Increasing Mobility - Finnish Perspectives on Academic Mobility and Erasmus

1. Increasing Mobility - Finnish Perspectives on Academic Mobility and Erasmus Juha Ketolainen, Assistant Director Maija Airas, Head of Unit CIMO, Helsinki Zagreb, October 2007

2. Contents of Presentation • Current situation & trends • National level elements • Institutional elements • Challenges

3. Erasmus activities • Student mobility (study / work placement abroad) • Staff mobility (Teaching staff exchanges, other staff exchanges, university-enterprise exchange) • Intensive programmes (courses) • EILC (Erasmus Intensive Language Courses) • Organisation of Mobility Support • European Projects (Curriculum Development, University-Enterprise Cooperation, Modernisation of HE, Virtual Campus projects) • European Thematic Networks • Support for the Bologna process

4. Administration of Erasmus • Central level: European Commission & Executive Agency (+ European Parliament, Programme Committee, Working groups) • National level: National Authority (Ministry), National Agency, Expert committee, Individual Experts • Institutional level: Erasmus Coordinator, bilateral agreements between HEIs etc. • Individual grantholders

5. Current level of student mobility • Universities: 1/5 mobile in relation to annual intake (not only Erasmus) • Polytechnics(Universities of Applied Scinces): 1/8 • Erasmus main channel (outgoing mobility: 45 %, incoming 72 %) but also an increasing number of other possibilities • Almost 1/10 participate in Erasmus • figures based on CIMO’s national data collection

6. Features of Mobility from Finland • Strongly centered to Europe • 65 % of mobile students are female • All Finnish HEIs are active, no dramatic differencies • Engineering, NatSci, Teacher Training, Medicine could be better represented

9. Most popular countries in Erasmus student mobility • Outgoing mobility: most popular host countries DE, ES, UK, F and NL • Share of UK is going down • Mobility to new member states growing annually • Incoming mobility: DE, F, ES, PL, IT • NB. Nordplus for Nordic exchange

10. Some Erasmus experiences • Very few PhD students use Erasmus • Academic recognition improved over time, but still not without problems • Language preparation important; very positive experiences on EILC courses • Cooperation with student organizations important • Social integration of exchange students • Challenge: Erasmus work placements (trainee exchange, new element in Erasmus)

11. INSTITUTIONAL EXAMPLES (University of Oulu) • Incoming Student Services • Kummi programme: • Kummi (in Finnish: godparent) is a student tutor who helps the exchange student during the first days in Oulu. Each exchange student receives a Kummi • 45 Kummis work for the International Relations during the year, each Kummi has 8-10 students • Practical matters: registration to University, getting to know University and the City of Oulu, meeting Finnish students etc.

12. INSTITUTIONAL EXAMPLES continued (University of Oulu) • Incoming Student Services • Kummi Family Programme: • Friend family programme, Finnish families from the Oulu Area take part • 150 families, about 60% of students have a Kummi Family • Family and student meet during free time: getting to know Finnish family life, Finnish sports, customs, traditions etc. Students do not live with the families • City of Oulu supports the programme: organises the first meeting with the family

13. INSTITUTIONAL EXAMPLES continued (Univ of Oulu) • Incoming Student Services • Language preparation • several levels of Finnish courses • Tandem-project (“Each one teach one”) • student pairs (e.g. a Finn and an Italian) learn each others’ language • supervised by a Language Centre teacher • Café Lingua • Multi-language get-together with open programme and presentations

14. Erasmus teaching staff mobility • FIN one of the most active countries • 1000 teachers annually out, 1200 in • Mobile teachers => Mobile students • Host countries: Eastern Europe more popular than in student mobility • EU funding not sufficient so far • Polytechnics more active • Challenge: New possibilities for other staff, and staff exchange between HEIs and enterprises

15. Other forms of Erasmus cooperation • Intensive courses managed by National Agencies: over 20 coordinated by Finnish HEIs annually • Curriculum development projects • Other ”centralised” projects - university-enterprise cooperation, modernisation of HE, virtual campuses… • Thematic Networks

16. Why – National Factors • National policies of the MinE • performance based management and funding of HE, internationalisation one indicator • Europe as a positive “chance” • National study aid – available to all mobile students • Module based study system, easy switch to ECTS • Creation of study programmes in English (currently over 400) • Well developed student services

17. Some Institutional Elements • engagement of the leadership, international strategies • internal funding arrangements • special measures for ”passive departments” • quality assurance • information and marketing work • international cooperation as part of a teacher’s annual work load (especially Universities of Applied Sciences)

18. Challenges • Policy level: cooperation => competition exchange students => degree students • Shorter study times, less mobility? • Labour market changes, smaller generations • Joint degrees and mobility within joint degrees

19. Challenges (continued) • How to get more male students moving? How to get engineers moving? • How to take advantage of the new possibilities offered by Erasmus, especially trainee exchanges?

20. Some words on impact Individual • New competencies • ”Erasmus generations” Institutional • Quality in HE improved • Professionalism in international cooperation • Erasmus as vehicle for international coop => networks, contacts, projects…. National • Finnish HE known in Europe • National output in HE better • Other programmes similar to Erasmus

21. Thank you!! juha.ketolainen@cimo.fi maija.airas@cimo.fi www.cimo.fi