Student mobility

This thesis uses the definition of student mobility as, “any opportunity for students to work or study abroad whilst undertaking their degree programme – whether undergraduate or postgraduate” (University of Glasgow, 2017). In Europe there has been a long history of student exchanges through the European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (Erasmus) established in 1997. Erasmus+ (2014) is the latest European Union programme for education, training, youth and sport. The physical move abroad, as study period, work placement or work experience represents, “an unmediated form of international contact which sets the specific learning experience it produces directly into the student’s life” (Murphy-Lejeune, 2002, p. 3). Montgomery (2010) noted that travelling abroad has been a part of education for centuries. Forsey et al. (2011, p. 128) argue that, “Exchange is an opportunity to broaden horizons, enhance global understanding and increase cultural literacy”.

55 A major conclusion reached in the UNESCO report (2009) was that Western countries were the dominant student destinations, especially the US, UK, France, Germany and Australia. Students generally flow from the developing world, predominantly to English- language countries. However, The British Council (2012) argued that the same assumptions can no longer be made. Countries that previously supplied students were now hosting students themselves. With increasing options available, changes to where students were choosing to study were observed by UNESCO (2009) as more are now staying closer to home. As an example of opting to stay within a regional context, Ahmad (2016, p. 2) noted that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) attracted more students from the Arab States than the UK and that, “the KSA and UAE had become the third most popular destination after France and the United States of America (USA) for attracting students from the region for tertiary education”.

It was seen in Chapter one that new destinations were emerging and challenging the traditional destinations, although the US and UK remain important choices for Nepalese students. The British Council (2012) summarised that some of these emerging destinations, including Singapore, Malaysia and the UAE, were often described as, and strive to be known as, education hubs. Other countries, of which China is a key example, follow a different model of higher education that focuses on the expansion of local provision, reducing reliance on international providers.

Research by Choudaha et al. (2013) on international student mobility trends evidenced that there had been changing patterns of mobility for higher education over the previous ten years as Asian countries had adopted a wide range of mechanisms and strategies in facilitating student mobility. The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education (2009, p.

56 1) stated that in, “an attempt to attract the growing number of prospective students seeking higher education, individual institutions and national governments are looking to differentiate themselves from their competitors”. The increasing emphasis on regional competition, including Western universities with transnational programmes, meant an intensifying challenge to attract international students. A similar conclusion was reached by The British Council (2012) in their report on higher education global trends and emerging opportunities to 2020.

The British Council report (op. cit.) explained that student mobility has become increasingly complex when considering external influences. The report (op. cit.) referred to national policies on education and immigration as well as individual influences including friend and family networks, teachers, the media and perceptions in popular culture. The British Council (op. cit.) further suggested that it was possible that emerging destinations can present a real challenge to traditional providers. For example, China may expand its own education provision rather than becoming an educational centre of overseas students, although, “it has [an] ambitious international student recruitment growth target of approximately 250,000 students for 2020” (British Council, 2012, p. 5.).

Exchanges of students have become increasingly two way and countries such as India and China are developing their own higher education infrastructure and trying to attract international students in competition with traditional players such as the United States, the UK and Australia. However, Choudaha, et al (2013) concluded that the growing competition for international students between domestic and foreign HEIs poses questions over quality assurance for host countries in Asia. Although the reasons for studying abroad have been seen to vary from country to country, King et al (2010) examined why

57 UK students chose to study abroad. The reasons given were: to improve their cultural awareness (98%); attend a world-class university (89%); it gave an opportunity for a unique adventure (88%). Further reasons given by UK students were: making job interviews more successful (87%); using evidence from study abroad on their CV (86%; employers are more likely to employ someone who has studied abroad (75%); a step towards an international career (69%). King et al (2010) also suggested, that to a large extent, the evidence between mobility and employability was the missing link in the argument for overseas study, at least for UK students.

An alternative view was expressed by Brooks et al. (2012) who found there was little evidence to suggest that UK students studying abroad were seeking an overseas education as a strategic means of either accumulating cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986) or securing labour market advantage. Hence employability or careers were not always the most important factor for overseas students from all countries. Research for UNESCO by Varghese (2008) concluded that the advantages of study abroad programmes for quality education were viewed as greater in developing countries than in developed countries. Overseas qualifications have been seen as conferring substantial advantage within domestic labour markets when graduates return to their home country. Ong (1999), for example, showed the importance of studying abroad in the pursuit of distinction for Asian students. Bodycott (2009) together with Rizvi (2000), established the importance of future employability in decisions about whether to study abroad, also amongst Asian students, but noted the importance of this factor varied according to their nationality. For example, Bodycott (2009), suggested that for Chinese students, improved employment opportunities were rated as more important by students than by their parents. (Further

58 details of the rating factors that attract and influence decision-making about a study abroad decision from Bodycott’s research (2009) are in Appendix 3).

In 1990 the first Human Development Report introduced a new approach for advancing human wellbeing. Human development – or the human development approach - is about expanding the richness of human life, rather than simply the richness of the economy in which human beings live. It is an approach that is focused on people and their opportunities and choices. The HDI can be seen as an alternative to using Gross National Income (GNI) as a measure of the national wealth. The Human Development Indicator (HDI) introduced a more comprehensive range of factors to assess well-being.

The key components of an HDI value are defined as a long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of living. The HDI (UNDP, 2015) emphasises that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. The HDI figures for Nepal released by The United Nations Development Organisation (UNDP, HDR, 2016) ranked Nepal 144th out of 188 countries assessed with an HDI score of 0.548 (against 0.666 for all developing countries); using HDI as the measure, the UK was in 14th _{position with a higher HDI}

59 Table 4 gives the position of Nepal in the UN HDI for 2015 along with comparative country figures which rank the HDI scores as Very High, High, Medium and Low. Table 4: Human Development Index Country Scores

HDI Country Rank /188 HDI Value

Very High Norway 1 0.944

UK 14 0.907 High Brazil 75 0.755 Medium India 130 0.609 Low Nepal 144 0.548 Pakistan 147 0.538 Niger 188 0.348

Source: UNDP (2015). International Human Development Indicators.

Migration of workers and non-returning graduates from overseas education raises the issue of brain drain. Brain drain defined as, “the international transfer of resources in the form of human capital and mainly applies to the migration of relatively highly educated individuals from developing to developed countries” Beine et al, 2008, p. 631). In considering the economic impact of brain drain within the context of human capital formation Beine et al (2008, p. 648) found:

“The brain drain has long been viewed as a serious constraint on poor countries development. However, recent theoretical literature suggests that migration prospects can raise the expected return to human capital and foster investment in education at home.”

From an economic perspective, the argument presented by Bhattarai (2011) supports the work of Beine et al (op. cit.). Bhattarai (op. cit.) argued that remittances from Nepalese workers, including graduates, staying overseas could be seen not as brain drain but ‘brain gain’ in that, “56% of all households in Nepal receive remittances and account for

60 approximately 25% of Nepalese GDP. The amount of money received has surpassed the incomes received from tourism and national exports for the last three consecutive years (to 2016) and income from remittances has helped toward poverty alleviation” (NRA, 2017, p. 1).

However, Brooks and Waters (2013) argued that the term brain drain was now becoming discredited. Supporting this view (Brooks and Waters, op. cit.) Manandhar (2010) had established that 84% of Chinese students and 72% of Indian students returned home after overseas studies attributing this to more attractive work opportunities in their home country. The ONS (2017) also confirmed, although the numbers were still subject to further clarification, that international students normally left the UK after completing their studies.

Previously Murphy-Lejeune (2002) proposed that students might be thought of as ‘double’ agents that could be considered as outgoing from their country of origin and as incoming to their chosen country of study. However, Subedi (2007) in his research on labour migration from Nepal, categorised student migration to the UK as ‘brain circulation’ a more acceptable interpretation than ‘brain waste’ to designate and understand the phenomenon of student migration. Hall (2011) reasoned that temporary or permanent migration, regardless of money flow, should be seen as ‘brain loss’. He argued that migration for some Nepalese workers would be a successful strategy for Nepal if they return with new skills which can enrich Nepal’s human resources. There remains an ongoing debate (Manandhar, 2010; Bhattarai, 2011; Hall, 2011) as to whether international graduates from developing countries, such as Nepal, are an advantage to the economy of the sending country or should be encouraged to return home after graduation.

61 Hall observed that migration for many from Nepal is an, “act of desperation” (Hall, 2011, p. 141) given few employment opportunities in Nepal and the need to support their families. In addition, “Returnees may become the target of hostility from longer settled inhabitants, fearful that their jobs and land are under threat from the newcomers” Hall (op. cit.). Hall (op. cit.) suggested Britain and other nations giving aid could help by targeting developments in ways which may assisted in reducing the original causes of migration.

In discussing the increased demand for graduates capable of working in other countries, Jones (2013, p. 95) observed that:

“Some of the skills required to function effectively in these contexts have been shown to be developed through international mobility experiences and yet the connection between these outcomes and the generic transferable skills requirements of graduate employers have rarely been made. The same is increasingly true for business programmes and more vocationally-oriented study in, for example, tourism, hospitality or public relations.”

Patterns of mobility favouring Western educational institutions, including UK universities, seem to be changing as new opportunities, including two-way exchange schemes, open closer to the home country of students. Although there are differences in views from one country or culture to another, the reasons why students study overseas are linked to the experience of studying abroad but mainly improving career or employment prospects.