students 1988/89 (64% and
53%) and from ERASMUS students having graduated in 1994/95 (60% and 56%).
Naturally, they are substantially higher than for former non-mobile students having
graduated in 1994/95 (17% and 5%).
These two criteria closely related to the ERASMUS study abroad period, i.e. foreign
language proficiency and experiences abroad, were most important for graduates from
Foreign Languages, followed by Business Studies and Engineering. They were least
important for graduates from Medicine. They were highly important for graduates in
some Central and Eastern European countries and in France, but least important for
graduates in the United Kingdom.

60
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 20 Recruitment Criteria of Employers in the View of Former

ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (percent "important";
responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Personality 81 85 90 82 75 74 82 83
Field of study 68 71 73 83 79 83 74 74
Foreign language proficiency 65 57 69 58 53 34 57 60
Main subject/specialisation 59 52 56 66 67 64 59 59
Experiences abroad 53 53 63 54 48 32 47 53
Practical/work experience acquired
during course of study 49 51 54 56 46 51 51 51
Grades 31 39 36 36 41 37 26 35
Reputation of the institution of higher education 25 32 38 49 32 24 36 34
Recommendations/references from third persons 34 36 30 38 35 38 33 35
Computer skills 38 36 54 60 55 17 49 45
ERASMUS study abroad period 34 36 44 42 35 25 34 37
Count (n) 1034 (610) (712) (547) (375) (216) (293) 3787

Question D6: How important, according to your perception, were the following aspects for your employer in
recruiting you for your initial employment after graduation, if applicable? Scale of answers from 1 = very important
to 5 = not at all important.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

4.7 Competences, Orientations and Work Assignments

The surveyed former ERASMUS students rated their competences at the time of
graduation quite positively. More than three quarters reported high competences with
regard to theoretical knowledge, foreign language proficiency as well as regards various
work attitudes and styles (see Figure 15).

61
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 15 Former ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed Competences

at Time of Graduation (percent "high"; responses 1 and 2)
Computer skills 57
Applying rules and regulations 62
Field-specific knowledge of methods 64
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 70
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 71
Initiative 71
Competencies

Analytical competencies 73
Accuracy, attention to detail 74
Problem-solving ability 75
Power of concentration 76
Written communication skill 77
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 77
Getting personally involved 78
Loyalty, integrity 78
Foreign language proficiency 78
Adaptability 83

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of students

Question B7: Please, state the extent to which you had the following competences at the time of graduation. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

The ratings differ only to a small extent by home country (with the exception of positive
ratings by students from Bulgaria, Malta and Romania), host country and field of study.

4.8 Competences and Job Requirements

In comparison to the job requirements perceived (see Figure 16 and Table 21),
competences seem to be clearly lower than job requirements in 7 of the 16 dimensions
addressed. On the other hand, more former ERASMUS students believe that they have a
higher foreign language proficiency than they need on the job.

62
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Figure 16 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Required

Competences at Current Work (percent "high"; responses
1 and 2)
Foreign language proficiency 63
Applying rules and regulations 70
Computer skills 72
Field-specific knowledge of methods 74
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 75
Required competencies

Written communication skill 76

Loyalty, integrity 77
Getting personally involve 81
Analytical competencies 81
Adaptability 83
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 85
Power of concentration 86
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 87
Initiative 87
Accuracy, attention to detail 88
Problem-solving ability 92

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of students

Question F7: Please, state the extent to which the following competences are required in your current work. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 21 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Required

Competences at Current Work by Field of Study (percent
"high"; responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Problem-solving ability 86 93 95 96 93 94 89 92
Accuracy, attention to detail 87 86 87 88 88 92 90 88
Initiative 87 87 91 88 82 86 88 87
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 88 89 88 88 80 88 84 87
Power of concentration 86 84 84 85 85 91 87 86
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 87 83 86 86 79 82 85 85
Adaptability 84 82 84 82 77 83 85 83
Analytical competences 71 84 86 87 87 77 77 81
Getting personally involve 83 76 83 78 76 85 84 81
Loyalty, integrity 81 77 76 73 66 82 77 77
Written communication skill 78 86 77 70 68 65 73 76
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 70 75 66 80 79 93 81 75
Field-specific knowledge of methods 69 74 68 81 80 85 77 74
Computer skills 65 67 82 82 83 46 72 72
Applying rules and regulations 72 71 65 72 62 79 69 70
Foreign language proficiency 70 56 69 62 64 44 61 63
Count (n) (918) (562) (683) (525) (345) (226) (273) 3532

Question F7: Please, state the extent to which the following competences are required in your current work. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

63
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Altogether, the 2000/01 ERASMUS students rated their competences at the time of
graduation substantially higher than ERASMUS students who had graduated in
1994/95. Among the 1994/95 graduates, former ERASMUS students considered their
foreign language proficiency substantially higher than the formerly non-mobile
students: Otherwise, the ratings of competences and work tasks differed between them
at most moderately. We do not have any convincing explanation: Did teaching and
learning improve so much for ERASMUS students, or do we note a growing self-
confidence in this respect?
As far as work orientations are concerned, the surveyed former ERASMUS students
consider an autonomous work situation as well as opportunities of using their
competences on the job as most important. Regular work and high income seem to be
less important work orientations (see Table 22).
In general, the characteristics of the actual work situation are assessed less favourably
(see Table 23). A discrepancy between orientation and actual job characteristics is most
frequently stated with respect to income.

Table 22 Former ERASMUS Students' Work Orientations by Field of

Study (percent "important"; responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Possibilities of using acquired
knowledge and skills 91 86 83 84 88 97 91 88
Opportunity of pursuing own ideas 87 84 87 88 85 85 91 86
Opportunity of pursuing continuous learning 85 87 84 87 83 94 90 86
Challenging tasks 83 87 91 90 83 86 87 86
Largely independent disposition of work 81 79 83 81 79 76 82 81
Good career prospects 68 77 87 82 75 75 78 77
Chances of combining employment
with family tasks 77 77 71 74 77 72 82 76
Enough time for leisure activities 76 75 72 73 77 72 77 75
Job security 79 69 68 71 74 80 78 74
Clear and well-ordered tasks 74 67 68 74 77 78 76 73
Chances of doing something useful for society 76 73 59 65 69 79 75 70
High income 59 65 78 72 59 68 64 66
Social recognition and status 61 61 68 61 52 72 57 62
Co-ordinating and management tasks 47 54 71 59 44 42 55 54
Opportunity of undertaking
scientific/scholarly work 42 44 33 55 68 67 57 48
Count (n) 1177 (709) (757) (573) (423) (244) (329) 4212

Question G1A: How important are the following characteristics of an occupation for you personally? Scale of
answers from 1 = very important to 5 = not at all important.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

64
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 23 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the

Professional Situation by Field of Study (percent "high";
responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Possibilities of using acquired
knowledge and skills 70 71 62 66 73 80 73 69
Largely independent disposition of work 68 68 71 68 68 46 68 68
Opportunity of pursuing continuous learning 60 67 60 68 71 71 67 65
Challenging tasks 63 65 68 65 69 64 66 65
Job security 55 53 63 62 56 59 59 58
Opportunity of pursuing own ideas 60 53 59 57 65 39 62 58
Clear and well-ordered tasks 59 50 51 48 55 54 57 53
Social recognition and status 45 52 55 53 45 53 48 50
Good career prospects 39 47 58 51 51 45 44 48
Chances of doing something useful for society 53 51 32 38 44 72 55 47
Chances of combining employment
with family tasks 53 56 43 44 43 28 49 47
Enough time for leisure activities 50 52 45 42 45 27 45 46
Co-ordinating and management tasks 36 36 51 43 34 26 44 40
Opportunity of undertaking
scientific/scholarly work 24 34 19 40 54 50 39 33
High income 23 29 43 34 27 27 34 31
Count (n) (899) (555) (658) (513) (343) (212) (265) 3445

Question G1B: To what extent do the following characteristics of an occupation apply to your current professional
situation? Scale of answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Again, the orientations stated by the 2000/01 ERASMUS students are clearly more
ambitious than those of the 1994/95 graduates. Altogether the work situation is seen
more favourable as well, but this difference is smaller on average and regards income
and job security. The 2000/01 students consider the actual work situation slightly less
often as favourable.
Altogether, the majority of 2000/01 ERASMUS students perceives a close link between
study and subsequent employment and work, whereby differences are stronger by field
of study than by country:
• Altogether, 61 percent stated that they used highly on the job the knowledge and
skills acquired in the course of study (see Table 24).
• 41 percent viewed their field of study as the only one possible or by far the best
field for their area of work. Less than a quarter sees their field of study as largely
irrelevant for their work (see Table 25).
• 72 percent viewed their level of employment and work as closely linked to their
level of education (see Table 25).
• 67 percent were satisfied with their current work (see Table 28).
The responses were slightly more positive than those by all 1994/95 graduates.

65
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 24 Former ERASMUS Students' Usage of their Knowledge and

Skills Acquired in the Course of Study by Field of Study
(percent; arithmetic mean)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Knowledge and skills acquired in the course of study
1 To a very high extent 29 27 14 23 35 44 25 26
2 32 34 42 36 31 30 36 35
3 23 24 29 28 18 20 22 24
4 11 11 13 11 12 4 12 11
5 Not at all 5 3 2 2 4 2 5 3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count 1081 (641) (726) (545) (392) (237) (304) 3926

Arithmetic mean 2,3 2,3 2,5 2,3 2,2 1,9 2,4 2,3

Question G2: If you take into consideration your current work tasks altogether: To what extent do you use the
knowledge and skills acquired in the course of study? Scale of answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 25 Former ERASMUS Students Assessment of the

Relationship Between their Field of Study and Area of Work
by Field of Study (percent; multiple responses)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
My field of study is the only
possible/by far the best field 39 43 28 42 40 78 41 41
Some other fields could prepare
for the area of work as well 35 38 50 45 44 18 40 40
Another field would have been more useful 10 7 10 8 8 2 10 8
The field of study does not matter very much 11 10 12 8 9 2 12 10
Higher education studies are not at all
related to my area of work 10 5 6 3 5 1 6 6
Other 4 2 3 2 2 3 3 3
Total 109 105 108 109 109 105 113 108
Count (n) 1050 (628) (717) (551) (383) (238) (293) 3860

Question G3: How would you characterise the relationship between your field of study and your area of work?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

66
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 26 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the

Appropriateness of their Employment and Work to Level of
Education by Field of Study (percent; arithmetic mean)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Extent of employment and work appropriate to level of education
1 Completely appropriate 37 46 33 41 51 63 39 42
2 28 27 39 33 28 24 31 31
3 16 14 18 18 11 9 17 16
4 11 6 7 6 6 3 10 8
5 Not at all appropriate 7 6 4 2 5 0 3 5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count 1027 (621) (707) (541) (379) (234) (291) 3800

Arithmetic mean 2,2 2,0 2,1 2,0 1,8 1,5 2,1 2,0

Question G4: To what extent is your employment and work appropriate to your level of education? Scale of answers
from 1 = completely appropriate to 5 = not at all appropriate.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 27 Former ERASMUS Students' Satisfaction with Current

Work by Field of Study (percent; arithmetic mean)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Satisfied with your current work
1 Very satisfied 27 23 25 24 22 31 22 25
2 38 40 44 45 47 39 40 42
3 23 25 20 22 18 24 26 22
4 8 9 8 7 11 6 9 8
5 Very dissatisfied 4 3 4 2 1 0 3 3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count 1021 (615) (706) (542) (377) (234) (292) 3787

Arithmetic mean 2,2 2,3 2,2 2,2 2,2 2,1 2,3 2,2

Question G5: Altogether, to what extent are you satisfied with your current work? Scale of answers from 1 = very
satisfied to 5 = very dissatisfied.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

67
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 28 Links Between Study and Subsequent Employment and

Work Perceived by Former ERASMUS Students - a
Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent of employed
graduates)
ERASMUS ERASMUS Non-Mobile ERASMUS
students graduates graduates students
1988/89 1994/95 1994/95 2000/01
High use of knowledge 67 44 47 61
Field of study the only
possible/the best for area
of work + 31 39 41
Appropriate level 72 76 67 72
High satisfaction with
current work 52 74 63 67
Table summarises three questions of the current evaluation study; Question G2: If you take into consideration your
current work tasks altogether: To what extent do you use knowledge and skills acquired in the course of study?
Question G3: How would you characterise the relationship between your field of study and your area of work?
Question G5: Altogether, to what extent are you satisfied with your current work?
Source: Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of
Former ERASMUS Students 2005..
+ Different formulation or question not asked

In comparison to non-mobile students, formerly mobile ERASMUS students

• believe to have higher academic knowledge and skills and to be better prepared
for employment and work than formerly non-mobile students (see Table 29),
• note often a positive effect of ERASMUS in obtaining a first job, some a
positive effect on the types of work tasks and on average no positive impact on
income level (see Table 30),
• are in a somewhat better position than non-mobile students regarding the links
between education and work assignments and in general employment situation
(see Table 31).
Competences of Former ERASMUS Students Upon Graduation as Compared to
Non-Mobile Students in the View of ERASMUS Experts by Country of Expert

68
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 29 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of their

Competences Upon Graduation as Compared to Non-
Mobile Students by Field of Study (percent "better";
responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Knowledge of other countries
(economy, society, culture etc.) 95 96 96 96 97 94 95 95
Foreign language proficiency 95 96 95 95 96 91 94 95
Intercultural understanding and competences
(e.g. understanding and tolerance of
international differences in culture) 91 90 93 91 91 90 92 91
Preparation for future employment and work 59 65 70 69 64 72 67 65
Academic knowledge and skills
(e.g. theories, methods,
disciplinary knowledge, reflection, etc.) 52 49 48 55 53 63 57 53
Count (n) 1254 (749) (795) (611) (457) (261) (428) 4555

Question A21: At the time of return, how do you rate your knowledge and competences as compared to non-mobile
students in the following areas? Scale of answers from 1 to 5; 1 = much better, 3 = equal, 5 = much worse.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 30 Perceived Positive Impact of ERASMUS Study Period on

Employment and Work - a Comparison with Previous
Surveys (percent)
ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS
students graduates students
1988/89 1994/95 2000/01
(surveyed 1993) (surveyed 2000) (surveyed 2005)

Obtaining first job 71 66 54

Type of work task involved 49 44 39
Income level 25 22 16
Question H1: What impact do you feel that your study abroad experience has had with regard to your employment?
Scale of answers from 1 = very positive impact to 5 = very negative impact.
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

69
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 31 Former ERASMUS Students‘ Current Employment Situation

– a Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent)
ERASMUS ERASMUS Non-Mobile ERASMUS
students graduates graduates students
1988/89 1994/95 1994/95 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Employed, self employed 84 81 82 71
Study/training 7 12 7 14
Unemployed 4 3 5 6
Job mobility * 67 58 53
Temporary contract 27 27 27 35
Part-time employment 10 7 10 10
Public sector * 29 39 36
Research and HE 13 * * 16
Summarising table about questions E1, E5, E6, E9 and E10; Question E1: What is your current major activity?
Question E5: What is the type of your current contract? Question E6: Do you work full-time or part-time? Question
E9: Do you work in the public or private sector? Question E10: In which economic sector are you currently working?
* Question not asked
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

4.9 International Dimensions of Employment and Work

18 percent of the employed former ERASMUS students surveyed had been regularly
employed abroad – at least for some time – since graduation. This cannot be exactly
compared but might be slightly lower than previously: 18 percent of the 1988/89
ERASMUS students were employed abroad five years after graduation and 20 percent
of the former ERASMUS students who had graduated in 1994/94 were employed
abroad during the first four years after graduation.
Of the employed former ERASMUS students surveyed,
• 48 percent had considered working abroad and
• 22 percent sought employment abroad (see Table 32).
This is higher than among formerly non-mobile students who had graduated in 1994/95
(40% and 10%), but clearly lower than on the part of former ERASMUS students who
had graduated in 1994/95 (69% and 31%) and of 1988/89 ERASMUS students (39%
applying for employment abroad).

70
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 32 International Mobility of Former ERASMUS Students Since

Graduation by Field of Study (percent; multiple responses)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
I considered working abroad 46 47 46 48 52 55 52 48
I sought employment abroad 19 21 23 25 24 15 24 22
I have actually received an offer to work abroad 12 10 16 19 14 15 10 14
I have actually had regular employment
abroad since graduation 19 16 20 18 19 14 17 18
I have actually been sent abroad by my
employer on work assignments 8 9 16 14 18 8 9 12
None of the above 27 26 22 24 21 22 24 24
Total 131 128 144 148 148 127 136 137
Count (n) (938) (574) (691) (532) (360) (232) (283) 3610

Question F2: Did you have international mobility experiences since graduation? Please consider the country
immediately prior to the ERASMUS supported period as the home country in your responses (multiple reply
possible)? Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Asked “What is the scope of operations of your organisation?”, half of the employed
former 2000/01 ERASMUS students answered “international”, almost one third
“national” or less than one quarter each “regional” and “local” (see Table 33). An
international scope was reported by about three quarters of former students from Ireland
and Slovakia, but less than one third from Greece.

Table 33 Scope of Operations of Organisation of Former ERASMUS

Students by Field of Study (percent; multiple responses)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Local 33 22 10 17 20 43 30 23
Regional 24 19 12 18 20 42 17 20
National 28 38 28 32 36 24 33 31
International 41 46 70 60 55 11 49 50
Total 126 126 120 128 131 120 129 125
Count (n) (892) (549) (680) (527) (348) (224) (265) 3485

Question E13: What is the scope of operations of your organisation? (multiple reply possible)?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

59 percent reported that their company/organisation frequently undertakes business or

has contact to other countries, and 33 percent that these activities are frequent with the
host country of their study period abroad (see Table 34).

71
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 34 Business Contacts with Other Countries of Organisation of

Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (percent
"high extent"; responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
With other countries in general 51 55 74 67 65 32 59 59
With the host country of your
ERASMUS study period abroad 36 30 39 36 31 15 31 33
With the host country of other
study period abroad (if any) 28 27 39 31 34 17 29 30
Count (n) (903) (565) (681) (520) (355) (221) (260) 3505

Question F5: To what extent does the organisation, institution or company with which you are associated do business
or have contact with other countries? Scale of answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

On average, the employed former ERASMUS students surveyed considered 31 percent

of their work to be embedded into an international context. This, in contrast, was
highest on average for former students from Greece (47%).
The majority of employed respondents consider their international competences as
important for doing their current work:
• 45 percent professional knowledge of other countries,
• 57 percent knowledge and understanding of international differences in culture
and society,
• 66 percent working with people from different cultural backgrounds, and
• 69 percent communicating in foreign languages (see Table 35).

Table 35 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Importance

of International Competences by Field of Study (percent
"important"; responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Professional knowledge of other countries
(e.g. economical, sociological, legal knowledge) 52 46 52 37 31 32 47 45
Knowledge/understanding of international
differences in culture and society, modes
of behaviour, life styles, etc. 68 56 60 48 40 50 58 57
Working with people from different
cultural backgrounds 69 61 71 65 60 67 69 66
Communicating in foreign languages 72 63 74 71 66 61 72 69
Count (n) (930) (570) (684) (530) (357) (226) (273) 3570

Question F4: How important do you consider the following competences for doing your current work? Scale of
answers from 1 = very important to 5 = not at all important.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

These proportions are 4-10 percent higher than among former ERASMUS students
graduating in 1994/95, thus suggesting a growing relevance of international
competences over time for the former ERASMUS students. The survey of 1994/95

72
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

graduates had shown as well, as one might expect, that these international competences
were substantially more important for graduates having been mobile during the course
of their study than for graduates not having been internationally mobile during the
course of study.
Among 2000/01 ERASMUS students those from all Science and Engineering fields
considered these types of international competences as less relevant for their work than
those from Humanities and Social Science fields.
Up to 39 percent of the respondents each had frequent work tasks related to the
ERASMUS host country (see Table 36):
• 38 percent using the language of the ERASMUS host country in work-related
activities,
• 38 percent as well using the host country language in writing and reading,
• 25 percent using firsthand professional knowledge about the ERASMUS host
country,
• 24 percent using firsthand knowledge of the culture and society of the
ERASMUS host country,
• 14 percent travel to the ERASMUS host country.
These proportions are slightly lower than those reported by former generations of
ERASMUS students.

Table 36 ERASMUS-Related Work Task of Former ERASMUS

Students – a Comparison with Previous Surveys (% of
employed graduates)
ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS
students graduates students
1988/89 1994/95 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Using the language of the
host country orally 47 42 38
Using the language of the
host country in reading and writing 47 40 38
Using firsthand professional
knowledge of host country 30 25 25
Using first hand knowledge of
host country culture/society 30 32 24
Professional travel to host country 17 18 14
Survey 2005 Question F6: To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the following? Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005

It is interesting to note that the distribution of work tasks related to the ERASMUS host
country according to field of study by no means corresponds to the above named
professional relevance of visible international competences. Work tasks related to

73
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

ERASMUS host countries are not only frequently named by graduates from Language
fields, but also above average by graduates from Education and Engineering.
In sum, of the former ERASMUS students
• more than half each considered study abroad and foreign language proficiency
as important recruitment criteria (see Table 37),
• more than half each work in an internationally active organisation and view
knowledge and understanding of other cultures, societies and languages as
important for their work,
• almost 20 percent worked abroad and more than 22 percent were sent abroad
(see Table 38).
This is far more frequently reported by former ERASMUS students than by formerly
non-mobile students. But the number of ERASMUS students reporting international
dimensions of employment and work declined somewhat in recent years (see Table 38).

Table 37 Selected Recruitment Criteria of Employers in the View of

Former Students – a Comparison with Previous Surveys
ERASMUS ERASMUS Non-Mobile ERASMUS
students graduates graduates students
1988/89 1994/95 1994/95 2000/01
Field of study + 73 70 74
Main subject/specialisation 60 55 59 59
Grades 49 35 32 35
Practical/Work experience + 45 43 51
Reputation of HEI 27 24 20 33
Foreign Language Proficiency 64 60 17 60
Experience abroad (53) 56 5 53
Personality 81 81 73 83
Question in the current study: Question D6: how important, according to your perception, were the following aspects
for your employer in recruiting you for your initial employment after graduation, if applicable? Scale of answers from
1 = very important to 5 = not at all important.
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.
+ Different formulation or question not asked

74
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 38 International Dimensions of Employment and Work of

Former ERASMUS Students – a Comparison with Previous
Surveys (%)
ERASMUS ERASMUS Non-Mobile ERASMUS
students graduates graduates students
1988/89 1994/95 1994/95 2000/01
International scope of
employing organisation + + + 51
Frequent contacts of employing
organisation with other
countries 71 + + 59
Employed abroad
since graduation 18 20 5 18
Sent abroad by employer + 22 10 12
Professional knowledge of
other countries important + 40 20 45
Understanding of different
cultures and society important + 52 32 57
Working with people from
different culture important + 62 43 67
Communicating in foreign
language important + 60 30 70
Summarising table about several questions (here quoted based on the current study); Question F2: Did you have
international mobility experience since graduation? Please consider the country immediately prior to the ERASMUS
supported period as the home country in your responses (multiply reply possible); Question F4: How important do
you consider the following competences for doing your current work?
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005
+ Different formulation or question not asked

4.10 Perceived Impact and Assessment of Study Abroad

Asked about the impact of their study abroad experience on their employment and work
(see Figure 17 and Table 39),
• 54 percent stated that it was helpful for obtaining a first job,
• 39 percent noted a positive impact as regards their work tasks,
• but only 16 percent viewed their study abroad experience as having led to a
higher income level – as many as those perceiving a lower income level as the
consequence.
These ratings of impact were less positive than those stated by former ERASMUS
students who had graduated in 1995 (66%, 44% and 22%) and even less positively than
those by 1988/89 ERASMUS students (71%, 49% and 25%). One might conclude: The
more participation in temporary study abroad grows, the less it seems to make a
difference for employment and work.

75
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 17 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Impact of

Study Abroad (percent "positive impact"; responses 1 and
2)

Income level 16

The type of tasks

39
which your work involves

Taking over a job

assignment closely linked 41
to your academic knowledge
Impact rating

Your long-term
53
career prospects

Obtaining your first job 54

The development
89
of your personality

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of students

Question H1: What impact do you feel that your study abroad experience has had with regard to your employment?
Scale of answers from 1 = very positive impact to 5 = very negative impact.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 39 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of the Impact of

Study Abroad by Field of Study (percent "positive impact";
responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
The development of your personality 90 89 89 90 88 89 90 89
Obtaining your first job 53 50 62 59 55 40 50 54
Your long-term career prospects 47 55 62 55 53 46 48 53
Taking over a job assignment closely linked
to your academic knowledge 42 37 40 46 39 32 40 41
The type of tasks which your work involves 45 34 37 38 35 35 42 39
Income level 14 16 22 19 13 10 15 16
Count (n) 1102 (655) (731) (560) (402) (241) (306) 3997

Question H1: What impact do you feel that your study abroad experience has had with regard to your employment?
Scale of answers from 1 = very positive impact to 5 = very negative impact.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

On the other hand, a high proportion of the 2000/01 students note a substantial positive
impact on other dimensions not addressed in the same way in the previous surveys:
• Personality development (89%),
• Long-term career prospects (53%)
• Taking over an assignment closely linked to one’s academic knowledge (41%).
Finally asked about the extent to which the 2000/01 ERASMUS students view their
study abroad experience as worthwhile regarding (see Figure 18 and Table 40),

76
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

• Maturity and personal development: 95 percent (as compared to 93% on the part
of former ERASMUS students graduating in 1994/95),
• Foreign language proficiency: 91 percent (86%),
• Knowledge and understanding of the host country: 90 percent (87%),
• New ways of thinking and reflection: 86 percent (77%),
• New perspectives of your home country: 71 percent (73%),
• Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge: 68 percent (69%),
• Career prospects: 53 percent (55%), and
• Income/salary: 19 percent (21%).

77
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 18 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Study Abroad

(percent "worthwhile"; responses 1 and 2)

Income/salary 19

Relevance to your
50
job/occupation

Career prospects 53

Enhancement of academic
68
and professional knowledge
Evaluation

New perspectives
71
on your home country
New ways of
86
thinking and reflection
Knowledge and understanding
90
of the host country
Foreign language
91
proficiency (if applicable)
Maturity and
95
personal development

0 20 40 60 80 100
Percent of students

Question H2: From your point of view today, to what extent do you consider it was worthwhile for you to have
studied abroad with regard to the following? Scale of answers from 1 = extremely worthwhile to 5 = not at all
worthwhile.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 40 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Study Abroad

by Field of Study (percent "worthwhile"; responses 1 and
2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Maturity and personal development 95 97 96 93 94 95 96 95
Foreign language proficiency (if applicable) 93 94 93 90 88 85 91 91
Knowledge and understanding
of the host country 92 91 89 88 88 88 91 90
New ways of thinking and reflection 85 87 87 88 85 84 87 86
New perspectives on your home country 72 74 77 71 70 56 63 71
Enhancement of academic and
professional knowledge 73 64 63 69 69 71 70 68
Career prospects 46 54 65 56 55 39 51 53
Relevance to your job/occupation 54 45 51 52 46 42 49 50
Income/salary 16 19 28 24 17 8 16 19
Count (n) 1184 (692) (755) (572) (431) (248) (324) 4206

Question H2: From your point of view today, to what extent do you consider it was worthwhile for you to have
studied abroad with regard to the following? Scale of answers from 1 = extremely worthwhile to 5 = not at all
worthwhile.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

78
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

ERASMUS students note the highest value of study abroad as contributing to

personality development and reflective thinking as well as enhancing the specific skills
related to study abroad, i.e. foreign language proficiency and knowledge of the host
country. The general academic and professional value is viewed somewhat more
cautiously. It is interesting to note that the former aspects are viewed even more
positively by the latest ERASMUS cohort surveyed than by ERASMUS students of
earlier years, while the latter aspects are rated similarly.
Below-average impact and value of study abroad varies little by field of study with the
exception of negative ratings by graduates from medicine. However, substantial
differences exist between host countries. With some notable exceptions those former
ERASMUS students rated the impact and value less highly who spent their study period
abroad in Central and Eastern European countries or in Southern European countries.
The comparison with former studies shows that there are substantial change of study
conditions and provisions during the ERASMUS period (see Table 41 to Table 45), but
there are substantial changes by home and host country. Recognition/credits transfer
increased for some time in the 1990s, but decreased recently.

Table 41 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Selected

Modes of Teaching and Learning Emphasized by the Host
Institution in Selected Host Countries (percent "high";
responses 1 and 2)
FR ES DE UK
Facts and instrumental knowledge 56 56 58 52
Theories 49 47 55 54
Attitudes, socio-communication skills 40 36 46 55
Independent learning 48 47 69 69
Teacher-centred 58 50 40 44
Choice 50 57 70 59
Process/problem-based learning 38 35 47 50
Out-of-class student-staff communication 26 31 37 42
Question A13: To what extent were the following modes of teaching and learning emphasised by your host institution
of higher education and its teachers. Scale of answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

79
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 42 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Academic

Level of Courses at the Host Institution as Compared to the
Home Institution – a Comparison with Previous Surveys
(average percent of courses)
ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS
students students students
1990/91 1998/99 2000/01
(S) (S) (R)
More demanding 22 22 22
Equally demanding 50 47 48
Less demanding 28 31 30
Question A20: Approximately what percentage of the courses you took while abroad were academically more or less
demanding than courses which you would have taken at the home institution during the same period? Source:
University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.
S = View of students after return
R = Retrospective view of graduates

Table 43 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Selected

Problems During Study Period Abroad – a Comparison with
Previous Surveys (percent)
ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS
students students students students
1988/89 1990/91 1998/99 2000/01
(S) (S) (S) (R)
Accommodation 22 22 23 24
Financial matters 21 21 20 22
Administrative matters 21 18 23 19
Obtaining credits/credit
transfer * 18 19 16
Different teaching/learning
methods 17 13 13 15
Teachers meeting/helping
students 15 12 11 13
Taking courses in foreign
language 10 10 11 9
Too high academic level 8 3 6 5
Question A12: To what extent did you have significant problems in the following areas during your study period
abroad? Scale of answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.
S = View of students after return
R = Retrospective view of graduates

80
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

Table 44 Host Countries Where Former ERASMUS Students Faced

Relatively High and Low Problems during Study Period
Abroad
High Low

Accommodation IR, IC, IT, PO, ES SE, FI, AT, NO, CZ, DE, PL
Financial matters DK CZ, PL, RO, HU
Administrative matters IC, IT SK, FI, SE
Obtaining credits/credit transfer SK, IC RO, CZ
Different teaching/learning methods RO, FR, IT PL, HU, IC, CZ, SK
Teachers meeting/helping students ES CZ

Question A12: To what extent did you have significant problems in the following areas during your study period
abroad? Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Table 45 Former ERASMUS Students' Assessment of Recognition of

ERASMUS-Supported Study – a Comparison with Previous
Surveys (percent)
ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS
students students students students students
1988/89 1988/89 1990/91 1998/99 2000/01
(S) (R) (S) (S) (R)
Degree of recognition 77 * 74 81 73
Degree of correspondence 73 * 72 80 74
Non-prolongation 53 59 54 45 59
Table summarises several questions; Question A16: Overall, to what extent were the academic studies you actually
undertook successfully at the host institution recognised (granted credit or otherwise considered equivalent) upon
return by the home institution? Question A17: To what extent did the workload of your studies at the host institution
actually correspond to the amount of the typical workload expected at your home institution during a corresponding
period? Question A18: Did the study period abroad prolonged the total duration of your studies?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.
S = View of students after return
R = Retrospective view of graduates
* Not asked

81
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

4.11 Concluding Remarks

The objective of the student survey was to follow the first years of employment in the
lives of the ERASMUS cohort 2000/01 and to analyse if their study period abroad had
any impact on their transition to work, their early career and their tasks and position in
the organisation.
The survey reveals that two thirds of the ERASMUS students in the academic year
2000/01 are employed nearly five years after their study period abroad. Of this group,
two thirds were employed permanently at the time of the survey. Comparison to other
graduate surveys shows that former ERASMUS students seem to somewhat more
frequently change their employers in their early years of employment than formerly
non-mobile students.
The transition to work of the questioned students could be described as relatively
smooth. Even so the questioned former ERASMUS students started the job search
comparatively late; they spent a short time span to seek for their first regular job
(average 3.7 months). The students self assessed their international experience has very
helpful in the recruitment process. In particular students in the area of foreign
languages, business studies and engineering stated that their foreign language
proficiency and their experience abroad were important recruitment criteria. The self-
assessment reflects these results. Former ERASMUS students note often a positive effect
of ERASMUS in their first job.
Even so, the respondents retrospectively assessed their competences at time of
graduation quite positively; their job requirements do not match their level of
competences but are described as higher (with the exemption of foreign language
proficiency). Thus, in comparison to non-mobile students they assess themselves as
having a higher academic knowledge and skills and being better prepared for
employment.
The majority of former ERASMUS students perceive also a close link between study
and subsequent employment and work. A comparison of the survey results with former
surveys reveals also that former mobile ERASMUS students are in a somewhat better
position than non-mobile students regarding the links between education and work
assignments. Yet, it can not be concluded that an ERASMUS study period abroad leads
automatically to a high-flying career. No significant impact on income level can be
reported. In contrast, former ERASMUS students have a high probability to work in an
international work environment: 69% are communicating in a foreign language during
work, 50% are working in an international organisation and 18% have been regularly
employed abroad. The comparison to earlier studies suggests a growing relevance of
international competences over time for former ERASMUS students.
Overall, ERASMUS students note the highest value of study abroad as contributing to
personality development and reflective thinking as well as enhancing the specific skills
related to study abroad, i.e. foreign language proficiency and knowledge of the host
country. The general academic and professional value is viewed somewhat more
cautiously. Still, it can be concluded that the self-assessment of the former ERASMUS
students of the academic year 2000/01 reveals a positive impact of ERASMUS student

82
 Former Students' Views and Experiences

mobility on the professional value of students and graduates. Here professional value
refers mainly to the improved international competences, a smooth transition to work,
and the probability to work in an international working environment. Yet, the overall
ratings of professional impact were less positively than those stated in former studies. It
could be concluded, that the higher participation in study abroad programmes reduces
the impact for the individual.

83
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

5 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of

Temporary Study in Another European Country

5.1 Introduction
An employers’ survey was undertaken in the study on the professional value of
ERASMUS mobility in order to include those who are the best possible source of
information concerning the criteria of recruitment and utilisation of knowledge in
various departments of the organisation as well as issues of the transition from higher
education to employment. Their perceptions of the competences, careers and work tasks
of formerly mobile students, therefore, are a valuable contribution to an overall
assessment of the impact of temporary study in another country during the course of
study on subsequent employment and work.
The responses to the questionnaires on the professional value of ERASMUS study
periods abroad for the individual student allow us to extend the triangulation analysis
and to compare the views of employers with those of the former students and the
university leaders. Moreover, the employer survey provides information about possible
mismatches between the employers’ expectations and the European and international
learning in higher education.
The following themes are addressed in the employers’ survey (see Figure 19):
• basic information on the employing organisation and their staff, including their
international activities,
• actual numbers of university graduates recruited and former ERASMUS
students and other internationally mobile students among them,
• modes and criteria of recruiting university graduates,
• perceived competences of former ERASMUS students,
• positions and assignments of former ERASMUS students,
• demands of the organisations with respect to competences potentially fostered
by study in another country,
• perceived match or mismatch with supply and suggestions for the change of
European and international activities of the universities.

84
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Figure 19 Themes of the Employers' Survey

Organisation
Type, size, scope of operations, sector of economic, the employee's
The

international experience
Recruitment

graduate
of young

Ways of recruiting Recruitment of former

Job requirement
young graduates ERASMUS students
competences
of graduates
Work and

Competences and
International work
assignments of former Position and salary
tasks
ERASMUS students

The employer survey addressed two target groups

• Organisations that employ former ERASMUS students. As neither the agencies
administering the ERASMUS programmes nor the institutions of higher
education participating know the employers’ addresses, the formerly mobile
ERASMUS students were asked to state their employer’s address in the
questionnaire. Actually, about one third of the respondents provided their
employers’ addresses. The questionnaire survey eventually was sent to about
1,500 addresses traced that way.
• In addition, in order to address a higher number of employers, the questionnaire
was sent to 4,500 employers in European countries without any prior knowledge
whether they employed any former ERASMUS students. The addresses were
sampled for an address database of employers in Europe. A stratified sampling
strategy was employed taking into account by country, economic sector and size
of the organisation.
The questionnaire of the employer survey was translated into 23 official languages of
the European Union. Only Icelandic employers were sent the English and the Danish
version, because the number of organisations sampled was small and proficiency of
foreign languages could be taken for granted.
For the 10 pages-questionnaire, an attractive layout (colourful, good quality of paper,
etc.) was chose in order to increase the return. This was considered necessary, because
response rates of employer survey tend to be lower than those of academic profession
surveys or graduate surveys. In contrast to the other surveys undertaken, no online
version of the questionnaire was provided assuming that a paper questionnaire could be
more easily circulated within the organisation if need arises that questionnaires have to
be responded by different persons.
The questionnaire was sent to the first target group mainly in the end of February 2006
and to the second target group mainly in the beginning of April 2006. The subsequent

85
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

analysis is based on 312 responses received by May 10, 2006. At that time, 10 percent
of the employers of the first target group and two percent of the second target group had
responded. The net response rate was 6%.
Table 46 and Table 47 compare the characteristics of the employing organisations of the
graduate survey and the employer survey. No substantial differences can be observed
according to economic sector and size of organisation.

Table 46 Economic Sector of Organisations Responding by Type of

Survey (percent)
Economic Type of survey
sector Student survey Employer survey
Public sector 38 32
Private non-profit sector 7 10
Private profit sector 53 55
Other 3 4
Total 100 100
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Student and Employer Survey 2005/2006.

Table 47 Size of the Organisation by Type of Survey (percent)

Number Type of survey
of employees Student survey Employer survey
up to 9 13 16
10 to 49 16 15
50 to 99 8 14
100 to 249 10 13
250 to 999 14 18
1000 and more 38 24
Total 100 100
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Student and Employer Survey 2005/2006.

5.2 The Profile of the Organisations

55 percent of the organisations participating in the survey are private, 32 percent public
and 10 percent non-profit organisations (see Table 46). More than half of the
organisations have less than 250 employees (see Table 47). About two thirds are located
in Western European countries and about one third in Central and Eastern European
countries.
Table 48 show that about one tenth each of the responding employing organisations are
higher education institutions and organisation primarily active in research and
development. Most organisations responding are private-sector service organisations or
public-sector service organisations. Among all public organisations higher education
(27%), research and development (14%) and health (13%) are most frequent, among

86
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

non-profit organisations health (25%) as well as research and development (21%) and
among private organisations manufacturing (11%).

87
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 48 Economic Sector of Employers by Kind of Organisation

(percent)
Kind of organisation Total
Public Non-profit Private Other
Agriculture, forestry, fishing 3 0 3 9 3
Mining and quarrying 0 0 1 0 1
Manufacturing 0 0 11 0 6
Electricity, gas and water supply 0 0 3 9 2
Construction 0 0 6 0 3
Wholesale and retail trade, repair, hotels,
restaurants 0 0 6 0 3
Transport, storage and communication 1 0 4 9 3
Financial intermediation (e.g. banking,
insurance) 1 0 7 9 4
Computer and related activities (consultancy
and supply) 2 0 6 0 4
Research and development 14 21 4 9 9
Real estate, renting and other business
activities 1 0 3 0 2
Legal, accounting, book-keeping, auditing,
business consultancy 0 0 8 0 4
Architectural and engineering
activities/consultancy 1 4 3 0 2
Other commercial services 0 0 8 0 4

Foreign affairs, justice, public security 3 0 1 0 1

Other public administration (e.g. general
public service activities) 10 0 0 0 3

Primary schools 6 4 0 0 2
Secondary schools, vocational schools 8 0 1 9 3
Higher education 27 11 1 0 10
Adult and other education 3 4 2 0 2

Health 13 25 2 9 8
Social work 2 11 0 0 2
Membership organisations (e.g. professional
or religious organisation) 0 4 0 0 0
Culture, sport, entertainment 0 0 4 0 2
Other services 4 18 18 36 14
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (93) (28) (160) (11) (292)
Question A7: In which economic sector is your organisation predominantly active? Please mark one single item only.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

88
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Table 49 shows that the majority of organisations employ less than 50 higher education-
trained staff. Half of the organisations employ less than 10 recent graduates (recruited
during the last five years).

Table 49 Number of Employees and Graduates in the Organisation

(percent of employers)
Number of persons Total
0 1 to 10 to 50 to 100 to 250 to 1000
9 49 99 249 999 and more
Total organisation
Number of employees 3 13 15 14 13 18 24 100
Number of graduates from institutions
of higher education 5 24 27 10 13 10 12 100
Number of young graduates 9 41 25 10 7 4 4 100

Own location
Number of employees in 8 22 22 15 12 10 12 100
Number of graduates from institutions
of higher education 12 33 29 7 8 7 5 100
Number of young graduates in own location 16 48 22 5 4 5 1 100

Question A3: How many persons are employed in your organisation and, if applicable, in your own location?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

Two thirds of the organisations indicated that they recruited during the last five years
graduates with international study or work experience including foreign graduates.
Among them, we note diverse paths of mobility:
Young graduates being citizens of the country of the organisation
… with international study or work experience 63 %
… who graduated abroad 31 %
Foreign young graduates (33 %)
… who graduated in their home country with international study or work experience 23 %
… who graduated in their home country without international study or work experience 19 %
… who graduated in your country 18 %
… who graduated in a third country 9%

5.3 Recruitment of Young Graduates

Employers appreciating internationally experienced and competent graduates obviously
will take those dimensions into account in the process of recruiting new staff. Therefore
they were asked to state the role played by international experience among the various
recruitment criteria. In addition they were asked whether they prefer graduates having
opted for certain modes of mobility.
Many employer surveys have shown that both the academic knowledge and personality
are the most important criteria of selection among graduates to be recruited. Table 50
suggests that the employers responding to this questionnaire survey name computer
skills as well as foreign language proficiency almost as frequently as important
recruitment criteria.

89
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

About one third of the responding organisations each put a strong weight on three
aspects of international experiences addressed in the questionnaire:
• Work experience abroad during the course of study (34%),
• Study experience abroad (30%),
• Work experience prior to study (24%).
Altogether, employers from Central and Eastern European Countries place a stronger
emphasis on international competences in recruiting graduates than employers from
Western European countries.

Table 50 Importance of Different Recruitment Criteria in the View of

Employers by European Region (percent "important";
responses 1 and 2)
European Region Total
Western Central and Eastern
European European
Personality 91 89 90
Field of study 83 85 84
Main subject/specialisation 73 77 74
Foreign language proficiency 62 87 70
Computer skills 65 87 72
Practical/work experience acquired
during course of study 53 65 57
Recommendations/references
from third persons 45 47 46
Grades 41 41 41
Reputation of the institution
of higher education 29 46 34
Work experience abroad 27 48 34
Study abroad period 25 41 30
Practical/work experience acquired
prior to course of study 26 20 24
Count (n) (199) (92) (291)
Question B2: How important are the following aspects in recruiting young graduates for your organisation? Scale of
answers from 1 = 'very important' to 5 = 'not at all important'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

The former ERASMUS students themselves had been asked as well how important,
according to their perception, various criteria had been for their employers to recruit
them. The criteria addressed in the questions were phrased somewhat differently. Also,
we have to bear in mind that the employers were not asked about the criteria employed
in recruiting internationally mobile graduates, but in recruiting all graduates. Bearing in
mind these differences, the comparison provided in Table 51 suggests that the former
ERASMUS students do not seem to exaggerate the relevance of international
experience for the employers’ recruitment decisions.

90
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Table 51 Importance of Different Recruitment Criteria of Employers

in the View of Graduates and Employers (percent
"important"; responses 1 and 2)
Former ERASMUS Students` Employers'
view view

Personality 83 90
Field of study 74 84
Main subject/specialisation 59 74
Computer skills 45 72
Foreign language proficiency 60 70
Practical/work experience acquired during course of study 51 57
Recommendations/references from third persons 34 46
Grades 35 41
Reputation of the institution of higher education 33 34
Work experience abroad1 - 34
Experiences abroad2 53 -
Study abroad period1 - 30
ERASMUS study abroad period2 37 -
Practical/work experience acquired prior to course of study - 24
1
This answer was not included in the Graduate Survey.
2
This answer was not included in the Employer Survey.
Employer Survey question B2: How important are the following aspects in recruiting young graduates for your
organisation? Scale of answers from 1 = 'very important' to 5 = 'not at all important'.
Graduate Survey question D6: How important, according to your perception, were the following aspects for your
employer in recruiting you for your initial employment after graduation, if applicable? Scale of answers from 1 =
very important to 5 = not at all important.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Student and Employer Survey 2005/2006.

Employers appreciating study periods abroad in their selection among candidates were
asked to rate the importance of different characteristics of the study period abroad.
Actually, they emphasised more strongly
• the language spoken during the study period abroad (73%),
• the subject area studied abroad (60%), and
• the length of study period abroad (50%).
In addition, they took into consideration the specific host country of the study period
abroad (43%), the reputation of the host higher education institution (38%), while the
mode of mobility, e.g. organisation of the period abroad: exchange program and self-
organisation (15%), and other activities during the period abroad (14%) seldom seemed
to be important. In all respects, employers from Central and Eastern Europe considered
study abroad more important than employers from Western Europe (see Table 52).

91
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 52 Employers Rating of the Importance of Characteristics of

the Study Period Abroad by European Region (percent
"important"; responses 1 and 2)
European Region Total
Western Central and Eastern
European European
Language spoken during the study period
abroad 68 83 73
The subject area during the study period
abroad 57 67 60
Length of study period abroad 46 58 50
The specific host country
of the study period abroad 37 55 43
Reputation of the host
higher education institution 33 49 38
Mode of mobility (organisation of the period
abroad: exchange program, self-organisation) 9 28 15
Other activities during the period abroad 11 23 14
Count (n) (96) (46) (142)
Question B3: If study periods abroad play a role in the recruiting process: how important are the following
characteristics of the study period abroad? Scale of answers from 1 = 'very important' to 5 = 'not at all important'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

The relevance of the modes of mobility was further elaborated by a specific question,
which explicitly asked the employers actually taking into account international
experience in their selection among applicants to state the arrangements for mobility
they prefer in recruiting formerly mobile graduates. Actually, 57 percent of these
employers stated preferences. The majority of them preferred students going abroad in
the framework of ERASMUS, other organised exchange programmes and other
scholarship programmes

92
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Table 53 Employers' Preference of Modes of Mobility by European

Region (percent; multiple responses)
European Region Total
Western Central & Eastern
Self-organisation of the study period abroad 16 18 16
Study period abroad as part of
an organised exchange programme 20 51 30
Study period abroad as part of
the ERASMUS programme 32 59 41
Study period abroad as part of
an scholarship programme 29 45 34
Study period abroad as part of
other programmes 3 8 5
No preference of such kind 50 27 43
Other: 3 0 2
Total 153 208 171
Count (n) (103) (49) (152)
Question B4: The modes of mobility can widely vary. Please state the modes you prefer when recruiting formerly
mobile graduates Multiple reply possible.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

5.4 International Work Tasks of Graduates

Young graduates from institutions of higher education with international experience are
much more often engaged with international work tasks (52%) than those without
international experience (28%). One third of the employers stated that young graduates
from institutions of higher education in general have often international work tasks.
These results confirm the finding from the graduate survey that persons studying abroad
are more likely to be subsequently assigned international work tasks than those who
were not mobile in the course of their study.

93
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 54 International Work Tasks of Young Graduates in the View

of Employers by European Region (percent "often";
responses 1 and 2)
European Region Total
Western Central & Eastern
Young graduates from institutions of higher
education with international experience 51 52 52
Young graduates from institutions of
higher education in general 32 39 34
Young graduates from institutions of higher
education without international experience 25 34 28
Count (n) (149) (81) (230)
Question C3: How often are young graduates from institutions of higher education in your organisation engaged with
international work tasks? Scale of answers from 1 = 'very often' to 5 = 'not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

The relevance of preparation for international work tasks can be underlined by the fact
that three quarters of the organisations do business or have contact with other countries.
This holds true most for large organisations, but even 62 percent of the small
organisations are internationally active.

Table 55 Employers' Business or Contact with Other Countries by

Size of the Organization (percent)
Size of the organisation Total
Small Medium Large
Yes 62 83 90 78
No 38 17 10 22
Total 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (89) (133) (71) (293)
Question C1: Does your organisation/institution/company do business or have contact with other countries?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

Employers were asked to state the extent to which European/international assignments

are given to young graduates with and without international experiences. Actually,
internationally experienced graduates are more often expected than non-mobile ones to
• use foreign languages in conversations and work-related activities (86% as
compared to 42%),
• work with colleagues/clients from other countries (75% versus 36%),
• use information about other countries, European/international relations etc.
(64% versus 28%),
• travel professionally to other countries (61% versus 30%), and
• be sent abroad for extended work assignments (45% versus 14%).

94
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Table 56 Kind of International Work Tasks of Young Graduates with

Respect to Their International Experience in the View of
Employers (percent "high extent"; responses 1 and 2)

Young graduates
with without
international experience international experience
Using foreign languages in conversations and
work-related activities 86 42
Working with colleagues/clients from other countries 75 36
Using information about other countries,
European/international relations etc. 64 28
Professional travel to other countries 61 30
Being sent abroad for extended work assignments 45 14
Count (n) (190) (260)
Question C9: To what extent do young graduates take over the following European/international aspects in their work
assignments? Please answer this question both for young graduates with international experience ( A) and for those
without international experience (B). If you do not employ any young graduate with international experience, please
do only answer part B. Scale of answers from 1 = 'to a very high extent' to 5 = 'not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

As Table 57 shows, employers from Central and Eastern European countries assign both
their staff who had been mobile during the course of study and who had not been more
frequently mobile with international work tasks than employers from Western Europe.

95
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 57 International Work Tasks of Young Graduates in the View

of Employers by European Region (percent "high extent";
responses 1 and 2)
European Region Total
Western Central & Eastern
Young Graduates With International Experiences
Using foreign languages in conversations
and work-related activities 83 94 86
Using information about other countries,
European/international relations etc. 59 73 64
Working with colleagues/clients
from other countries 69 85 75
Being sent abroad for extended
work assignments 37 60 45
Professional travel to other countries 55 74 61
Count (n) (126) (64) (190)
Young Graduates Without International Experiences
Using foreign languages in conversations
and work-related activities 37 53 42
Using information about other countries,
European/international relations etc. 26 33 28
Working with colleagues/clients 34 41 36
Being sent abroad for extended
work assignments 13 15 14
Professional travel to other countries 25 42 30
Count (n) (179) (81) (260)
Question C9: To what extent do young graduates take over the following European/international aspects in their work
assignments? Please answer this question both for young graduates with international experience (A) and for those
without international experience (B). If you do not employ any young graduate with international experience, please
do only answer part B. Scale of answers from 1 = 'to a very high extent' to 5 = 'not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

5.5 Competences and Work

Internationally experienced graduates had been recruited in many cases because they are
expected to have attained higher "international competences" than non-mobile ones, and
possibly might have been recruited supposing they have superior competences in other
areas as well as the result of having lived and studied abroad. Actually, employers were
asked to rate the competences of both internationally experienced young graduates and
of those without international experience. As Table 58 shows, employers rate young
graduates with international experience by far more superior to those without
international experience, as far as “international competences” are concerned:
• Foreign language proficiency (88% versus 48%),
• Knowledge/understanding of international differences in culture and society,
modes of behaviour, life styles, etc. (76% versus 28%),

96
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

• Ability to work with people from different cultural backgrounds (76% versus
40%),
• Professional knowledge of other countries (e.g. economical, sociological, legal
knowledge) (59% versus 16%).
But they also consider various general competences to be more strongly represented
among the internationally experienced young graduates than among young graduates
without international experiences. A substantial difference in these respects is observed
for
• Adaptability (81% versus 57%),
• Initiative (79% versus 62%),
• Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence (75% versus 57%),
• Written communication skills (70% versus 58%),
• Analytical competences (70% versus 59%),
• Problem-solving ability (70% versus 58%),
• Planning, co-ordinating and organising (67% versus 50%).

97
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 58 Employers' Rating of Competences of Young Graduates

with Respect to Their International Experience (percent
"high extent"; responses 1 and 2)

Young graduates
with without
international experience international experience

International competences
Foreign language proficiency 88 48
Knowledge/understanding of international differences
in culture and society, modes of behaviour, life styles, etc. 76 28
Ability to work with people
from different cultural backgrounds 76 40
Professional knowledge of other countries
(e.g. economical, sociological, legal knowledge) 59 16
Knowledge and methods
Computer skills 69 66
Field-specific knowledge of methods 64 54
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 62 58
General competences
Adaptability 81 57
Initiative 79 62
Getting personally involved 79 67
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 75 57
Analytical competences 70 59
Problem-solving ability 70 58
Written communication skills 70 58
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 67 50
Loyalty, integrity 66 62
Power of concentration 63 59
Accuracy, attention to detail 59 57
Applying rules and regulations 58 52
Count (n) (187) (250)
Question C4a: Please rate the competences of the young graduates in your organisation. To what extent do they have
competences in the following areas on average? Please answer this question both for the group of young graduates
with international experience and for the group of young graduates without international experience. Scale of answers
from 1 = 'to a very high extent ' to 5 = 'not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

As Table 59 shows, the employers rate the competences of internationally experienced

graduates by and large as favourably as the former ERASMUS students rated their
competences at the time of graduation. In some respects, the ratings on the part of the
employers are more positive than those on the part of the former students, for example
the foreign language proficiency, but in other respects less positive, notably “field-
specific theoretical knowledge” “accuracy” and “power of concentration”.

98
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Table 59 Employers' Rating of Competences of Young Graduates

With International Experience by Employers and Self-rating
of Competences by Graduates (percent "high extent";
responses 1 and 2)
Employers ERASMUS Students
Rating of competences Self- rating of competences
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 62 77
Field-specific knowledge of methods 64 64
Foreign language proficiency 88 78
Computer skills 69 57
Analytical competences 70 73
Problem-solving ability 70 75
Initiative 79 71
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 75 70
Power of concentration 63 76
Accuracy, attention to detail 59 74
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 67 71
Applying rules and regulations 58 62
Loyalty, integrity 66 78
Getting personally involve 79 78
Written communication skill 70 77
Adaptability 81 83
Count (n) (187) (4342)
Student Questionnaire: Question B7: Please, state the extent to which you had the following competences at the time
of graduation?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.
Employer Questionnaire: Question C4: Please rate the competences of the young graduates in your organisation. To
what extent do they have competences in the following areas on average?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Employers 2005/06.

Employers from small and medium-size organisations rated the competences of young
graduates with international experiences in the area of "computer skills", "adaptability"
and "analytical competences" higher than those of big organisations. In contrast, their
field-specific theoretical knowledge was rated lower in small organisations.

99
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 60 Employers' Rating of Selected Competences of Young

Graduates With International Experience by Size of the
Organization (percent "high extent"; responses 1 and 2)
Size of the organisation Total
Small Medium Large
Adaptability 94 77 75 81
Getting personally involved 85 83 67 79
Computer skills 80 75 50 69
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 49 68 63 62
Analytical competences 80 73 56 70
Written communication skills 76 71 62 70
Problem-solving ability 76 71 62 70
Loyalty, integrity 86 63 50 66
Power of concentration 73 69 44 63
Accuracy, attention to detail 65 63 46 59
Count (n) (51) (84) (52) (187)
Question C4a: Please rate the competences of the young graduates in your organisation. To what extent do they have
competences in the following areas on average? Please answer this question both for the group of young graduates
with international experience and for the group of young graduates without international experience. Scale of answers
from 1 = 'to a very high extent ' to 5 = 'not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

The positive rating of the competences of international mobile graduates cannot be

attributed exclusively to the ERASMUS study abroad period. Other modes of gaining
international experiences might be relevant as well. To get an overall view of the rating
of the competences of former ERASMUS students by the employers we asked "Do you
see differences in the competences of graduates who were formerly mobile with
ERASMUS in comparison to graduates who used another mode of mobility in your
organisation?". Table 61 shows that 15 percent noted higher competences among former
ERASMUS students than among other mobile students while nobody considered the
opposite to be true. 31 percent did not perceive any difference, while more than half of
the respondents did not provide any clear view – they either stated that they do no know
or that they do not employ internationally mobile students of both kinds.

100
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Table 61 Employers' Rating of Competences of Former ERASMUS

Students Compared to Other Mobile Students by Size of
the Organization (percent)
Size of the organisation Total
Small Medium Large
Yes, ERASMUS mobile graduates have
higher competences 19 14 15 15
No difference 35 31 27 31
Yes, ERASMUS mobile graduates have
lower competences 0 0 0 0
Yes, ERASMUS mobile graduates have
other competences 0 5 9 5
Not applicable, there are no graduates to
compare in my organisation 21 17 9 16
I do not know 26 33 40 34
Total 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (43) (87) (55) (185)
Question C5: Do you see differences in the competences of graduates who were formerly mobile with ERASMUS in
comparison to graduates who used another mode of mobility in your organisation?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

5.6 Position and Salary

An impressively high proportion of employers stated that internationally experienced
graduates more frequently take over a high position after a couple of years in the
organisation than those without international experience. 15 percent stated a clear
difference and 27 percent somewhat of a difference in favour of internationally
experienced graduates, while only 3 percent held the opposite true. The majority of
employers (55%) did not note any difference in that respect. Again, the ratings were
more favourable for the internationally experienced graduates on the part of employers
from Central and Eastern Europe than from Western Europe (see Table 62).

101
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 62 Higher Professional Responsibility of Internationally

Experienced Graduates in the View of Employers by
European Region (percent)
European Region Total
Western Central & Eastern
Yes, substantially more frequent 11 23 15
Yes, somewhat more frequent 26 30 27
About the same 59 45 55
No, somewhat less frequent 2 0 1
No, substantially less frequent 2 1 2
Total 100 100 100
Count (n) (149) (69) (218)
Question C7: Are internationally experienced graduates more likely to take over work tasks with high responsibility
after a couple of years in your organisation?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

As regards salary, however, only 10 percent of the employers noted an advantage of the
internationally experienced graduates at the beginning of their career. This was more
often the case among private employers (16%) than among non-profit and public
employers (4% each).

Table 63 Higher Salary of International Experienced Young

Graduates in Their First Year in the View of Employers by
Kind of Organisation (percent)
Kind of organisation Total
Public Non-profit Private Other
Yes 4 4 16 0 10
No 96 96 84 100 90
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (77) (26) (109) (6) (218)
Question C8: Do young graduates in your organisation who have had international experience before get a higher
salary on average?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

About twice as many employers (21%) state that internationally experienced graduates
can expect a higher salary than others upon about five years of employment. They
noted on average a surprisingly high income advantage of 27 percent for the
internationally experienced graduates.
A higher salary for internationally experienced graduates at about five years of
professional experience is more common in the private sector (30%) than in the non-
profit and in the public sectors (13% each), as Table 65 shows. Employers in Central
and Eastern European (27%), as Table 64 shows, are more frequently inclined to pay
higher salaries to graduates with international experience than Western European
employers (19%).

102
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

Table 64 Higher Salary of International Experienced Young

Graduates After Five Years of Work Experiences in the
View of Employers by European Region (percent)
European Region Total
Western Central & Eastern
Yes 19 27 21
No 81 73 79
Total 100 100 100
Count (n) (143) (62) (205)
Question C8: Do graduates with five years of work experience in your organisation who have had international
experience before get a higher salary on average?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

Table 65 Higher Salary of International Experienced Young

Graduates After Five Years of Work Experiences in the
View of Employers by Kind of Organisation (percent)
Kind of organisation Total
Public Non-profit Private Other
Yes 13 13 30 0 21
No 87 88 70 100 79
Total 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (71) (24) (102) (6) (203)
Question C8: Do graduates with five years of work experience in your organisation who have had international
experience before get a higher salary on average?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

5.7 Knowledge of the SOCRATES/ERASMUS Programme

Employers were asked to state their degree of knowledge about the
SOCRATES/ERASMUS mobility programme. According to their responses,
• Only 17 percent know the programme and its details very well,
• 39 percent have some general knowledge about the programme,
• 34 percent know the name but do not know any details at all, and
• 10 percent never had heard about it before they received the questionnaire.
Knowledge about the SOCRATES/ERASMUS programme seems to be more
widespread among the employers from Central and Eastern Europe than among
employers from Western Europe. 69 percent of the employers from Central and Eastern
Europe stated at least some general knowledge about the programme as compared to 50
percent from Western Europe (see Table 64).

103
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 66 Employers' Knowledge of the SOCRATES/ERASMUS

Programme by European Region (percent)
European Region Total
Western Central & Eastern
I know the programme and its details
very well 15 22 17
I have some general knowledge
about the programme 35 47 39
I know the name but I do not
know any details at all 40 19 34
No, I have never heard about it
before I got this questionnaire 10 9 10
Other 0 2 1
Total 100 100 100
Count (n) (205) (89) (294)
Question C10: How well do you know the SOCRATES/ERASMUS exchange programme?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Employer Survey 2005/2006.

5.8 Concluding Remarks

Overall, the questioned employers represent a quite positive view about the impact an
ERASMUS study period abroad has on the professional value of formerly mobile
students. They seem to value the international experience of students in different ways:
Firstly, internationally experienced students have an advantage in the transition process
from higher education to employment. International experiences are an important
recruitment criterion for employers which advantage formerly mobile students.
According to the ratings by employers internationally experienced graduates have a
higher competence level not only of those competences which can be directly linked to
international work tasks but also with respect to academic knowledge and skills, and
general competences like adaptability, initiative, assertiveness, decisiveness,
persistence, written communication skills, analytical competences, problem-solving
ability, planning, co-ordinating and organising.
Outstanding are the differences in the international competences of internationally
experienced graduates compared to graduates without international experiences: foreign
language proficiency (88% versus 48%), knowledge/understanding of international
differences in culture and society, modes of behaviour, life styles, etc. (76% versus
28%), ability to work with people from different cultural backgrounds (76% versus
40%), professional knowledge of other countries (e.g. economical, sociological, legal
knowledge) (59% versus 16%). Also the rating of other competences of former
ERASMUS students compared to other mobile students shows a light "plus" for former
ERASMUS students.
The survey also reveals that internationally experienced graduates work more often in
positions with high responsibilities (42% of the organisations). And in 21 percent of the
organisations surveyed, internationally experienced graduates, according to the

104
 The Employers’ View of the Professional Value of Temporary Study in Another European Country

respondents have a higher salary than those without international experience after about
five years of employment.
Similarly to the other conducted surveys, regional differences occur. The professional
value of international experiences is more strongly emphasized by employers from
Central and Eastern Europe.

105
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

6 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

6.1 Introduction
Teaching staff mobility in the framework of ERASMUS does not serve primarily the
professional enhancement of the teachers themselves. Rather, it is expected to contri-
bute to students’ learning – both that of the non-mobile and the mobile students. In
addition, teaching staff mobility is expected to serve the development of the knowledge
base of the departments as well as the improvement of curricula and teaching both at the
home and the host university.
However, these contributions to the students’ knowledge, to the curricula as well as to
the teaching and learning processes in the departments of the home and the host
universities are likely to improve the competences of the mobile teachers themselves.
Therefore, teaching abroad might be expected to add value to the work tasks and to
deserve reward which ultimately will be visible in the careers.

6.2 Prior Studies

Two surveys7 of teaching staff mobility in the framework of ERASMUS elicited some
findings relevant for this new evaluation study.
More than half of the teachers mobile in 1998/99 with the support of ERASMUS stated
subsequently that teaching in the framework of SOCRATES helped
• enhancing their own international and intercultural understanding,
• becoming familiar with teaching methods not used at the home institution, and
• improving their research contacts
A broader spectrum of possible impacts on the teachers themselves was addressed.
More than half of the mobile teachers of the academic year 1990/91 reported in addition
that the teaching period helped
• getting contacts for the purpose of teaching and
• improving foreign language competences
Both evaluation studies support the view that temporary teaching in the framework of
ERASMUS is not as highly appreciated in their departments as the mobile teachers
themselves consider appropriate. For example, many mobile teachers reported that they
had to undertake the ERASMUS supported teaching activities besides their regular
teaching and research activities. Moreover, many mobile teachers were not satisfied

7
R. Kreitz and U. Teichler (1997), ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility: The 1990/91 Teachers’ View. Kassel:
Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Universität Gesamthochschule Kassel,
1997. And: F. Maiworm and U. Teichler (2002), „The Academics’ Views and Experiences“, in U. Teichler, ed.
ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme: Findings of an Evaluation Study. Bonn: Lemmens, 2002, pp. 137-
159.

106
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

with the administrative and financial support of their departments for their teaching
activities abroad.
Actually, only one out of six mobile teachers of the academic year 1990/91 believed
subsequently that their teaching activities abroad improved their career prospects . Eight
years later, though, one out of three mobile teachers was convinced that their teaching
abroad would enhance career prospects. Thus, we observe a striking change over time: a
substantial increase from the early to the late 1990s in the proportion of mobile teachers
expecting a positive career impact of their teaching mobility in the framework of
ERASMUS. And this holds true, even though the average duration of the teaching
period abroad became much shorter.
The data suggest that the teachers mobile with ERASMUS became more optimistic over
time that their teaching activities in other European countries are favourable for their
academic careers. However, the proportion of teachers remained higher also in the
second survey who did not expect any substantial positive impact on their career. In
addition, we have to bear in mind that the prior studies only inform us of the
expectations of the mobile teachers and not their actual careers. The previous studies
could not inform us whether the expectations actually became true.
The new evaluation study on the professional value of ERASMUS does not only draw
from the prior evaluation studies named above. It also draws from other cross-national
and national evaluation studies as well as from studies on university graduates and on
the academic profession in general.

6.3 The Survey of 2000/01 ERASMUS Teaching Staff

The following chapter summarises the methodological approach used for the survey of
former ERASMUS teachers.

Table 67 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of Former

ERASMUS Teaching Staff
1 Target population Teachers who have been supported in the framework of
ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/2001 (N=13,988)

2 Start of field phase October 2005

3 End of field phase February 2006

4 Sampling strategy Census (all mobile teachers 2000/2001)

5 Questionnaire Highly standardized, 12 pages, 81 questions, 206 variables; In

English, French and German language
Online

6 Number of filled 755

questionnaires from
ERASMUS teachers

7 Response rate 24 % (755 of 3123)

107
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

The target population of this survey are teachers who have been supported in the
framework of ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/01. This is the same reference year
as for the survey of former ERASMUS students. The same year was chosen for several
reasons. As the aim of the study is to analyse the professional impact of the teaching
period abroad, four years seems to be an adequate time span to analyse such impacts. In
the survey of university leaders, respondents are asked to refer their answers to a
specific year of reference for the mobility of students and teachers. Misunderstandings
can be reduced when the same year of reference can be used for both groups.
Additionally, the same year of reference allows to comparing the results of both surveys
because variations which might be related to the reference period are minimized.
According to the KENT database, 13,988 teachers have been mobile in the framework
of ERASMUS in 2000/01.
When considering the sample strategy, it was considered that the survey of former
ERASMUS teachers shall provide the opportunity to compare the professional impact
between the various SOCRATES eligible countries. It also should make it possible to
take sub-groups into consideration, e.g. by field of study and host country and to allow a
comparison with the results of the student survey.
As the expected response rate of university teachers is relatively low, it was decided not
to sample but to include the total population of the ERASMUS mobile university
teachers: Altogether, 13,988 teachers have been mobile in the reference period
2000/2001. An estimated response rate of 19%8 suggests that about 2,658 responses can
be expected for a census survey. It was suggested in the proposal to strive for 2,200 –
2,400 responses. Consequently, all ERASMUS teachers of 2000/01 were included in the
teacher survey.
In the process of mailing, the teachers were contacted via email with the help of the
ERASMUS co-ordinators of their home institutions. For this, an email was sent to all
institutions with outgoing teachers in 2000/01. The email was sent to the email
addresses of the ERASMUS co-ordinators which were available in the TAO database.
The ERASMUS coordinators were asked to forward an email to all outgoing teachers of
2000/01. In this email directed to the teachers, the outline of the survey was explained
shortly and the teachers were asked to participate in the survey by filling in an online
questionnaire. The link to the online questionnaire was included in the email. This email
was sent in English, French and German.
Four weeks after the first mailing, a reminder letter was sent to the ERASMUS co-
ordinators and they were asked to forward this to the same addresses. As it was not
possible to detect who of the former ERASMUS teachers had already answered the
questionnaire, the reminder letter had to be sent via email to the same addresses as the
first email. Therefore, the reminder letter also thanked those former ERASMUS
teachers who had already answered the questionnaire. Two further reminders were sent
in January and February 2006.

8
This refers to the fact that according to the pre-test, about 25 % of the teachers are likely to fill in the questionnaire
and that about 75 % out of the contacted ERASMUS co-ordinators will be willing to forward an email to the
teachers.

108
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

However, in 10% of the cases it was not possible to contact the ERASMUS co-
ordinators as their email addresses were not correct. The project team stopped the
process of updating the addresses at the end of the field phase as it took a considerable
amount of time due to the high number of missing and incorrect addresses.
A special questionnaire was developed for the survey. On the one hand, the special goal
of the survey was reflected in the incorporation of appropriate questions: detailed
chapters addressed the career-specific as well as the academic-substantive results of a
teaching period abroad. In order to be able to compare the data gathered with results of
earlier ERASMUS evaluations, on the other hand, as many background questions as
possible were taken over from such previous surveys9.
The questionnaire directed at former ERASMUS teachers was expected to provide
information on the following:
• To what extent and in which way the teachers expect a professional impact of
their teaching activities in the framework of ERASMUS and to what extent they
actually perceive the realisation of a professional impact?
• How do their universities regard or disregard these teaching activities at the time
they are undertaken und subsequently?
• Did they change the employer (other university or other type of employer) and
what does this imply for a potential professional impact of ERASMUS teaching?
• To what extent and in which way did the teachers perceive an improvement of
their professional competences as a consequence of their ERASMUS teaching
activities?
• What kind of support or barriers did they experience prior and during the
teaching period of ERASMUS and were these activities integrated into the
regular activities of their home departments?
• How was teaching during the ERASMUS supported period undertaken
(duration, themes, students addressed, degree of integration into the host
departments’ programme etc.)?
• What were the teachers’ career positions, competences, field and department as
well as socio-biographic background at the time when they embarked on
teaching in another European country as well as what other international
experiences did they have (including other teaching and research activities
abroad)?
The themes of the questionnaires and the explanatory model to be analysed are shown
in Figure 20.

9
Cf. University of Kassel, Center for Research on Higher Education and Work: SOKRATES 2000 Evaluation
Study. Final Report. Kassel: WZI; Brussels: Commission Nov. 2000, esp. §6, pp.118.

109
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 20 Themes of the Questionnaire of Former Mobile ERASMUS

Teachers

professional
background
biographic

Age, gender, citizenship, family status, location of employment,

subject area of teaching, position, employment status
Socio-

and
experience
Teaching

The duration of teaching abroad, activities during abroad

abroad

Impact on home Impact on teacher's Impact on host

Impact

department and competences and department and

programme activities programme

Getting a higher academic rank, enlargement of task, raise of income

level, enhancement of international scientific co-operation, increase
impact
Career

of invitation abroad, etc

Some questions reiterate themes addressed in the experts` questionnaire "direct impact
of teaching mobility", "changes in activities at the home university", "long-term career
impacts". Other questions take up issues named in the open experts’ comments like
prior ERASMUS experiences, motivation to participate and subsequent international
experience.
The six chapters contained altogether 40 individual questions. The questionnaire was
drawn up exclusively as an online version. The languages chosen were English, French
and German.
The questionnaire for ERASMUS teachers of 2000/01 was developed in English and
German. Contrary to the questionnaire for former ERASMUS students and the
questionnaire for University leader, it was translated exclusively in French, as it can be
assumed that the formerly mobile ERASMUS teachers have adequate language
proficiency to answer the questionnaire either in English, French or German.
As it was supposed that formerly mobile teachers would have an internet connection
and would be more willing to fill in an online questionnaire than the university leaders
or the employers, it was decided to conduct the teacher survey exclusively online.
However, the teachers’ questionnaire was additionally provided as PDF version on the
home page of the VALERA project (http://www.valeras.org/academicus).
The response rate for the teacher survey is about 24 %. Based on the feedback of the
addressed institutions about the sending out of emails as well as a number of refusals to
participate, the gross sample can be estimated to be 3123 teachers. Altogether 1005
teachers answered the online questionnaire. Due to double fillings and incomplete
answers, the total number of completed online questionnaires is 755 which refers to a
return rate of 24%.

110
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

6.4 Characteristics of Responding Teaching Staff

6.4.1 Representativeness of the responding teachers
The big countries such as Spain, UK, France, Italy and Germany have response rates be-
tween two and eight percent. Only eight countries have response rates higher than 6%.
Besides some exceptions, the response rate is in all countries very low.
If one compares the data from our sample with some validated basic information about
the teachers taking part in the program in 2000/01, it becomes clear that, despite the
very low rate of return, there is a relatively high measure of agreement.
• Home countries: In our sample the distribution of mobile staff according to
home countries (in 2000/ 01) deviates from the basic population - although in
just over three quarters of all the countries the difference is clearly smaller than
1 percent. A difference of more than 1 percent between the basic population and
our sample is in only eight countries. In three of these countries - United
Kingdom, Spain and Germany - the difference amounts to 4.2 to 4.5 percent,
otherwise here too mostly lower than 3 percent.
• Host countries: Our sample deviates by more than 1 percent from the basic
population in only six host countries (2000/ 01), and in only one of these cases -
Italy - just over 3 percent.
• Teaching subjects: The respondents were grouped according to a total of 15
specialist areas. The most numerous respondents to our survey were teaching
staff from 'Engineering/Technology', 'Languages/Philological Sciences' and
'Business Studies/Management Sciences/Economics'. Representatives of these
subject areas occupy the first three places also in the basic population, albeit in
slightly altered sequence. With respect to representatives of other disciplines
deviations - mostly less obvious - in the ranking sequence can be observed.
• Clear differences of three to four percent between the basic population and our
data can be observed in only two subject areas - in 'Social Sciences' and
'Engineering/Technology'. Slight deviations up to one percent are observable in
the following subject areas: 'Geography/Geology', 'Natural Sciences',
'Communication/Information sciences', 'Law', 'Mathematics/Informatics' and
'Business Studies'.
• Sex: Distribution according to sex in our sample corresponds almost exactly to
that in the basic population

6.4.2 Profile of the ERASMUS Teaching Staff

The ERASMUS-supported mobile teachers were 47 years old on average in the
academic year 2000/01, i.e. the year when they taught abroad. Actually, the average age
was more or less identically to that of the mobile teachers 1990/91 (46%) and 1998/99
(47%) who had responded to previous surveys (Teichler 2002, p. 139).
Almost seventy percent of the recent respondents were between 36 and 55 years old in
2000/01. Thirteen percent were younger and 18 percent older. Mobile teachers from
Central and Eastern Europe (46 years) were on average two years younger than those
from Western Europe (48 years).

111
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

88 percent of the teachers informing about their professional position both in 2000/01
and five years later were full professors or in other senior academic positions while
teaching abroad, and only 12 percent were in junior positions. Among the 1998/99
respondents 18 percent had been in junior positions.
About 67 percent of those surveyed recently are men and 33 percent women. In
1990/91, only 18 percent of the mobile teachers had been women, and up to 1998/99
this proportion had risen to 31 percent. Among the recent respondents, 36 percent from
Central and Eastern Europe were women as compared to 32 percent of their Western
European colleagues. Of the recent respondents, about half of those initially in junior
positions were raised to senior positions, and about one sixth of those in other senior
positions moved towards full professor positions within five years.
Most recent respondents were in a stable full-time position. Actually, only 2 percent of
the Central and Eastern European teachers and 4 percent of the Western European
teachers were employed part-time at the time the survey was conducted. 18 percent of
Central and Eastern European respondents and 8 percent of Western European teachers
had a short-term contract.
17 percent of the respondents taught Engineering, 12 percent Languages/Philology and
less than 10 percent each other fields. Among the teachers from Central and Eastern
European countries, the proportion of those teaching Engineering was substantially
higher than among Western European teachers (see Table 68).

112
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

Table 68 Teaching Subject of ERASMUS-Supported Mobile Teachers

by Home Region 2005 (percent)
Home region 2005 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Agricultural Sciences 2 0 2
Architecture, urban and regional planning 2 1 1
Art and design 3 4 3
Business studies, management sciences, economics 9 10 9
Education, teacher training 9 10 9
Engineering, technology 13 31 17
Geography, geology 3 5 3
Humanities 8 1 7
Languages, philological sciences 13 9 12
Law 5 0 4
Mathematics, informatics 6 10 6
Medical Sciences 3 6 4
Natural Sciences 6 7 6
Social Sciences 7 1 6
Communications and information sciences 2 1 2
Other 10 4 9
Total 100 100 100
Count (n) (595) (136) (731)
Question A3: In which of the following group of subject areas are you predominantly teaching?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Teaching staff survey 2005.

6.4.3 Mobility Flows of ERASMUS Teaching Staff

The mobile teachers surveyed had taught in 29 countries before they were mobile in the
framework of ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/01. Five years later, 67 of the 755
respondents (9%), i.e. were employed in a country different from that prior to the
ERASMUS mobility period abroad.

Table 69 Home Countries of Responding Teachers 2000/ 01 – 2005/

06 (percent)
2000/ 01 2005/ 06
Country n % n %
Austria 42 6 42 6
Belgium 43 6 41 5
Bulgaria 7 1 7 1
Cyprus 3 0 1 0
Czech Republic 14 2 12 2
Denmark 11 1 11 1
Estonia 1 0 0 0
Finland 47 6 56 7
France 87 12 85 11
Germany 139 18 140 19
Greece 17 2 15 2
Hungary 25 3 20 3
Iceland 1 0 1 0
Ireland 8 1 9 1
Italy 43 6 49 6

113
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Latvia 5 1 5 1
Liechtenstein 2 0 1 0
Lithuania 4 1 6 1
Luxembourg 1 0 0 0
Netherlands 11 1 11 1
Norway 14 2 14 2
Poland 28 4 28 4
Portugal 42 6 42 6
Romania 50 7 53 7
Slovakia 9 1 9 1
Slovenia 1 0 0 0
Spain 38 5 35 5
Sweden 24 3 24 3
Switzerland 0 0 1 0
United Kingdom 38 5 37 5
Total 755 100 755 100

Question A1.2: “Where are you currently employed? – Country”

Question A2.2: “Where were you employed immediately prior to your ERASMUS teaching
period in the academic year 2000/ 01?”
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

Actually,
• 49 of those professionally mobile had taught in Western European countries
prior to the ERASMUS support period of teaching abroad, and 74 percent of
them moved to other Western European countries;
• 18 of those professionally mobile had taught in Central and Western European
countries, and only slightly higher proportion of them, i.e. 89 percent, moved to
Western European countries.
As documented in Table 77 below, six percent of the respondents reported that the
teaching period abroad influenced their decision to become professionally active in
another European country. This allows us to conclude that more than half of the border-
crossing mobility of the teachers over a period of five years was triggered by their
temporary teaching mobility in the framework of ERASMUS.
Most temporary teaching staff mobility in 2000/01 – according to the respondents - was
realised within Western Europe. About three quarters of the respondents came from
Western European countries, and about three quarters of them taught for some period in
another Western European countries. Yet, given the overall size of the countries, a
remarkably high proportion of respondents from Western Europe, one quarter, taught
temporarily in Central and Eastern Europe. In contrast, almost all teachers from Central
and Eastern Europe spent their teaching period abroad in Western Europe; only three
percent moved to another European country.
As one might expect, the largest numbers of the respondents taught during the
ERASMUS-supported period in the academic year in one of the large Western
European countries: France (15%), Germany (14%), Spain and the United Kingdom
(9% each). The mobility flows of mobile teachers, however, concentrated to a lesser
extent on a few large countries than the flow of mobile students.
A more detailed analysis of the four mostly preferred destination countries shows that

114
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

• one fifth of all teachers going to France came from Romania and almost the
same number from Germany (185). Most of those going to France taught
Engineering (21%), Foreign Languages (15%) and Natural Sciences (12%);
• Germany was the preferred target country for teachers from France (13%),
Poland (12%) and Italy (9%). About one quarter of the respondents going to
Germany taught Engineering and a fifth Foreign Languages;
• Spain notably was chosen by teachers from France (14%) and Germany (12%)
as well as from Austria, Italy and Romania (10% each). A large proportion of
those temporarily going to Spain taught Foreign Languages (17%) and Business
Studies (13%);
• many of those going to United Kingdom as a country of temporary teaching
abroad came from Germany (34%), i.e. the country with the largest number of
mobile teachers among the respondents. Sizeable proportions of those going to
the United Kingdom taught Engineering, Education (19% each) and Business
Studies (11%).

6.5 Motives for Teaching Abroad and Actual Activities

The decision to teach for some time abroad with support of ERASMUS often was taken
because prior contacts existed. Prior institutional contacts with the host institutions were
named by 81 percent and prior individual contacts with staff of the host institution by 85
percent of the respondents. 73 percent of the teachers stated that they decided to teach
abroad in order to make their expertise to the host university. Table 70 shows that
altogether a broad range of motives played a role for the teachers’ decision to spend a
period in another European country.

115
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 70 Teachers' Reasons for Teaching Abroad in the Framework of ERASMUS by Home Country (percent;
responses 1 and 2)
Home Country 2000/01 Total
AT BE CZ DK FI FR DE GR HU IT NL NO PL PT RO ES SE UK CEE OT
Existence of cooperative rela-
tions between the study pro-
grammes/faculties involved 83 67 86 90 85 72 85 82 68 80 100 86 74 79 96 74 75 92 85 67 81
Existence of co-operative rela-
tions beyond your programme
/faculty 48 42 79 56 46 47 38 59 46 56 82 43 65 54 70 38 48 45 59 67 50
Good personal relations to,
or prior co-operation with staff
of the host institution 78 80 71 90 79 86 83 88 84 88 91 79 85 80 85 89 83 97 100 87 85
Recommendations of colleagues
of your study area 41 46 36 40 28 36 23 59 48 30 60 29 42 46 62 17 35 44 39 33 37
The high academic standard
of the host institution 66 49 64 50 40 41 45 76 54 66 40 36 70 69 94 50 33 70 80 67 56
Innovative teaching strategies
of the host institution 45 36 36 20 32 28 32 65 52 28 36 36 62 51 79 26 26 41 75 20 40
Your general interest in a visit
to the host country 78 61 43 70 67 54 79 76 63 49 70 71 57 50 56 57 67 84 52 53 64
Your good command of the
language of the host country 23 38 57 20 36 43 43 59 58 38 30 64 69 45 63 42 42 42 58 27 44
Making your knowledge avai-
lable to a higher education
institution abroad 85 78 86 50 57 63 80 71 78 62 82 62 78 67 88 58 63 86 79 47 73
Being able to link the teaching
period abroad with research
activities abroad 46 38 57 40 43 54 56 82 58 68 36 62 67 56 81 57 38 56 71 47 56
Count (n) (41) (41) (14) (10) (47) (86) (136) (17) (25) (42) (11) (14) (28) (42) (48) (38) (24) (38) (27) (15) (744)
Question B3: Regarding the ERASMUS programme: How important were the following aspects for your decision to teach abroad in the framework of ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/01? 5-point scale
from 1 = 'Very important' to 5 = 'Not important at all'. Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

116
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

Altogether, mobile teachers from Central and Eastern European countries named a
much longer list of important aspects for them to teach abroad than teachers from
Western European countries. Teachers from Central European countries more
frequently aimed to go abroad not only, because they hoped to get acquainted with
innovative teaching practices (66% as compared to 34% of the Western European
teachers) and because they appreciated the high academic standard of the host
institution (77% as compared to 52%), but also, because they were convinced to have a
good command of the language of the host country (62% as compared to 40%).
Table 71 compares the responses by the region of origin and by the region of
destination. The data presented suggest that the motives vary clearly according to the
host region in many respects and somewhat less frequently according to the home
region. In some cases, the combination of home and host region is most indicative.

Table 71 Teachers' Reasons for Teaching Abroad in the Framework

of ERASMUS by Direction of Mobility (percent; responses 1
and 2)
Direction of mobility 2000/01 Total
West - West East - East West - East East - West

Existence of co-operative relations between

the study programmes/faculties involved 81 67 72 86 80
Existence of co-operative relations beyond
your programme/faculty 47 67 47 63 50
Good personal relations to, or prior
co-operation with staff of the host institution 83 67 85 88 84
Recommendations of colleagues of your study area 32 0 29 53 35
The high academic standard of the host institution 54 0 42 78 56
Innovative teaching strategies of the host institution 36 0 22 69 40
Your general interest in a visit to the host country 71 67 60 58 66
Your good command of the language
of the host country 43 33 15 66 43
Making your knowledge available to a higher
education institution abroad 71 100 71 80 73
Being able to link the teaching period abroad
with research activities abroad 53 33 48 66 54
Other 63 50 67 60 63
Count (n) (329) (3) (101) (103) (536)

Question B3: Regarding the ERASMUS programme: How important were the following aspects for your decision to
teach abroad in the framework of ERASMUS in the academic year 2000/01? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Very important'
to 5 = 'Not important at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

For example,
• a good command of the language of the host country was important for the
decision to teach abroad notably for teachers spending the ERASMUS-
supported teaching period in Western European countries. But this motive was
more frequently named by teachers from Central and Eastern European

117
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

countries going to Western European countries (66%) than by teachers from

Western European countries going to other Western European countries (43%).
• Innovative teaching strategies at the host institutions were most frequently
expected as an attraction in Western European countries. But again, this motive
was more frequently named by teachers from Central and Eastern European
countries going to Western European countries (69%) than by teachers from
Western European countries going to other Western European countries (36%).
In comparison, innovative teaching methods at Central and Eastern European
institutions were named as an important aspect only by 22 percent of the
Western European teachers and by none of the small group of Central and
Eastern European teachers going there.
• Similarly, a high academic standard of the host institution was often seen as an
attraction to go to Western European countries. But teachers coming from
Central and Eastern European countries going to Western European countries
(78%) more frequently named this reason as important than teachers from
Western European countries going to other Western European countries (54%).
A high academic quality of the host institution was named as important by some
teachers from Western European countries going to Central and Eastern
countries (42%), but by none of the teachers from Central and Eastern European
countries going to other Central and Eastern European countries.
Prior contacts were as well more frequently named as factors contributing to teaching
mobility among those respondents who spent the teaching period abroad in Western
European countries than among those going to Central and Eastern European countries.
This holds true with one exception: Personal contacts to teaching staff at the host
institution was also named as a major reason by Western European teachers going to
Central and Eastern Europe.

6.6 The General Professional Value of ERASMUS Teaching

Mobility Program
The questionnaire survey aims to establish the professional value of ERASMUS
teaching in another European country in several respects:
• The overall value as seen by the formerly mobile teachers,
• career enhancement,
• enrichment of academic competences and activities in general, and
• international views and activities.
In response to a general question on the impact of the ERASMUS teaching period
abroad, 58 percent of the formerly mobile teachers stated a positive impact on their
professional development. In contrast, 26 percent noted a small or no impact at all on
their professional development.
As one might expect, a general positive impact was by far more frequently stated by
teachers from Central and Eastern European countries (81%) than by teachers from
Western European countries (51%), but we note exceptions according to individual

118
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

country. Leaving aside countries with less than 10 respondents, we note highest
proportions of positive impact reported by respondents living prior to the teaching
period abroad in Romania (86%), the Netherlands (82%) and Portugal (76%) and lowest
among teachers from France (31%), Norway (36%) and Germany (43%). Among
Western European teachers those teaching abroad in other Western European countries
perceived more often a positive impact on their professional development (55%) than
those teaching temporarily in Central and Eastern European countries (42%).
The ratings varied substantially by fields of study. A positive impact was reported most
often by those teaching Art and Design (81%), Agricultural Sciences (79%) and
Medical Sciences (70%) and least often by those teaching Law (33%). Again, we do not
take into account fields of study with less than ten respondents.
In response to the question to which extent teaching abroad turned out to be productive
in various respects, 38 percent of the formerly mobile teachers stated that teaching
temporarily abroad has helped them to improve their professional and career
perspectives. Altogether, more teachers from Central and Eastern European countries
(63%) held this view than teachers from Western European countries (33%).
But, again, we do not note a clear divide in this respect. Positive ratings were most
frequent among formerly mobile teachers from teachers from Greece (82%) and
Romania (79%) and least frequent among those France (12%), Estonia (31%), Italy,
Portugal and the United Kingdom (32% each).

6.6.1 Career Enhancement

Only 12 percent responded affirmatively to the question whether teaching temporarily
in another European country contributed to a career enhancement in terms of getting on
a higher academic rank. One has to bear in mind, though, that altogether only 15
percent climbed to a higher rank within the first five years after the teaching period
abroad. Therefore, the figures suggest that teaching abroad was a positive factor in the
majority of all the cases of visible career enhancement.
Table 72 shows the perceived impact of teaching mobile on all three dimensions of
professional development and career addressed in the questionnaire. It confirms that
teaching mobility has a stronger impact for teachers from Central and Eastern European
countries than those from Western European countries.

119
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 72 Professional Value of ERASMUS Teaching Assignments in

the View of Mobile Teachers by Home Region 2000/01
(percent)
Home Region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Positive impact on professional development 53 81 58
Enhancement of professional/career perspectives 33 63 38
Contribution to getting a higher academic rank 7 30 12
Raise of income level 1 10 3
Extension of temporary employment contract 4 16 6
Taking over a high ranking administrative position 7 33 12

Question E4: In general, how would you rate the impact of your ERASMUS teaching assignment(s) abroad with
regard to your professional development?
Question E2: To what extent did you find your ERASMUS teaching period/periods abroad productive with regard to
the following?
Question E3: During the last five academic years, to what extent were the following changes in your professional
career influenced by or linked to your ERASMUS teaching assignment(s)?
Responses 1 and 2 on a 5-point scale from 1 = 'Very positive' (E4); 'to a very high extent' (E2, E3) to 5 = 'No impact
at all' (E4); 'Not at all'' (E2, E3)
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

Only three percent of the respondents stated that the ERASMUS teaching period
contributed to a raise of the income level. As substantially larger number of formerly
mobile teachers reported a career advancement, we might assume that only those
responded affirmatively in this case who had a raise of income level without
advancement on the career ladder.
A further 6 percent employed temporarily while teaching abroad stated that their
extension of the contract was linked to their teaching activity abroad. As only 10
percent had been on a short-term contract at that time, this figure can be viewed as
remarkably high.
In addition, 12 percent of respondents reported that teaching abroad helped them to
move towards a high-ranking administrative position within higher education. Again,
this was by far more often stated by formerly mobile teachers from Central and Eastern
European countries (33%), notably those from Poland and Romania, than by formerly
mobile teachers from Western European countries (7%).
It should be added that the questions raised in the surveys of previous generations of
mobile teachers differed from those in this survey. Moreover, the previous surveys – in
contrast to this survey – were undertaken shortly after the return from the teaching
period abroad (in the subsequent academic year). In both previous surveys already
addressed above, almost 20 percent of the respondents each had stated that ERASMUS
teaching abroad had improved their career perspectives.

6.6.2 Enrichment of Academic Competences and Activities

The formerly mobile teachers, first, were asked how the teaching period helped raising
their knowledge on issues of various teaching-related matters. In response,

120
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

• 82 percent indicated that they got to know content and concepts of study courses
different from those in their own country;
• 53 percent reported that they learned new teaching and learning methods still
unusual at home;
• 40 percent became acquainted with quality assurance procedures for teaching
and learning so far unfamiliar to them.
Again, impact of teaching in another European country in those respects was most
frequently stated by teachers from Central and Eastern countries spending the teaching
period in Western European countries (see Table 73). However, getting acquainted with
different concepts and content of study was viewed as valuable results of teaching
abroad almost equally according to regions of origin and regions of destinations. This
was most often emphasized by teachers from the United Kingdom, Austria, the
Netherlands and Romania.

Table 73 Effects of Teaching Abroad by Direction of Mobility in the

View of Mobile Teachers (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Direction of mobility 2000/01 Total
West - West East - East West - East East - West

The structure of higher education in your host country 88 33 77 93 86

Concepts and contents of study courses which
are different from those of your home programme(s) 85 67 71 78 81
Forms of teaching and learning not generally
used in your home programme(s) (i.e. project
classes, e-learning etc.) 51 33 28 74 51
Quality assurance procedures for teaching and
learning not generally used in your home
programme(s) 34 33 25 69 39
Count (n) (328) (3) (102) (103) (536)

Question E1: Do you think that teaching abroad in the framework of ERASMUS was valuable for you in becoming
acquainted with .... . 5-point scale from 1 = 'Very valuable' to 5 = 'Not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

Asked whether the ERASMUS-supported teaching period turned out to be productive

for their subsequent academic activities, the respondents even stated more frequently an
impact on their general academic activities and their research activities than their
specific teaching-related activities (see Table 79):
• 65 percent reported a general improvement of their research contacts,
• 60 percent were able to broaden their specialist knowledge in the course of their
teaching assignments abroad,
• 53 percent addressed disciplinary and theoretical discussions originating from
the country or the institution of their temporary teaching period;
• 45 percent changed their teaching at home in terms of content, teaching method
etc. because of their experiences at the host university, and
• 40 percent developed und implemented new teaching methods.

121
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

In response to another question, 17 percent of respondents held the view that the
teaching period abroad was helpful for them getting more grants for research projects.
This was stated twice as often by scholars from Central and Eastern European countries
(29%) than by those from Western European countries (14%).
The perceived impact varied by field taught. Scholars in Agriculture and in Geography
underscored the general academic and the research value of a temporary teaching period
abroad. In contrast scholars in Architecture pointed out the value of teaching abroad for
subsequent teaching-related activities.

122
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

Table 74 Impacts of Teaching Period(s) Abroad in the View of Mobile Teachers by Teaching Subject (percent;
responses 1 and 2)
Teaching Subject Total
Agri Arch Art Bus Edu Eng Geo Hum Lan Law Math Med Nat Soc Com Oth

Enhancing your international/intercultural understanding 86 90 100 91 94 96 91 91 94 77 91 100 93 88 93 92 92

Improving your professional/career perspectives 57 44 62 37 47 47 48 33 26 20 26 46 42 27 21 38 38
Improving research contacts 79 60 60 58 64 69 78 72 70 70 72 68 70 29 50 59 65
Broadening your specialist knowledge 57 67 76 52 72 65 61 59 62 48 43 61 56 66 43 65 60
Developing and implementing new teaching methods 23 60 48 37 42 49 26 30 43 31 36 46 45 40 36 35 40
Changing of courses you offer in the home
study programme(s) with regard to content,
method, form etc. 43 60 57 46 43 58 52 42 36 40 40 41 47 48 21 37 45
Addressing disciplinary/theoretical discussions
originating from the partner country/countries 71 60 52 46 60 49 65 65 50 43 53 59 49 46 36 59 53
Developing new co-operation activities/joint projects
with the partner programme(s)/the host institution(s) 86 60 57 70 63 68 73 73 71 40 78 68 67 65 57 60 67
More competent use of the foreign language in
which lectures were taught abroad 93 30 57 55 61 67 41 60 49 43 62 54 47 68 31 61 57
More intensive use of scientific foreign
language publications for own teaching 43 20 52 33 45 53 36 43 38 40 28 36 33 54 21 32 40

Count (n) (14) (10) (21) (67) (64) (118) (23) (47) (89) (30) (47) (28) (45) (41) (14) (63) (721)

Question E2: To what extent did you find your ERASMUS teaching period/periods abroad productive with regard to the following? 5-point scale from 1 = 'To a very high extent' to 5 =
'Not at all' Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

123
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Again, respondents from Central and Eastern European countries considered the
teaching period abroad as more productive for their subsequent academic activities than
respondents from Western European countries (see Table 75). The difference, however,
was smaller than various other dimensions of impact addressed above.

Table 75 General Academic Impact of Teaching Abroad by Home

Region 2000/01 (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Home region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Improving research contacts 60 80 64
Broadening your specialist knowledge 57 78 61
More competent use of the foreign language in
which lectures were taught abroad 52 76 57
Addressing disciplinary/ theoretical discussions
originating from the partner country/countries 49 64 52
Changing of courses you offer in the home study
programme(s) with regard to content, method, form etc. 40 64 44
Count (n) (603) (142) (745)
Question E2: To what extent did you find your ERASMUS teaching period/periods abroad productive with regard to
the following? 5-point scale from 1 = 'To a very high extent' to 5 = 'Not at all'
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

6.6.3 International Understanding and International Activities

Scholars formerly mobile for a teaching period in another European country supported
by ERASMUS tend to be internationally mobile thereafter. 94 percent of all respondents
reported that they were abroad for academic reasons at least occasionally in the
subsequent five years. The proportion is almost identical among Western European and
Central and Eastern European teachers. But
• Central and Eastern European scholars spent on average 29 days annually in
other countries, while
• respondents from Western European countries spent only 23 days abroad
annually.
Over the period of five years, as Table 76 shows,
• 83 percent attended conferences in other countries,
• 55 percent undertook research activities abroad,
• 41 percent taught again in other countries,
• 26 made teaching-related visits in the framework of ERASMUS and 38 percent
other activities related to the international cooperation.
Here, the type of activities hardly differs between Western European scholars and their
Central and Eastern European colleagues.

124
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

Table 76 Teachers' Activities Abroad by Home Country 2005/06 (percent; multiple responses)
Home Country 2005/06 Total
AT BE DK FI FR DE GR HU IR IT NL NO PL PT RO ES SE UK CEE OT
Teaching abroad outside
SOCRATES/ ERASMUS 45 48 44 35 29 50 46 41 17 57 40 31 25 28 37 41 48 44 33 43 41
Other teaching-programme re-
lated visits abroad in the con-
text of SOCRATES/ERASMUS 28 15 11 27 31 21 38 24 33 26 40 15 33 22 37 29 22 31 11 23 26
Other internationalisation
activities outside
SOCRATES/ERASMUS 41 39 44 41 41 38 62 41 33 48 30 38 33 22 39 38 43 31 11 30 38
Research activities abroad 48 39 33 43 63 47 77 47 50 76 30 62 54 67 49 62 57 50 67 77 55
Participation in conferences,
workshops etc. abroad 86 73 100 73 77 83 92 82 100 93 90 85 79 94 82 88 83 75 89 87 83
Other (please specify) 14 24 11 24 7 7 0 0 0 7 0 8 8 6 12 12 13 6 11 0 10
Total 262 239 244 243 249 247 315 235 233 307 230 238 233 239 257 271 265 238 222 260 253
Count (n) (29) (33) (9) (49) (70) (126) (13) (17) (6) (46) (10) (13) (24) (36) (51) (34) (23) (32) (9) (30) (660)

Question B2: During the last five academic years, how many days have you spent altogether abroad for the following activities? Please estimate the days approximately.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

125
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

As already pointed out above, nine percent of the respondents moved to a higher
education institution in another country in the five years subsequent to their temporary
study abroad. Six percent of the respondents, i.e. the majority of those professionally
mobile, stated that their border-crossing mobility was linked to their ERASMUS-
supported teaching period abroad.
Some formerly mobile teachers were involved in other activities supported by the
ERASMUS Programme:
• 28 percent were involved in Intensive Programmes, among them nine percent
'frequently' and 19 percent 'occasionally'. Of those users of the programme 81
percent alone come from Western European countries.
• Nine percent were active in ERASMUS Curriculum Development project.
• Ten percent participated in ERASMUS Thematic Networks.
The percentage of Western European teachers involved in other ERASMUS activities
was slightly higher than that of the Central and Eastern European teachers.
The formerly mobile teachers were asked, in addition, about subsequent international
activities influenced by or linked to their ERASMUS teaching assignment. Thus, they
asked to assess the value of teaching abroad for their international academic career in
the first five years after the ERASMUS teaching period abroad. As Table 77 shows,
• 49 percent observed an enhancement of international scientific cooperation,
• 38 percent increasing cooperation in international research projects,
• 36 percent an increase of international cooperation, and
• 16 percent taking over European or international responsibilities in higher
education.

126
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

Table 77 Academic Impact by ERASMUS Teaching Assignments

Abroad by Home Region 2000/01 (percent; responses 1 and
2)
Home Region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Enhancement of international scientific co-operation 47 60 49
Increasing co-operation in international research projects 34 56 38
Increase of invitations abroad 33 50 36
Enlargement of tasks which your work involves 31 36 32
Taking over an administrative position in the
SOCRATES programme 10 35 15
Award of funds for research projects by
national/international research promotion agencies 14 29 17
Taking over of European/International
responsibilities in higher education 15 20 16
Taking over of regional/national
responsibilities in the higher education system 9 23 12
Getting a higher academic rank, i.e. from
assistance professor to full professor etc. 7 30 12
Taking over a high ranked administrative
position in the employing higher education institution(s) 7 33 12
Getting a position at another higher
education institution in the home country 4 18 7
Extension of a temporary employment contract 4 14 6
Change to an higher education institution abroad 4 13 6
Raise of income level 1 10 3
Count (n) (556) (137) (693)
Question E3: During the last five academic years, to what extent were the following changes in your professional
career influenced by or linked to your ERASMUS teaching assignment(s)? 5-point scale from 1 = 'To a very high
extent' to 5 = 'Not at all'
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

This does not mean, however, that formerly mobile teachers note international research
activities or general higher education policy activities as the major impact of the
teaching period abroad. Rather, a higher proportion of them noted that the ERASMUS
teaching period has been productive for international dimensions of teaching in various
respects:
• 67 percent were encouraged to start new educational projects with partner
institutions abroad,
• 57 percent noted a more competent use of foreign language in their teaching
abroad, and
• 40 percent used academic publications written in foreign languages more
frequently in their own classes.
In all three respects, teachers from Central and Eastern European countries reported a
substantial impact of the ERASMUS teaching period abroad on the international
dimensions of their teaching activities almost twice as often as teachers from Western
European countries.

127
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

In the previous surveys of ERASMUS-supported teachers mobile in the academic years

1990/91 and 1998/98 somewhat different questions were asked about the general
academic impact of teaching abroad. Some questions were similar. In both previous
surveys, about half of the mobile teachers responding stated that the teaching period
abroad was helpful for getting acquainted with other teaching methods, and also about
half of the respondents each stated that the teaching period abroad was valuable for
establishing research contacts. Thus, we can conclude that the value of ERASMUS
teaching mobility for understanding und undertaking international activities of teaching
and research has not changed substantially over time. This can be viewed as a success
of the ERASMUS programme because teaching mobility has expanded substantially
over the years.

6.7 Institutional Conditions for Teaching Mobility

More than 40 percent each of the formerly mobile teachers who were in the position to
assess the situation of their departments stated that their departments both frequently
received ERASMUS teachers from other countries and frequently sent some of their
staff abroad. According to the respondents, frequent staff exchange could be observed at
about the same proportion of departments involved in staff mobility in Western Europe
and in Central and Eastern Europe. Surprisingly, Central and Eastern European
respondents (62%) stated more often than Western European respondents (41%) that the
teaching staff exchange between their department and all partner departments abroad
was more or less balanced.
According to the mobile teachers, teaching mobility is highly appreciated at about one
fifth of the higher education institutions each at the institutional level, at the
departmental level and by the colleagues. Almost two fifth each noted somewhat of an
appreciation for each group. Only less than one tenth noted that teaching mobility is not
much appreciated or viewed as a burden within their institution of higher education,
again similarly at the institutional level, at the departmental level and by their
colleagues (see Table 78).
Mobile teachers from Central and Eastern European countries perceived the attitudes at
their institution of higher education similarly at institutional level and somewhat more
positive on the departmental level and by their colleges than mobile teachers from
Western European countries. As the mobile teachers from Central and Eastern Europe
appreciated the teaching period abroad and its impact substantially more positive than
mobile teachers from Western Europe, these findings suggest that teachers from Central
and Eastern European countries obviously observe a higher discrepancy between their
often enthusiastic appreciation of ERASMUS teaching staff mobility and the often
lukewarm appreciation within their institution than teachers from Western Europe.

128
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

Table 78 Teachers' Assessment of Teaching Mobility within the

Higher Education Institution by Home Region 2000/01
(percent)
Home Region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
At the institutional level
It is highly valued 23 21 22
It is valued to a certain extent 37 42 38
It is perceived as an individual activity 33 32 33
It is largely perceived as a burden 2 0 2
It is not much appreciated 5 4 5

Total 100 100 100

Count (n) (592) (140) (732)
At the departmental level
It is highly valued 21 28 22
It is valued to a certain extent 37 45 38
It is perceived as an individual activity 34 22 32
It is largely perceived as a burden 3 1 3
It is not much appreciated 5 4 5

Total 100 100 100

Count (n) (595) (141) (736)
By colleagues
It is highly valued 16 29 19
It is valued to a certain extent 32 38 33
It is perceived as an individual activity 42 28 39
It is largely perceived as a burden 4 2 4
It is not much appreciated 6 3 5

Total 100 100 100

Count (n) (544) (137) (681)
Question C4: In general, how is teaching mobility assessed at your higher education institution today at the following
three levels? At the institutional level, at the departmental level, by your colleagues.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

About half of the respondents believe that the attitude toward ERASMUS teaching
mobility has become more positive over the last decade. The attitude changed similarly
at the institutional level, at the departmental level and by the colleagues of the mobile
teachers (see Table 79). A change towards a more positive attitude was observed
somewhat more often by teachers from Central and Eastern European countries than by
teachers from Western European countries.

129
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 79 Change of Attitudes within the Institution of Higher

Education towards Teaching Mobility in the View of Mobile
Teachers by Home Region 2000/01 (percent; responses 1
and 2)
Home Region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
At the institutional level 49 65 52
At the departmental level 49 70 53
By your colleagues 44 65 48
Count (n) (594) (142) (736)
Question C5: How has the attitude towards teaching mobility changed during the last 10 years at your higher edu-
cation institution? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Became much more positive' over 3 = 'Remained the same' to 5 = 'Became
much more negative'
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

According to the mobile teachers surveyed,

• 61 percent teaching abroad was an additional work load, while
• 39 percent teaching abroad was part of their normal workload, whereby 12
percent were explicitly relieved from regular teaching and research loads and
6 percent from other duties.
Table 80 shows that teaching abroad is slightly more often an integral part of the total
work load at Central and Eastern European than at Western European higher education
institutions.

Table 80 Usual Proceedings Regarding Workload of Teaching

Abroad in the View of Mobile Teachers by Home Region
2000/01 (percent)
Home region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Teaching abroad is part of the normal professional
tasks or outgoing staff will be relieved of teaching,
research or other duties 38 44 39
Teaching abroad means extra work for outgoing
staff without receiving any compensation 62 56 61
Total 100 100 100
Count (n) (584) (141) (725)
Question C3: Regarding compensation of teaching periods abroad, what is the most usual proceeding at your current
home institution today? (Multiple replies possible)
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

The findings presented referred to the current situation at the mobile teachers’
institution of higher education. When asked to compare the current practices with those
about five years earlier, when the respondents went abroad, the respondents did not note
any substantial difference. Also, the teachers surveyed note that the predominant
practice at their institutions applied to themselves when they went abroad.

130
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

Table 81 suggests that the respondents were treated quite differently as regards the work
load of teaching abroad according to their field. On the one hand, more than half of the
mobile teachers from Medicine, Geography, Art & Design, Education and Architecture
had taught abroad as part of their normal work. On the other hand, this holds true only
for about one third of the teachers from Law, Mathematics, Economics and the
Humanities.

131
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 81 Teachers’ Work Load of Teaching Abroad During the Academic Year 2000/ 01 by Teaching Subject
(percent; multiple responses)
Teaching subject Total
Agri Arch Art Bus Edu Eng Geo Hum Lan Law Math Med Nat Soc Com Oth

You were relieved of teaching and research duties 21 10 15 8 13 8 20 2 9 7 2 12 0 5 8 6 8

You were relieved of other duties 7 20 5 6 8 4 15 2 6 3 9 12 2 2 8 3 6
Your teaching period abroad was part of your
normal professional tasks 21 30 55 23 40 35 40 31 36 23 17 52 36 46 33 44 35
Your teaching period abroad meant extra work for you
which you did not receive any compensation for 50 40 35 70 59 65 50 71 61 77 79 44 68 59 58 56 62

Total 100 100 110 108 119 112 125 107 111 110 106 120 107 112 108 110 111
Count (n) (14) (10) (20) (64) (63) (113) (20) (45) (87) (30) (47) (25) (44) (41) (12) (63) (698)

Question D1: Did your home institution relieve you of certain work to compensate your teaching period abroad during the academic year 2000/01? (Multiple replies possible)
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

132
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

6.8 Impact of the Teaching Mobility on the Home Institution

of Higher Education
All formerly mobile teachers are convinced that their ERASMUS supported teaching
activities had a positive impact on their home institution of higher education. This was
stated by
• 67 percent of the respondents from Central and Eastern European countries as
compared to
• 47 percent of the teachers from Western European countries.
A positive impact of their ERASMUS supported teaching activity on the home
institution was often observed by teachers from
• Agriculture (69%),
• Art & Design (67%),
• Geography (65%) and
• Medicine (64%).
On the other hand, a positive impact was relatively seldom stated by respondents from
Mathematics (35%), Law (30%) and Communication Science (29%).
Finally, respondents were asked to state in which way teaching staff mobility has turned
out to be beneficial for their home institution of higher education. Among 12 aspects
addressed in the questionnaire, a positive impact was reported twice by the respondents.
Accordingly, teaching mobility was most helpful for
• Improvement of advice given to mobile students (63%) and
• Providing knowledge on other countries (58%).
In addition, more than 40 percent of the respondents each noted a positive effect on
• the co-ordination of study programs between the home and host institution,
• the range of foreign-language teaching,
• the development of new study concepts and contents,
• the increase of comparative approaches.

133
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 82 Impacts of ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility on the Home

Institution in the View of Mobile Teachers by Home Region
2000/01 (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Home Region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Improvement of guidance/advice available to mobile students 62 69 63
Providing knowledge on other countries, Europe etc. 58 57 58
Co-ordination of programmes between home
programme and partner programmes 47 46 47
Provision of courses in a foreign language
(foreign-language teaching) 39 64 44
Development of new concepts and contents for
study programmes 35 64 41
Addressing issues comparatively 40 47 41
Use of publications in a foreign language 33 64 39
Providing knowledge on international
relations or supranational organisations 38 39 38
Addressing disciplinary/theoretical discussions
originating from partner country/from abroad 37 43 38
Setting up double degree programmes 36 28 34
Development of new teaching methods 26 55 32
Integration of language courses into the curriculum 25 42 29
Count (n) (587) (138) (725)
Question E6: In general, how would you rate the impact of ERASMUS teaching staff mobility on your home insti-
tution regarding the following aspects? 5-point scale from 1 = 'To a very high extent' to 5 = 'Not at all'
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey.

In the majority of aspects addressed, responses of formerly mobile teachers from

Central and Eastern European countries are similar to those of the colleagues from
Western European countries. In some respects, however, respondents from Central and
Eastern European institutions of higher education clearly observed a positive effect of
ERASMUS teaching staff mobility more frequently than respondents from Western
European countries: Increased provision of courses in a foreign language, use of
publications in foreign languages, innovation of the concepts and contents of study
programmes as well as development of new teaching methods.

6.9 Concluding Remarks

Teaching Staff Mobility serves several purposes. Besides international teaching
experiences for non-mobile students at the host institution, it shall also have an impact
on the institutional development of the home institution and, of course, on the teachers’
competences as well. The results of this survey show that ERASMUS mobility has an
impact on all of these aspects. Furthermore, it was shown that mobile teachers do not
only profit with regard to teaching competences but also with regard to their research
work.

134
 The Mobile Teachers’ Views and Experiences

With regard to home internationalisation, it can be summarised that students at the

home institution can profit by their teachers’ mobility experience. The wide majority of
formerly mobile teachers report that they learnt about different teaching contents,
concepts and methods. After return, many applied this knowledge. The results show that
they got encouraged to start new educational projects, they are more competent in using
a foreign language in teaching, they are more open to comparative approaches and
foreign literature and publications in their teaching. For mobile students, teaching staff
mobility has a further implication. 63 percent of formerly mobile teachers view that
their international experience has improved their advice given to mobile students.
Besides teaching skills, the results present that the mobile teachers improved academic
and international competences as well. More than half of the respondents reported that
they were able to broaden their specialist knowledge and that they also profit by
disciplinary and theoretical discussions during their stay abroad. Interestingly, the
impact on the research activities seems to be stronger than expected. Even though the
main impact still lies on teaching, a majority of the formerly mobile teachers list
improvements of their research contacts and subsequently more research activities
abroad as a consequence of their teaching abroad.
The impacts described above also influence the home institution directly and indirectly.
Accordingly, the majority of the questioned teaching staff viewed that their experience
abroad also had a positive impact on their home institution of higher education. Besides
teaching and research networking effects, mobile teachers get to know quality assurance
procedures not known at their home institution. The improved contacts may also help to
install double degree programmes. Yet, the impacts are in this regard assessed
comparatively lower than in the areas of teaching and research.
Institutional support and appreciation for teaching staff mobility has slightly improved
over time. Still, in nearly two thirds of included cases, teaching abroad is an additional
work load and not an integrated part of the workload. The practises at the institutions
have not changed in the last five years in the perspective of the respondents.
The career impact or professional value of their stay abroad is assessed surprisingly
positive by the teachers. More than 50 percent of teachers from Western European
institutions and 81 percent of institutions in the Central and Eastern Europe viewed a
positive impact on their professional development. Narrowing down the positive
detailed assessments to those respondents who in fact experienced a career step in the
last five years, the percentage of those who affirm that teaching abroad contributed to
their career enhancement and the extension of their temporary employment contract is
significantly high.
Differentiating analyses underscore differences by home and host country as well as
field of study. In general, respondents from Central and Eastern European home
institutions assess the impact and the professional values much more positive than their
Western colleagues. In reference to host institution, more positive impacts were seen if
the teaching stay took place at an institution in Western Europe. Differences by field of
study were less clear, but interesting results could also be found.

135
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

7 The University Leaders’ Views

7.1 Introduction
Among the potentially interesting groups of actors and experts, university leaders are
the most interesting group for an assessment of the professional value of student and
teacher mobility besides employers.
The survey addresses university leaders as they are on the top position also responsible
for policies related to ERASMUS within the universities. They should be well informed
about staff policies and thus about the potential professional impact of teaching in the
framework of ERASMUS, and they are certainly well informed about the universities’
activities to support the transition to employment and about feedback from the
employment system about the professional value of study in another European country.
The questionnaire survey raises questions matching those posed to the mobile students
and teachers and thus serving a triangulation of perceptions. In addition, it addresses the
value of teaching mobility for the competence development of the teaching staff and for
the overall European and international activities of the university.

7.2 The Survey of Leaders at ERASMUS Higher Education

Institutions
The following chapter summarises the methodological approach used for the survey of
university leaders.

Table 83 Overview of the Field Phase of the Survey of Leaders at

ERASMUS Higher Education Institutions
1 Target population All university leaders of those institutions which had outgoing
ERASMUS students in the academic year 2000/2001
2 Start of field phase September 2005
3 End of field phase February 2006
4 Sampling strategy Census (All leader of Higher Education Institutions involved in
the ERASMUS programme)
5 Questionnaire (see – Highly standardized, 8 pages, 48 questions, 157
Annex A.6) variables
– Translated in 23 official languages of the European
Union
– Online and paper versions
6 Number of filled 626
questionnaires from
university leaders
7 Gross response rate 44% (626 of 1437)

136
 The University Leaders’ Views

The target population was defined as all university leaders of those institutions which
had outgoing ERASMUS students in the reference period of the student survey
(2000/2001). According to our database 2,003 institutions and, hence, the same number
of university leaders belong to that group. 333 of these 2,003 institutions of higher
education were also involved in the student and teacher survey of this evaluation
project. The other 1,670 institutions were addressed for the first time in the range of this
project.
As the total number of university leaders is relatively small, it was decided not to
sample but to include the total population of all university leaders. An expected
response rate of 50% means that around 1,000 answers could be anticipated in this
survey.
The project proposal suggested to send the questionnaires to the rectors/presidents/vice-
chancellors of all institutions having received ERASMUS support in the reference
period directly. In the planning of this survey, it was decided to deviate slightly from
this strategy. Instead of sending the questionnaires directly to the university leaders, it
was decided to send the questionnaires to the ERASMUS coordinators asking to
forward them. This modified procedure was mostly chosen due to practical reasons:
• The contact details of the ERASMUS coordinators were available, but not the
detailed address of the university leadership.
• The ERASMUS coordinators were partly already involved in the student and
teacher survey and were familiar with the project.
Even so, the ERASMUS coordinators were asked to forward the questionnaires to the
university leaders.
Both groups received the questionnaire via their ERASMUS coordinator, hence there is
no systematic difference regarding the mailing strategy. At the beginning of November
one reminder was sent to those institutions which had not yet sent a filled questionnaire
back. The reminder was directed to the ERASMUS coordinator asking if there had
occurred any problems or if they had not received the questionnaire.
The questionnaire directed to the leaders of higher education institutions involved in the
ERASMUS programme covers ERASMUS student mobility as well as teaching staff
mobility. It asks university leaders of universities to provide information on: (see Figure
3):
• the institutional profile,
• internationalisation strategy and degree of internationalisation,
• the major SOCRATES/ERASMUS policies and activities,
• activities of strengthening the employability of graduates (curricular activities,
support for the transition to employment, contacts with employers, etc.),
• the employment of former ERASMUS students and the professional impact of
ERASMUS study abroad,
• the weight placed on teaching staff mobility within ERASMUS and the support
provided,

137
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

• the staff policies in general potentially relevant for mobile teachers,

• the professional rewards for formerly mobile teachers.

Figure 21 Themes of the Universities' Leader Survey

Institutional

Size of the institutions, status, disciplinary profile, international program

offered
profile
Internationa-

The importance of internationalisation at the institution, involvement in

activities
lisation

international program, number of internationally-mobile student

Policies and Policies Perceived

policies and
ERASMUS

practices regarding professional Professional

activities

regarding teacher mobility value of rewards for

employability and general staff ERASMUS mobile teachers
of students policies student mobility

Based on experts´ suggestions that selection effects of ERASMUS need to be

considered, the university leaders were asked to state the criteria of selection for the
ERASMUS programme at their institution, to provide information on other mobility
programmes and to assess the Labour market value of the ERASMUS programme.
The English master questionnaire was translated into the 23 official languages of the
European Union. The translation process took place parallel to the translation process of
the student survey and was, hence, conducted similarly.
Compared to the student and teacher survey the questionnaire was shorter. It comprised
seven pages of questions plus one page of explanations. Since we assumed that
university leaders are more used to questionnaires, we shortened the explanation in
comparison to the student questionnaire to one page.
Most of the questions were closed, only a small number of questions were open.
Similar to the approach of the student survey, the questionnaire was available in a paper
and an online version.
Of the 2,003 questioned universities, a total of 1437 agreed to participate. More than
500 addressed higher education institutions refused to participate mainly due to two
reasons. The first group had no outgoing students or teachers in the respective academic
year 2000/01 (incorrect database). The second, smaller group refused to participate due
to time pressure. Of the 1437 higher education institutions, 626 answered the
questionnaire. This corresponds to a return rate of 44%. This rate is lower than
expected. Telephone calls about the questionnaire with ERASMUS coordinators
exposed not only their "work overload" but also a “survey fatigue”.

138
 The University Leaders’ Views

7.3 Characteristics of Responding Higher Education

Institutions
7.3.1 Regional Distribution of Responding Higher Education Institutions
Altogether, 626 higher education institutions from 27 countries responded. The majority
of responding institutions are located in Western Europe (76% or 471 institutions).
Polish institutions form the biggest group (35%) from Central and Eastern European
countries. 22 percent of the responses from Western European higher education
institutions came from German higher education institutions, followed by France, which
accounted for 15 percent of the responses. Overall, German and France higher education
institutions represent around one quarter (28%) of the included questionnaires.

7.3.2 Status and Size of Responding Higher Education Institutions

As one could expect, a majority of 77 percent of the responding higher education
institutions belonged to the public sector and only 14 percent are private institutions
(see table 84). Nearly two thirds of included institutions have up to 5,000 students
enrolled. Higher education institutions with more than 20,000 enrolments present only 8
percent of the responding higher education institutions.

Table 84 Universities' Status by Number of Students Enrolled (in

percent)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Public 69 68 79 83 86 98 77
Private 22 21 10 13 5 2 14
Other 9 11 11 4 9 0 8
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (100) (150) (102) (71) (76) (43) (542)
Question A3: What is the legal status of your higher education institution?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

Analysing status by country, it shows that a fairly large proportion of almost one quarter
of higher education institutions in Central and Eastern Europe are private, most
prominently in Poland (31%), Bulgaria (27%), Slovenia (25%), and Czech Republic
(23%). In Western Europe, the proportion of private higher education institutions is
highest in Portugal (27%), Iceland (25%) and France (24%).

7.3.3 Fields of Study Programmes

The fields of the study programmes provided by the responding higher education
institutions are rather diverse: most frequent fields are Economy/Business
Administration/Management Sciences (at 61% of the institutions responding), followed
by Mathematics/Informatics (47%), Social Sciences (47%), Engineering/Technology
(46%), and Teacher Education (45%). Small institutions of higher education, naturally,
offer a smaller range of fields, among them most frequently Art/Design (34%) and
Economy/Business Administration/Management Sciences (30%) (see Table 85).

139
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 85 Universities' Fields of Study Programmes by Number of

Students Enrolled (percent; multiple responses)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Agricultural Sciences 12 7 19 19 14 28 14
Architecture, urban and regional planning 7 9 18 29 32 46 20
Art and design 34 23 27 44 35 50 33
Business studies, management sciences,
economics 30 32 74 87 94 98 61
Education, teacher training 21 30 39 60 70 87 45
Engineering, technology 21 25 60 63 68 74 46
Geography, geology 9 4 13 37 57 87 26
Humanities 16 11 21 60 74 91 36
Languages, philological sciences 12 7 22 64 74 89 35
Law 15 7 16 43 70 87 30
Mathematics, informatics 19 15 49 77 86 93 47
Medical Sciences 16 12 29 32 42 72 28
Natural Sciences 13 8 30 49 70 85 34
Social Sciences 19 22 42 76 81 93 47
Communications and information sciences 19 7 26 57 65 85 34
Other 14 13 16 27 25 26 18
Total 280 234 500 824 956 1191 554
Count (n) (99) (149) (102) (75) (77) (46) (548)
Question A4: Please provide some information on the disciplinary profile of your institution. In which groups of
subject areas do your university offer degree programmes?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.3.4 Number and Ranks of Academic Staff

On average, the responding institutions of higher education employed more than 500
academic staff (full-time equivalent) in the academic year 2000/01, i.e. when the
students and academic staff surveyed spent a period in another European country with
ERASMUS support. Institutions with small student numbers have smaller absolute
numbers of academic staff, as one might expect, but have also clearly lower student-
staff ratios (see Table 86).

140
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 86 Universities' Number of Academic Staff in the Academic

Year 2000/2001 by Rank and Number of Students Enrolled
(means)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Full Professor
Arithm. mean 107.1 52.8 96.0 127.6 210.2 600.0 160.1
Median 28.0 47.0 63.5 77.0 160.0 348.5 65.0
Count (55) (87) (78) (57) (65) (36) (378)
Other senior academic rank
(ass. professor. senior lecturer etc.)
with unlimited contracts
Arithm. mean 104.5 75.1 169.6 236.6 456.3 703.6 223.7
Median 26.0 50.0 140.0 190.0 410.0 711.0 110.5
Count (57) (101) (67) (53) (59) (23) (360)
Junior academic rank with
limited employment contracts
Arithm. mean 65.3 39.5 109.7 181.1 261.2 488.7 158.0
Median 35.0 21.5 40.0 130.0 210.5 519.0 69.5
Count (35) (56) (51) (39) (50) (19) (250)
Question A7: Number of academic staff in the academic year 2000 / 2001 (please state full time equivalents).
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

In Central and Eastern European countries, the proportion of full professors among all
academic staff is higher than in Western European countries. In reverse, the proportion
of other senior academic staff is higher in the Central and Eastern region (see Figure
22).

141
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 22 Universities' Number of Academic Staff by Rank and

Region (mean)
Academic Staff No.: Comparison East-West

250

Eastern Region
Western Region
200
Academic Staff No.

150

100

50

0
Full Prof. Other Senior academic rank Junior academic rank

Academic Rank

Question A7: Number of academic staff in the academic year 2000 / 2001 (please state full time equivalents).
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.3.5 Offered Degree Programmes Taught in Foreign Languages

The number of study programmes taught in foreign languages is generally viewed as
one indicator of the higher education internationalisation process. 65 percent of
responding institutions currently offer at least one degree programme in a foreign
language, but only 6 percent of them, according to the information provided, provide a
considerable number of them.
The responses vary to a lower extent than expected by the size of the institutions.
Among institutions with up to 500 students, 48 percent do not offer any study
programme in a foreign language. But even among institutions with more than 20,000
students, 38 percent do not offer such a type of study programmes (see table A5).

142
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 87 Universities' Degree Programmes Taught in Foreign

Languages by Number of Students Enrolled (percent)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Yes, a considerable number 6 3 6 4 14 4 6
Yes, some 11 15 20 23 25 16 18
Yes, very few 28 34 35 32 26 40 32
No, none 48 44 38 34 22 38 39
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (102) (150) (104) (74) (76) (45) (551)
Question A5: Does your institution offer degree programmes taught in foreign languages?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.4 Internationalisation of Universities: Objectives and

Activities
7.4.1 Objectives
Internationalisation of higher education is assessed as highly important by the
responding administrators: 87 percent consider it important to raise the number of
domestic students temporarily studying abroad, and 80 percent to raise the quota of
foreign students at their institutions. Similarly, 87 percent consider improvement of
teaching quality very important in the context of internationalisation. For 86 percent of
the respondents, improved international visibility of their institutions is an important
goal and for 83 percent the establishment of a coherent policy for internationalisation.
Further important aspects are improved international recognition of their study courses,
the internationalisation of curricula etc. (see Table 88). Thereby, the larger higher
education institutions are slightly more strongly interested in improving research
cooperation.

143
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 88 Objectives of Internationalisation in the View of University

Leaders by Number of Students Enrolled (percent;
responses 1 and 2)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Establishment of a coherent policy for
internationalisation 79 79 82 89 88 88 83
Improvement of the international visibility
of the institution 77 81 87 93 96 93 86
Internationalisation of curricula 57 62 67 84 76 86 69
Improvement of the quality of teaching /
learning 78 86 88 93 93 82 87
Development of joint international curricula
with higher education institutions abroad 52 51 58 73 67 77 60
Improvement of the international
recognition of study courses (e.g. ECTS) 72 76 83 82 86 89 80
Establishment of international double
degree programmes 46 46 53 71 61 77 56
Upgrading of the foreign language
competences of students 66 66 79 68 82 80 72
Improvement of the quality of research 64 71 69 89 96 82 76
Participation in international research
projects 56 63 70 86 99 91 73
Development and maintenance of a net
of academic partner organisations abroad 77 77 75 86 86 80 79
Increase the number of domestic students
temporarily studying abroad 86 86 88 84 89 93 87
Increase the number of foreign students
at the institution 74 72 81 89 90 86 80
Increase the number of outgoing
teaching staff 66 72 61 78 71 80 70
Increase the number of incoming
foreign teaching staff 67 71 61 75 75 77 70
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (101) (148) (103) (73) (77) (44) (546)
Question B1: How important, are the following objectives of internationalisation at your institution? 5-point scale
from 1 = 'Very important' to 5 = 'Not important at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

Most responding higher education institutions consider an increase in teaching staff

exchange to be important. 70 percent each view an increased quota of outgoing teaching
staff and also of incoming teachers as important. All these aspects are especially
emphasized by Central and Eastern European institutions.

144
 The University Leaders’ Views

7.5 Student Mobility and Employability

7.5.1 Promoting Employability of Graduates
The majority of administrators surveyed rate the impact of participation in ERASMUS
as fruitful for further job opportunities after graduation. In particular, 80 percent of the
higher education institutions surveyed rate the promotion of their graduates´
employment opportunities through participation in the ERASMUS study abroad
programme as positive (see Table 89).

Table 89 University Leaders' Assessment of Increasing Employment

Opportunities by ERASMUS by Number of Students
Enrolled (percent)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Yes 38 40 47 44 45 49 43
Often 33 33 34 40 45 42 37
Sometimes 22 24 17 14 8 9 18
Rarely 6 3 2 1 1 0 3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (99) (144) (100) (72) (73) (43) (531)
Question C2: Generally, do study periods abroad increase the opportunities of graduates to get a reasonable job? 5-
point scale from 1 = 'Yes' to 5 = 'Not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

University administrators believe that, compared with non-mobile students, graduates

with ERASMUS experience have slightly better chances of getting a job quickly and a
better job. A total of 58 percent of the respondents state that ERASMUS students get a
better job than their non-mobile colleagues. 54 percent specify that ERASMUS students
find a job quickly. Small sized higher education institutions are less optimistic in regard
to these aspects (see Table 90).

145
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 90 University Leaders' Assessment of Impacts of ERASMUS

on Job Opportunities by Number of Students Enrolled
(percent; responses 1 and 2)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
On average, ERASMUS students
get better jobs 49 49 74 67 54 64 58
On average, ERASMUS students
get a job in a shorter time span 40 50 68 57 57 65 54
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (51) (78) (47) (41) (38) (25) (280)
Question C10: According to your experience or the data gathered: Have ERASMUS students better opportunities to
get an appropriate job and to get a job faster than non-mobile students? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Absolutely right' to 5
= 'Not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

In both respects, the answers differ clearly between Western European and Central and
Eastern European higher education institutions. About three quarters of the Central and
Eastern European institutions respond affirmatively, but only about 50 percent of the
Western European institutions.

7.5.2 Measures to Increase the Employability of Graduates

Almost all higher education institutions surveyed are active in order to improve the
employability of their graduates. Most of them try to contribute by establishing
internships in study programs (75%) and by presenting their own institutions to the
outside world (74%). 69 percent have implemented practice oriented elements in their
courses (see Table 91).

146
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 91 Universities' Measures to Increase the Employability of

Graduates by Number of Students Enrolled (percent;
multiple responses)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Internship in study programmes 70 75 85 74 76 66 75
Presentation of the institution by the
occasion of special fairs 63 70 75 86 76 80 74
Implementation of practice oriented
elements in study programmes 63 70 81 71 63 59 69
Common lectures / events at the university
with representatives of employers 48 66 75 69 74 80 67
Special language courses 53 46 66 65 58 61 57
Evaluation of study programmes regarding
the requirements of the labour market 45 56 60 63 54 39 54
Establishment of special employment
agencies for graduates at the institution 15 22 31 40 46 55 31
Establishment of special preparatory
courses for job-hunting graduates 23 19 25 26 38 34 25
Total 380 423 497 494 485 473 453
Count (n) (88) (144) (102) (72) (72) (44) (522)
Question C1: Did your institution implement some of the following measures to increase the employability of the
later graduates and ease the transition to work? (Multiple replies possible).
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

Altogether, Central and Eastern European institutions are more active in those respects
(86% affirmative responses on average of the categories addressed in the questionnaire)
than Western European institutions (71%).

7.5.3 Reinforcements of Competences through ERASMUS

A study period abroad contributes substantially - according to the responding higher
education institutions - to students’ foreign language proficiency (93 %), their
international urbanity (87%) and their in-depth knowledge of the host country (84%).
Furthermore, they frequently observe that the students’ ability to work independently
increases (78%) as well as personality and social behaviour (79%) (see Table 92).

147
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 92 Competences Reinforced by ERASMUS Study Period

Abroad in the View of University Leaders by Number of
Students Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Foreign language competences 94 88 96 93 93 100 93
International urbanity 85 87 88 89 84 88 87
In depth knowledge of the respective host
country 84 81 83 84 90 81 84
Personality and social behaviour 78 79 81 78 71 86 79
Working independently 83 79 73 82 79 69 78
Planning, co-ordinating and organizing 67 55 67 67 62 62 63
Broad general knowledge 56 61 55 61 49 57 57
Understanding of complex social,
organisational and / or technical systems 47 54 59 56 51 50 53
Cross-disciplinary thinking 57 52 48 56 49 45 52
Field specific knowledge of methods 60 51 52 36 49 54 51
Time management 48 50 51 55 52 52 51
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 59 44 45 43 53 45 48
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (94) (145) (99) (70) (72) (42) (522)
Question C7_1: Up to what degree students will gather the following competences especially during their ERASMUS
supported study period? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Up to a very high degree' to 5 = 'Not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.5.4 Comparison with Other Programmes and Selectivity of ERASMUS

84 percent of Western European higher education institutions and 69 percent of Central
and Eastern European institutions offer foreign study periods to their students which are
promoted by other sources than ERASMUS. Yet, most institutions see no major
differences between temporary periods abroad supported by ERASMUS or other
sources. Altogether, 73 percent of higher education institutions - 63 percent of the
Central and Eastern European and 76 percent of the Western European - believe that the
contribution towards employability is more or less the same. 24 percent assess
employment value of ERASMUS as higher and 3 percent as lower (see Table 93).

148
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 93 Assessment of Impact on the Employability of Graduates in

the View of University Leaders by Number of Students
Enrolled (percent)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
ERASMUS has an higher impact 18 24 27 23 22 40 24
More or less the same 78 75 70 74 73 60 73
ERASMUS has a lower impact 4 1 3 3 5 0 3
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (89) (143) (101) (70) (73) (40) (516)
Question C4: Have study periods abroad supported by the ERASMUS programme on average a higher or lower
impact towards the employability of graduates compared to other types of study abroad, e.g. support from other grant
programmes, free-mover mobility?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

Selectivity is often seen as a quality indicator for programmes in higher education. In

this regard, ERASMUS was often described as a mass programme contrasting selective
programmes or scholarships like for example the Fulbright programme. Therefore it
was of interest to get knowledge about the existence of selection and the selection
criteria applied to students who wished to participate in ERASMUS. The both
dominating criteria– according to the administrator’s answers – have been the academic
achievement measured in grade point average with sixty nine percent and the
knowledge of the host country’s language with 67 percent. The bigger universities are
more selective in that respect. Furthermore, Table 94 shows that the participating
institutions from Central and East Europe are much more relying on these criteria with
88 percent and 90 percent respectively.

Table 94 Universities' Criteria Used for the Selection of Students to

Join ERASMUS Exchange Programme by Number of
Students Enrolled (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Grade point average 61 64 71 71 78 78 69
Good knowledge of the host country’s language 60 57 70 73 75 80 67
Importance of a stay abroad in the framework
of specific study programmes e.g.
philological study programmes 49 56 42 66 75 51 55
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (94) (134) (103) (70) (74) (41) (516)
Question C6: What are the criteria used by your institution for the selection of students to join ERASMUS exchange
programme? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Very important' to 5 = 'Not important at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.5.5 Competences Appreciated by Employers

According to the higher education institutions, employers appreciate formerly mobile
students’ foreign language proficiency and ability to work independently (each 83%,

149
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

personality (78%) as well as their planning and organisational skills (74%) (see Table
95).

Table 95 Competences Valued by Employers in the View of

University Leaders by Number of Students Enrolled
(percent; responses 1 and 2)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Foreign language competences 79 76 87 85 90 100 84
Working independently 86 80 85 89 82 91 84
Personality and social behaviour 73 73 77 82 74 94 77
Planning, co-ordinating and organizing 76 68 80 80 76 85 76
International urbanity 69 66 80 70 66 74 71
Time management 65 64 74 75 74 79 71
Field specific knowledge of methods 59 60 64 71 64 76 64
Cross-disciplinary thinking 68 54 65 67 62 59 62
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 57 50 66 67 61 65 59
Understanding of complex social,
organisational and / or technical systems 44 53 67 59 65 71 58
Broad general knowledge 52 50 46 47 55 50 50
In depth knowledge of the respective host
country 35 40 51 51 40 56 44
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (80) (114) (84) (55) (67) (34) (434)
Question C7_2: Up to what degree the later employers will honour competences acquired during a study abroad
period? 5-point scale from 1 = 'Up to a very high degree' to 5 = 'Not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

80 percent of university administrators are convinced that a temporary study period

abroad has become a more important recruitment criterion over the last decade. Only
one percent stated that study periods abroad are less important for the entry to the labour
nowadays than about ten years ago (see Table 96).

150
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 96 Changed Significance of Study Periods Abroad in the View

of University Leaders by Number of Students Enrolled
(percent)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Considerable higher value as compared
to the past 16 18 18 14 15 26 17
Higher value compared to the past 62 56 63 73 69 58 63
Stayed the same 22 25 18 12 15 16 19
Lower value than ten years ago 0 2 2 2 0 0 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (86) (133) (96) (66) (72) (38) (491)
Question C8: Did the value of temporary study periods abroad changed during the last decade as a criteria for
employment?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.5.6 Sources of Information about Professional Careers of Graduates

The university administrators were asked what sources of information they have about
the graduates’ careers. More than half of the respondents inform themselves through
graduate studies. Many respondents name less formal ways of information, such as
informal information (44%), graduates’ meetings (39%) and feedback by employers.
Altogether, sources of information do not differ substantially by the size of the higher
education institution (see Table 97).

151
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 97 Universities Sources of Information on the Professional

Careers of Graduates by Number of Students Enrolled
(percent; multiple responses)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Not at all 9 7 5 6 7 0 6
Yes, by regular graduate studies 26 18 17 31 31 21 23
Yes, by occasional graduate studies 23 29 41 35 36 35 32
Yes, by feedback from employers 25 27 30 28 24 26 27
Yes, by graduates meetings 39 36 46 40 42 33 39
Yes, by informal information 47 45 45 42 40 40 44
By other information channels 16 20 18 14 8 28 17
Total 184 182 202 194 188 181 189
Count (n) (93) (147) (103) (72) (72) (43) (530)
Question C9: Does your institution gather information about the professional careers of its graduates? (Multiple
replies possible).
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.6 ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility

7.6.1 Overall Appreciation
According to the respondents, teaching staff mobility is positively viewed by
administrators at more than three quarters of the higher education institutions – in half
of these cases even highly appreciated. Most positive ratings are reported from
universities with enrolment between 5,000 and 20,000 students (see Table 98).

152
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 98 ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility in the View of University

Leaders by Number of Students Enrolled (percent; multiple
responses)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Teaching mobility is highly valued 33 40 27 44 45 42 38
Teaching mobility is valued to a certain extent 35 37 44 47 38 35 39
Teaching mobility is perceived as an activity
of the individual teacher 29 29 28 21 22 30 27
Teaching mobility is largely perceived as a burden 4 3 4 3 0 0 3
Teaching mobility is not much appreciated 3 1 2 0 0 0 1
Total 104 110 106 114 104 107 108
Count (n) (91) (145) (102) (73) (74) (43) (528)
Question D1: In general, how does the administration of your institution perceive or treat teaching staff mobility -
including non-ERASMUS mobility?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

Altogether, teaching staff mobility seems to be more highly appreciated at Central and
Eastern European universities than at Western European institutions. Especially the
Baltic States, Romania, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Slovenia are much
interested in raising their international reputation by participation of academic staff in
the ERASMUS programme.
The attitude of university administrations to teaching staff mobility obviously has
improved over time. 57 percent of the respondents noted a more positive rating than a
decade ago. The ratings on the part of the departments and the teaching staff became
even more frequently positive (see Table 99).

Table 99 Universities' Change of Attitudes Towards Teaching Staff

Mobility by Number of Students Enrolled (percent;
responses 1 and 2)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
At the side of the universities administration 52 53 57 64 61 60 57
At the side of the departments 62 53 70 77 68 71 65
At the side of the individual teaching staff 66 71 69 81 75 63 71
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (92) (138) (101) (73) (76) (43) (523)
Question D2: Has the attitude towards teaching mobility changed during the last decade? 5-point scale from 1 =
'Becomes more positive' to 5 = 'Becomes more negative'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

Appreciation of teaching staff mobility increased more strongly at Central and Eastern
European than at Western European institutions of higher education (see Table 100).

153
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 100 Universities' Change of Attitudes Towards Teaching Staff

Mobility by Home Region (arithmetic mean)
Home Region Total
Western Central and Eastern Other
Europe Europe
At the side of the universities administration 2,3 1,8 3,0 2,2
At the side of the departments 2,3 1,8 3,0 2,2
At the side of the individual teaching staff 2,2 1,8 3,0 2,1
Count (n) (426) (125) (2) (553)

Question D2: Has the attitude towards teaching staff mobility changed during the last decade?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.6.2 Impact of Teaching Staff Mobility on the Higher Education

Institution
Teaching mobility, according to the administrators surveyed, contributes strongly to the
reputation of the higher education institution, to the innovation in teaching and to
research cooperation:
• 77 percent note a strong contribution to the international reputation of the
institution,
• 59 percent to the initiation of international research cooperation,
• about half each to the development of new curricula and teaching methods, and
• 37 percent to the establishment of double degree programmes.
In all respect, a more positive impact is perceived by respondents from Central and
Eastern European countries than from Western European countries. 16 percent more
positive ratings were made by Central and Eastern European respondents on average of
the issues addressed.
The impact of teaching staff mobility on the study programmes is only in the minority
of cases reflected strongly in the quality assessment of the study programmes. Only 11
percent of the respondents state that it plays a strong role in evaluation, accreditation or
approval procedures, and a further 23 percent reported a considerable role.

7.6.3 Administrative Support

Slightly more than half (55%) of the higher education institutions support mobile
teaching in organisation arrangements regarding the study period abroad in the
administrative procedure of getting leave of absence. Administrators of about one third
of the universities each state that mobile teachers are released temporarily from teaching
and research assignments as well as from administrative duties. Only at a small
proportion of institutions, replacement of the mobile staff is taken care of (see Table
101).

154
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 101 Universities' Support for Mobile Teachers by Number of

Students Enrolled (arithmetic mean)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Support in administrative matters regarding
leave of absence 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.5
Preparatory organisation of administrative
matters with the host institution abroad 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 3.1 2.5
Temporary release from teaching or research
commitments 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.1
Temporary release from administrative
commitments 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.7 3.2
Finding replacement staff 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.6 4.0 4.2 3.9
Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Count (n) (90) (142) (101) (72) (71) (42) (518)
Question D4: Concerning the following aspects, up to what extent your institution is able and willing to support the
teaching assignments abroad of its staff within the framework of the ERASMUS Programme? 5-point scale from 1 =
'To a considerable degree' to 5 = 'Not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

By and large, administrative support is more frequently in place at small than at large
institutions of higher education. Again, Central and Eastern European institutes regard
teaching staff more highly and support it more often administratively (see Table 102).

Table 102 Universities' Support for Mobile Teachers by Home Region

(percent; responses 1 and 2)
Home Region Total
Western Central and Eastern Other
Europe Europe
Temporary release from teaching
or research commitments 36 44 50 38
Temporary release from administrative
commitments 30 47 0 34
Finding replacement staff 12 28 0 16
Support in administrative matters
regarding leave of absence 50 73 0 55
Preparatory organization of administrative
matters with the host institution abroad 52 69 50 56
Others 66 64 0 66
Total 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (423) (124) (2) (549)

Question D4: Concerning the following aspects, up to what extent your institution is able and willing to support the
teaching assignments abroad of its staff within the framework of the ERASMUS Programme?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.6.4 Benefits for Mobile Teachers

Only a small minority of respondents report that clear career benefits of teaching abroad
are customary at their institution of higher education:

155
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

• 11 percent note a frequent career advancement,

• 7 percent additional financial support for their assignments, and
• 2 percent a higher income.
Such benefits are more frequently provided at Central and Eastern and at Western
European institutions of higher education: 24 percent versus 8 percent career
advancement, 14 percent versus 5 percent financial support, and 6 percent versus 1
percent higher remuneration.
International activities of teachers, however, seem to play a substantial role when new
academic staff is hired. Somewhat of a reward is assigned, according to the respondents,
by the majority of institutions to international contacts, international teaching and
research activities as well as foreign language proficiency. Again, all these aspects play
a more prominent role at institutions of higher education in Central and Eastern
European countries than in Western European countries (see Table 103).

Table 103 Universities' Assessment of International Experiences

During Application Procedures of New Academic Staff by
Home Region (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Home Region Total
Western Central and Eastern Other
Europe Europe
Teaching assignments abroad 47 70 0 52
International scientific contacts 66 84 0 70
Former participation in international
research projects 60 80 0 64
Foreign language competences 58 85 50 64
Others 74 75 0 74
Total 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (412) (124) (2) (538)

Question D7: Up to what extent several aspects of a professional foreign assignment as listed below play a less or
major role during application procedures of new academic staff?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

More specifically, between a third and half each of administrators from institutions of
higher education state that involvement in various ERASMUS-supported activities
plays a role when new academic is hired. Teaching staff mobility (49%) is most
frequently named in this respect (see Table 104).

156
 The University Leaders’ Views

Table 104 Universities' Assessment of ERASMUS Activities in the

Hiring of Academic Staff by Number of Students Enrolled
(percent; responses 1 and 2)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
ERASMUS student mobility 48 45 39 54 39 49 45
ERASMUS curriculum projects 36 31 33 52 50 32 38
ERASMUS teacher mobility 47 49 45 54 50 51 49
ERASMUS intensive programmes 28 30 29 42 41 38 33
ERASMUS thematic networks 32 33 29 48 38 35 35
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (83) (133) (99) (69) (68) (39) (491)
Question D8: During such application procedures, does your institution honour the involvement of the candidates in
different components of the SOKRATES / ERASMUS programme? 5-point scale from 1 = 'To a considerable degree'
to 5 = 'Not at all'.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA University Leaders' Survey 2005.

7.7 Concluding Remarks

Internationalisation including the aspect of teaching staff and student mobility are an
important topic for higher education institutions today. The survey has shown that 80%
of the questioned institutions want to increase the number of foreign students at their
own institution and the number of domestic students temporarily studying abroad
(87%). 70% want to increase further the number of incoming and outgoing academic
staff. Besides the ERASMUS programme, the majority of higher education institutions
(69%) take also part in other mobility programmes. Yet, most institutions do not see
major differences between ERASMUS and those other programmes.
The questioned university administrators see ERASMUS not only as an institutional
instrument for internationalisation but also as an instrument for improving the
professional value of their graduates. 80 percent of the responding higher education
institutions support the statement that study abroad increases the employment
opportunities of graduates. Every second respondent views that former ERASMUS
students have slightly better chances to find a job and they assess also that former
ERASMUS students have better jobs than their non-mobile colleagues. Many higher
education institutions additionally try to improve the employability of their graduates by
a variety of actions, evaluations and programmes. Yet, less than one third of the
responding institutions have special employment agencies for graduates installed at
their institution.
Explanations for the positive impact an ERASMUS study period has on the professional
value of graduates can be referred to the competence gain. In the perspective of the
university administrators, a study period abroad contributes not only to the international
competences but also to the students´ ability to work independently, their social
behaviour, planning and organisational skills as well as their personality. Competences
assessed to be highly valued by employers.

157
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Teaching staff mobility as an instrument of internationalisation is also assessed

positively by the questioned university leaders. Yet, only 38 percent stated that
"teaching mobility is highly valued" by the administration, whereas 39 percent assessed
it as "valued to a certain extent" and 27 percent as "an activity of the individual
teacher". A positive development takes place over time. 57 percent of the respondents
note a more positive rating of teaching staff mobility than a decade ago.
In contrast to student mobility, the impact of teaching staff mobility on the individual
career is assessed as rather low. Only 11 percent note career advancements for former
mobile teachers at their institution. The positive evaluation of teaching staff mobility
can be rather found in the recruitment process. The survey reveals that international
activities of teachers seem to play a substantial role when new academic staff is hired.
Teaching staff mobility as instrument of internationalisation and institutional
development was appreciated by the university administrators participating in the
survey. Teaching staff mobility contributes strongly to the reputation of the higher
education institution, to the innovation of teaching and to the improvement of research
co-operations. Yet, the support for mobile teachers is in most cases limited to a
temporary release from teaching and research assignments.
Overall, university administrators in Europe have a very positive attitude towards
ERASMUS mobility and international experiences of their students and staff in general.
In comparison, Central and Eastern European higher education institutions are more
enthusiastic than their Western neighbours. They assess the professional value for their
graduates as higher, they appreciate teaching staff mobility more highly and they also
give mobility a more prominent role in the recruitment process. The survey design
leaves the question open if this enthusiasm is caused by a stronger international
orientation of Central and Eastern higher education institutions or if it can be explained
by "starting effects" of ERASMUS.

158
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

8 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in

Four Selected Field of Studies
In the second phase of the project the findings of the surveys should be analysed more
exactly as regards the specifics of study in the other European countries and its impact
on subsequent employment and work. The second phase concentrates therefore on
student mobility in four subject areas only (Mechanical Engineering, Business Studies,
Sociology and Chemistry). For each of the four fields of study the results of the surveys
undertaken in the first phase were discussed with actors of different backgrounds in a
one-day seminar.

The first chapter provides an overview about the aims and procedure of the analysis of
the second phase. The following chapters two to four covering each one field of study.
Each disciplinary chapter starts with a short introduction into the subject followed by
the subject specific data analysis and a summary report about the results of the seminars
conducted. In the revised version of the report a final last chapter will present a cross-
disciplinary conclusion.

8.1 Aims and Procedures of the Analysis

8.1.1 The Second Phase of the Project
Subsequent to an analysis of the professional value of ERASMUS Student Mobility
across all fields of study on the basis of questionnaire surveys of former students,
coordinators at higher education institutions and employers, an in-depth-analysis of
selected fields was undertaken in early 2006 as the second phase of the project.
The second phase aims to
• analyse the findings of the surveys more exactly as regards the specifics of study
in the other European country and its impact on subsequent employment and
work,
• take stock on available documents on the relevance of international study
experience in the respective field of study and the related areas of employment
and work,
• gather additional in-depth information from experts and actors both regarding
study and subsequent employment and work.
Decisions had to be made in the design of the second phase of the project regarding
• Fields of study to be chosen,
• The most promising and feasible mode of inquiry in collecting in-depth
information,
• The themes to be given priority.
The choices made will be briefly explained before the findings are presented.

159
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

8.1.2 Fields of Study

International experience during the period of study plays a different role in the various
fields of study and in various occupational areas. It might be embedded easily into the
core knowledge of a field of study, such as foreign languages, European studies or
international law. It might be important as field knowledge, for example, in the area of
international trade. Or it might just happen to offer other areas of specialisation, other
modes of inquiry on fields, the knowledge base of it is universal. Moreover, fields of
study vary according to the extent to which they are shaped by academic and by
professional perspectives.
Based on the discussion during an expert seminar held at the end of the first phase of the
project, the project team came to the conclusion to choose four fields of study to be
addressed in the in-depth study instead of two initially envisaged in order to take into
account both different cultures of fields of study and different degrees of academic or
professional emphasis. Eventually, the following fields of study were selected:
• Chemistry as an academically oriented field in the area of science and
engineering,
• Mechanical Engineering as a professionally oriented field in this area,
• Sociology as an academically oriented field in the area of humanities and social
sciences, and
• Business Studies as a professionally oriented field in the latter area.
The choice of individual fields with these categories was actually made on the basis of
various pragmatic criteria, e.g. number of respondents, accessibility of experts and prior
analyses undertaken.

8.1.3 Expert Seminars as Mode of Inquiry

According to the initial design of the project, experts and actors in the respective fields
and study and professional areas should be asked to provide in-depth information
beyond what can be drawn from an analysis of available documents and of the survey
findings. Initially, telephone interviews were envisaged in order to gather elaborate
explanations from a substantial number of experts and actors.
Again, on the basis of the expert seminar held at the end of the first phase of the project,
the project decided to undertake expert seminars instead. A seminar with a limited
number of participants representing various areas of expertise and various roles of
actors should ensure a stimulating process of reflection. In a seminar, bits and pieces of
expertise of the various participants invited can be confronted which each other in order
to stimulate a dialogue between the different persons and their experiences and views.
This might help to specify questions, to round up information or to move tacit
knowledge towards manifest knowledge as a consequence of a confrontation of
divergent views and observations.
9-13 participants were invited each to the four seminars undertaken, i.e. one each in the
four fields of study chosen. With such a magnitude of participants, a compromise was
chosen between the desire on the one hand to keep the number of participants small in
order to secure a stimulating and active communication setting with a frequent

160
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

involvement of all participants and on the other hand to include the widest possible
representation of different actors and experts from various countries. For each seminar,
• Teachers,
• Students,
• Employers and
• Representatives of academic or professional associations
were invited. If available, experts were invited as well who had been involved in major
studies on the respective field of study and graduate employment and work, for example
in “thematic networks” supported within the framework of the ERASMUS programme,
the TUNING project etc.
Care was taken that experts from these 5 categories spread further
• By country: Altogether 19 countries were represented in the four seminars,
• Teachers from regular study programmes and those with a specific international
or European emphasis,
• Current ERASMUS students, students after the study abroad period and
graduates,
• Employers from industry and services.
The seminars were held in Frankfurt/Main (Germany), a convenient location both for
flights form all parts of Europe and for the project team. They were held each as a one-
day meeting with a dinner on the preceding evening.
All four seminars were chaired by a singly discussion leader addressing the seminar
participants, asking questions and summarizing the responses. The discussion leader
was supported by a second project team member making sure that all key topics were
covered, all necessary supplementary questions were asked and all participants were
addressed. One or two members of the project team wrote down the statements and
eventually contributed to the progression of the discussion.
The seminar itself was arranged as a relatively free process of discussion (focus group
character). Participants were not expected to give official presentations; rather they were
encouraged to contribute on the basis of their or their peers’ experience and perspective.
Some days in advance the participants had received a handout presenting the rationale
of the projects as well as the key themes to be addressed at the seminar. At the
beginning of each of the seminars a second handout was distributed comprising in
addition major findings of the former ERASMUS student survey of the first phase of
the project. The seminar chair initially summarized the context of the first handout and
the highlights of survey findings. Thereafter, the chair encouraged the participants to
share their own experience and the hearsay known to them rather than closely
interpreting the survey findings. Subsequently he summarized common elements and
differences between the statements made in order to encourage a next round of
reflection and interpretation.

161
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

8.1.4 Structure and Themes of the Seminars

The seminar was divided into three stage of discussion similar to the sequence of the
questionnaires:
• Students` competences and work assignments,
• Transition to work,
• Study provisions and conditions.
This sequence was employed because the findings of the prior survey could be divided
most easily according to this structure. Moreover, links between study and graduate
employment and work could be addressed that way repeatedly, though from slightly
different angles.
The findings of the seminar are reported in a more coherent manner, i.e. avoiding
repetitions and overlaps in this report.
The seminars, thus, were consistently parallel in the overall structure. However, as one
might expect, they differ in style and dynamics of ways issues were addressed. They
varied in the time spent on various topics, among others the time spent on issues of
study, competences, employment and work, the flow of communication, the degree
convergence and divergence of views and last but not least in the extent, to which the
status quo was addressed or recommendations for improvement were made.
The following report is structured in a disciplinary order. For each field of study a short
introduction will be given followed by an overview about the relevant statistical results
of the first project phase. Finally, the results of the conducted seminar about the field of
study will be presented followed by an overall conclusion.
The results for each seminar will not be presented in chronological order or following
the structure of the agenda. Rather, the summary will be organised in a way that
impressions will be reflected. Furthermore, a separation of results should be avoided.
Therefore, results belonging to one thematic question will be presented in one unit even
so they might have been mentioned at different points of time during the seminar.

8.2 Mechanical Engineering

8.2.1 Characteristics of the Field of Study
Mechanical Engineering was chosen as a professionally oriented field of study in the
area of science and engineering. The Mechanical Engineering industry is viewed as one
of the most important employment and export sectors in the European Union and is
highly internationally oriented.10
However, the sector of mechanical engineering is facing changing conditions.
Globalisation, technical innovations and the need for cost efficiency are challenges
companies of Mechanical Engineering and the educators of mechanical engineers have
to meet. Apart from field specific knowledge, mechanical engineers have to be able to

10
EU Business; http://www.eubusiness.com/Rd/engineering.2006-02-13

162
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

think and work both interdisciplinary and internationally. The linkages to other related
fields like Information Technology become more and more important, as the complexity
of machines and equipments has increased. Companies of Mechanical Engineering have
to develop their products in close cooperation with their customers and offer service and
maintenance of their products to fulfil the requirements and needs of their customers.
Mechanical engineers therefore do not only have to be specialists in their respective
field, but as well need social and communicative skills as well as knowledge of business
management. They have to communicate closely with their customers and the members
of the project team who might have another disciplinary or cultural background in order
to integrate different requirements and concepts successfully.11
The course of studies in mechanical engineering requires Mathematics, Physics,
Chemistry, Construction and Electrical Engineering as a basis and technical elements
such as Engineering Mechanics, Materials and Thermodynamics. The importance of
computerised simulations is increasing. They often comprise also courses in Business
Studies and Computer Sciences. In general, students are required to specialise during
their course of study on a selected area of Mechanical Engineering.12
Even though the overall number of ERASMUS students and of Engineering ERASMUS
students grew continuously since the start of the ERASMUS programme, the percentage
of students of Engineering among all ERASMUS students remained quite stable at
around 10 percent. Students of Engineering are well represented in the ERASMUS
programme. In 2001, 13 percent of all higher education graduates were graduates of
Engineering13, while 10,1 percent of the ERASMUS students studied Engineering.

11
Feller, Carola; Stahl, Beate (2005): Qualitative Anforderungen an die Ingenieurausbildung und die künftigen
Bachelor und Masterstudiengänge. IMPULS STIFTUNG.
12
Die Zeit Studienführer http://www.das-ranking.de/che6/CHE6?module=WasIst&do=show&esb=29
13
European Commission - Community Research (2004): Europe needs more scientists. Report by the High Level
Group on Increasing Human Resources for Science and Technology in Europe

163
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 23 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Mechanical Engineering 1987 - 2004
16000 12,0%

14000
10,0%

Percentage of ERASMUS students in engineering

Number of ERASMUS students in engineering

12000

8,0%
10000

8000 6,0%

6000
4,0%

4000

2,0%
2000

0 0,0%
8

4
/8

/8

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

00

/0

/0

/0

/0
87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

00

01

02

03
/2
99
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
19

Year

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

As Figure 24 illustrates, high numbers of ERASMUS participants in the field of

mechanical engineering are coming from institutions of higher educations in France and
Spain followed by Italy and Germany.

164
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Figure 24 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Mechanical Engineering by Country of Home Institution
2000/01
2500

2256 2282

2000
Number of ERASMUS students

1500
1317

1075

1000

508
500 419 444
370 406
316
263 239
178 214 224 179
85 111 85 85 94 102 100
30 2 0 12 21 3 0 12
0
BE BE BE DK DE GR ES FR IRL IT LU NL AT PT FI SE UK LI IS NO BG CZ EE LV LT HU MT PL RO SI SK
fr nl
Country of Home Institution

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

8.2.2 Results of the Survey with Former Students

The student profile
The overwhelming majority of former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS students are
male (87%). The average age at the time of the survey (2005) was 28.
The period abroad
The Mechanical Engineering students had substantial experience abroad: they spent
about 8 months abroad during their ERASMUS supported period in the academic year
2000/2001 and more than one third (39%) of them spent one or more additional periods
abroad, altogether (including ERASMUS) the average time spent abroad was 10.2
months. Only a few students were on work placements/internships abroad (2 %).
Academic situation and study conditions
The graduates report a relatively low satisfaction with assistance/guidance/advice
provided by their home institution for the study period abroad. Only about half of the
respondents were satisfied with assistance by home institution regarding academic
matters, administrative matters, information about the host institution and country,
accommodation and language training.
But the graduates do not perceive significant problems during their study abroad. The
single most frequent academic problem was related to "obtaining academic credits and
credit transfer" (12 %); more frequent are problems regarding financial matters (17%),
accommodation (17%) and administrative matters (14%).

165
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Only about half of the respondents had frequent contacts with domestic students during
course related activities (lectures, seminars, working groups etc.), extra-curricular
activities (e.g. clubs, sport) or other leisure time.
The majority of the courses taken abroad by the Mechanical Engineering graduates were
reported to be academically equally demanding as courses which they would have taken
at the home institution during the same period; 31 % were reported to be academically
less demanding and 16% to be more demanding.
Recognition
ECTS was only introduced in less than half of the programmes around the year 2000: 41
percent reported application of ECTS at the host institution (as compared to a
percentage of 54% when including all former ERASMUS students).
The Mechanical Engineering graduates stated a respectable, but not perfect extent of
recognition: 79 percent of study achievements abroad were recognized on average upon
return.
A substantial proportion of ERASMUS students have invested study abroad as an
additional study period: 41 percent reported a prolongation of overall study duration due
to the ERASMUS period, in most of these cases as long as the ERASMUS period
(about 8 months).
Competence profile
Former ERASMUS students seem to have a unique self-image of competences with
respect to
• Knowledge of other countries (economy, society, culture etc.);
• Foreign language proficiency;
• Intercultural understanding and competences (e.g. understanding and tolerance
of international differences in culture);
These three aspects are the clear domain of former internationally mobile students,
where they see their competences at the time of return to be better (or even "much"
better) than those of non-mobile students. The vast majority also sees advantages
regarding "preparation for future employment and work" (72 %). Still, the results show
that ERASMUS does not lead to higher academic competences: the "academic
knowledge and skills (e.g. theories, methods, disciplinary knowledge, reflection, etc.)"
were rated by the majority to be equal to non-mobile students.

166
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Table 105 Former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS Students'

Assessment of their Competences Upon Graduation as
Compared to Non-Mobile Students (percent)
Better Equal Worse
(1+2) (3) (4+5)
Knowledge of other countries
(economy, society, culture etc.) 97 3 0
Foreign language proficiency 95 5 0
Intercultural understanding and competences
(e.g. understanding and tolerance of
international differences in culture) 94 5 1
Preparation for future employment and work 72 24 5
Academic knowledge and skills
(e.g. theories, methods, disciplinary
knowledge, reflection, etc.) 39 55 5

Question A21: At the time of return, how do you rate your knowledge and competences as compared to non-mobile
students in the following areas? Scale of answers from 1 to 5; 1 = much better,3 = equal, 5 = much worse.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

According to most dimensions listed in Table 106 about three quarters of former
ERASMUS students rate their competences as high. This profile is surprisingly
balanced. Mechanical Engineering graduates are relatively strong in analytical
competences, and relatively week in planning, co-ordinating and organising (compared
to other former ERASMUS students).
In most areas, job requirements are more demanding than the competences acquired by
former ERASMUS students at the time of graduation. As compared to the average of all
former ERASMUS students, Mechanical Engineering graduates consider their jobs
highly demanding as regards foreign language proficiency and not so demanding as
regards power of concentration as well as applying rules and regulations. Job
requirements and competences seem to be balanced as regards theoretical knowledge,
loyalty and written communication. Finally, former ERASMUS students have more
often high foreign language skills than required by their job.

167
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 106 Former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS Students' Self-

assessed Competences at Time of Graduation and Job
Requirements about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high";
answers 1 and 2)
Competences Job requirements Difference
at the time about 2-3 years (1 - 2)
of graduation later
(1) (2) (3)
Problem-solving ability 88 95 -7
Adaptability 87 81 6
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 85 74 11
Analytical competences 85 86 -1
Accuracy, attention to detail 81 83 -2
Initiative 76 92 -16
Getting personally involved 76 82 -6
Field-specific knowledge of methods 74 75 -1
Power of concentration 74 77 -3
Written communication skill 74 72 2
Foreign language proficiency 70 77 -7
Computer skills 70 76 -6
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 69 83 -14
Loyalty, integrity 68 69 -1
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 61 86 -25
Applying rules and regulations 55 59 -4

Question B7: Please, state the extent to which you had the following competences at the time of graduation. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Question F7: Please, state the extent to which the following competences are required in your current work. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

International mobility
A high proportion of former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS students was
regularly employed abroad (21%) and were sent abroad by their employers on work
assignments (22%) during the first few years after graduation. Mechanical Engineering
graduates are clearly in both respects above average .
ERASMUS related work tasks
Mechanical Engineering graduates are clearly more frequently assigned visibly
international works tasks than the average former ERASMUS students, e.g. "using the
language of the ERASMUS host country in work-related activities:
• Telephone conversation and face-to-face discussions (Mechanical Engineering:
49%, total ERASMUS students: 37%)
• Professional travel to foreign countries other than the ERASMUS host country
(Mechanical Engineering: 50%; total ERASMUS students: 25%)
International competences are also important for the current work of a substantial
number of ERASMUS graduates not active in visibly international jobs.

168
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Further study
The VALERA survey confirms findings of prior studies that an enormously high
proportion of former ERASMUS students continue to study after their first degree. In
Mechanical Engineering 37% of graduates take up another study or a PhD programme.
Therefore, transition to employment is postponed for many of them.
Job search and transition period
Compared to other studies of graduates in Europe, there are no indications that former
ERASMUS students are different from others in terms of start of job search, period of
job search, number of employers contacted etc. Only 3 % of the Mechanical
Engineering graduates were employed part-time on their first job, compared to 17
percent of all former ERASMUS students. Their job conditions were hence
comparatively good. But, short-term contract are more widespread on their first job
(Mechanical Engineering 43%).
Perceived recruitment criteria
Former ERASMUS students, like other students, are primarily selected by employers
according to both their academic knowledge and their personality. Their foreign
language proficiency (Mechanical Engineering 60%) and their experiences abroad in
general (Mechanical Engineering 63%) played a role for more than half of the former
ERASMUS students. Almost half of the Mechanical Engineering graduates report
additionally that the "ERASMUS study abroad period" was an important criterion in the
recruitment process (total former ERASMUS students: 36%).
Area of employment
Employment in higher education, research and development is very high among former
ERASMUS students from Mechanical Engineering (32%; compared to 16% total).
Four out of five (82%) former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS students work in an
organisation with an international scope. This is clearly more frequent than among all
former ERASMUS students (51%).
Retrospective assessment of the ERASMUS study abroad period
The value of the ERASMUS study abroad is substantially more positively assessed as
regards personality development, knowledge, reflection etc. than as regards career and
income. Almost all former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS students (94%)
reported that the period was worthwhile for maturity and personal development.
Additionally more than half of the former Mechanical Engineering ERASMUS students
state, that the study abroad was worthwhile regarding:
• Knowledge and understanding of the host country (89%),
• Foreign language proficiency (88 %),
• New ways of thinking and reflection (84%),
• Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge (64%),
• Career prospects (61%) and
• 30 % believe that study abroad had a positive impact on the income level.

169
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

8.2.3 Results of the Seminar

Organization and Participants
The seminar addressing the field of study of Mechanical Engineering took place at the
20th March 2006 (9am - 3pm) at the Intercity Hotel in Frankfurt. Nine experts
participated in the seminar, representing seven countries and different stakeholder
groups.

Table 107 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Mechanical

Engineering" Seminar
No. Institution Function
1. International Society for Engineering Working Group "Languages and Humanities in
Education (IGIP) (Czech Republic) Engineering Education"
2 Director of several organisations in the area Former Director of Mercedes Benz UK
of education (UK)
3. University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück Responsible for: European Mechanical
(Germany) Engineering Studies - Bachelor Programme
4. Luleå University of Technology (Sweden) Former president of SEFI (The European
Society for Engineering Education)
5. TU Berlin Representative of TREE
(Germany) Thematic Network: Teaching and Research in
Engineering in Europe
6. National Institute of Applied Sciences, Lyon Current ERASMUS Student
(France)
7. Hochtief Polska (Poland) Senior Human Resource Specialist
8. MEDIA (Altran Group) Former ERASMUS Student
Consultant Mechanical Engineering (Spain)
9. Universidad Politecnica de Cartagena Current ERASMUS Student
(Spain)

Major Findings
Overall, the participants agreed that one should be cautious not to overrate the impact of
study abroad in the framework of ERASMUS. Evidence of professional success of
former graduate students does not suffice, because a comparison with non-mobile
students would be needed. Other formerly mobile students might be equally successful,
and ERASMUS students are a somewhat select group: On average, the participants
presented the opinion that ERASMUS students were on average better students already
before their stay abroad. One participant reported about a one-mark difference in
average in this regard. Also the participants strongly argued that ERASMUS students
are positively selected or that they are a positively self-selected group. Therefore it can
be expected anyway that they are more successful in their subsequent career.
Still, country-specific differences were seen here. Students in some countries are hardly
interested in study abroad. As the consequence, participation in ERASMUS is hardly
selective at all and thus cannot serve as an indication as such of being one of the
academically strong candidates. As an example, the English representative named the
United Kingdom as an ERASMUS country with a very uneven balance. Substantially
more students are coming in than going out. On the other hand, study abroad is highly

170
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

desired, highly selected and believed to boost subsequent professional careers for
students from Central and Eastern European countries.
Also, a certain extent of social selection takes place normally. Students opting for
ERASMUS can afford to have additional expenses and possibly a prolongation of their
study. Additionally, some ERASMUS students were often already internationally
experienced before they studied abroad. Many of them had stayed for a longer period
abroad before. One university representative presented an interesting typology of
students (see below). According to this typology, at the one hand there are students
needing no additional motivation or guidance at all at and at the other hand, there are
students who need to get motivated and who are expecting a full service package.

Table 108 Typology of Mobile Students (presentation of a participant)

Type Characteristics
Globetrotter self-confident, autonomous; needs no support; studies and
works everywhere

Backpacker curious; short-visit, spontaneous decision on opportunities;

home-base oriented; requires data on opportunities

Holidayer considers study time abroad as holidays; no professional attitude

Programme rider long-term orientation; requires an elaborated and accepted study

programme

Full package rider hesitating; requires full organized service

Forced international no original international orientation; focus on fulfilling rules

students

Despite the critical methodological comments, the overall assessment of an ERASMUS

study period abroad was consistently positive. With regard to competence development,
the impact of ERASMUS was mainly seen in the area of the so-called "soft-skills" and
personality development. Summarising the participants’ statements, a temporary study
period is an asset for students in engineering because they are likely to have a more
mature personality, have acquired stronger socio-communicative skills and have
improved their foreign language proficiency. This holds true for most students having
studied for a period abroad and not just for those who studied abroad under specifically
good and suitable conditions. Interestingly, some participants even supported the idea
that facing complicated bureaucracies abroad – to name an adversary example - will
turn out to be positive challenge for improving one’s abilities. On that basis one might
even suggest that a too well organised service package for students would limit the
positive impact of "finding one’s way/getting along". One participant pointed out that
employers prefer self-organised study programmes as they are an indicator for a high
self-motivation, planning capacity and problem-solving ability.
In the discussion of competence gain and its preferable conditions, two exceptions have
been named: First, if students spend most of the time abroad together with home
country fellows, opportunities of gaining international/intercultural competences are

171
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

lost. Therefore, host institutions should be active in taking care that students cooperate
in their study activities and spend their extracurricular activities with persons from the
host country and third countries. Second, the language of instruction obviously is
crucial for the linguistic value of study abroad. Study programmes offered in English
are seen as important to attract students, but they minimise the chance of learning a third
European language.
Besides the impact on students’ competences, participants agreed about a more field-
specific knowledge gain in the most cases. Even though mechanical engineering is a
field strongly shaped by universal knowledge, there are country-specific elements as
well: different professional cultures of engineering have developed as regards problem-
solving styles, links between technological and managerial tasks etc. As a consequence,
students can gain from a temporary study abroad in
• Studying at a partner institution of another country where study provisions are
academically more demanding in general or in some areas than at the home
institution,
• Getting exposed to different styles of academic problem-solving, links between
technological and managerial task settings and other different styles of
engineering knowledge and work,
• Using this period for strengthening their own profile in an area in which the host
institution has to offer more than the home institution.
Several participants reported in this regard, that they carefully choose the host country
and partner institutions based on the interest and career plans of students. Students
planning to work in the area of service and maintenance are recommended to study in
England. In contrast, theoretically oriented students should use their study abroad stay
to get accustomed to the high level of mathematics taught at French engineering
schools. Guidance in the selection of the host institution was assessed as very important.
The overall positive assessment of ERASMUS continued in the discussion about
transition to work and employment prospects of former ERASMUS students. The
discussion presented the picture that employers in the field of mechanical engineering
view a study period abroad as favourable in principle, but by no means as a clear
indication that the individual applicant is viewed as superior. This favourable eye on
former ERASMUS students varies by type and activity of the former ERASMUS
student during his or her stay abroad. This should not be surprising, because some
students might have viewed the study abroad period as extended holidays or a time for
adventure, some might have faced difficulties to adapt and to understand, some might
have taken courses which do not fit to their profile or were unsuitable to substitute
courses at their home institution. Therefore, employers might have a favourable look at
former ERASMUS students at first glance in the recruitment process, and graduates
with a temporary study abroad experience thus “have a foot in the door” in the job
search and recruitment process, but employers tend in inquire specifically what this
experience has meant for the individual candidate. The impact of ERASMUS may also
depend on the "market situation". During the seminar it was reported that the English
language competence of Spanish engineering students is on average not very high. Here,
a good knowledge of English of a former ERASMUS student is a strong comparative
advantage.

172
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

In contrast, the participants agreed generally that the competence gain in socio-
communicative skills, in intercultural abilities and problem-solving abilities is highly
valued by employers. Most employers appreciate these competences, because the ability
to work in teams, adaptability or openness to other persons and similar abilities
strengthened by international experiences are useful in many work settings.
Moreover, engineering firms nowadays are generally embedded in an international
environment, not merely the globally active and multinational firms: acquiring
knowledge from different countries, planning products for international markets or
improving contacts with foreign customers became so much a general phenomenon that
inter-cultural experience and understanding is expected from an increasing number of
engineers. Obviously, we are moving towards a situation where international
experiences and understanding become a “must” for attractive and demanding careers.
Yet, the participants also shared the view that one cannot expect that temporary study
abroad put mechanical engineers automatically on the career ladder towards leading
positions in their company. But, former ERASMUS students can expect to fare more
successfully than in an average career. Many former ERASMUS students are likely to
have an edge in interesting domains of specialisation, problem-solving abilities, socio-
communicative skills; language proficiency and international understanding in order to
fare somewhat better in their careers than other not having this experience. This holds
true for ERASMUS students of most Western European countries. The impact is even
stronger for many former ERASMUS students from Central and Eastern European
countries and from some Southern European. They clearly stand out from their peers
and are likely to fare substantially better in their professional career.
In the long run, former ERASMUS students in the field of Mechanical Engineering
seem to be more open for an international career. The survey results showed that they
are more likely to seek for employment in other countries and are more likely to be sent
by their employers to extended periods of work to other countries than the average
former ERASMUS students (in other fields of study). Temporary study in an another
country obviously is very valuable for these professionally mobile graduates, but there
are no indications that there is a clear gap between the professional value of ERASMUS
study between those graduates opting for international careers and assignments and for
those active in the home country and being in the mainstream of domestic work
assignment. On the other side mobility seems to spread the feelings of being "rootless"
as well as problems of reintegration.
At several points during the discussion, participants pointed out that Mechanical
Engineering clearly is a field of study in which the selection of the courses taken abroad
– their theme and quality – is crucial for the academic value of temporary study abroad.
Whereas in many other fields most choices of courses might turn out to be beneficial,
the actual study programme during the ERASMUS period in another country is crucial
for success and failure in mechanical engineering:
• Many themes are considered indispensable components of study. Therefore, the
risk of not getting recognition is high, if the courses taken abroad do not match
the home programme.
• Non-recognition and prolongation is often more harmful for graduate careers of
engineers than those from other fields of study.

173
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

• Also, establishing and sharpening a specific profile of knowledge through

temporary study at another institution of higher education tends to require a
careful design of the study period abroad.
Therefore, close cooperation between the teaching staff and the home and host
institution is essential. This can be achieved more successfully if the number of partner
institutions for student exchange is kept small. Here, representatives of successful
international programmes emphasised several times, that they decided to reduce their
number of partners to secure a high-quality exchange programme.
Furthermore, the importance of teaching mobility for the success of student mobility was
strongly emphasised. The experiences abroad and the knowledge of the host higher
education and the colleagues there help both institutions in the recognition process.
Teachers who have been abroad know the quality and practices of the host institution by
own experience and are more willing to accept different teaching methods and contents.
At any event, teachers from both sides have to be actively involved in preparing a
meaningful prior selection of the courses to be taken by the individual student during
his or her study period in another country. The participants of the seminar clearly
expressed the view that the current situation of recognition and coordination of course
programmes is in many cases unsatisfactory. Considerable improvement has to be
strived for in particular in favour of general recognition. Individual recognition was
viewed as not working well in practice.
In the United Kingdom, some universities offer three-year programmes and
corresponding four-years "international" or "European programmes". In those cases, a
one-year study period is formally fully recognized, though causing a one year longer
period of study. There were different views expressed whether that model faces
problems, because it is viewed as costly and graduates might face problems as a
consequence of a "prolongation" of study, or whether such an addition would be
accepted and valuable. Representatives from other countries reported that one ore two
years longer study periods would not cause employment problems, if they seem to have
contributed to a desirable enhancement of competences.
In order to ensure recognition upon return of the achievements during the ERASMUS
period, a firmer integration of the study abroad programme into the curriculum as well
as a close interaction with partner institutions were advocated by the participants. Also
good counselling and guidance play an important role in the preparation phase. Students
need to be prepared for different teaching methods and provisions. Course contents and
chosen specialisations should be discussed between students and home teachers. One
participant mentioned as a benchmarking example the Georgia Institute of Technology
model of study abroad. Based on a careful analysis of the impact the study abroad
period has on its students, it prepares their students before departure and evaluate the
outcomes after return by using an assessment centre as an instrument.
Finally, the Bologna Process was seen as leading in some respects to additional
problems, but generally poses a good opportunity to improve careful curricular design
and improved advice for individual students in order to increase the academic value and
thus the professional impact of study abroad. One participant stated that stronger efforts
are needed now to identify courses abroad which could be recognised upon return,
because many universities decided to structure the curricula of Bachelor programmes

174
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

more tightly now. Furthermore, one participant added that stricter rules governing the
structure of study abroad would also increase the learning effect in academic terms.

8.2.4 Summary
The experts and actors in the field of mechanical engineering on one hand pointed out
that temporary study abroad is an optional choice for some students: mobile students are
appreciated by their employers because they opt for conditions and provisions of study
helping them to mature and enhance some additional competences which are valuable
for their subsequent employment and work. On the other hand, they saw the need that
the Mechanical Engineering departments take strong active measures in cooperation
with their partners in other European countries in order to ensure a higher value of
temporary study in other European countries.
They viewed the current setting up of learning agreements for the individual
ERASMUS students as not sufficient. They suggested close cooperation with partner
institutions in order to identify equivalent courses as well as opportunities for students
to strengthen a profile in areas of specialisation at the host university. Such a close
cooperation among partner departments would only work if the number of partner
departments is kept small.

8.3 Business Studies

8.3.1 Characteristics of the Field of Study
Business Studies was chosen as a professionally oriented field in the area of social
sciences. Along with Foreign Language, it was the field with the highest number or the
second highest number respectively of ERASMUS students from the start until now.
More than 20% of Business Studies students are outgoing with the ERASMUS
programme every year (see Figure 25).
Business Studies is a broad subject not only offered by universities but also by
universities of applied sciences, colleges, poly-technique or business schools. "Business
Studies" is the umbrella term for a wide range of study programmes and specialisations
in the field of Business, Economy and Management. The curricula vary by
specialisation and focus of each study programme. As a rule, however, they comprise
general basic theories and models of Business Administration and Economics,
Management Subjects as well as Law, Mathematics and Statistics. Additional subjects
can be: Psychology, Technical Subjects, Education, Foreign Languages,
Communication, Sociology or Political Sciences. Currently, a growing number of
Business Studies programmes offer also courses teaching so-called soft skills like
intercultural communication, team work, presentation techniques and conflict
management. 14
Business Studies are a comparatively young field of study covering a broad knowledge
about the steering, controlling and management of organisations. By their nature,
Business Studies are relatively strongly oriented to the demands of the labour market. In

14
Die Zeit Studienführer http://www.das-ranking.de/che6/CHE6?module=WasIst&do=show&esb=29

175
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

particular, the growing forces of internationalisation and globalisation have led to an

increased number of international business programmes in response to a growing
demand of internationally trained graduates.

Figure 25 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Business Studies 1987 - 2004
35000 45,0%

40,0%
30000

Percentage of students in Business Studies

35,0%
Number of students in Business Studies

25000
30,0%

20000
25,0%

20,0%
15000

15,0%
10000

10,0%

5000
5,0%

0 0,0%
8

4
/8

/8

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

00

/0

/0

/0

/0
87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

00

01

02

03
/2
99
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
19

Year

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

Figure 26 shows the number of outgoing ERASMUS students in the field of Business
Studies distributed over all European countries in the academic year 2000/01. Most
students came from institutions in France, Spain, Germany and the United Kingdom.
Surprisingly high are the numbers of students from institutions in Finland.

176
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Figure 26 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Business Studies by Country of Home Institution 2000/01
6000

5229

5000
Number of ERASMUS Students

4000 3783

3000

2431

2000
1679
1426
1087 1077 1041
1000 852 808
722
543 544 482 558
378
219 244 234 240 193
22 3 30 35 47 51 103 13 51 126
0
BE BE BE DK DE GR ES FR IRL IT LU NL AT PT FI SE UK LI IS NO BG CZ EE LV LT HU MT PL RO SI SK
fr nl
Country of home institution

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

8.3.2 Results of the Survey with Former Students

The student profile
The majority of former Business Studies ERASMUS students are female (53%). The
average age at the time of the survey (2005) was 29.
The period abroad
The Business Studies students had substantial experience abroad: they spent about 7
months abroad during their ERASMUS supported period in the academic year
2000/2001 and more than one third (44%) spent one or more additional periods abroad,
altogether (including the ERASMUS stay) the average time abroad was 10.7 months.
Compared to the other fields of study relatively few Business Studies graduates were on
work placements/internships abroad (1 %; all fields: 6%).
Academic situation and study conditions
The graduates state a relatively low satisfaction with assistance/guidance/advice
provided by their home institution for the study period abroad. Only about half of the
Business Studies respondents were satisfied with the assistance of their home institution
regarding academic matters, administrative matters and with information about the host
institution and country. 43% were satisfied with accommodation and 48 % with
language training.
But the graduates do not report significant problems during their study abroad. The
single most frequent academic problem was related to "problems obtaining academic
credits and credit transfer" (18%); equally frequent were also problems regarding
financial matters (19%), accommodation (25%) and administrative matters (17%).

177
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

More than half of the respondents had frequent contacts with domestic students during
course related activities (lectures, seminars, working groups etc.), 56 % during extra-
curricular activities (e.g. clubs, sport) and 61 % during other leisure time.
43 % of the courses taken abroad by the Business Studies graduates were viewed to be
academically equally demanding as courses which they would have taken at the home
institution during the same period; 32 % were reported to be academically less
demanding and 22 % to be more demanding.
Recognition
ECTS was only introduced in the majority of programmes around the year 2000: 67
percent reported application of ECTS at the host institution (total of former ERASMUS
students: 54 %).
The Business Studies graduates reported a respectable extent of recognition: 78 percent
of study achievements abroad were recognized on average upon return.
A substantial proportion of ERASMUS students have invested study abroad as an
additional study period: 32 percent reported a prolongation of overall study duration due
to the ERASMUS period, in most of these cases as long as the ERASMUS period
(about 8 months).
Competence profile
Former ERASMUS students seem to have a unique self-image of competences with
respect to
• Knowledge of other countries (economy, society, culture etc.);
• Foreign language proficiency;
• Intercultural understanding and competences (e.g. understanding and tolerance
of international differences in culture);
These three aspects are the clear domain of former internationally mobile students,
where they see their competences at the time of return to be better (or even "much"
better) than these of non-mobile students. The vast majority sees also advantages
regarding "preparation for future employment and work" (69 %), while the area of
academic competences seems to be ambivalent: 45% of former Business Studies
ERASMUS students reported to have better "academic knowledge and skills" (e.g.
theories, methods, disciplinary knowledge, reflection, etc.) and an equal number state to
have worse academic competences than to non-mobile students.

178
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Table 109 Former Business Studies ERASMUS Students' Assessment

of their Competences Upon Graduation as Compared to
Non-Mobile Students (percent)
Better Equal Worse
(1+2) (3) (4+5)
Knowledge of other countries
(economy, society, culture etc.) 96 2 3
Foreign language proficiency 94 2 4
Intercultural understanding and
competences (e.g. understanding and
tolerance of international differences
in culture) 92 1 7
Preparation for future employment and work 69 5 26
Academic knowledge and skills
(e.g. theories, methods, disciplinary
knowledge, reflection, etc.) 45 9 46

Question A21: At the time of return, how do you rate your knowledge and competences as compared to non-mobile
students in the following areas? Scale of answers from 1 to 5; 1 = much better,3 = equal, 5 = much worse.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

According to most dimensions listed in Table 110 about three quarters of former
ERASMUS students rate their competences as high. This profile is surprisingly
balanced. Business Studies graduates do not have a distinctive competence profile -
their competences are similar to the average former ERASMUS graduate.

179
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 110 Former Business Studies ERASMUS Students' Self-

assessed Competences at Time of Graduation and Job
Requirements about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high";
answers 1 and 2)
Competences Job requirements Difference
at the time about 2-3 years (1 - 2)
of graduation later
(1) (2) (3)
Adaptability 83 80 3
Foreign language proficiency 82 64 18
Analytical competences 77 88 -11
Problem-solving ability 77 94 -17
Written communication skill 77 76 1
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 76 85 -9
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 75 66 9
Power of concentration 75 85 -10
Getting personally involved 74 82 -8
Accuracy, attention to detail 73 87 -14
Loyalty, integrity 72 74 -2
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 71 86 -15
Initiative 69 90 -21
Computer skills 64 80 -16
Field-specific knowledge of methods 61 67 -6

Question B7: Please, state the extent to which you had the following competences at the time of graduation. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Question F7: Please, state the extent to which the following competences are required in your current work. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

In most areas, job requirements are more demanding than the competences acquired by
former ERASMUS students at the time of graduation. As compared to the average of all
former ERASMUS students, Business Studies graduates consider their jobs highly less
demanding as regards field-specific theoretical knowledge and knowledge of methods.
Job requirements and competences seem to be unbalanced especially as regards
"initiative", " problem-solving ability", "computer skills", "assertiveness, decisiveness,
persistence" and "accuracy, attention to detail" where Business Studies graduates report
higher job requirements. In contrast, former ERASMUS students have more often high
foreign language skills than required by their job.
International mobility
Some former Business Studies ERASMUS students were already regularly employed
abroad (20%) during the first years of employment or were sent abroad by their
employers on work assignments (17%).
ERASMUS related work tasks
Business Studies graduates are clearly not more frequently assigned visibly
international works tasks than the average former ERASMUS students, e.g. "using the
language of the ERASMUS host country in work-related activities”:

180
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

• telephone conversation, face-to-face discussions (Business Studies: 35%, total

ERASMUS students: 37%)
• professional travel to foreign countries other than the ERASMUS host country
(Business Studies: 31%; total ERASMUS students: 25%).
International competences are also important for the current work of a substantial
number of ERASMUS graduates not active in visibly international jobs. This is often
true for Business Studies graduates: 52 % reported that "professional knowledge of
other countries” (e.g. economic, sociological, legal knowledge) is "important" for doing
the current work compared to 46 % of all former ERASMUS students.
Further study
The VALERA survey confirms findings of prior study that an enormously high
proportion of former ERASMUS students continue study after the first degree. In
Business Studies every third (35%) belongs to this group. Therefore, transition to
employment is postponed for many of them.
Job search and transition period
Compared to other studies of graduates in Europe, there are no indications that former
ERASMUS students are different from others in terms of start of job search, period of
job search, number of employers contacted etc.
Only 10 % of the Business Studies graduates were employed part-time on their first job,
compared to 17 percent of all former ERASMUS students.
Short-term contracts are more widespread on their first job (Business Studies 40%; all
former ERASMUS students: 54%).
Perceived recruitment criteria
Former ERASMUS students, like other students, are primarily selected by employers
according to both their academic knowledge and their personality. The field of study
was reported to be important by 71 % of the Business Studies graduates (all former
ERASMUS students: 75%) and the main subject/specialization by 55 % (all former
ERASMUS students: 61%). Their foreign language proficiency (Business Studies 62%)
and their experiences abroad in general (Business Studies 61%) played a role for more
than half of the former ERASMUS students. 42 % of the Business Studies graduates
additionally reported that the "ERASMUS study abroad period" was an important
criteria in the recruitment process (all former ERASMUS students: 36%).
Area of employment
Employment in financial intermediation (e.g. banking, insurance) and in legal,
accounting, book-keeping, auditing, business consultancy are the most relevant
economic sectors for former ERASMUS students from Business Studies (14% and
13%). 66% of former Business Studies ERASMUS students work in an organisation
with an international scope (percentage of all ERASMUS students: 51%).
Retrospective assessment of the ERASMUS study abroad period
The value of the ERASMUS study abroad is substantially more positively assessed as
regards personality development, knowledge, reflection etc. than as regards career and
income. Almost all former Business Studies ERASMUS students (96%) report that the
period was worthwhile for maturity and personal development. Additionally more than

181
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

half of the former Business Studies ERASMUS students state that the study abroad was
worthwhile regarding:
• Knowledge and understanding of the host country (88%);
• Foreign language proficiency (89 %);
• New ways of thinking and reflection (84%);
• Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge (61%),
• Career prospects (63%); and
• 25 % believe that study abroad had a positive impact on the income level.

8.3.3 Results of the Seminar

Organisation and Participants
The seminar addressing the field of study of Business Studies took place at the 27th
March 2006 (9am - 3pm) at the Intercity Hotel in Frankfurt. Nine experts participated in
the seminar, representing seven countries and different stakeholder groups.

Table 111 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Business

Study" Seminar
No. Institution Function
1. The Confederation of German Employers' Deputy Manager of Education & Vocational
Associations (BDA), Germany Education Department
Member of the UNICE working group
“Education and Training”
2 Carlos III University Current ERASMUS Student
(Spain)
3. Trinity College Dublin President of EIASM (The European Institute for
(Ireland) Advanced Studies in Management)
4. Free University of Brussels Current ERASMUS Student
(Belgium)
5. Fortis Bank (Poland) Human Resources Department

6. Jagiellonian University Coordinator of Institute of Public Affairs,

(Poland) Faculty of Management and Social
Communication
7. University of Jyväskylä Professor of
(Finland) School of Business and Economics
8. Graduate School of Management of Troyes Current ERASMUS Student
(France)
9. Reutlingen University Managing Director of
(Germany) ESB-Reutlingen
(European School of Business)

Major Findings
Overall, the participants strongly supported the importance of an ERASMUS study
period abroad for the personality development of graduates. In contrast to the other

182
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

fields of study addressed in the prior seminars, experts of business emphasized the
differences between participation in the ERASMUS programme and self-organisation
of a study period abroad. The majority of participants were convinced that self-
organised study periods abroad are more valued by employers, because students had to
be more active as far as self-organisation, the motivation and problem-solving in this
process are concerned. Internships abroad are valued highly by employers as well due to
the practical experience. Accordingly, ERASMUS should not be a too-well organised
service-package for mobile students. Efforts should be made, however, to increase the
secured well-informed decisions. The participants observed a intensive learning effect
by "struggling through the jungle". Still, they disagreed to be seen as served programme
students. ERASMUS study provisions as host institutions should serve the students
through offering various ways of utilizing the temporary study period in another
country. They were not in favour of perfectly integrated programmes organising
everything ahead. Rather they should serve the well-informed student who is able to
select the best opportunity for him-/herself. They underlined the self-learning aspects of
each single step in this process. In their views also dropping-out of the programme
(early return home) is not necessarily a failure but can be a valuable learning
experience.
In this context, the term "personality development" was used as a general term covering
several competences and attitudes. First of all, it was argued that students are gaining in
intercultural awareness. They are more sensitive to cultural differences and aware of
their own culture. Additionally, the higher adaptability of former ERASMUS students
to new environments, new teaching methods and new cultures was emphasised. Overall,
former ERASMUS students were described as more flexible, more innovative and more
productive in teamwork processes. A successful study abroad was viewed to depend
strongly on the students themselves.
As necessary pre-condition for intercultural learning, adaptability and tolerance, the
participants underscored the importance of contacts to local students. If students spend
most of the time abroad together with home country students, opportunities of gaining
international/intercultural competences are lost. The host institutions need to get active
to foster intercultural interaction. Teachers and ERASMUS coordinators should be
active in taking care that students cooperate in their study activities and spend their
extracurricular activities with persons from the host country and third countries.
Business Studies is a field with a more or less general knowledge strongly influenced by
the "American school" adapted to different fields and cultures. A study period abroad
can foster the field-specific knowledge by learning about varying approaches, markets
and processes in different countries. In the seminar participants underscored the value of
contrasting experiences for example different accounting standards and business laws.
But, they viewed the experience of different teaching methods as valuable, too. Students
not used to teamwork and case studies get confronted with new learning habits. They
often need time to adapt but the medium- and long-term effects are very positive.
Teamwork, presentation techniques and foreign language skills are highly valued by
employers. The participating students supported this perspective. Even though they
were struggling at the beginning to get used to different teaching methods, they adapted
to this challenge and considered it as enhancing their competences.

183
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

The academic learning outcome seems to be affected by the language of instruction. If

the language is previously not well-known, students have to use the time to improve
their language proficiency. If the students are more versatile in the language of
instruction, the academic value of the study period abroad is higher. The participants
agreed that countries vary in their approaches to management. Students can profit from
experiencing and comparing different approaches
Competences typically fostered by study periods abroad could be viewed in the past as
"add-on" competences of a minority. In a globalising world, however, almost all
business activities are international, and these competences gradually become a "must".
This also explains that internationally versatile students cannot expect high-flying
careers as a rule. Rather, temporary study abroad can only be expected to be a "door-
opener" in the job search and recruitment process. Having studied abroad is helpful to
be considered. In Eastern and Central Europe it might play a substantial role in the
selection among candidates. In Western Europe, however, it is not anymore an
exceptional option, and some students have even been abroad several times.
International mobility plays an important rule in the first stage of screening the
applicants, because formerly mobile students are assumed to be more open, more
tolerant, are more ambitious, more goal-oriented and more strongly engaged in their
work. Furthermore, employers expect them to be good team workers (also in
international teams) and to be able to work in an international environment. As already
stated, business today is international. Companies serve several national markets,
products are adapted to the national cultures and demands. The company itself might
have production lines in several countries. Employees need to get along in this
international environment. Tolerance, intercultural competences and foreign language
proficiency are basic requirements for a career.
Graduates in the field of Business Studies are expected to have a good methodological
knowledge rather than an in-depth subject-matter knowledge. Business Studies are a
field with a medium degree of professional preparation. Higher education institutions
are expected to foster some basic knowledge in different areas as well as the tools and
methods to adapt to changing working environments and working tasks. The employing
organisation is expected to take care of the training for the specific work task and the
specific business sector. "Trainee programmes", in which the trainees rotate through
different departments and functions, are one way how initial learning after graduation is
organized.
Overall, the professional value of ERASMUS mobility was viewed as having in impact
predominantly on the first years of the career. The participants warned against
overrating the long-term impacts. Job experience and job performance over the years
become increasingly stronger factors in determining the graduates’ careers. International
mobility, though, has a long-term career impact improving networks. ERASMUS
students develop networks in their host country but also internationally through other
ERASMUS and international students they get to know during their stay. These contacts
may help in later life to foster business contacts or to find a job abroad.
Prolongation of study due to non-recognition of credits was not viewed as having a
negative impact on the transition to work, because a moderate prolongation does not
seen to be detrimental. Employers rather are likely to explore how the study abroad had

184
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

been spent usefully. Further factors are personal characteristics and activities of the
applicant before, during and after the study period.
As study abroad was viewed by a participant as a period of learning which could lead in
many ways to an enhancement of professionally relevant experiences, proposals for
improvements did not address any curricular details but rather called for more
transparency and better information for the students. The students should be prepared
to act as "well-informed" and responsible individuals when deciding about their
ERASMUS stay and during the experience itself. Efforts to make good learning
agreements were viewed to depend too strongly on single efforts of curricula
coordinators. For example, one teacher reported, that the partner institution does not
accept team presentations as exams. As a consequence ERASMUS students might be
caught in the middle between the requirements of both institutions. Efforts should be
made fostering trust between institutions based on better information, thus leaving
ample choices for students to make individual strategic decisions how to use the study
period in a suitable way.
In general, the participants of the seminar expressed reservations against higher
regulations and homogenisation of study programmes. They advocated a liberal market
orientation of study abroad: high information level, high degree of transparency and
service orientation by all partners involved. Necessary preconditions are a limited
number of partner institutions. The participants criticised that many institutions have too
many partners with a low number of exchanging students. A high quantity of
institutions makes coordinated approach and the exchange of information more
complicated.
Besides various positive impacts, examples for the "dark side of mobility" were
mentioned by the participants as well. Living a short to medium period in another
country with a culture very different to one’s own cannot only lead to intercultural
competences but also to the negative effect of confirming prejudices and stereotypes.
Also, if students are staying for a longer period abroad, they may loose their contacts at
home. Reintegration problems may occur when returning to the home country and the
home institutions.
The ERASMUS programme itself was criticised as being too standardised. The Bologna
process and growing internationalisation of study programmes will lead to new modes
of mobility demanding higher flexibility in the programme structure. Many students
will do their Bachelor degree in one country and their (full) Master degree in another
country. Tuition fees are being introduced in many European countries. ERASMUS
should enable the students to do either their master or PhD degree abroad.

8.3.4 Summary
Altogether, the experts and actors participating in the seminar on Business Studies
viewed temporary study in another European country as highly valuable. ERASMUS
seems to be a valuable door-opener at the start of the career, because they are viewed as
more motivated, more flexible and better than others as far as social skills are
concerned. Students aiming to study for a period abroad, however, have to know
competences such as these are not anymore expected only by a few experts, but
increasingly become a must.

185
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Study abroad has to be viewed in Business Studies as an opportunity for many options
to learn abroad. Tight curricular designs and learning agreements might fit to other
fields of study, in Business Studies, however, information and transparency is needed in
order to allow for a multitude of options.

8.4 Sociology
8.4.1 Introduction to the Field of study
Sociology was chosen as an academically oriented field in the area of Humanities and
Social Sciences. Academic research in the field of Sociology, like many other fields in
Social Science, has adopted a comparative approach and an increasingly international
scope in recent years. As a result, in addition to field specific knowledge, strong
language skills and the ability to analyse critically, young sociologists are required to
have cross cultural and interdisciplinary skills. Many young sociologists take up jobs
not closely linked to the field since Sociology does not lead to a major domain.
European integration is one of the main causes for an increasing number of sociologists
working outside their home country or in cooperation with peers from other countries.
Sociology programmes vary substantially across countries as far as emphasis on theory,
methods and thematic areas of analysis is concerned. Sociology programmes often
include courses of neighbouring disciplines, e.g. Communication Science, Political
Science, Economics and Cultural Studies. This is expected to widen their scope both
for further research tasks and practical professional tasks. Moreover, knowledge of
foreign languages, in particular English, is an asset for young sociologists, both for
studying relevant research literature and for international communication. The
proportion of students in Social Sciences among all ERASMUS students was small
during the first years after the inauguration of the ERASMUS programme. After some
years, it reached the level of 10% and remained relatively constant thereafter (see Figure
27).

186
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Figure 27 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Sociology 1987 - 2004
16000 12,0%

14000

Percentage of ERASMUS Students in Social Sciences

10,0%
Number of ERASMUS students in Social Sciences

12000

8,0%
10000

8000 6,0%

6000
4,0%

4000

2,0%
2000

0 0,0%
8

4
/8

/8

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

/9

00

/0

/0

/0

/0
87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

00

01

02

03
/2
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

99

20

20

20

20
19

Year

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

The highest absolute numbers of students in Social Sciences participating in ERASMUS

can be found in Spain, followed by Italy, Germany and France. Among all ERASMUS
students coming from a higher education institution in the Netherlands, the proportion
of outgoing students in area of Social Sciences is quite high.

187
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 28 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Sociology by Country of Home Institution 2000/01
2000

1800 1758

1567
Number of ERASMSU students in Social Sciences

1600

1410
1400 1317

1200

1000
871

800
707

600
497 507
321
400
309 303
255 242 276
177 201 196 197
200 151 153 147

13 0 11 27 26 23 41 15 24 26
0
BE BE BE DK DE GR ES FR IRL IT LU NL AT PT FI SE UK LI IS NO BG CZ EE LV LT HU MT PL RO SI SK
fr nl
Country of Home Institution

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

8.4.2 Results of the Survey with Former Students

The student profile
The vast majority of former Sociology ERASMUS students are female (74%). The
average age at the time of the survey (2005) was 28.
The period abroad
The Sociology students had substantial experience abroad: they spent about 6 months
abroad during their ERASMUS supported period in the academic year 2000/2001 and
more than one third (35%) had one or more additional periods abroad, altogether the
average of total duration spent abroad (including their ERASMUS stay) is 8.8 month.
Compared to the other fields of study relatively many Sociology graduates were on
work placements/internships abroad (8 %; all fields: 6%).
Academic situation and study conditions
The graduates state a relatively low satisfaction with assistance/guidance/advice
provided by their home institution for the study period abroad. Only about half of the
Sociology respondents were satisfied with the assistance of their home institution
regarding academic matters, administrative matters and with information about the host
institution and country. 33% were satisfied with accommodation and 27 % with
language training (all fields: 44%).
But the graduates do not report significant problems during their study abroad. The
single most frequent academic problem was related to "problems obtaining academic

188
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

credits and credit transfer" (16%); more frequent were problems regarding financial
matters (36%), accommodation (27%) and administrative matters (22%).
About half of the respondents had frequent contacts with domestic students during
course related activities (lectures, seminars, working groups etc.), 40 % during extra-
curricular activities (e.g. clubs, sport) and 48 % during other leisure time.
41 % of the courses taken abroad by the Sociology graduates were viewed to be
academically equally demanding than courses which they would have taken at the home
institution during the same period; 31 % were reported to be academically less
demanding and 15 % to be more demanding.
Recognition
ECTS was introduced in the majority of the programmes around the year 2000: 54
percent of Sociology graduates reported application of ECTS at the host institution (the
same percentage as the total of former ERASMUS students: 54 %).
The Sociology graduates reported a relatively low level of recognition: 63 percent of
study achievements abroad were recognized on average upon return (all fields: 74%).
A substantial proportion of ERASMUS students have invested study abroad as an
additional study period: 40 percent reported a prolongation of overall study duration due
to the ERASMUS period, in most of these cases as long as the ERASMUS period
(about 8 months).
Competence profile
Former ERASMUS students seem to have a unique self-image of competences with
respect to
• Knowledge of other countries (economy, society, culture etc.);
• Foreign language proficiency;
• Intercultural understanding and competences (e.g. understanding and tolerance
of international differences in culture);
These three aspects are the clear domain of former internationally mobile students,
where they see their competences at the time of return to be better (or even "much"
better) than those of non-mobile students. The majority sees also advantages regarding
"preparation for future employment and work" (60 %), while the area of academic
competences seems to be ambivalent: 41% of former Sociology ERASMUS students
reported to have better "academic knowledge and skills" (e.g. theories, methods,
disciplinary knowledge, reflection, etc.) and a bigger group reported to have worse
academic competences (52%) compared to non-mobile students.

189
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 112 Former Sociology ERASMUS Students' Assessment of

their Competences Upon Graduation as Compared to Non-
Mobile Students (percent)
Better Equal Worse
(1+2) (3) (4+5)
Knowledge of other countries
(economy, society, culture etc.) 92 0 8
Foreign language proficiency 97 0 3
Intercultural understanding and competences
(e.g. understanding and tolerance of international
differences in culture) 94 0 6
Preparation for future employment and work 60 0 40
Academic knowledge and skills
(e.g. theories, methods, disciplinary
knowledge, reflection, etc.) 41 6 52

Question A21: At the time of return, how do you rate your knowledge and competences as compared to non-mobile
students in the following areas? Scale of answers from 1 to 5; 1 = much better,3 = equal, 5 = much worse.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005

According to most dimensions listed in Table 113 about three quarters of former
ERASMUS students rate their competences as high. This profile is surprisingly
balanced. Compared with the average former ERASMUS graduate, Sociology graduates
saw their strengths in their written communication skills, adaptability and analytical
competences.

190
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Table 113 Former Sociology ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed

Competences at Time of Graduation and Job Requirements
about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high"; answers 1 and 2)
Competences Job requirements Difference
at the time about 2-3 years (1 - 2)
of graduation later
(1) (2) (3)
Written communication skill 89 87 2
Adaptability 84 89 -5
Analytical competences 82 89 -7
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 77 91 -14
Getting personally involved 77 89 -12
Foreign language proficiency 74 51 23
Accuracy, attention to detail 73 83 -10
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 72 81 -9
Problem-solving ability 71 94 -23
Power of concentration 71 89 -18
Loyalty, integrity 70 72 -2
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 68 87 -19
Initiative 66 91 -25
Applying rules and regulations 66 66 0
Field-specific knowledge of methods 64 85 -21
Computer skills 60 81 -21

Question B7: Please, state the extent to which you had the following competences at the time of graduation. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Question F7: Please, state the extent to which the following competences are required in your current work. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005

In most areas, job requirements are more demanding than the competences acquired by
former ERASMUS students at the time of graduation. As compared to the average of all
former ERASMUS students, Sociology graduates consider their jobs more demanding
as regards written communication skills, getting personally involved and field-specific
knowledge of methods. Job requirements and competences seem to be unbalanced
especially as regards "initiative", "problem-solving ability", "computer skills", "field-
specific knowledge of methods", "assertiveness, decisiveness, and persistence" where
Sociology graduates report higher job requirements than competences. In contrast,
former ERASMUS students have more often high foreign language skills than required
by their job.
International mobility
During the first years of employment a few former Sociology ERASMUS students were
regularly employed abroad (7%; all fields 17%) or were sent abroad by their employers
on work assignments (7%; all fields 12%).
ERASMUS related work tasks
Sociology graduates are less frequently assigned visibly international works tasks than
the average former ERASMUS students, e.g. "using the language of the ERASMUS
host country in work-related activities":

191
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

• telephone conversation, face-to-face discussions etc. (Sociology: 35%, total

ERASMUS students: 37%)
• professional travel to foreign countries other than the ERASMUS host country
(Sociology: 22%; total ERASMUS students: 25%).
International competences are also important for the current work of a substantial
number of ERASMUS graduates not active in visibly international jobs. This is also
true for Sociology graduates: 47% reported that "professional knowledge of other
countries" (e.g. economic, sociological, legal knowledge) is "important" for doing the
current work as compared to 46% of all former ERASMUS students.
Further study
The VALERA survey confirms findings of prior studies that an enormously high
proportion of former ERASMUS students continue study after the first degree
(Sociology: 35%). Therefore, transition to employment is postponed for many of them.
Job search and transition period
Compared to other studies of graduates in Europe, there are no indications that former
ERASMUS students are different from others in terms of start of job search, period of
job search, number of employers contacted etc.
19% of the Sociology graduates were employed part-time on their first job, compared to
17% of all former ERASMUS students.
Short-term contracts are more widespread on their first job (Sociology 58%; all former
ERASMUS students: 54%).
Perceived recruitment criteria
Former ERASMUS students, as other students, are primarily selected by employers
according to both their academic knowledge and their personality. The field of study
was reported to be important by 73% of the Sociology graduates (all former ERASMUS
students: 75%) and the main subject/specialization by 69% (all former ERASMUS
students: 61%). Their foreign language proficiency (Sociology 53%) played a role for
more than half of the former ERASMUS students but their experiences abroad in
general only for 39% and 42% of the Sociology graduates additionally reported that the
"ERASMUS study abroad period" was an important criterion in the recruitment process
(all former ERASMUS students: 36%).
Area of employment
Employment in Social Work (16%), Research and Development (16 %) and in Higher
Education (11%) are the most relevant economic sectors for former ERASMUS
students from Sociology. Only 31% of former Sociology ERASMUS students work in
an organisation with an international scope (total: 51%).
Retrospective assessment of the ERASMUS study abroad period
The value of the ERASMUS study abroad is substantially more positively assessed as
regards personality development, knowledge, reflection etc. than as regards career and
income. Almost all former Sociology ERASMUS students (96%) report that the period
was worthwhile for maturity and personal development. Additionally more than half of
the former Sociology ERASMUS students state, that the study abroad was worthwhile
regarding:

192
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

• Knowledge and understanding of the host country (91%);

• Foreign language proficiency (93 %);
• New ways of thinking and reflection (86%);
• Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge (60%),
• Career prospects (47%).
Only 10 % believe that the study abroad was worthwhile regarding income/salary (all
fields: 20%).

8.4.3 Results of the Seminar

Organisation and Participants
The seminar addressing the field of study of Sociology took place at the 3rd April 2006
(9am - 3pm) at the Intercity Hotel in Frankfurt. Twelve experts participated in the
seminar, representing eleven countries and different stakeholder groups.

Table 114 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Sociology"

Seminar
No. Institution Function
1. University of Leuven Representative of Flemish Sociological
(Belgium) Association
2. Intercollege Representative of Cyprus Sociological
(Cyprus) Association
3. Jagiellonian University Former ERASMUS Student
(Poland)
4. Lund University International Coordinator of Department of
(Sweden) Sociology
5. Institute for Marketing and Polls (IMAS) Executive Director
(Romania)
6. University of Helsinki Representative of Nordic Sociological
(Finland) Association
7. Belgrade University Representative of European Sociology Student
(Serbia) Association
8. School of Education of Leiria; (Portugal) Representative of Portuguese Association of
Sociology
9. University of Bielefeld Organisational Executive of International
(Germany) Grauduate School of Sociology
10. Corvinus University (Hungary) Representative of Hungarian Sociological
Association
11. Trinity College Director of Employment Research Centre
(Ireland)
12. J. W. Goethe University Former ERASMUS Student
(Germany/Poland)

193
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Major Findings
The sociological experts invited, as one might expect from representatives of a field of
study specialized in analysing the causes and consequences of social behaviour,
addressed the key issues of the seminar in a highly analytic and differentiated way.
They hardly agreed on any general statement about the professional value of
ERASMUS study for students of sociology, but rather referred to variety of conditions.
First, the participants underscored that students in Sociology participating in ERASMUS
are in various respects a select group. The university is likely to select the academically
best students, if the number of applicants surpasses the number of ERASMUS places
available. A temporary study abroad is chosen by students who can afford to cover
some of the amount of additional costs abroad not covered by ERASMUS. The
proportion of ERASMUS students coming from higher socio-economic background is
higher than among all students of Sociology. Therefore, an above-average career of
sociologists participating in ERASMUS cannot be attributed solely to the ERASMUS
period in another European country. Moreover, participants pointed out that the
percentage of women among students of Sociology going abroad in the framework of
ERASMUS is quite high.
Second, reference was made to stage of study chosen for a period in another country. If
they go abroad in an early stage of study, one can expect a major impact on the
personality development. At later stages of study, academic and professional knowledge
is more likely to be enhanced by international experience. One participant even argued
that an undergraduate student of Sociology hardly can be viewed as a sociologist; the
confrontation with other sociological approaches and findings during a period of study
abroad will have an important impact on the students’ academic competences only in
the course of graduate study.
Third, the professional value of temporary study in another country for students of
Sociology has to be viewed, as the participants pointed out, in the framework of the
specific character of Sociology as a field of study. During the initial years of study,
students get to know a broad range of theories and methods as well as many thematic
areas of sociological inquiry. In subsequent years, opportunities of specialisation are
provided for a limited thematic area each. A clear divide between a broad first phase
and specialised subsequent phases is more pronounced in a Bachelor-Master
programme structure than in the traditionally long university programmes.
Fourth, as already pointed out, neither this early phase of laying the foundation nor the
subsequent stage or stages of specialisation are geared to certain professions. Transition
to employment, thus, is a highly individualized process that requires enormous initiative
on the part of all students. As the process of transition is complex and in a substantial
number of cases protracted and might includes phases of inappropriate employment
during the search period, it is not easy to trace the impact of ERASMUS on the
transition to employment and the early career of graduates from Sociology.
The participants agreed that sociologists have a divided labour market. Either they take
over assignments in academia or some specialized professional areas, notably in public
administration, where the specific sociological knowledge might be highly relevant.
In this context, areas of assignments seem to grow where systematic knowledge of other
countries, cultures and languages is essential. Or they are recruited by public or private

194
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

employers for a broad range of assignments on the assumption that sociologists are
skilful in analytical thinking, methodologically versatile and able to understand a broad
range of socio-communicative and organisational matters. In the context, employers are
likely to consider the study period in another country as an indicator for competences
such as taking initiative, being self-competent and ambitious as well as for socio-
communicative skills.
This does not mean, however, that there is a clear divide in sociological study
programmes between academic learning on the one hand and fostering of personality
and socio-communicative skills on the other hand. Rather, sociological study
programmes changed substantially since the 1990s in various respects towards a closer
interrelationship between academic learning and personality development. First, the
links became closer between components of study programmes reinforcing cognitive
competences and affective-motivational and socio-communicative competences.
Second, a methodological professionalization could be observed. Third, comparative
perspectives became an increasingly important dimension of research, teaching and
learning in Sociology. For all these developments, study abroad is an asset. The need
was expressed that teaching in Sociology becomes increasingly international with the
help of teaching staff mobility and a strengthening of comparative approaches. Some
participants argued that ethnocentric views still were widespread among the teachers
and a growing participation in teaching staff mobility might help to redress this state of
affairs.
Moreover, the value of study abroad seems to vary for students from different regions in
Europe. Many students from Western European countries consider the study period in
another European country as a valuable contrasting field experience. They do not expect
that this will be a substantial boost for their career perspectives. In contrast, students in
Sociology going from Central and Eastern European countries to Western European
countries are a select group of often highly motivated persons having a relatively
profound foreign language proficiency and quite some prior knowledge on the host
country.
In response to the diversity of study programmes, abilities and motives of the students
and of their career prospects, the participants of the seminar underscored the need for
intensive und highly individualized guidance and counselling of Sociology students
prior to their period abroad. One might recommend a different host university
depending on the academic and cultural motives of the students, the thematic area
interested (for example study in a Scandinavian country might be most valuable for
students interested in the “welfare state”) and the stage of study for which a temporary
study period in another European country is envisaged.
A prolongation of the overall period of study as a consequence of study in another
country was not viewed as an career obstacle, because many students of sociology seem
to study somewhat longer in order to enhance their capabilities beyond what might be
expected at the end of a normal period of study and thus improve their employment
prospects. This also might explain that not so much care is taken for matters of
recognition and that recognition of achievements of the study period abroad upon return
by the host institution obviously is below the average of all fields of study.

195
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Apart from emphasizing the relevance of the individual guidance and counselling, the
participants did not recommend major steps for improvement. The participating
students pointed out that better advance information on the study opportunities at the
partner institution, a higher stipend and an introduction of the student mentor system
where it does not yet exist would be desirable. Some experts pointed out the special
programmes for foreign students for introducing the culture and society of the host
country are especially valuable for mobile students in the field of Sociology.

8.4.4 Summary
Learning in another country is less important for students of Sociology than for students
of some other fields because many of their employers are internationally oriented or
because graduates have frequent visibly international tasks such as contacting clients in
other countries. Rather, international learning becomes more important for students of
Sociology, because understanding of one’s own society is increasingly reinforced
through comparative analysis and because most features of society analysed by
sociologists become more internationally intertwined. Therefore, experts and actors in
the area of Sociology are convinced that a temporary study abroad has a significant
value for subsequent employment and work though this cannot be traced so easily for
graduates of Sociology leading to a large range of occupations than for graduates from
other fields of study which are more closely geared to certain areas of employment.
The value of temporary study abroad for students of Sociology seems to differ
substantially not only according to the thrust of the individual study programmes but
also according to the talents, motivation and career prospects of the individual students.
Therefore, an improvement of individual guidance and counselling prior to the period
abroad was recommended strongly. In this framework, the participants pointed out that
cultural learning was the major benefit for students in Sociology studying abroad in an
early stage of the study programme; in contrast, a period of study in another country at a
later stage of the study programmes was viewed as valuable for a theoretical and
methodical enhancement of the competences of mobile students in the field of
Sociology.

8.5 Chemistry
8.5.1 Introduction to the Field of Study
Chemistry was chosen as an academically oriented field in the area of Science and
Engineering. It belongs to the Natural Sciences and in many parts also to the new
emerging Life Sciences. Chemists are working in industry, research laboratories and in
smaller numbers also in public authorities. Study programmes in Chemistry focus on
theoretical knowledge as well as practical experiences in the laboratory.
In general, study programmes in Chemistry cover in the first years the classical areas of
Chemistry: Organic, Inorganic and Physical Chemistry supplemented by Physics,
Mathematics, Biology and Analytics. In the last years of study, students can choose
from a variety of specialisations, e.g. Theoretical Chemistry, Macromolecular
Chemistry, Biochemistry or Technical Chemistry. Besides knowledge in Chemistry

196
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

students need a good level of English language proficiency to read and understand the
field-specific literature.15
Students in the area of Natural Sciences do not represent a big group in the ERASMUS
programme. Today approximately 4% of all ERASMUS students each year are studying
Natural Sciences. Figure 29 shows that the percentage of students in Natural Sciences is
even decreasing for several years. Unfortunately, we do not have exact numbers for the
field of Chemistry.

15
Die Zeit Studienführer http://www.das-ranking.de/che6/CHE6?module=WasIst&do=show&esb=29

197
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Figure 29 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Natural Sciences 1987 - 2004
6000 6,0%

Percentage of students in the area of Natural Science

5000 5,0%
Number of students in the area of Natural Science

4000 4,0%

3000 3,0%

2000 2,0%

1000 1,0%

0 0,0%
88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04
7/

8/

9/

0/

1/

2/

3/

4/

5/

6/

7/

8/

0/

1/

2/

3/
20
8

0
9/
19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

20

20

20

20
9
19
Year

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

Figure 30 Total Number and Percentage of ERASMUS Students -

Natural Sciences by Country of Home Institution 2000/01
1000
937

900

800

710
700

604
Number of students

600

500 475

400
329
300
249

176 185
200
124 125
84 85
100 64 68 57 62 58
25 39 18 16
32 39
22
6 0 7 9 8 1 9
0
BE BE BE DK DE GR ES FR IRL IT LU NL AT PT FI SE UK LI IS NO BG CZ EE LV LT HU MT PL RO SI SK
fr nl
Country of Home Institution

198
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Source: European Commission, SOCRATES programme,

http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html

Figure 30 above gives an overview about the distribution by country of all outgoing
ERASMUS students in the area of Natural Sciences. It shows no unusual distribution.
The highest numbers of students in Natural Sciences are coming from the "big"
European countries.

8.5.2 Results of the Survey with Former Students

The student profile
The majority of former Chemistry ERASMUS students are female (60%). The average
age at the time of the survey (2005) was 30.
The period abroad
The Chemistry students had substantial experience abroad: they spent about 7 months
abroad during their ERASMUS supported period in the academic year 2000/2001 and
about one third (35%) had one or more additional periods abroad. Altogether they spent
on average (including ERASMUS) 10.2 months abroad. Compared to the other fields of
study relatively many Chemistry graduates were on work placements/internships abroad
(18%; all fields: 6%).
Academic situation and study conditions
The graduates state a relatively low satisfaction with assistance/guidance/advice
provided by their home institution for the study period abroad. Only about half of the
Chemistry respondents were satisfied with assistance by home institutions regarding
academic matters and administrative matters. 44% were satisfied with information about
the host institution and country, 38% with accommodation and 40% with language
training.
But the graduates do not report significant problems during their study abroad. The
single most frequent academic problem was related to "taking courses in a foreign
language" (9%); more frequent are problems regarding financial matters (22%),
accommodation (14%) and administrative matters (13%).
Two thirds of the respondents had frequent contacts with domestic students during
course related activities (lectures, seminars, working groups etc.), 44 % during extra-
curricular activities (e.g. clubs, sport) and 54 % during other leisure time.
The majority of courses taken abroad by the Chemistry graduates were viewed to be
academically equally demanding as courses which they would have taken at the home
institution during the same period; only 19% were reported to be academically less
demanding and 18% to be more demanding.
Recognition
ECTS was only introduced in less than half of the programmes around the year 2000: 45
percent reported application of ECTS at host institution (total of former ERASMUS
students: 54 %).
The Chemistry graduates reported a respectable extent of recognition: 75 percent of
study achievements abroad were recognized on average upon return.
A substantial proportion of ERASMUS students have invested study abroad as an
additional study period: 32 percent reported a prolongation of overall study duration due

199
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

to the ERASMUS period, in most of these cases as long as the ERASMUS period
(about 7 months).
Competence profile
Former ERASMUS students seem to have a unique self-image of competences with
respect to
• Knowledge of other countries (economy, society, culture etc.);
• Foreign language proficiency;
• Intercultural understanding and competences (e.g. understanding and tolerance
of international differences in culture);
These three aspects are the clear domain of former internationally mobile students,
where they see their competences at the time of return to be better (or even "much"
better) than those of non-mobile students. The vast majority sees also advantages
regarding "preparation for future employment and work" (81 %), and only former
Chemistry ERASMUS students reported also higher academic competences: the
"academic knowledge and skills" (e.g. theories, methods, disciplinary knowledge,
reflection, etc.) were rated by two thirds to be "better" than of non-mobile students.

Table 115 Former Chemistry ERASMUS Students' Assessment of

their Competences Upon Graduation as Compared to Non-
Mobile Students (percent)
Better Equal Worse
(1+2) (3) (4+5)
Knowledge of other countries
(economy, society, culture etc.) 96 0 4
Foreign language proficiency 96 1 3
Intercultural understanding and competences
(e.g. understanding and tolerance of
international differences in culture) 94 0 6
Preparation for future employment and work 82 1 17
Academic knowledge and skills
(e.g. theories, methods, disciplinary
knowledge, reflection, etc.) 63 4 34

Question A21: At the time of return, how do you rate your knowledge and competences as compared to non-mobile
students in the following areas? Scale of answers from 1 to 5; 1 = much better, 3 = equal, 5 = much worse.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

According to most dimensions listed in Table 116 about three quarters of former
ERASMUS students rate they competences as high. This profile is surprisingly
balanced. Chemistry graduates are relatively (compared to other former ERASMUS
students) strong in field-specific theoretical knowledge and knowledge of methods, and
relatively weak in written communication skills.

200
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Table 116 Former Chemistry ERASMUS Students' Self-assessed

Competences at Time of Graduation and Job Requirements
about 2-3 Years Later (percent "high"; answers 1 and 2)
Competences Job requirements Difference
at the time about 2-3 years (1 - 2)
of graduation later
(1) (2) (3)
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 91 77 14
Problem-solving ability 84 93 -9
Adaptability 80 84 -4
Loyalty, integrity 79 67 12
Foreign language proficiency 76 64 12
Analytical competences 76 87 -11
Getting personally involved 76 76 0
Field-specific knowledge of methods 75 81 -6
Power of concentration 72 87 -15
Accuracy, attention to detail 70 91 -21
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 70 88 -18
Applying rules and regulations 68 70 -2
Initiative 67 90 -23
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 66 88 -22
Written communication skill 65 81 -16
Computer skills 54 68 -14

Question B7: Please, state the extent to which you had the following competences at the time of graduation. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Question F7: Please, state the extent to which the following competences are required in your current work. Scale of
answers from 1 = to a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

In most areas, job requirements are more demanding than the competences acquired by
former ERASMUS students at the time of graduation. As compared to the average of all
former ERASMUS students, Chemistry graduates consider their jobs highly demanding
as regards knowledge of methods. Job requirements and competences seem to be
unbalanced especially as regards "initiative", "assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence"
and "accuracy, attention to detail" where Chemistry graduates report higher job
requirements than their competences. In contrast, former ERASMUS students have
more often high foreign language skills than required by their job.
International mobility
Some former Chemistry ERASMUS students were already regularly employed abroad
(13%) or were sent abroad by their employers on work assignments (17%) during the
first years of employment.
ERASMUS related work tasks
Chemistry graduates are clearly not more frequently assigned visibly international
works tasks than the average former ERASMUS students, e.g. "using the language of
the ERASMUS host country in work-related activities":
• telephone conversation, face-to-face discussions etc (Chemistry: 36%, total
ERASMUS students: 37%)

201
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

• professional travel to foreign countries other than the ERASMUS host country
(Chemistry: 30%; total ERASMUS students: 25%).
International competences are also important for the current work of a substantial
number of ERASMUS graduates not active in visibly international jobs. This is rather
seldom true for Chemistry graduates: only 16 % reported that "professional knowledge
of other countries" (e.g. economic, sociological, legal knowledge) is "important" for
doing their current work compared to 46 % of all former ERASMUS students.
Further study
The VALERA survey confirms findings of prior study that an enormously high
proportion of former ERASMUS students continue study after the first degree
(Chemistry: 51%). Therefore, transition to employment is postponed for many of them.
Job search and transition period
Compared to other studies of graduates in Europe, there are no indications that former
ERASMUS students are different from others in terms of start of job search, period of
job search, number of employers contacted etc.
Only 12% of the Chemistry graduates were employed part-time on their first job,
compared to 17% of all former ERASMUS students.
Short-term contracts are more widespread on their first job (Chemistry 62%; all former
ERASMUS students: 54%).
Perceived recruitment criteria
Former ERASMUS students, like other students, are primarily selected by employers
according to both their academic knowledge and their personality. The field of study
was reported to be important by 88% of the Chemistry graduates (all former ERASMUS
students: 75%) and the main subject/specialization by 80% (all former ERASMUS
students: 61%). Their foreign language proficiency (Chemistry: 55%) and their
experiences abroad in general (Chemistry: 57%) played a role for more than half of the
former ERASMUS students. 43% of the Chemistry graduates reported additionally that
the "ERASMUS study abroad period" was an important criterion in the recruitment
process (all former ERASMUS students: 36%).
Area of employment
Employment in higher education, research and development is very high among former
ERASMUS students from Chemistry (55%; compared to 16% total). 58% of former
Chemistry ERASMUS students work in an organisation with an international scope
(total: 51%).
Retrospective assessment of the ERASMUS study abroad period
The value of the ERASMUS study abroad is substantially more positively assessed as
regards personality development, knowledge, reflection etc. than as regards career and
income. Almost all former Chemistry ERASMUS students (98%) report that the period
was worthwhile for maturity and personal development. Additionally more than half of
the former Chemistry ERASMUS students state, that the study abroad was worthwhile
regarding:
• Knowledge and understanding of the host country (95%);
• Foreign language proficiency (89 %);

202
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

• New ways of thinking and reflection (91%);

• Enhancement of academic and professional knowledge (76%),
• Career prospects (66%); and
• 24% believe that study abroad had a positive impact on the income level.

8.5.3 Results of the Seminar

Organisation and Participants' Institution and Function
The seminar covering the discipline of Chemistry took place at the 3rd May 2006 (9am
- 3pm) at the Intercity Hotel in Frankfurt. Nine experts participated in the seminar,
representing five countries and different stakeholder groups.

Table 117 Participants' Institution and Function of the "Chemistry"

Seminar
No. Institution Function
1. Universita de Napoli Representative of Workgroup "Communication
(Italy) and Management Skills" European Chemistry
Thematic Network Association (ECTN)
2. University of Innsbruck Former ERASMUS Student
(Austria)
3. University of Sciences and Technology Former ERASMUS Student
Bordeaux I
(France)
4. Université Louis Pasteur Strasbourg and FU Former ERASMUS Student
Berlin
(France and Germany)
5. University of Heidelberg Former ERASMUS Student
(Germany)
6. Vienna University of Technology President of the European Chemistry Exchange
(Austria) Network (ECEN)

7. University of Malta Exchange co-ordinator of Chemistry

(Malta) Department

8. Dortmund University Professor of Department of Chemistry, Bologna

(Germany) Promoter, ECTN Member

9. Latvian Institute of Organic Synthesis Representative of Latvian Chemistry Society

(Latvia)

As several invited participants, in particular from the employer perspective, cancelled

on relatively short notice, these persons were additionally asked for their comments
based on the keynotes of the seminar.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTATOR
German Chemical Industry Association (VCI); Representative of Bildungsinitiative Chemie (Education
Initiative Chemistry)

203
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Major Findings
The participants of the chemistry seminar agreed that the main impact of an ERASMUS
study period abroad lies in the improvement of foreign language skills and personality
development. Personal characteristics like maturity, independence and self-confidence
were mentioned as positive consequences of a study period abroad. Problem-solving
and organisation abilities - as very important personal characteristics for research work
- were mentioned further as a result of organising the ERASMUS stay and of getting
along abroad. Because of the fact, that ERASMUS students are more depending on the
help of local student to find their way at the host institution, it was also argued that
teamwork skills improve substantially during a period abroad. In contrast, no major
gains were observed in academic or field specific-knowledge in general. Still, the
overall evaluation of the ERASMUS programme in the field of chemistry is very
positive. One participant reported about the positive feedback he gets from his
colleagues about former ERASMUS students. At the beginning, they could not see any
reason to participate in ERASMUS, but when the first students came back and worked
in their research groups, they were very enthusiastic about the self-confident personality
and motivation of those students. Thus, some participants concluded that the above-
average performance of former ERAMUS students may also be an effect of self-
selection. Overall, the participants of this seminar were less enthusiastic as far as a clear
difference between ERASMUS and non mobile students was concerned. Proficiency of
foreign languages and the ability to cope with complex situations are certainly
improved, but this can, according to their views, also be attained at later times and in
different ways.
Chemistry is a universal and highly standardised subject. Approximately 70% of the
curricula with regard to themes and topics covered are similar across Europe. National
differences can be found primarily in teaching and methodological approaches,
technical skills and in particular in the amount of mandatory practical work in the
laboratory. The major impact of an ERASMUS period abroad lies therefore not in an
improved academic or field-specific knowledge but rather in the experience of different
teaching approaches and focuses. A major learning effect, depending on the host
country, can occur in the area of technical practical skills. Chemistry programmes in
Europe distinguish sharply in the role laboratory work plays in the curricula. Whereas,
laboratory work is heavily underscored by German and Austrian universities, it is hardly
emphasized by French university Chemistry programmes. One student participant
reported about the positive learning effects of practical and independent laboratory work
during the ERASMUS period which were not part of his/her French curriculum so far.
But even if the students already had a high degree of laboratory training, it was
reported, that technical learning always is a major component. Each laboratory practises
its own special techniques that are enriching the technical skills of visiting students.
Like "craftsmen", students can improve their technical skills by visiting a range of
laboratories. Two participants even stated that the research experience in another
country enhanced their motivation for study and work in chemistry. One student
explained it that way, that abroad she first understood the meaning and the content of
her undergraduate courses at home.

204
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

Similar to Sociology, a distinction was made between mobility on the undergraduate

and the postgraduate level. On the undergraduate level, the impact of mobility lies
merely in the experience itself, the personality development and the gain in foreign
language proficiency. As described above, academic learning effects mainly concentrate
on different teaching methods. In contrast, students on a postgraduate level can profit
substantially in academic terms by going abroad. Many students are choosing their host
university based on the research work done there and the available laboratory
equipment. Mobility on a postgraduate level often takes place in form of participating in
research groups, doing internships in university laboratories and only to a limited degree
to take classes and courses at the host university. Existing research co-operations
between European universities facilitate mobility for students at this level. Leaving later
for example during the PhD comprises the danger of being excluded from the domestic
research and regional networks.
An important characteristic of Chemistry as field of study is that it has a very high
percentage of students continuing their education up to a doctorate degree. PhD rates
of chemistry graduates are over 60% in some European countries. Students and
professors are less professionally oriented in the undergraduate and postgraduate level
as the transition to work is postponed in many cases to after the PhD. Actually, many
graduates either work in research (in the area of higher education or at research
institutes) or in other assignments in industry. In the view of the participants,
international experience is neither expected from the applicants nor is it a major "eye-
catcher" on the CV when applying for a research position. For a position in industry, the
participants assumed that international experiences may play a more prominent role in
major international companies. In the case of small-and-medium-sized companies
(SME), as one participant stated, it can also be a disadvantage. SME do not want
"mobile and rootless" employees having a higher chance of leaving again. Yet, the
overall impression is that career opportunities are not strong motives for student
mobility among Chemistry students. Students are rather interested in the cultural
experience, the improvement in foreign language proficiency as well as research. Host
institutions can often offer a different research specialisation, research techniques and
equipment not available at the home institution.
Separately conducted interviews with employer representatives showed a somewhat
different picture. According to their view, international experience is highly valued by
employers. One representative even stated that it is more or less mandatory for
applicants in the German chemical industry. Employers do not only appreciate
necessary foreign language proficiency (in particular English), because it is needed in
the daily working life, but also the social skills fostered by a study period abroad.
However, SME companies seem to be less interested in the specialisation of graduates
or their grades, but in their social skills, their ability to think unconventionally, their
problem solving abilities, their flexibility and motivation. All these competences are
thought to be fostered by a study period abroad. Depending on the job position,
international experience plays a stronger or weaker role in the recruitment process.
Another long-term effect of student (and teacher) mobility is the improvement of
research contacts. One participant called it the "networking effect of going abroad".
Mobile students establish contacts which may help them to find a PhD project abroad
and which may even last over their whole career. With regard to long-term career

205
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

impacts of an ERASMUS stay, these contacts may also have an influence on subsequent
decisions to move or to work abroad. ERASMUS mobility also might contribute to the
chance of being sent to temporary work assignments abroad by the employer.
Similar to other fields of study, study achievements abroad are not consistently
recognised upon return by the home institution. Course descriptions in the native and
English language are often not available and thus cause problems for the coordinator to
assess and recognise the course content students took abroad. Additionally, chemistry
seems to be a subject in which a high degree of ethnocentric view exists. Many
professors think that their curriculum and their chemistry are better than abroad. For
example, it was reported that courses teaching the same topics were not recognised
because they used different experiments. All participating students supported this
perspective. All of them had severe problems of recognition. As a consequence, many
students prefer to spend their study period as project work or for their final thesis. For
such practical, self-contained learning module recognition is more likely than for
visiting lectures or seminars. Also, interdisciplinary research might not be accepted by
home institution upon return. Chemistry students going abroad to work in a research
project of a neighbouring science (e.g. Physics, Biology) often have severe bureaucratic
problems. Comparable to the statements in previous seminars, the participants argued
against individual recognition and in favour for general (departmental) recognition.
One participant gave an example for "departmental central recognition" at his
university: The dean of academic affairs at his university is solely responsible for
recognition. He has a more holistic approach and is less concentrated on a specific kind
of curriculum or teaching as a single professor.
Difficulties were observed in the transfer or translation of marks gained from the
partner institution to the home institution. Translations of the foreign scaling system to
the national one are often undertaken arbitrarily. As an example, one student participant
reported that he just got the average year of his previous year grades independent of his
performance abroad. The participants called therefore for a European grading scale. A
common grading scale would foster mobility inside Europe and would diminish
recognition problems. As a European grading scale might be too ambitious on a short-
term base, an alternative suggestion by the participants was to offer a kind of
ERASMUS certificate. The ERASMUS certificate should state courses taken abroad, a
short description of the course content as well as grades in the respective national scale.
Such a document would improve the transparency of the ERASMUS stay for outsiders
and future employers.
According to the seminar participants, a good proficiency of the language of instruction
is more important in chemistry than in other fields of study. Chemists employ many
technical terms which differ strongly in many European countries. This causes problems
in communication across different languages. Even if the courses are offered in English,
students might misunderstand the presentation, because they do not know the
terminology. The participants therefore plead for special language courses at the home
and host institution. Some participants also observed limited proficiency of the English
language on the side of the teachers which implies the danger of low quality teaching.
In general, study provisions, counselling and guidance before and during the
ERASMUS stay were not addressed during the seminar. The participants did not
observe any major problems of chemistry students in those respects, because student

206
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

work in small groups during their laboratory classes. They get to know each other and
easily establish contacts with local students. The early inclusion of students into project
research work supports this development as well. Additionally, chemistry is typically no
mass subject. Courses on the postgraduate level are comparatively small. This facilitates
the contact with professors and other students at the home but also at the partner
institution.
European cooperation and coordination among departments of chemistry is promoted
by the "European Chemistry Exchange Network" (ECEN). The aims of ECEN are "[…]
to cooperate with one another in order to help promote cultural and scientific
development in each ECEN member university and Europe as a whole". This network
brings together, in the framework of ERASMUS, 52 European higher education
institutes in 19 countries.16 The advantage of this network is the central point of
application for the students for several universities Europe-wide and the central internet
platform providing all relevant information. Additionally, all members of this network
agree in their "Memorandum of Understanding" to use the ECTS system and to
recognise courses of partner institutions. Recognition is facilitated, because
representatives of each institution meet regularly and know each other. They are more
willing to trust the teaching and examination modes of the partner institutions of the
network.

8.5.4 Summary
Chemistry was presented in this seminar as a universal and strongly research oriented
subject. Studying in another country has no major impact on the academic or field-
specific knowledge as the curricula in Europe are quite similar. The main impact of a
study period abroad was therefore seen in the improved foreign language proficiency,
the maturity gain and the personal development. It was underscored, that typical
researcher competences like problem-solving, endurance and teamwork are fostered by
an ERASMUS stay. The main learning effect in academic terms refers to the practical
laboratory skills of the students.
Chemistry seems to be a less outward-oriented subject, not closely geared to certain
areas of employment. All student participants were more interested in a research career
than in an industry career. Also, the student motivation to study abroad lies merely in
the learning of another language and the experience itself than in improving ones
chances on the labour market. Yet, the employer representatives valued international
experience very much. They appreciated the foreign language proficiency as well as the
soft skills and motivation indicated by a period abroad.
Similar to the other fields of study covered in this report, recognition problems occur in
chemistry very often. In contrast, guidance and counselling during the ERASMUS stay
as well as integration are no major problems in chemistry. Laboratory team work and
small courses secure the contacts between students and with the teachers. The European
Chemistry Exchange Network is of further noteworthiness. This network secures a
certain quality standard in the framework of ERASMUS. Regular meetings of the
involved institutions ensure a good understanding and trust in the network.

16
See: http://www.chemie.tuwien.ac.at/ecen

207
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

8.6 Concluding Remarks

Despite field specific differences, several results can be summarised across all four
fields of study. Unanimously, the main impact of an ERASMUS stay is seen in the
personal development of the students. The students do not only mature during their stay
but they also gain in competences often summarised as soft or key skills. Independent of
the different variations and focuses in each seminar, these competences can be
enumerated as follows: socio-communicative skills, such as intercultural awareness,
adaptability, flexibility, innovativeness, productivity, motivation, endurance, problem-
solving abilities and being able to work productively in a team. The participants agreed
that former ERASMUS students have on average higher competences in this regard, but
it was also pointed out in each seminar that the ERASMUS programme includes a self-
selection effect. Therefore, one should be cautious not to overrate the impact of study
abroad in the framework of ERASMUS.
Another point of general agreement was the improvement of foreign language
proficiency fostered by a study period abroad. Similarly, the knowledge gain about the
respective host country was one point everyone agreed on. The results of the student
survey confirm these core results across fields of study borders. Nearly all of them
(between 80 and 90%) answered that the ERASMUS period abroad was worthwhile for
the following:
• Maturity and personal development (ME 94%, BUS 96%, CH 98%, SOC 96%)
• Knowledge and understanding of the host country (ME 89%, BUS 88%, CH
95%, SOC 91%)
• Foreign language proficiency (ME 88%, BUS 89%, CH 89%, SOC 93%)
• New ways of thinking and reflection (ME 84%, BUS 84%, CH 91%, SOC 86%)
No disagreement existed with regard to the importance of contacts to local students and
integration into the host institution for the development of international competences
and language skills. The results of the student survey in the first phase show that around
50% of former ERASMUS students state that they had contact with local students.
Accordingly, every second student merely had contact with other ERASMUS students
of his/her own or other nationality. The "grouping" of students with one nationality
seems to be a stronger problem in big ERASMUS fields like Business Studies (one third
of all ERASMUS students), whereas Chemistry students quickly and easily get into
contact with local students due to their small percentage and required group work in the
laboratory.
Strong differences in the four seminars occurred in the effect an ERASMUS stay has on
the academic and field-specific learning. The lowest impact on academic and field-
specific learning was reported in Chemistry as an universal and highly standardised
subject. In Business Studies and Sociology the learning effect with regard to field-
specific knowledge about the host country society respectively market was underscored.
The possibility of gaining with regard to academic knowledge was reported in the case
of postgraduate mobility in all four fields of study. On this level, students can gain by
choosing their host university in accordance to their speciality or thesis topic. In
Chemistry a student can profit by going to a university offering better laboratory

208
 ERASMUS Mobility: Experiences and Prospects in Four Selected Field of Studies

equipment for certain experiments or a student of Sociology profits by spending a

semester at a university with a good reputation in empirical methodology. Interestingly,
the results of the student survey in the first phase show a different picture. Chemistry is
the field of study, in which the highest percentage of students (76%) state that the study
period abroad was worthwhile with regard to "enhancement of academic and
professional knowledge". Comparing these results with the statements of the student
participants in the Chemistry seminar, a possible explanation is the knowledge gain in
practical laboratory skills during a study period abroad. Yet, independent of field of
study and level of education, all seminar participants emphasised the learning effect of
experiencing different teaching and examination methods.
In absolute terms the professional value of ERASMUS mobility in the transition to
work did not distinguish sharply by field of study. The overall assessment was that
ERASMUS is not the entrance to a high-flying career but rather a "door-opener" into
the labour market. In the more professionally oriented study fields - Business Studies
and Mechanical Engineering - it was argued that the globalisation process and the
international business structures today make international competences necessary even
for positions in national companies. A second argument structure, which was also
presented in Sociology and Chemistry, two fields of study with more national labour
markets, referred to the competences of former ERASMUS students. Former
ERASMUS students have through their international experience not only gained
international competences but also so-called soft-skills highly valued by employers
today. An ERASMUS stay on the CV is seen as an indicator for such competences and
can enhance the chances in the application process. Research work in Sociology and
Chemistry were the two areas of employment where the lowest impact of ERASMUS
mobility was seen.
Long-term career effects of an ERASMUS stay abroad were not seen in general. Yet,
the participants agreed that formerly mobile students also have a higher probability of
being mobile during their job. Mainly long-term networking contacts were mentioned
by the participants in this regard. The former ERASMUS students do not only have
contacts in their former host country but all over Europe which makes it not only easier
for them to establish further contacts but facilitates also future mobility. Yet, each
seminar emphasised also the significance of country specific statements. The overall
impression is that ERASMUS has right now a higher professional value in the Middle
and Eastern European countries than in Western Europe.
The core differences between fields of study occurred in the discussion about study
provisions and conditions of the ERASMUS programme. The participants of the
Business Studies seminar presented a kind of "liberal market" view. They favour a
stronger self-organisation approach of student mobility under the conditions of
improved information transparency. The experience of total self-organisation secures
the highest impact on competences like problem-solving, endurance and self-
confidence. They judge the ERASMUS programme as too standardised and are against
stronger regulations regarding curricula design and learning agreement. In contrast, the
participants of the mechanical engineering seminar demanded a better integration of the
study period abroad in the curricula at the home institution. They favour a perfect
adjustment of curricula between a limited number of partner institutions making
recognition unnecessary. Recognition was also a main concern in the Chemistry

209
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

seminar. The participants here pleaded for a better networking inside the regulations of
the ERASMUS programme. Course descriptions in English are a necessary pre-
condition for the function of learning agreements. They promoted in this regard the
European Chemistry Exchange Network as a good example. In Sociology the fewest
comments were made with regard to study provisions and conditions. Mobility has still
an individual character which does not need an institutional framework.
Although the seminars concentrated on the impact of ERASMUS student mobility,
several comments referred to teaching mobility as having a major impact on the success
of student mobility. Mobile teachers can not only motivate students to go abroad, but
they also know the partner institutions and can better assess which institution fits the
students' interest best. In the recognition process, mobile teachers play a central role.
They know the classes and teachers abroad and are, in the perspective of the seminar
participants, more willing to accept deviating curricula or teaching methods. To avoid
ethnocentric views of professors and to make the recognition process more efficient, the
participants, in particular in the Chemistry and Mechanical Engineering seminar,
favoured the model of general recognition instead of individual recognition.
Summing up, it can be concluded that the overall assessment of the ERASMUS
programme and its impact on the students is very positive. Second, the seminars have
showed that the choice of study proved to be very reasonable. Mechanical Engineering
and Business Studies as two professionally oriented subjects brought up different topics
and arguments than the two more academically oriented fields of study Sociology and
Chemistry. At the same time, Chemistry and Engineering as more standardised and
science based subjects had a common argument structures as well as the two less
standardised subjects Sociology and Business Studies. Together, these four contrasting
subjects presented a wide variation representative for many fields in the ERASMUS
programme.

210
 Major Results and Recommendations

9 Major Results and Recommendations

9.1 Summary of Core Results

9.1.1 Transition from Study to Employment
Temporary student mobility obviously stimulates former ERASMUS students to be
interested in advanced education. Two out of five of the 2000/01 students – about as
many as in previous generations – transferred to advanced study within the first five
years after the study period abroad: most of them immediately after graduation and
some of them somewhat later. This advancement rate is about twice as high among
former ERASMUS students than among European students on average.
Former ERASMUS students of the year 2000/01 started slightly later than previous
generations to seek for employment, but the average search period was less than 4
months and thus was shorter than that of previous generations of ERASMUS students
surveyed. We do not know whether this can be attributed to the ERASMUS experience
or indicates a general change in the transition from higher education to employment.
Many former ERASMUS students believe that the ERASMUS period abroad was
helpful in obtaining the first job. But this advantage seems to be declining: it was
perceived by 71 percent of the 1988/89 ERASMUS students, 66 percent of those
graduating in 1994/95 and only 54 percent of the 2000/01 ERASMUS generation (see
Table 118).

Table 118 Positive Influence of ERASMUS Study Period on

Employment and Work - a Comparison with Previous
Surveys as perceived by Former Students (percent)
ERASMUS Graduates ERASMUS
students 1988/89 1994/95 students 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Obtaining first job 71 66 54
Type of work task involved 49 44 39
Income level 25 22 16
Question H1: What impact do you feel that your study abroad experience has had with regard to your employment?
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

During their first years of employment – at the time of the survey, the respondents were
employed less than three years on average – more than half of the former ERASMUS
students have changed their employer. According to a previous survey, this early change
of employer is more common among former ERASMUS students than among formerly
non-mobile persons.
The survey of former 2000/01 ERASMUS students as well as the employer survey 2006
confirm that employers put strongest emphasis on academic achievement and
personality in recruitment. These two new surveys, however, differ from previous
surveys, in showing that other criteria have become more important than previously,

211
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

among them computer skills according to the employers and foreign language
proficiency according to both the graduates and the employers. Half of the former
ERASMUS students believe that their international experience was among the
important criteria for their employers to recruit them, and about one third of employers
confirm that international experience is among the important criteria in selecting among
graduates from higher education in general. As compared to prior studies, international
experience, among it the ERASMUS experience, is in the process of gaining importance
when employers select among applicants.

9.1.2 Graduate Career and Status

Six percent of former 2000/01 ERASMUS students report five years after studying in
another European country that they were unemployed. This is higher than for the
ERASMUS students 12 years earlier, when four percent were unemployed five years
later.
The former ERASMUS students of the academic year 2000/01 moved relatively quickly
to more stable employment conditions than at the time of their career start. While 54
percent had a fixed-term employment when they were employed for the first time after
graduation, 34 percent reported such kind of employment at the time the survey was
conducted, i.e. after about three years of employment on average. Similarly, the rate of
part-time employed graduates was reduced from 17 percent to 10 percent during that
period. In comparison to the 1988/89 ERASMUS students five years later, the recent
generation of ERASMUS students had more frequently a fixed-term employment (only
27% among the 1988/89 generation) (see Table 119).

212
 Major Results and Recommendations

Table 119 Former ERASMUS Students‘ Current Employment Situation

– a Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent)
ERASMUS ERASMUS Non-Mobile ERASMUS
students 1988/89 graduates 1994/95 graduates 1994/95 students 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Employed, self employed 84 81 82 72
Study/training 7 12 7 14
Unemployed 4 3 5 6

Job mobility * 67 58 53

Temporary contract 27 27 27 34

Part-time employment 10 7 10 10

Public sector * 29 39 36

Research and HE 13 * * 16
Summarising table about questions E1, E5, E6, E9 and E10; Question E1: What is your current major activity?
Question E5: What is the type of your current contract? Question E6: Do you work full-time or part-time? Question
E9: Do you work in the public or private sector? Question E10: In which economic sector are you currently working?
* Question not asked
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

72 percent of the 2000/01 ERASMUS students employed five years later believe that
the level of position and income is appropriate to their level of educational attainments.
In previous surveys, similar responses were given (72% and 76%), whereby formerly
mobile students had reported more frequently an appropriate employment than
graduates who had not been mobile during the course of study (see Table 120).

213
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Table 120 Links Between Study and Subsequent Employment and

Work Perceived by Former ERASMUS Students - a
Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent of employed
graduates)
ERASMUS ERASMUS Non-Mobile ERASMUS
students 1988/89 graduates 1994/95 graduates 1994/95 students 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
High use of knowledge 67 44 47 61
Field of study the only
possible/the best for
area of work + 31 39 41
Appropriate level 72 76 67 72
High satisfaction with
current work 52 74 63 67
Table four aggregates the responses to four categories; Question G2: If you take into consideration your current work
tasks altogether: To what extent do you use the knowledge and skills acquired in the course of study? Question G3:
How would you characterise the relationship between your field of study and your area of work? Question G5:
Altogether, to what extent are you satisfied with your current work?
+ Different formulation or question not asked
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

In contrast, the proportion of former ERASMUS students who consider their income to
be higher than that of their peers who had not spend any study period abroad is on the
decline. The respective figure was 25 percent among former ERASMUS students
1988/89, 22 percent among ERASMUS students graduating in 1994/95 and only 16
percent among those who studied in another European country with the help of
ERASMUS in 2000/01. The last figure is even smaller than those who perceived a
lower income than that of their mobile peers.
As regards the career of formerly mobile students, employers surveyed in 2006 express
a more positive view. More than 40 percent are convinced that internationally
experienced graduates are likely to take over professional assignments with high
professional responsibility. Ten percent believe that internationally experienced
graduates can expect a higher income than those without international experience from
the beginning, and 21 percent consider such an income advantage as likely after a few
years of employment (see Table 121). A substantial proportion of 2000/01 ERASMUS
students, this might be added, believe as well that international experience will be
helpful for them in their subsequent career.

214
 Major Results and Recommendations

Table 121 Higher Salary of Internationally Experienced Young

Graduates After Five Years of Work Experience According
Employers by European Region (percent)
European Region Total
Western Central & Eastern
Yes 19 27 21
No 81 73 79
Total 100 100 100
Count (n) (143) (62) (205)
Question C8: Do graduates with five years of work experience in your organisation who have had international
experience before get a higher salary on average?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

The experts surveyed at the beginning of this study even had a more favourable view of
the employment of former ERASMUS students. About one third each believe that they
can expect a higher status, higher earnings as well as a better chance of reaching a
position appropriate to their level of education.
Also, most university administrators surveyed are convinced that ERASMUS students
have better job opportunities. Four fifth of them believe that a study abroad often
increases the chance of getting a reasonable job. More than half state that ERASMUS
students are more likely than non-mobile students to get a position appropriate to their
level of educational attainment. Moreover, one quarter believe that ERASMUS has a
more positive impact on the employability of graduates than any other type of study
abroad, and only three percent perceive a lower impact in this respect. Finally, most
administrators report that the professional value of temporary study abroad has
increased during the last decade (see Table 122).

Table 122 Changed Significance of Study Periods Abroad as

Perceived by University leadership by Number of Students
Enrolled (percent)
Number of students enrolled Total
Up to 501 - 2,001 - 5,001 - 10,001 - More than
500 2,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 20,000
Considerable higher value
as compared to the past 16 18 18 14 15 26 17
Higher value compared to the past 62 56 63 73 69 58 63
Stayed the same 22 25 18 12 15 16 19
Lower value than ten years ago 0 2 2 2 0 0 1
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Count (n) (86) (133) (96) (66) (72) (38) (491)
Question C8: Did the value of temporary study periods abroad changed during the last decade as a criterion for
employment? Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

9.1.3 Competences and Work of Former ERASMUS Students

Retrospectively, the 2000/01 ERASMUS students, when surveyed five years later, rate
their competences at the time of graduation as high in many respects. Most of them

215
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

considered themselves as highly competent, as far as academic knowledge, foreign

languages and various work attitudes and work styles are concerned. According to the
survey of those graduating in 1994/95, former ERASMUS students rated only their
foreign languages clearly more often as high as those who had not spent a period abroad
during their course of study, they rated their competences more moderate in may
respects and in only in a few respects slightly more favourable than their non-mobile
peers.
We do not know whether there was a general improvement of the impact of study or the
impact of international experience. But one factor is obvious: The most recent surveys
include a substantial number of Central and Eastern European countries where former
ERASMUS students obviously have a more positive view on the professional value of
ERASMUS and other kinds of international experience.

Table 123 Rating of Competences of Young Graduates With

International Experience by Employers and Self-rating of
Competences by Graduates (percent; responses 1 and 2 of
a 5-point scale from 1 = "to a very high extent" to 5 = "not
at all")
Employers Former ERASMUS Students
rating of self-rating of
competences competences
Field-specific theoretical knowledge 62 77
Field-specific knowledge of methods 64 64
Foreign language proficiency 88 78
Computer skills 69 57
Analytical competences 70 73
Problem-solving ability 70 75
Initiative 79 71
Assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence 75 70
Power of concentration 63 76
Accuracy, attention to detail 59 74
Planning, co-ordinating and organising 67 71
Applying rules and regulations 58 62
Loyalty, integrity 66 78
Getting personally involved 79 78
Written communication skill 70 77
Adaptability 81 83
Count (n) (187) (4342)
Student Questionnaire: Question B7: Please, state the extent to which you had the following competences at the time
of graduation?
Employer Questionnaire: Question C4: Please rate the competences of the young graduates in your organisation. To
what extent do they have competences in the following areas on average?
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005 and VALERA Survey of
Employers 2005/06.

By and large, the employers rate the competences of internationally experienced

graduates as favourably as the former ERASMUS students (see Table 123). However,

216
 Major Results and Recommendations

there are distinctions in the rating of individual dimensions – some of them more
favourably assessed by the graduates and some by the employers. Altogether, employers
believe far more often and in more respects that internationally experienced young
graduates have higher competences than those without international experience:
accordingly, international experience seems to reinforce adaptability, initiative, the
ability to plan and assertiveness. 15 percent of the employers surveyed even stated that
they consider the competences of former ERASMUS students to be higher than those
otherwise mobile in the course of study.
The experts surveyed at the beginning of this project have a substantially more positive
view of the ERASMUS students. 73 percent of them consider the academic knowledge
of ERASMUS students upon return from the study period abroad to be better than non-
mobile students, and 82 percent view them as better prepared for future employment
and work. Moreover, almost all experts state that ERASMUS students have higher
socio-communicative competences at the time of graduation than non-mobile students
and about three quarters believe that they excel in problem-solving and in leadership
competences.
These overall quite positive ratings do not mean that graduates are viewed as more or
less completely prepared for their subsequent assignments. In many respects, graduates
perceive more demanding job requirements than they were prepared to cope with at the
time of graduation. Many of them only believe that their foreign language proficiency is
clearly higher than respective job requirements.
61 percent of the 2000/01 ERASMUS students employed five years later state that they
can use the knowledge acquired during the course of study on the job to a high extent.
This had been stated by 67 percent of the ERASMUS students 1988/89 five years later.
The survey of graduates 1994/95 is not exactly comparable, but findings of this study
suggest that formerly mobile graduates do not see a closer link between their knowledge
and their work assignments than graduates who had not been mobile during their course
of study.
39 percent of 2000/01 ERASMUS students employed five years later stated the
ERASMUS period had a positive influence on the type of work tasks involved. This
percentage, again, is on the decline: from 49 percent among the 1988/89 employed five
years later and 44 percent among ERASMUS students graduating in 1994/95.
Moreover, this positive rating most likely is not based on all major dimensions of work
assignment, but certainly to a high degree on the link between international experience
and visible international work tasks.
Similarly, 41 percent of the experts surveyed believe that ERASMUS students have a
better opportunity than non-mobile students to take over job assignments closely linked
to their academic knowledge. Only three percent believe that non-mobile students have
better opportunities than ERASMUS students in this respect.
About three quarters of former ERASMUS students express a high degree of
satisfaction with their employment and work situation. Asked about characteristics of
their professional situation, they state most often that they have largely independent
work tasks, can use their competences, have challenging work tasks and have
opportunities for continuing learning. The majority of experts surveyed even believe
that former ERASMUS students have better opportunities than non-mobile students to

217
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

have independent work tasks, and almost half of them believe that they have more
challenging work tasks.

9.1.4 International Assignments of Former ERASMUS Students

All studies undertaken in the past on the professional value of temporary study in
another country have shown consistently that formerly mobile students differ most
clearly from formerly non-mobile ones in taking over international assignments. This
recent study confirms what already can be viewed as a conventional wisdom.
18 percent of the 2000/01 ERASMUS students employed five years later had been
regularly employed abroad – at least for some time - after graduation. Of the 1988/89
ERASMUS students employed five years later, even 18 percent are employed abroad at
that time, and among the former ERASMUS students graduating in 1994/95, 20 percent
have been employed abroad at least at some time over the subsequent five years. This
compares to possibly three percent of young European graduates employed abroad. One
might add that 12 percent of the former ERASMUS mobile students recently surveyed
have been sent abroad by their employers for some time; this figure was clearly lower
than in the preceding survey.
Of the 2000/01 ERASMUS students, half had considered working abroad and almost
one quarter had sought employment abroad. These figures are clearly lower than those
of previous cohorts of ERASMUS students surveyed.
About half of the 2000/01 ERASMUS students employed note that their employing
organisation has an international scope, and even a higher proportion report substantial
international activities. Almost one third of the graduates themselves see their own work
to be embedded into an international context. An even larger proportion consider their
international competences as important for doing their current work: About two-thirds
view communicating in foreign languages and working with people from different
background as important for their job. For more than half, their knowledge and
understanding of international differences in cultures and societies are important, and
almost half consider their knowledge of other countries as important (see Table 124).

218
 Major Results and Recommendations

Table 124 Relevance of International Competences as Perceived by

Former ERASMUS Students by Field of Study (percent
"important"; responses 1 and 2)
Field of study area Total
HUM SOC BUS ENG MNAT MED OTHER
Professional knowledge of other countries
(e.g. economical, sociological, legal knowledge) 52 46 52 37 31 32 47 45
Knowledge/understanding of international
differences in culture and society, modes
of behaviour, life styles, etc. 68 56 60 48 40 50 58 57
Working with people from different
cultural backgrounds 69 61 71 65 60 67 69 66
Communicating in foreign languages 72 63 74 71 66 61 72 69
Count (n) (930) (570) (684) (530) (357) (226) (273) 3570

Question F4: How important do you consider the following competences for doing your current work? Scale of
answers from 1 = very important to 5 = not at all important.
Source: University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former ERASMUS Students 2005.

Actually asked how much they use their international competences, a substantially
smaller proportion state that they frequently use such abilities. Only somewhat more
than one third often communicate in foreign languages, about one quarter frequently use
firsthand knowledge of other countries and cultures, and only one of seven frequently
travels to other countries. Thereby, it is interesting to note that the 2000/01 ERASMUS
students consider their international competences more often as important than those
surveyed earlier, but that they actually take over these tasks less often than former
ERASMUS students (see Table 125).

Table 125 ERASMUS-Related Work Task of Former ERASMUS

Students – a Comparison with Previous Surveys (percent
of employed graduates)
ERASMUS Graduates ERASMUS
students 1988/89 1994/95 students 2000/01
surveyed 1993 surveyed 2000 surveyed 2005
Using the language of the
host country orally 47 42 38
Using the language of the
host country in reading and writing 47 40 38
Using firsthand professional
knowledge of host country 30 25 25
Using first hand knowledge of
host country culture/society 30 32 24
Professional travel to host country 17 18 14
Question F6: To what extent do the responsibilities of your work involve the following? Scale of answers from 1 = to
a very high extent to 5 = not at all.
Source: Maiworm and Teichler 1996; Jahr and Teichler 2002; University of Kassel, VALERA Survey of Former
ERASMUS Students 2005.

However, the previous survey suggested that former ERASMUS students twice as often
take over visibly international tasks than formerly non-mobile students. This
corresponds to the responses of employers stating twice as often that internationally

219
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

experienced students take over international tasks than students without international
experience; employers state this both regarding international tasks in general as well as
specially regarding use of foreign languages, international cooperation, using
information and travel abroad. Also most of the experts surveyed are convinced that
former ERASMUS students take over such assignments substantially more often than
formerly non-mobile students.

9.1.5 Additional Observations about the Professional Value of Study

Abroad
One has to bear in mind that competences, transition to employment, career and
professional assignment of former ERASMUS students cannot be attributed
predominantly to the temporary study experience in another European country. Their
employment and work success might be caused to some extent by other factors:
Mobile students are more likely to have been internationally mobile prior to their course
of study than non-mobile students, and early mobility might have a major influence on
interest in subsequent mobility and on international competences.
ERASMUS students are to a certain degree a select group in various respects, notably
regarding academic achievement, interest in study abroad, foreign language proficiency
and according to some observers as well socially select in their ability to fund a more
costly study.
Half of the ERASMUS students are internationally mobile during the course of study
beyond the ERASMUS-supported period.
ERASMUS students might not be better prepared for employment and work in general
and for international professional mobility and for visibly international work
assignments than those who had been internationally mobile during their course of
study with the help of other means and in other academic and organisational settings of
mobility.
In many respects, ERASMUS has a mobilizing and reinforcing value, and often it has
some value added as regards graduate career and notably international mobility and
international work assignments, but certainly ERASMUS has not such a strong impact
on the careers of graduates as their more favourable careers and the stronger
international components of their careers per se might suggest.
The ERASMUS programme is intending to serve students from all eligible countries to
more or less the same extent. But, certainly, graduates from some countries seem to
benefit more strongly than from other countries. There are noteworthy variations
between individual countries. The most striking finding in this context, however, is the
fact that former ERASMUS students from Central and Eastern European countries
report advantageous employment and work in general and international assignments
more frequently than their peers from Western Europe. The former ERASMUS students
from Central and Eastern European countries are a more select group, but they also
benefit more strongly from the study period abroad.
There are differences according to field of study as regards the professional value of
studying for some period in another European country. But in most respects, they are

220
 Major Results and Recommendations

not so substantial that one may consider the professional value for some fields as
marginal and for others as overwhelming.
The study focussed selectively on four fields of study in order to elaborate distinctions
by field of study more in-depth – also with the help of expert workshops – in an
exemplary way. The four fields chosen were Mechanical Engineering, Chemistry,
Business Studies and Sociology.
Many findings of the first and second phase are similar in these four fields.
Unanimously, the main impact is seen in the maturity, the personal development and the
competence gain of mobile students. Strong differences in the four seminars occurred in
the impact an ERASMUS stay has on the academic and field-specific learning. The
lowest impact on academic and field-specific learning was reported in Chemistry as a
universal and highly standardised subject. In contrast, the learning effect with regard to
field-specific knowledge about the host country society respectively market was
underscored most strongly in Business Studies and Sociology.
The professional value of ERASMUS mobility in the transition to work did not differ
sharply by field of study. The overall assessment was that ERASMUS is not the
entrance to a high-flying career but rather a "door-opener" into the labour market. In
the more professional oriented study fields - Business Studies and Mechanical
Engineering - it was argued that the globalisation process and the international business
structures today make international competences necessary even for positions in
national companies. A second argument structure, which was also presented in
Sociology and Chemistry, two fields of study with more national labour markets, refers
to the competences of former ERASMUS students. Former ERASMUS students
through their international experience have not only gained in international competences
but also in so-called soft-skills highly valued by employers today. An ERASMUS study
period on the CV is seen as an indicator for such competences and can enhance the
chances in the job search process. Research work in Sociology and Chemistry are the
two areas of employment where the lowest impact of ERASMUS mobility was seen.
It is interesting to note that the experts participating in the workshops suggested
different strategies for enhancing the professional value of the ERASMUS supported
period in another country. Each field-specific workshop ended with a different approach
for enhancement.
As regards Mechanical Engineering, the participants in this seminar viewed the
emergence of learning agreements for the individual ERASMUS students as not
sufficient. They suggested close cooperation with partner institutions in order to identify
equivalent courses as well as opportunities for students to strengthen a profile in areas
of specialisation at the host university. In contrast, the representatives in the seminar
covering the field of Business Studies did not argue for tight curricular designs and
learning agreements. Rather, they favoured a stronger self-organisation approach of
student mobility under the conditions of improved information transparency. The
experience of self-organisation seems to secure the highest impact on competences like
problem-solving, endurance and self-confidence.
Other than suggesting improvement of guidance and counselling before the ERASMUS
stay, the fewest comments were made with regard to study provisions and conditions in
the seminar about Sociology. Mobility has still a predominantly individual character in

221
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

this field of study which does not need a strong institutional framework. As regards the
Chemistry seminar, recognition was named as a main concern. The participants
demanded a better networking with the ERASMUS programme. The European
Chemistry Exchange Network was referred to as a good example.
Also the experts surveyed at the beginning of this study had been asked to suggest
possible means of improving the ERASMUS programme and related activities at
institutions of higher education. In response, they do not suggest any significant change
of the character of the ERASMUS programme and the typical related activities at all,
but rather consistent improvements within the given logics of the established practices
in various respects: more intensive preparation, more academic, administrative and
financial support for the students while abroad, better means of assessments and
recognition, closer links between higher education and the employment system, more
money and less bureaucracy on the part of the European Commission, and – last not
least – stronger efforts to make the benefits of ERASMUS known outside higher
education.
Altogether, the findings of this project, first, suggest, that the former ERASMUS
students note a more modest professional value of their temporary study in another
European country than employers and other experts addressed in this study. As most
experts view temporary study in another country as desirable, they might tend to
overrate its impact. Moreover, employers and other experts might state a positive
impact in general when they assume that this might be advantageous only for some
former ERASMUS students; thus, the methods of asking experts about the value for the
ERASMUS students in general might lead to an exaggerated result.
Second, a comparison of the survey of 2000/01 ERASMUS students five years later
with similar surveys of earlier cohorts of ERASMUS students suggests that an
advantageous employment and work situation and a visibly more international role of
former ERASMUS students as compared to formerly non-mobile students declines over
time in many respects. The more international components of employment and work
become common and the more students acquire international competences, the less – so
we might conclude – former ERASMUS students can expect an advantageous career as
compared to non-mobile persons. Some of the findings, however suggest, that
international competences might have grown among students – notably mobile students
– more quickly than international work tasks: As a consequence, a lower proportion of
former ERASMUS students take over visibly international work tasks. We cannot
establish clearly how far these two directions of explanations are suitable.

9.1.6 The Professional Value for Mobile Teachers

ERASMUS is highly appreciated by the mobile students themselves, because a
relatively long period under conditions contrasting those at home at an early stage of the
formation of competences relevant for employment and work is viewed as strongly
influential in many respects. The conditions for a professional value of teaching abroad
are completely different. Persons already in the middle of their career (47 years old on
average) and mostly already internationally experienced spend a period of about two
weeks on average in another country with the support of ERASMUS. One should not be
surprised, if one noted that the professional value of temporary teaching in another

222
 Major Results and Recommendations

country was viewed substantially more modest than the professional value of temporary
study in another country.
Surprisingly, though, the formerly mobile teachers note a substantial value of
temporary teaching abroad in the framework of ERASMUS. Temporary teaching abroad
notably, first, is appreciated for its enhancement of subsequent academic work of the
formerly mobile teachers. 58 percent of the respondents note a positive impact on their
own professional development in general. Asked more specifically,
• 65 percent report a general improvement of their research contacts,
• 60 percent broadened their academic knowledge while teaching abroad,
• 53 percent got involved in academic discussions originating from the country or
the institution of their temporary stay,
• 45 percent improved their teaching as a consequence of the experiences abroad,
• 40 percent developed and implemented new teaching methods.
These responses show that the academic value of teaching abroad is not limited to
curricular issues and teaching methods. On the contrary, even a higher proportion of
teachers underscores the value for research and their general academic activities
affecting both research and teaching. The experts surveyed at the beginning of this
study, in contrast, perceive a slightly stronger spread of subsequent innovation in
teaching than improvement of research and general academic activities.
Similarly, the experts surveyed at the beginning of this study believe that teaching
abroad contributes positively to their general academic knowledge. The majority of
them state that former ERASMUS teachers are better, as far as academic competences
are concerned, than those not mobile for teaching purposes.
Second, temporary teaching abroad is viewed by the mobile teachers themselves as
valuable as well as regards the international dimensions of their subsequent career. In
the subsequent years, they have spent on average altogether almost one month abroad
annually – mostly to attend conferences, but often as well to undertake research
activities or to teach. Asked about the causal link, half of the formerly mobile teachers
believe that the teaching period has enhanced their international scientific cooperation
activities, while one third each saw invitations from abroad and cooperation in research
project increasing as a consequence of their ERASMUS teaching period abroad.
The experts surveyed present an even more optimistic view about the improvement of
international competences on the part of the mobile teachers. More than three quarters
each believe mobile teachers are superior to non-mobile teachers after the teaching
period abroad in their knowledge of higher education of the host country, intercultural
understanding and competences as well as foreign language proficiency.
Third, the majority of formerly mobile teachers are convinced that ERASMUS teaching
mobility has a positive impact on their institution of higher education. More
specifically, more than half of them argue that teaching mobility has been helpful for
improving advice provided to mobile students and for providing knowledge on other
countries. Almost half the respondents consider teaching mobility beneficial to improve
the coordination of study programmes between the participating institutions of higher

223
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

education, the range of foreign language teaching, the developments of new study
concepts and the growing relevance of comparative approaches (see Table 126).

Table 126 Impacts of ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility on the Home

Institution as Perceived by Former Mobile Teachers by
Home Region 2000/01 (percent; responses 1 and 2)
Home Region 2000/01 Total
Western Central and Eastern
Europe Europe
Improvement of guidance/advice available to mobile students 62 69 63
Providing knowledge on other countries, Europe etc. 58 57 58
Co-ordination of programmes between home
programme and partner programmes 47 46 47
Provision of courses in a foreign language
(foreign-language teaching) 39 64 44
Development of new concepts and contents for
study programmes 35 64 41
Addressing issues comparatively 40 47 41
Use of publications in a foreign language 33 64 39
Providing knowledge on international
relations or supranational organisations 38 39 38
Addressing disciplinary/theoretical discussions
originating from partner country/from abroad 37 43 38
Setting up double degree programmes 36 28 34
Development of new teaching methods 26 55 32
Integration of language courses into the curriculum 25 42 29
Count (n) (587) (138) (725)
Question E6: In general, how would you rate the impact of ERASMUS teaching staff mobility on your home insti-
tution regarding the following aspects? 5-point scale from 1 = 'To a very high extent' to 5 = 'Not at all'
Source: University of Kassel, VALERAS Teaching Staff Survey 2005.

Also, the administrators of the higher education institutions surveyed note a very
positive effect of teaching staff mobility on their institution: More than three quarters
believe that teaching staff mobility has contributed to the international reputation of the
higher education institution. More than half observe a positive effect on international
research activities and only half of them each name positive effects with respect to
various dimensions of teaching and learning.
Fourth, it is worth noting that 9 percent of the formerly mobile teachers are
professionally active five years later in another country than the country where they had
taught prior to the ERASMUS supported period – in many cases in the country of their
temporary teaching period abroad. This is certainly a higher degree of mid-career
international mobility than one could have anticipated.
Among the experts surveyed, even more than two-thirds believe that teaching abroad
increases the opportunity for international academic mobility. Certainly, however, one
cannot expect that a similar proportion of academics actually will be mobile.
The professional value of teaching abroad for status and income looks more modest at
first glance:

224
 Major Results and Recommendations

• 3 percent observed a raise of income,

• 6 percent an extension of a temporary contract, and
• 12 percent the move towards a high-ranking administrative position
as a consequence of teaching abroad. But one has to bear in mind on the one hand that
the overall number of teachers climbing a higher position since the teaching period
abroad has been not very high. On the other hand, more than one third of the mobile
teachers surveyed state that teaching abroad enhanced their career perspectives. This
suggests that a large proportion of them note smaller steps of enhancements or prospect
for future enhancement as a consequence of teaching abroad.
Also, the administrators surveyed present a cautious view as regards the career impact
of temporary teaching abroad. 11 percent argue that career advancement is frequent and
2 percent that a higher income is customary as a consequence of teaching abroad. In
contrast, the surveyed experts initially more frequently expect better career
opportunities for a higher income level (12%), getting a higher position at another
institution of higher education (19%) and getting a higher rank at the same institution
(44%).
Altogether, the professional value of teaching in another European country seems to be
substantially higher for academics from Central and Eastern European countries than
for academics from Western European countries. This difference is far more striking for
teachers than for students. To illustrate this difference for the teachers,
• 10 percent of teachers from Central and Eastern European countries, but only
one percent from Western European countries note a raise of income level,
• 30 percent of the former and 7 percent of the latter perceive a contribution of
teaching abroad to getting a higher rank,
• 81 percent of the former and 53 percent of the letter report a positive impact on
the overall professional development.
This difference is striking, but it does not mean that the perceived professional value of
teaching abroad is altogether small for Western European academics. For example, 60
percent of the Western European teachers state that teaching abroad helped improving
international research contacts. This is less frequent than among teachers from Central
and Eastern European countries (80%), but yet remarkably high.
Though the professional value of teaching temporarily in another country with the help
of ERASMUS is viewed as extraordinarily high, teachers, university administrators and
experts surveyed by no means consider the state of affairs as more or less ideal. Critique
is frequently voiced that most academics have to take care of the temporary teaching
period abroad outside their regular assignments, i.e. as an additional work load, instead
of integrating it into the regular work assignments. Moreover, measures are
recommended by a substantial number of respondents to take temporary teaching
abroad into account in any decisions as regards career advancement.

225
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

9.2 A Look Back to the Initial Evaluation Questions

The design of this evaluation study was specified by the European Commission in a
detailed way in the call for tender. As in most assignments for evaluation studies, the
targets set and the funds provided for inquiry for this evaluation study were
substantially more limited than the general evaluation objectives named. For example, a
thorough assessment of the relevance and effectiveness of student and staff mobility
would require to compare the competences and subsequent activities of ERASMUS-
supported students and teachers with the “comparison groups” of those mobile by other
means and those not having been mobile, but the call for tender left merely room for
surveying the ERASMUS-supported persons, while only other actors and experts could
be asked to formulate sophisticated guesses about the differences between the
ERASMUS-supported persons and the comparison groups. Moreover, an evaluation
study providing a thorough account of the current situation might loose its credibility if
it embarks on a broad range of recommendations, because impressive recommendations
presented at the end of evaluation, as a rule, speculate far beyond what could be solidly
covered by the account of the facts.
This notwithstanding, this chapter will discuss the findings of the study in the light of
the evaluation questions raised in the call for tender, which were summarized there
under four headings: relevance, effectiveness, impact, and durability. Moreover, it will
finally present recommendations mostly as far they are supported by the thoughts
presented in the various workshops with experts and actors.
Regarding the relevance of the support for student mobility, four questions were raised
in the call for tender:
1. Does the supply correspond to the identified mobility needs of students at uni-
versity in the participating countries?

2. Can the mobility measures meet the needs of the labour market in these coun-
tries?

3. In the context of globalisation, is ERASMUS mobility an effective tool for help-

ing students to find an occupational specialisation sought after on the labour
market?

4. What is the relevance of the action compared to the demands of the various ar-
eas and levels of teaching?

This evaluation study has shown that ERAMUS-supported student mobility continues to
be high on demand by the students and to be highly appreciated by the employers.
Reports from Western European countries shown an increasing interest of students in
some cases and stagnation in other cases. Most strikingly, though, students from Central
and Eastern European countries are keen to participate in ERASMUS-supported
mobility, and those actually having been mobile report a strong professional value of
temporary study in another European country.
Employers note a substantial increase of job roles requiring the graduates to be
internationally versatile. This is obviously true for graduates who are internationally

226
 Major Results and Recommendations

mobile, but employers experts and graduates themselves consider visible international
competences are highly relevant as well for many job roles at home. Foreign language
proficiency has become one of the key criteria for recruiting graduates, but also study
and work experiences abroad during the course of study are more frequently appreciated
than merely for the supply of staff expected to work abroad temporarily or even
permanently.
The relevance was strongly confirmed in the SCRATES evaluation study 2000 when
evidence could be provided that former ERASMUS about twice as often take over
visible international job tasks as formerly non-mobile students. The graduate survey
undertaken in this evaluations study suggests that former ERASMUS students take over
visible international tasks to a somewhat smaller extent than in the past, but we have
reasons to assume that this is still substantially more often the case for former
ERASMUS students than for formerly non-mobile students.
This evaluation study underscores the relevance of temporary student mobility within
Europe in another direction. Employers do not only assess the "international
competences" of former mobile graduates as higher, but also various general
competences such as adaptability, initiative, assertiveness, decisiveness, persistence as
well as their written communication skills, their analytical competences, their problem
solving abilities and their planning and organisation skills. Also, many other actors and
experts addressed in this evaluation study are convinced that the international
experience of students during the course of study enhances their professional
competences in many respects.

9.2.1 Relevance
Regarding the relevance of support for teaching staff mobility programme, two further
questions were raised in the call for tender.
• Does the supply correspond to the identified mobility needs at university in the
participating countries?
• What is the relevance of the mobility in terms of the demands of the various
areas and levels of study?
Actually, it turned out that most experts, university leaders and mobile teachers
themselves are in favour of a further expansion of teaching staff mobility. There are
hardly any precise concepts about “demand”, because the frequency of teaching staff
mobility generally desired seems to be substantially higher than the actual mobility,
because teaching abroad often implies additional work load and additional costs.
This evaluation study, however, different from previous accounts of teaching mobility
within ERASMUS. This study was expected to focus on the value of the ERASMUS-
supported teaching staff mobility for the mobile persons themselves and thereby only
indirectly for the human resources of the institutions of higher education involved as
well as for the internationalisation of the institution as a whole.
The study showed clearly that the mobile teachers themselves note not only a valuable
contribution of the teaching staff mobility through their teaching during this period and
an enhancement of international understanding and interest in new teaching approaches,
but also a positive impact on the general competences of the teachers and their future

227
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

research activities in cooperation with partners abroad. Not only the teachers
themselves, but also university leaders and various experts consider the professional
value of teaching staff mobility as higher than one could have expected in advance.
Many university leaders and various experts consider teaching staff mobility as relevant
for promoting and fostering student mobility as well as international learning of the
non-mobile students and, altogether, for the internationalisation process of the
institution as a whole. Altogether, teaching staff mobility seems to be increasingly
appreciated within the higher education institutions involved. In particular in the Central
and Eastern European countries teaching staff mobility is valued by more than three
quarters of the institutions. Positive effects of teaching staff mobility on the institution
are seen by the majority in regard to the international reputation, international
cooperation and the development of new curricula and teaching methods.
The seminars of the second phase further underscored the importance of teaching staff
mobility and the consequent improved knowledge about partner institutions for the
recognition process. This was underscored for all fields of study addressed in the
seminars. Notably, teachers knowing a foreign system are much more willing to trust
the examination system of a foreign country.

9.2.2 Effectiveness
In regard to effectiveness, the call for tender raised two questions:
1. Do the ERASMUS mobility funds help to release other sources of funding (pri-
vate or public)?

2. Which elements have a positive or negative impact on access to employment and

career development?

This evaluation study confirms the already conventional wisdom that the ERASMUS
sub-programme of SOCRATES is extraordinarily successful in mobilizing large number
of students and large numbers of teachers through a limited support for each mobile
person. Previous studies have shown that students themselves, their parents, national
scholarships etc. had to take over an increasing share of the costs of living and studying
for a period abroad. Similarly, it was shown that the mobile teachers and their
institutions add own resources to a varying extent in order make up for the incomplete
cost coverage by the ERASMUS stipend. This evaluation study shows that ERASMUS
continues to be a motivator for the teachers and students to be mobile because they
consider the period abroad as valuable for themselves.
A previous evaluation study had shown that the professional “success” of former
ERASMUS students is slightly less impressive in various respects than that of European
graduates who had been mobile during their course of study with other means. This
does not come as a surprise, because participation in ERASMUS by and large is not
highly selective and because the ERASMUS bursaries are lower than in many other
cases. This evaluation study did not provide the opportunity of comparing the
professional value of ERASMUS student mobility as compared to mobility through
other means or non-mobility. Moreover, the results of the previous evaluation had not
caused the decision-maker in the European Union to increase the bursary per student.
Therefore, we cannot be surprised to note that obviously most actors and experts have

228
 Major Results and Recommendations

adjusted their expectations to the current conditions. The actors and experts invited to
the seminars addressing individual fields of study, however, were convinced that the
professional value of temporary student mobility could be improved if student mobility
was more closely tied to curriculum development and if the period abroad would focus
on certain stages in the study programme which vary by field of study. These
recommendations will be presented below.
Similarly, ERASMUS teaching staff mobility can be viewed as highly effective on the
basis of this evaluation, since the short teaching period supported with relatively limited
funds per persons is viewed contributing significantly to the teachers’ subsequent
academic activities and to the internationalisation of their institutions as a whole.
Previous evaluation studies of ERASMUS-teaching staff mobility, however, have
shown that the small support provided per mobile teacher has led in most cases to
choices of relatively short periods of teaching abroad which most of the teachers have to
take over as additional work load. Moreover, the incomplete coverage of the costs
abroad by ERASMUS is made up to a varying extent by the individual institutions of
higher education or the teachers themselves. This evaluation study shows in addition, as
already pointed out, that both the teachers themselves and the university leaders
appreciated the value of teaching abroad under the given circumstances. Only few
persons continued to discuss more ambitious and promising solutions, such as
integrated mutual teaching staff exchange for a whole semester.

9.2.3 Impact
This evaluation study has put strongest emphasis on establishing the impact of
ERASMUS-supported mobility. In the call for tender, the following questions were
raised in this domain:
1. In term of the planned objectives and unforeseen results, what are the main
achievements of ERASMUS mobility for students and teachers?

2. With regard to the impact on employment and career development, is it possible

to compare the ERASMUS mobility of students and teachers to participating
countries, on the one hand, and non-ERASMUS university mobility to European
countries and third countries in general on the other hands?

3. To what extent has the ERASMUS mobility of students and teachers had an im-
pact on the development of the European dimension at the participating univer-
sities (cooperation, recognition of periods of study, joint curriculum develop-
ment, thematic networks, intensive courses, etc.)?

4. To what extent have students and teachers who have benefited from ERASMUS
mobility put this experience to good use in their career/search for employment?

5. What was the impact on access to employment for participating students? A de-
tailed answer is needed with regard to: a) country of origin, b) host country, c) a
third country, d) several countries.

6. Can good practices with regard to access to employment and/or career devel-
opment be envisaged?

229
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

7. To what extent are the factors favouring access to employment (to be determined
during the evaluation: theoretical knowledge, knowledge of other working envi-
ronments, of other ways of working and of other languages) promoted by
ERASMUS mobility?

The previous chapters have provided a detailed account of the impact perceived by the
formerly mobile students, formerly mobile teachers as well as by university leaders,
employers and various other actors and experts addressed in this evaluation study. We
can summarize the highlights as follows:
• The triangulation of views shows that experts, university leaders and employer
note a higher professional value of temporary ERASMUS-supported study in
another European country than the former ERASMUS students themselves. We
cannot establish clearly whether the former overestimate or the latter
underestimate the impact of student mobility.
• The evaluation study confirmed the finding of previous surveys that former
ERASMUS students view the study period abroad as leading to international
mobility, international competences and visibly international work tasks while
hardly promising career enhancement as compared to formerly non-mobile
students. However, other actors and observers surveyed more often belief that
ERASMUS contributes as well to general career enhancement.
• A comparison of the responses of the survey of 2000/01 ERASMUS students
five years later to those of previous cohorts of ERASMUS students suggests that
an advantageous employment and work situation and a visibly more
international role of former ERASMUS students as compared to formerly non-
mobile students declines over time in many respects. The more international
components of employment and work become common and the more students
acquire international competences, the less pronounced is the professional value
of ERASMUS.
• The professional value of ERASMUS for former students – as well as for former
teachers - from Central and Eastern countries obviously is substantially higher
than for those from Western European countries. In contrast to this difference by
groups of countries, the differences by fields appear to be modest.
• Though mobile teachers tend to be already internationally experienced, are
mature persons often well established in their career and spend only a short
teaching period abroad, the formerly mobile teachers report a strikingly strong
professional value of the ERASMUS-supported teaching mobility period. The
majority of them observe enhancement in international research cooperation and
in their general academic competences, while a slightly lower proportion report
a substantial value for subsequent teaching activities. Some of the mobile
teachers note visible career advantages and some opt subsequently for an
academic career in another country, not infrequently that of their ERASMUS-
supported teaching period.
One has to take into consideration, though, that the desirable competences of formerly
mobile students and teachers and their subsequent activities and professional
„successes“ cannot be attributed predominantly to the temporary study and teaching

230
 Major Results and Recommendations

experience in another European country. A substantial proportion of formerly mobile

students had been already mobile prior to study, and some of them are mobile
additionally by other means during the course of study. Moreover, the ERASMUS
students are a somewhat select group in some respects, notably regarding prior
international contact, international orientation and foreign language proficiency. Most
of the formerly mobile teachers have been exposed to other higher education systems
and cultures on many occasions during their life course. It is not possible to disentangle
clearly the impact of the ERASMUS-supported period and other factors involved. It is
interesting, though, that the actors and experts addressed in this evaluation study most
of whom are aware of the multitude of factors in play claim that the professional value
of the ERASMUS-supported experience is strong.

9.2.4 Durability
Finally, as regards durability, the call for tender raised the following questions.
1. What could form the basis for developing ERASMUS mobility (other than Com-
munity funding)?

2. With regard to labour market access for students and career development for
teachers, what is the opinion of those involved (students, teachers, universities
and companies) on how to improve the performance of the ERASMUS action
and ensure its durability at European level?

This evaluation study was expected to address actors and experts in the field. Among
those from the domain of higher education, more or less all considered ERASMUS as
valuable programme. Among the employers, 39 percent stated that they know
ERASMUS very well, 17 percent had some knowledge, 34 percent knew about without
any details, and 10 percent had not heard about ERASMUS at all; irrespective of the
degree of knowledge about ERASMUS, most employers appreciated as well the
opportunity for student to acquire international experience. Neither the former nor the
latter provided any comments about the overall funding of the SOCRATES schemes
and the relative role of the European Union versus the European nation states in the
promotion of student and staff mobility in higher education.
Some of the experts and actors pointed out, as already noted, that the bursaries for
individual mobile students and individual mobile teachers should be higher. It remained
open, however, whether one expected an overall increase of the SOCRATES budget or
not.
The analysis of the former students’ responses by the authors of this evaluation study,
however, reveals, as already pointed out, that the professional value of temporary study
in another European country gradually declined over the years. For example, a smaller
percentage each of the former ERASMUS students surveyed in this evaluation study
than prior generations of former ERASMUS students surveyed in preceding evaluation
studies noted a positive influence of ERASMUS in obtaining a first job, getting a higher
income level and taking over job tasks for which visible international competences are
needed. We interpret this finding as primarily caused by the growing
internationalisation and Europeanisation in general, which lead to a gradual decline of
the uniqueness of the ERASMUS experience.

231
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

9.3 Recommendations
As a consequence of the findings of this study with respect to the relevance, impact and
durability as well as some dimensions of effectiveness, the actors and experts invited in
the second phase of the project to field-specific seminars were encouraged to consider
means how the professional value of ERASMUS student mobility could be enhanced.
Moreover, the experts surveyed at the beginning of this evaluation study also had been
asked to consider possible improvements.
It is interesting to note that the experts participating in the workshops suggested
different strategies for enhancing the professional value of the ERASMUS supported
period in another country. Each field-specific workshop ended with a different approach
for enhancement.
As regards Mechanical Engineering, the participants in this seminar viewed the
emergence of learning agreements for the individual ERASMUS students as not
sufficient. They suggested close cooperation with partner institutions in order to identify
equivalent courses as well as opportunities for students to strengthen a profile in areas
of specialisation at the host university. In contrast, the representatives in the seminar
covering the field of Business Studies did not argue for tight curricular designs and
learning agreements. Rather, they favoured a stronger self-organisation approach of
student mobility under the conditions of improved information transparency. The
experience of self-organisation seems to secure the highest impact on competences like
problem-solving, endurance and self-confidence.
Other than suggesting improvement of guidance and counselling before the ERASMUS
stay, the fewest comments were made with regard to study provisions and conditions in
the seminar about Sociology. Mobility has still a predominantly individual character in
this field of study which does not need a strong institutional framework. As regards the
Chemistry seminar, recognition was named as a main concern. The participants
demanded a better networking with the ERASMUS programme. The European
Chemistry Exchange Network was referred to as a good example.
Also the experts surveyed at the beginning of this study had been asked to suggest
possible means of improving the ERASMUS programme and related activities at
institutions of higher education. In response, they do not suggest any significant change
of the character of the ERASMUS programme and the typical related activities at all,
but rather consistent improvements within the given logics of the established practices
in various respects: more intensive preparation, more academic, administrative and
financial support for the students while abroad, better means of assessments and
recognition, closer links between higher education and the employment system, more
money and less bureaucracy on the part of the European Commission, and – last not
least – stronger efforts to make the benefits of ERASMUS known outside higher
education.
Taking the suggestions stated by the actors and experts into account, the authors of this
evaluation study conclude that the ERASMUS programme will have better chances in
the future if it becomes again more ambitious as far quality of the experience abroad is
concerned. In the predecessor programme, the Joint Study Programme, as well as in the
early years of the ERASMUS programme, strong emphasis was placed on the curricular

232
 Literature

integration of the study experience in another country which eventually should ensure a
high degree of recognition and a high academic and professional value of learning in a
contrasting educational environment. Over the years, more attention was paid to
participation of large numbers and representative composition by countries, fields and
socio-biographic background as well as to efficient administrative processes. Moreover,
it had turned out to be difficult to assess the institutional application for ERASMUS
support according to criteria of academic quality.
This evaluation study, however, shows that temporary study in another European
country as such is gradually loosing its uniqueness, but it continues to be viewed as
potentially highly valuable. Moreover, the actors and experts see the opportunity of
improving the quality of the ERASMUS experience through more targeted ways of
embedding the experience abroad into the overall study programmes, whereby different
models might be suitable between fields of study as well as individual study
programmes and partnerships within a field of study. Thus, the time seems to ripe for
another major approach of ERASMUS student mobility, where more ambitious
curricular aims will be intertwined with the financial support for mobile students.

10 Literature
Burkhardt, Anke; Schomburg, Harald and Teichler, Ulrich (2000). Hochschulstudium und Beruf
- Ergebnisse von Absolventenstudien. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
(BMBF), Bonn.
Blumenthal, Peggy et.al. (edits.) (1996). Academic Mobility in a Changing World. (Higher
Education Policy Series 29). London, Kingsley Publishers.
DAAD (ed.) (2004). SOKRATES/ERASMUS Success Stories V - Außergewöhnliche Geschichten
und Erlebnisse ehemaliger ERASMUS-Studierender. Bonn, Deutscher Akademischer
Austauschdienst.
DAAD (eds.) (1998). Studieren in Europa mit ERASMUS - Zehn Jahre Bildungsprogramm der
Europäischen Union 1987- 1997. Bonn, Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst.
Enders, Jürgen (1998). Academic Staff Mobility in the European Community: The ERASMUS
Experience, Comparative Education Review, Vol. 42, No. 1, 46 - 60-.
European Commission - Community Research (2004). Europe needs more scientists. Report by
the High Level Group on Increasing Human Ressources for Science and Technology in
Europe. Brussels, European Commission.
European Commission (edit.) (1995). ERASMUS Subject Evaluation - Summary Reports of the
Evaluation Conferences by Subject Area. Vol. 1, Brussels, European Commission.
Feller, Carola; Stahl, Beate (2005): Qualitative Anforderungen an die Ingenieurausbildung und
die künftigen Bachelor- und Masterstudiengänge. Offenburg, IMPULS STIFTUNG.
Garam, Irma (2004). Labour market Relevance of Student Mobility, English Summary of a
CIMO Study Ulkomailla opiskelun työelämärelevanssi Tutkimuksen väliraportti 1.4.2005.
Helsinki, Centre for International Mobility CIMO.
Gonzàlez, Julia and Wagenaar, Robert (2005). Tuning Educational Structures in Europe II -
Universities Contribution to the Bologna Process, Final Report. Bilbao, Universidad de
Deusto.

233
The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility

Jahr, Volker and Teichler, Ulrich, Employment and Work of Former Mobile students, in:
Teichler, Ulrich (edit.) (2002). ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an
Evaluation Study. (ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education). Bonn,
Lemmens Verlags- & Mediengesellschaft mbH,.
Jahr, Volker; Schomburg, Harald and Teichler, Ulrich (2002). Internationale Mobilität von
Absolventinnen und Absolventen europäischer Hochschulen. (Werkstattbericht 61).
Kassel, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Universität
Kassel.
Kehm, Barbara, M. (ed.) (2005). Mit SOKRATES II zum Europa des Wissens - Ergebnisse der
Evaluation des Programms in Deutschland. (Werkstattbericht 63). Kassel,
Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Hochschulforschung der Universität Kassel.
Kehm, Barbara et. al. (1997). Integrating Europe through Co-operation among Universities.
(Higher Education Policy Series 43). London.
Krzakklewska, Ewa and Krupnik, Seweryn (2005). The experience of studying abroad for
exchange students in Europe - Research Report: ERASMUS Student Network Survey
2005 in partnership with Petrus Communications. (ERASMUS Student Network).
Poland, Petrus Communication.
Kreitz, Robert and Teichler, Ulrich (1992). ERASMUS Teaching Staff Mobility - The 1990/91
Teachers` View (Werkstattbericht 53). Kassel, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs-
und Hochschulforschung an der Gesamthochschule Kassel.
Maiworm, Friedhelm and Teichler, Ulrich (2002). The Academics` Views and Experiences, in:
Teichler, Ulrich. (ed.), ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an
Evaluation Study. (ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education). Bonn,
Lemmens.
Maiworm, Friedhelm and Teichler, Ulrich (2002). The Students` Experience, in: Teichler,
Ulrich (edit.), ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an Evaluation
Study. (ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education). Bonn, Lemmens.
Maiworm, Friedrich and Teichler, Ulrich (1996). Study Abroad and Early Career - Experiences
of Former ERASMUS Students. (Higher Education Policy Series 35 - ERASMUS
Monographs 35). London, Kingsley Publisher.
Maiworm, Friedhelm, Sosa, Winnetou and Teichler, Ulrich (1996). The Context of ERASMUS:
A Survey of Institutional Management and Infrastructure in Support of Mobility and Co-
operation. (Werkstattbericht 49 - ERASMUS Monographs No. 22). Kassel,
Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Universität
Gesamthochschule Kassel.
Rosselle, Dominique and Lentiez, Anne (1999). The ERASMUS programme 1987 - 1995 - A
qualitative review looking to the future (Vol. 1 summary). Lille-North Pas de Calais,
European Academic Network.
Statistical Observatory of the University of Bologna (2001). ERASMUS/SOCRATES Graduates
1999 - Social background, Curriculum studiorum, Occupational status. Bologna,
Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica.
Sussex Center for Migration Research (University of Sussex) and the Centre for Applied
Population Research (University of Dundee) (2004). International student mobility.
HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England) Issue Paper.

234
 Literature

Stronkhorst, R. (2005), Learning Outcomes of International Mobility at Two Dutch Institutions

of Higher Education, Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, Winter
2005, 292 - 315.
Teichler, Ulrich (edit.) (2002). ERASMUS in the SOCRATES Programme - Findings of an
Evaluation Study. (ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education). Bonn,
Lemmens.
Teichler, Ulrich and Maiworm, Friedhelm (1997). The ERASMUS Experience - Major Findings
of the Erasmus Evaluation Research Project. Luxembourg, European Commisson.
Teichler, Ulrich; Maiworm, Friedhelm and Schotte-Kmoch, Martina (1999). Das ERASMUS-
Programm; Ergebnisse der Begleitforschung. Bonn, Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung.
Teichler, Ulrich; Kreitz, Robert and Maiworm, Friedhelm (1993). Student Mobility within
ERASMUS 1989/90 - A Statistical Profile. (Arbeitspapiere 28). Kassel,
Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule
Kassel.
Teichler, Ulrich, Kreitz, Robert and Maiworm, Friedhelm (1991). Student Mobility within
ERASMUS 1988/89 - A Statistical Profile. (Arbeitspapiere 26 - ERASMUS Monographs
No. 12). Kassel, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der
Gesamthochschule Kassel.
Teichler, Ulrich (1991). Experiences of ERASMUS Students - Select Findings of the 1988/89
Survey. (Werkstattbericht 32 - ERASMUS Monographs No. 13). Kassel,
Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der Gesamthochschule
Kassel.
Teichler, Ulrich; Kreitz, Robert and Maiworm, Friedhelm (1990). Student Mobility within
ERASMUS 1987/88 - A Statistical Profile. (Arbeitspapiere 24 - ERASMUS Monographs
No. 1). Kassel, Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung der
Gesamthochschule Kassel.
Williams, Tracy. R. (2005). Exploring the Impact of Study Abroad on Students´ Intercultural
Communication Skills: Adaptability and Sensitivity, Journal of Studies in International
Education, Vol. 9, No. 4, Winter 2005, 356-371.

235

View publication stats