This section explores the composition of Erasmus+ students from multiple perspectives. The results presented in this chapter are based on the answers of participants who already returned from their mobility – which is the largest sample collected in the course of this study, and the key target group. For sample sizes of the other groups, please see chapter 3.
In our sample, of those who returned from an Erasmus+ mobility, 38% originated from Western European and 33% from Southern European Programme Countries. At the same time, 32% of students who returned from an Erasmus+ mobility had gone to Western European and 29% to Southern European Programme Countries. In other words, Western and Southern European Programme countries are net senders in our sample, unlike Northern European Programme Countries, which have almost twice as much incoming than outgoing students (more than half of them from Western Europe). The region with the least incoming students are Eastern European Programme Countries with only 10% participants spending their mobility there, almost half of which had come from Southern Europe.
Table 11. EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility, by sending and receiving region
Sending region Northern European Programm e Countries Southern European Program me Countrie s Eastern European Programm e Countries Western European Programm e Countries Partner Countrie s Total Recei vi n g reg ion Northern European Programme Countries 3.30% 5.70% 1.70% 15.10% 0.20% 26.00% Southern European Programme Countries 3.60% 10.30% 5.00% 10.10% 0.40% 29.40% Eastern European Programme Countries 1.00% 4.60% 1.70% 2.80% 0.30% 10.30% Western European Programme Countries 6.10% 11.90% 3.90% 9.80% 0.50% 32.20% Partner Countries 0.30% 0.70% 0.40% 0.60% 0.00% 2.00% Total 14.30% 33.30% 12.80% 38.30% 1.40% 100% Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,671
Looking at individual countries using administrative data from the European Commission for the period 2014-17, it can be seen that France and Germany registered the highest numbers as sending countries. Among Partner Countries, Russian Federation and Ukraine send out the highest numbers of students, followed by Serbia, China and Morocco. The number of participants from most developed countries such as the US, Canada or Australia is only a small share of the total. The Figure below shows the number of participants in the period 2014-17 by sending country.
May, 2019 42 Figure 4. Number of Erasmus+ participants by sending country (2014 - 2017)87
Source: Erasmus+ participant database, 2018
Looking at gender, 61% of the Erasmus+ POST in our sample are female (down from 67% in the EIS). This is in agreement with administrative data for the programme from the European Commission. The database of Erasmus+ participants shows a stable share of 60-61% of female participants from 2014 to 2017. According to the 2016 Eurostat statistics88, 52% students in the Programme Countries are female, which indicates that
male students are less likely to take part in a mobility than their female counterparts, and that, the gender gap in participation in the programme remains relevant.
87 The figure shows Europe as part of the entire world map.
88 Eurostat 2016: Students enrolled in tertiary education by education level, programme orientation, sex and field of education [educ_uoe_enrt03]
May, 2019 43 Figure 5. EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility period by
gender, comparison to the HE student population
Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST=22,605
Regarding age, 55% of students in our sample are 22 years old or younger when they take part in an Erasmus+ mobility; with students aged 21 being represented the most among Erasmus+ participants. In contrast, less than 20% participants are 25 years old or older. This is in line with the observation that the majority of Erasmus+ participants are first cycle students (below).
Figure 6. EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility period, by age group
Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,770 61% 52% 39% 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% E+ POST Eurostat (2016) Female Male 16% 20% 19% 15% 11% 7% 4% 8%
May, 2019 44 Concerning parents’ educational background, 56% Erasmus+ POST participants in our survey declare that at least one of their parents had attended university89. Thus, students
without an academic family background represent almost half of the Erasmus+ population.
Figure 7. Higher education attainment of the parents of EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility period
Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,711
Less than 20% Erasmus+ participants report that they faced certain obstacles in HE that allow us to identify them as individuals with fewer opportunities. The most frequent source of disadvantage are economic obstacles such as low income or dependence on social well-fare system (self-declared): close to half of all respondents with fewer opportunities refer to this category.
89 Respondents were asked explicitly about university. However, we cannot rule out that some respondents whose parents attended other types of tertiary education might have answered this question positively as well.
56% 44%
May, 2019 45 Figure 8. EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility period, by
disadvantage status
Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,254
5% of Erasmus+ POST respondents report minority or refugee background, 4% indicate social obstacles (typically related to discrimination) and 3% geographical obstacles (coming from remote, deprived or underserved regions). In addition to that, 3% of all participants (i.e. about 17% of young people with fewer opportunities) report serious health problems such as chronic illness or psychiatric conditions and 1% (7% of disadvantaged participants) report mental, physical, sensory or other disability.
Table 12. Types of disadvantages of Erasmus+ participants
Does at least one of the following characteristics apply to you
(multiple answers possible) %
Economic obstacles (people with a low standard of living, low income, dependence on social welfare system or homeless; young people in long-term unemployment or poverty; people in debt or with financial problems)
9%
Cultural differences (immigrants or refugees or descendants from immigrant or refugee families; people belonging to a national or ethnic minority; people with linguistic adaptation and cultural inclusion difficulties)
5%
Social obstacles (people facing discrimination because of gender, age, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, disability, etc.; people with limited social skills or anti-social or risky behaviours; people in a precarious situation; (ex-)offenders, (ex-)drug or alcohol abusers; young and/or single parents; orphans)
4% 19%
73% 7%
May, 2019 46 Geographical obstacles (people from remote or rural areas; people
living in small islands or in peripheral regions; people from urban problem zones; people from less serviced areas (limited public transport, poor facilities))
3%
Health problems (people with chronic health problems, severe
illnesses or psychiatric conditions) 3%
Educational difficulties (young people with learning difficulties; early school-leavers; low qualified adults; young people with poor school
performance) 2%
Disability (i.e. participants with special needs): (people with mental (intellectual, cognitive, learning), physical, sensory or other
disabilities) 1%
No 73%
Don’t know 7%
Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,254
First cycle students predominate among Erasmus+ POST participants in our sample90,
followed by a substantial proportion of second cycle students. However, as 1st cycle students form 60% of all students in the European Union according to the 2016 Eurostat data91, they are actually underrepresented in the programme.
Short-cycle, doctoral and other students relatively rarely take part in Erasmus+. While PhD students are represented proportionately, short-cycle students remain
underrepresented, compared to their share in the European student population.
90 EIS+ data indicates the level of study, when filling the survey
91 Eurostat 2016: Students enrolled in tertiary education by education level, programme orientation, sex and field of education [educ_uoe_enrt03]
May, 2019 47 Figure 9. EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility period
compared to the HE students’ population92, by level of study
Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,553
Looking at the academic fields, Erasmus+ POST participants in our sample come from all fields but most frequently from Business, Administration and Law (24%), Arts and Humanities (17%) or Engineering, Manufacturing and Construction (16%).
Figure 10. EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility period, by subject93
Source: ICF/ CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,618
92 Eurostat 2016
93 UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2015): International Standard Classification of Education. (http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of- education-fields-of-education-and-training-2013-detailed-field-descriptions-2015-en.pdf) 4% 7% 51% 60% 40% 29% 3% 3% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Erasmus+ Eurostat (2016)
Short 1st cycle 1st cycle (Bachelor) 2nd cycle (Master) 3rd cycle (Doctoral) Other
2% 3% 5% 6% 8% 10% 11% 16% 17% 24% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Services Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) Education Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics Health and welfare Social sciences, journalism and information Engineering, manufacturing and construction Arts and humanities Business, administration and law
May, 2019 48 Regarding the type of mobility, the vast majority of Erasmus+ POST in our sample
reported to have taken part in a study period at a partner institution abroad.
Traineeships and work-placements are the second most popular type of mobility, with almost 30% of respondents. 5% of Erasmus+ participants did an internship outside of the Erasmus+ programme and 4% studied abroad also within another mobility scheme. As a person may have participated in more than one mobility, the total amount sums up to more than 100%.
Figure 11. EIS+ survey participants who had completed an Erasmus+ mobility period, by type of mobility
Source: ICF CHE student survey, NE+POST= 22,092