The issue of student mobility dominates discussions across Europe, from Ljubljana to Nordic student councils. Whether the meeting takes place in Kraków or Munich, conversations quickly turn to participation rates, barriers to travel, and the reasons behind disparities. This topic arises more frequently than funding debates, reflecting its central role in higher education policy.
The European Higher Education Area was founded on the principle of mobility. The European Credit Transfer Scheme ensures credits earned in Bologna carry weight in Bergen. The diploma supplement allows employers to validate qualifications across borders. Learning agreements clarify in advance which courses will transfer back. Even the 2009 Leuven benchmarks, which set a target of 20% of graduates studying or training abroad by 2020, forced institutions to integrate mobility into their structures—adding dedicated study windows, recognition committees, and credit transfer protocols.
Research confirms the advantages for participants. Students who study abroad return with stronger language skills, greater confidence, expanded professional networks, and access to wider labor markets. Employers recognize these benefits, and graduates understand their value. For universities, mobility programs serve dual purposes: they strengthen research collaborations and attract new students. Despite these clear benefits, institutional discussions often overlook the students themselves.
UK’s Conditional Return to Erasmus+
The UK’s planned return to Erasmus+ presents an opportunity, but its terms create challenges. Association begins in January 2027, with the first academic year starting in 2027-28. The UK’s initial contribution for 2027 will be approximately £570 million—a 30% reduction from the standard Trade and Cooperation Agreement rate, which would have been nearer £810 million. This agreement covers only the 2027-28 academic year, with a review scheduled ten months after association begins. Future negotiations will depend on the next EU budget cycle.
Historical data reveals a weak foundation for rebuilding. In 2018-19, the best pre-pandemic year, the UK completed just 16,575 outward student mobilities: 9,289 study placements and 7,286 work placements, along with 3,566 staff mobilities. Using the European Commission’s counting method—where mobility periods are attributed to a year rather than completed mobilities—the UK sent 18,133 students abroad while receiving 30,497. The imbalance remains stark: for every UK student studying abroad, 1.7 to 2 arrived from other countries.
Participation rates remain low. Less than 0.5% of UK students engaged in any mobility program in a given year. A Joint Research Centre study found disadvantaged students made up 20.4% of Erasmus participants, compared to 31.7% of the overall student population. Field-specific disparities were even sharper: 75.2% of European languages students studied abroad, while only 0.5% of medical students participated. Languages accounted for 41% of all UK participants, a share that has declined as program funding collapsed.
Erosion of Institutional Mobility Support
Institutional support for mobility has weakened further. Coordinator roles that persisted were redirected to the Turing Scheme, which operated on annual bids and focused solely on outward mobility without long-term agreements. Bilateral partnerships lapsed, forcing European universities to rebuild networks without UK participation. The UK’s experience with Turing highlights inefficiencies in fund utilization. In 2021-22, institutions bid for 31,887 placements but delivered only 13,779. In 2023-24, bids dropped to 22,847, but deliveries rose to 17,388. Last year, 24,031 bids resulted in just 16,871 placements, a £51.5 million expenditure against a £98.5 million allocation.
The claim that Turing delivered more participants than Erasmus relies on comparing planned placements at the application stage with actual Erasmus outcomes, a comparison that distorts reality. With two academic years until the next general election, the first cohort under Erasmus+ will be halfway through their studies before providers can rebuild agreements and restart partnerships.
Other European countries developed mobility schemes for specific reasons. Spain created SICUE in 1999 to address the tendency of Spanish students to remain in their home cities. Poland established MOST for the same purpose. The Netherlands launched Kies op Maat to address regional commuting patterns. None of these nations shared the UK’s historical tradition of students moving away for university. Their programs were designed intentionally, while the UK’s system evolved as an unintended consequence.
Domestic Mobility Vanishing in the UK
That byproduct is now disappearing. Today’s students live at home, work part-time, and choose universities based on proximity rather than ambition. The mobility that once occurred naturally, traveling 200 miles to a new city, has vanished. No policy has replaced it because mobility has never been framed as a deliberate priority.
A domestic mobility scheme could address these gaps. Such a program would expand opportunities for students who never leave home. Credit recognition requires learning agreements signed in advance, with institutions pre-committing to accept work completed abroad. Slovenia’s four-university pact guarantees full recognition for agreed credits, with a minimum of 15 ECTS per semester. Portugal’s polytechnic scheme grants automatic equivalence. Hungary’s law mandates recognition if course descriptions match by 75% or more.
Fee structures vary across Europe. In Spain, Poland, Switzerland, and Slovenia, students remain enrolled at home, pay local tuition, and hosts charge nothing. The Dutch model operates differently: institutions settle accounts, €85 per credit achieved in 2026-27, paid upon completion without students handling transactions or paying twice.
Pilot Exchanges Seed Larger Programs
Programs often begin with small-scale exchanges. Śląski Most, signed in February by seven Silesian institutions, starts with single modules before expanding to full semesters. Poznań’s PoMost follows the same approach across eight universities. Kies op Maat focuses on minors or individual courses rather than full academic years.
Funding mechanisms differ significantly. Spain’s Séneca grants, discontinued in 2013, returned as Becas Luisa de Medrano, €900 per month for nine months, covering 2,300 grants (€18.8 million total), with the condition that students change provinces. Portugal’s university scheme provides no direct student funding. Belgium’s inter-community program cost just €200,000.
Accommodation remains the most persistent challenge. No European scheme guarantees housing, Poland’s system operates on availability alone. In the UK, students sign 12-month PBSA contracts in November for the following September, making semester swaps nearly impossible unless institutions coordinate housing directly.
A domestic scheme carries risks. It could reinforce existing inequalities by sending students from northern regions to London, which still represents progress for them. The deeper issue lies in the fact that students no longer move for university at all. Recruitment now concentrates in selective institutions in major cities, leaving other students within commuting distance of home. The solution must work in reverse: funding should flow asymmetrically, tied to destination rather than institutional partnerships, similar to Spain’s new grants, while hosting institutions gain financial benefits rather than operating at a loss.
The ideal approach would restore residential mobility by addressing maintenance costs, halls fees, and the broader affordability crisis. If those conditions aren’t improving on their own, a semester in a city rarely chosen by home students remains preferable to no mobility at all, for students who have never lived elsewhere and for marginal modules kept viable by filled seats.
Leave a Reply