research.utwente.nl · 1 introduction and summary 7 1.1 introduction 8 1.2 mobility from a dutch...
TRANSCRIPT
International Mobility in Dutch Higher Education
MappingMobility 2012
MappingMobility 2012
Contents 2 3
1 Introduction and summary 71.1 Introduction 8
1.2 Mobility from a Dutch perspective 9
1.3 Mobility from an international perspective 11
1.4 Theme: Internationalisation between secondary school and university: the gap year 12
1.5 Reference guide 12
2 Diploma mobility to and from the Netherlands 132.1 Inbound diploma mobility 14
2.1.1 Developments in inbound diploma mobility 15
2.1.2 Countries of origin 5
2.1.3 Ratio of male to female students 20
2.1.4 Bachelor’s or master’s degree programmes 20
2.1.5 Fields of study 23
2.1.6 Higher education institutions 27
2.1.7 Students from Neso target countries 30
2.2 Outbound diploma mobility 36
2.2.1 Developments in outbound mobility 37
2.2.2 Destination countries 37
3 Credit mobility to and from the Netherlands 413.1 Inbound credit mobility 42
3.1.1 Developments in inbound mobility 43
3.1.2 Inbound credit mobility under the Erasmus Programme 43
3.2 Outbound credit mobility 48
3.2.1 Developments in outbound credit mobility 49
3.2.2 Ratio of male to female students 51
3.2.3 Fields of study 52
3.2.4 Higher education institutions 52
3.2.5 Work placement or study programme, or both 52
3.2.6 Outbound credit mobility under the Erasmus programme 56
3.2.7 Effects of experience gained abroad during the study programme 59
4 Total mobility 614.1 International students in the Netherlands 64
4.2 Dutch students abroad 68
5 Dutch mobility from an international perspective 715.1 The Netherlands’ position in the international student market 74
5.1.1 Patterns of international mobility 75
5.1.2 The position of the Netherlands 77
5.2 Developments in the Neso target countries 84
5.2.1 Inbound and outbound mobility 85
5.2.2 Brazil 86
5.2.3 China 89
5.2.4 India 90
5.2.5 Indonesia 91
5.2.6 Mexico 92
5.2.7 Russia 92
5.2.8 South Korea 93
5.2.9 Taiwan 94
5.2.10 Thailand 95
5.2.11 Vietnam 96
5.2.12 Conclusion 97
2 3
4 5
5.3 Credit mobility 100
5.4 Lecturer and researcher mobility 104
5.4.1 Mobility to the Netherlands 105
5.4.2 Mobility from the Netherlands 106
6 Internationalisation between secondary school and university: the gap year 1076.1 Introduction 108
6.2 Going abroad in the gap year 110
6.2.1 Trends in gap year mobility – figures 111
6.2.2 Reasons for taking a gap year abroad 111
6.2.3 Developments 113
6.3 Utilising the gap year in higher education 114
6.3.1 Participant gains 115
6.3.2 The role of the gap year in government policy and education institution policy 115
6.3.3 Relationship with internationalisation policy in Dutch education 117
6.3.4 Recommendations 118
Appendix 1217.1 Nuffic programme mobility 122
7.1.1 Inbound mobility 123
7.1.2 Outbound mobility 123
7.2 Definitions and methods 126
7.2.1 Mobility as part of internationalisation 127
7.2.2 Types of mobility 127
7.2.3 Diploma mobility and credit mobility 127
7.2.4 Mobility source data 127
7.2.5 In short: what do we know, and what do we not know? 131
Abbreviations 134
Publication information 136
4 5
6 7
6 7
Introduction and summary
1
1.1 Introduction Nuffic has produced the annual Mapping Mobility
report since 2010. The aim of the publication
is to inform you of recent developments in the
internationalisation of Dutch higher education.
This report provides an update of recent
developments in student mobility to and from
the Netherlands and, where possible, offers
additional information on other types of
internationalisation. The publication therefore
contains multiple diagrams and tables that
reflect internationalisation developments.
We also aim to put Dutch internationalisation
into an international context. Every year we
therefore analyse what is happening in other
countries to gain insight into how the Netherlands
is performing and to identify trends. Moreover,
each year we explore one specific theme in
greater depth. This year’s theme is ‘Internatio
nalisation between secondary school and
university: the gap year’.
The supply of data on mobility flows and other
types of internationalisation continues to be a
concern. We still frequently encounter problems
in our endeavours to collect accurate data that
can also be used for the purpose of international
comparison. Issues relating to definitions and a
lack of records mean that charting international
mobility remains a matter of meticulously inter
preting information and making careful decisions
based on the available data. These issues are
explained in greater detail in the appendix.
Key developments
• The number of international students is
growing worldwide. This trend is also evident
in the Netherlands, which is progressively
catching up with the European outbound
mobility average.
• Worldwide, Europe remains the hub for
international student mobility although
East Asia continues to grow in importance.
• ThenumberofDutchstudentsstudying
abroad now reflects solid growth, partly
on account of the later introduction of the
bachelor’smaster’s degree structure and
other Bologna measures in the surrounding
countries. The implementation of portable
student grants and loans has spurred Dutch
students to study abroad at almost 1,600
institutions in 86 countries since 2007.
• Students from Germany form the largest group
of international students in the Netherlands
and the imbalance in student mobility between
the Netherlands and Germany continues to
grow. However, there are signs of diminishing
growth in the number of German students
studying in the Netherlands. The decline is
offset by larger numbers of students from
Bulgaria, Greece, the United Kingdom, Italy
and France, which has increased the diversity
of international students in the Netherlands.
• The number of international students enrolling
at Dutch research universities is growing at
a faster pace than the numbers of students
entering Dutch universities of applied sciences,
as is the number enrolling on master’s rather
than bachelor’s degree programmes.
8 9
1 Nuffic operates a number of Netherlands Education Support Offices (Nuffic Neso offices) to support Dutch higher education abroad. There are Nuffic Neso offices in Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Thailand, Vietnam and South Korea, and Nuffic Neso Desks in India and Taipei.
1.2 Mobility from a Dutch perspectiveThe number of international students rose once
again between 201011 and 201112, with the
percentage of the total number of enrolled
students up from 8.1% to 8.4%.
The percentage of international students that
make up the student population in academic
or researchoriented higher education (weten
schappelijk onderwijs, WO) has climbed in the
last five years from 7.7% to 11.2%. In the same
period, the percentage of international students
pursuing higher professional education (hoger
beroepsonderwijs, HBO) rose from 6.0% to 6.8%.
In terms of numbers, this equates to 6,350
additional students in higher professional
education as opposed to 11,000 additional
students in researchoriented higher education.
The number of international students in research
oriented higher education is rapidly approaching
the number of international students in higher
professional education.
Germany remains the main country of origin
for international students. However, the growth
in student numbers from Germany seems to
be diminishing and the German share of
international students in the Netherlands has
declined marginally to 45%. Austria surpassed
the Netherlands in 2008 as the main destination
country for German students. The number of
German enrolments is followed at some distance
by enrolments from China and Belgium, which in
turn are still well ahead of the growing numbers
of students from Bulgaria, Greece, the United
Kingdom, Italy and France. The continued growth
in student numbers from the latter countries
appears to be offsetting the diminishing growth
in student numbers from Germany.
Based on residence permit data, the number of
students from the Neso target countries1 who
have studied abroad in the Netherlands since
2007 jumped from 2,500 to 10,500 students
registered in the Netherlands in 2012.
The difference between the percentages of
female and male students of foreign nationality
has steadily increased in favour of female
students. Fiftynine per cent of international
students pursuing higher professional education
are women, while women account for 54% in
academic higher education.
Almost three quarters of the international
students pursuing governmentfunded education
were enrolled in a bachelor’s degree programme,
the majority of whom were higher professional
education students. In academic higher
education, the number of international master’s
students exceeded the number of international
bachelor’s students in 201011 for the first
time ever.
Although Agriculture remains the most inter
nationalised field of study in academic higher
education – recording the highest percentage
of international students among the student
population pursuing this field of study – the
8 9
majority of international students pursuing
academic higher education can be found in the
field of Economics. In higher professional
education, the most international field of study is
Language & Culture, thanks to the contribution
of the arts disciplines; here too, however, the
majority of international students have opted
for the much wider field of Economics.
The Gerrit Rietveld Academy this year again
attracted the highest percentage of international
students, with Maastricht University, Codarts,
the University of the Arts in The Hague and
Hotelschool The Hague – International University
of Hospitality Management occupying second
through to fifth place. In terms of absolute
numbers of international students, Maastricht
University again ranks number one, followed
at a distance by Fontys University of Applied
Sciences, Saxion University of Applied Sciences,
the University of Groningen and Delft University
of Technology. The University of Amsterdam’s
student population reflects the most diversity
in nationalities.
In addition to inbound mobility, the Netherlands
also has its share of outbound mobility. In 200809
a larger number of Dutch students – over 18,100
– enrolled at universities abroad. In terms of
percentage of the total student population in
the Netherlands, the number also rose, from
2.7% to 2.9%, reflecting an upward trend.
The main destination countries are the United
Kingdom, Belgium, the United States and
Germany.
The growth in the number of students taking
advantage of the Dutch student grants and loans
system to study abroad seems to continue to
be slowing down somewhat, as is the number
of countries where they are studying. The
preferred countries are Belgium, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Germany, Sweden
and Portugal. No less than 87% of students
funded by the Dutch student grants and loans
system study abroad in these countries. There
are signs of diminishing growth in outbound
mobility particularly to the AngloSaxon countries
whereas other countries – due to the continued
growth in outbound mobility – now rank as the
top four destination countries. The portability of
student grants and loans has yielded a broad
range of international experiences: since 2007
Dutch students have embarked on study
programmes at almost 1,600 different institutions
in 86 different countries. In 2007 Dutch students
studied in only 14 different countries pursuing
134 study programmes.
The above data relates to students who enrolled
on a full study programme. This is referred to
as diploma mobility. Mobility during a study
programme is also referred to as credit mobility.
Credit mobility, particularly outbound credit
mobility, is a key indicator of the level of
inter nationalisation of a study programme.
In line with the Bologna agreements, credit
mobility is preferably measured among graduates.
The Netherlands is one of the few countries
that actually does so: once a year among
10 11
2 EFTA countries: Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.
higher professional education graduates and
once every two years among academic higher
education graduates. After a sudden dip, the
most recent higher professional education figures
are again showing a limited increase, moving
above the 20% standard for graduates with
studyabroad experience. Students gained the
most international experience at Hotelschool
The Hague – International University of Hospitality
Management and HAS Den Bosch University
of Applied Sciences. Around 90% of students
graduating at these institutions boasted study
abroad experience. Unfortunately, there are no
comparable figures for inbound credit mobility.
1.3 Mobility from an international perspectiveAccording to the latest UNESCO data, the number
of students studying abroad rose from 1.7 million
in 1995 worldwide to almost 3.7 million in
200809. Half of the outbound students studied
abroad in five countries in 200809: 18% studied
abroad in the United States, 10% in the United
Kingdom and 7% in Australia, Germany and
France. Close to 41% had a connection with the
EU as a whole: the students studied in the EU,
or originated from the EU or travelled between
EU countries for study purposes. The centre
of excellence for diploma mobility seems to be
undergoing a gradual shift towards East Asia
and the Pacific.
The Netherlands’ share of the global international
student market, measured as a percentage of
all international students worldwide studying
in the Netherlands, rose from 0.7% to 1.2%
between 2000 and 2009. Despite the increase,
the percentage of international students as part
of the total student population in the Netherlands
is still below the EU average. Compared with
other Western European countries, however, the
Netherlands hosts a relatively high percentage
of international students from within the EU and
the EFTA countries.2 German students account
for the majority of the inbound flow.
In terms of outbound diploma mobility, i.e. the
number of students following an entire study
programme abroad, expressed as a percentage
of the student population in their own country,
the Netherlands also does not achieve a high
score relative to other EU countries. However,
the percentage has been growing since 2004.
The increase is mostly determined by supply
given the fact that Dutch students – at least until
recently – were quite satisfied with education
and conditions in the Netherlands. On the one
hand, supply has increased owing to the – some
what slower – introduction of the bachelor’s
master’s degree structure in many of the
neighbouring countries. On the other hand, the
portability of student grants and loans that has
been in place since 2007 facilitates the study
abroad option.
The number of students from all Neso countries
pursuing a study abroad has been growing
since 200708. This trend has in part contributed
positively to the number of outbound students
from the Neso target countries studying in the
10 11
Netherlands. The number climbed from 2,500 to
10,500 students between 200708 and 201112.
1.4 Theme: Internationalisa-tion between secondary school and university: the gap yearThe gap year – a term commonly used in Anglo
Saxon countries – refers to the year out between
finishing secondary education and commencing
tertiary education. Around 9% of Dutch students
take a gap year (which incidentally sometimes
exceeds one year). One of the main reasons for
doing so is that students hope it will be beneficial
for their ultimate choice of study programme
although nonstudyrelated reasons also
contribute. Almost 3% of Dutch students travel
abroad in the gap year to gain international
experience. The percentage differs for academic
higher education students (5%) and higher
professional education students (2%) and
moreover depends on their field of study.
University College and Language & Culture
students enjoyed above average travel in the
gap year whereas Engineering students travelled
less. Around 8% of students in academic higher
education pursuing Language & Culture travelled
prior to commencing a study programme.
Students who opted for the inclusion of a gap
year affirmed that it had helped them in their
ultimate choice of study programme. As corro
borated by research, the dropout rate in the
first academic year is significantly lower among
students who had taken a gap year. For students
in academic higher education this is attributable
to having travelled abroad in the gap year, and
for students in higher professional education to
having worked during that period.
Governments take different approaches to the
gap year phenomenon. In the United Kingdom
the gap year is funded, subject to certain
conditions and students can obtain recognition
of their acquired competencies. By contrast,
in Denmark, where many Danish students do in
fact take a gap year, a discouragement policy
applies. In some cases, for instance in Australia,
universities seek to embed a gap year in a study
programme.
The question is: how does the Netherlands
approach the gap year?
1.5 Reference guideChapters 2 and 3 describe developments in
student mobility to and from the Netherlands
based on explanatory diagrams. Chapter 4
discusses the total flows of inbound and
outbound students in the Netherlands. Chapter
5 puts Dutch mobility into an international
perspective while Chapter 6 elaborates on
the theme of ‘Internationalisation between
secondary school and university: the gap year’.
12 13
12 13
Diploma mobility to and from the Netherlands
2
2.1
Inbound diploma mobility
Diagram 01
International students in government-funded higher education in the Netherlands, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
% of total enrolments in the Netherlands
Number of international students
6.6%
38,726
7.2%
43,216
7.7%
48,567
8.1%
53,12956,131
8.4%
14 15
2.1.1 Developments in inbound diploma mobility As is usual, the inbound diploma mobility figures
for the last five years have been revised and
updated. The figure for international students
in 201011 was increased by one thousand
whereas the figures for 200910, 200809 and
200708 were lowered by several hundred.
Notwithstanding these adjustments, the trend
of continued growth described earlier remains
unchanged. An absolute and relative increase
has again been seen between 201011 and
201112. The number of international students
in the Netherlands climbed from 53,129 to 56,131
in the above period. In addition, the percentage
of the total number of students of foreign
nationality enrolled in governmentfunded
education was up from 8.1% to 8.4%.
The growth in the share of international students
in higher professional education has fallen since
the 200506 academic year. In 201112, 6.8%
of the student population in higher professional
education were nonDutch, representing an
increase of 0.1% compared with 201011.
Growth in academic higher education remained
stable. In 201112, 11.2% of the student
population comprised nonDutch nationals,
representing an increase of 0.8% relative to
201011. Currently, 51% of international students
in governmentfunded higher education are
pursuing a higher professional education study
programme, while 49% are pursuing an academic
higher education study programme.
Diagram 01
Diagram 02
Mobility from countries whose citizens
need a residence permit
Since 2004, information has been available
on the number of students who come to the
Netherlands from countries whose citizens need
a residence permit as well as on the percentage
of this group who stay in the Netherlands for a
prolonged period of time.
Diagram 03 shows that the number of residence
permits issued between 2010 and 2011 grew by
390 rather than by 770 permits, which is slightly
less than between 2009 and 2010. Growth is
apparently levelling off mainly due to a slight
decline in the number of students extending their
residence permit for the purpose of pursuing a
multiyear study programme. Just as the
previous year, an increase of around 500 new
residence permits was recorded, bringing the
total to 10,550.
Diagram 03 (see page 16)
Diagram 04 (see page 16)
2.1.2 Countries of origin Enrolled students
Germany is the main supplier of international
students enrolled in governmentfunded, main
stream higher education in the Netherlands.
As a result of the decline in the growth of student
numbers from Germany by almost half, their
share of the total international student population
Diagram 02
International students in government-funded academic higher education and higher professional education, in numbers and as a percentage of the respective total student populations, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
% of HBO
% of WO
International students enrolled in
higher professional education (HBO)
International students enrolled in
academic higher education (WO)
0
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
7.7%
6.0%
8.7%
6.3%
9.6%
6.5%
10.4%
6.7%
11.2%
6.8%
22,4
08
16,3
18
24,0
54
19,1
62
26,3
29
22,2
38
28,0
66
25,0
63
28,7
57
27,3
74
%
14 15
Diagram 03
Number of new residence permits issued or extensions granted to students or student trainees from outside the EU-27 and EFTA, 2007-2011Source: IND, 2012 (revised figures; purpose of stay: study, including a supplementary examination)
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
20112010200920082007
Total
New
Extended
7,8458,229
9,031 9,195
10,04010,552
7,9948,385
9,559
9,321
15,839
16,614
18,590
19,36119,747
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
20112010200920082007
Total
Study purposes
Work placement
15,839
15,501
338
16,614
16,280
334
18,590
18,187
19,361
19,059
19,747
19,437
403 302 310
Diagram 04
Number of residence permits issued to students or student trainees from outside the EU-27 and EFTA, 2007-11Source: IND, 2012 (revised figures; purpose of stay: study, including a supplementary examination)
16 17
fell slightly. Fortyfive per cent of international
students now originate from Germany.
The Netherlands was also the main destination
country for German students from 2005 through
2007. In 2007, 18% of outbound German diploma
mobility studied in the Netherlands, while 16%
chose Austria. However, in 2008 the number
of German students pursuing studies in Austria
surged by 35%, ousting the Netherlands from
its spot as the main destination country. In 2008,
19.5% of German students opted to study abroad
in Austria and 18.5% in the Netherlands. Just
as in 2007, German students chose the United
Kingdom as their third destination country in
2008; 12.5% of outbound German students
pursued studies there.3
The number of students from China, the main
country of origin after Germany, fell between
2005 and 2008 but is again showing an upward
trend. Belgium remains stable in third place.
Diagram 05 (see page 18)
Diagram 06 (see page 18)
There is more movement among the group of
countries ranking after the first three. Bulgaria
had previously broken away from the group
and is now followed by Greece and the United
Kingdom, which in turn is followed by Italy,
a newcomer, closely followed by France in eighth
position. After France come Poland, Turkey,
Romania, Indonesia and Spain, each with more
than 800 students in governmentfunded higher
education.
To gain insight into shortterm developments,
we have looked at the percentage changes that
have occurred since the previous year. In the
EU the number of students from Greece and
the Baltic States reflected the strongest growth,
with Greece recording an increase of 24%,
Estonia 23%, Lithuania 22% and Latvia 20%.
The United Kingdom, Austria, Slovakia, Italy,
Cyprus and Ireland recorded growth percentages
between 1020%. Outside the EU, Morocco
(+103 students, or +17%) and the United States
(+60 students, or +11%) reflected notable growth
figures. By contrast, the Japanese student
population in Dutch governmentfunded education
continued to shrink (31 students, or 26%), and
has virtually halved since 200607.
The past six years have seen a catchup effort
by students from the twelve newest EU member
states. Their numbers grew by more than 144%
compared with 75% for the EU27 in general.
Fourteen per cent of students from the EU27
originate from the twelve recent entrants to the
EU.4 These students are enrolled in government
funded higher education. No information is
available on EU (and EFTA) students in private
higher education.
Students holding a residence permit
We looked at countries for which at least 100
residence permits were issued to students in
2011. In this group, the number of students
originating from South Korea, Mexico, Russia,
the United States and Ukraine rose by more
than 10% between 2010 and 2011. By contrast,
3 DAAD, HIS, WBV. (2008, 2009, 2010, 2011). Wissenschaft weltoffen, Daten und Fakten zur Internationalität von Studium und Forschung in Deutschland. Bielefeld: DAAD.
4 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia acceded in 2004; Bulgaria and Romania acceded in 2007.
16 17
Diagram 05 and 06
Top three countries and top four to eight countries of origin for diploma mobility, 2007-2012 Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
top 3
top 4 to 8
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
711
6
64
792
622
812
1,
017
7
36
799
692
8
53
1
,260
83
4
8
48
809
922
1,
444
1
,069
94
5
923
94
6
1,6
02
1,4
14
1,
142
1
,043
1,0
20
Bulgaria
Greece
United Kingdom
Italy
France
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
16,
469
3,3
34
2,1
79
19,1
55
3,4
05
2,1
58
22,
109
3
,787
2,
262
24,
093
4
,145
2,
359
2
5,03
2
4,31
3
2,
418
Germany
China
Belgium18 19
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
MexicoIranSurinameRussiaSouth KoreaIndiaTurkeyIndonesiaUnitedStates
China
4,14
6
4
,435
5,
102
5,43
5
5,7
17
1,0
11
1,2
28
1,
492
1,49
6
1,6
60
1,3
32
1,
281
1
,230
1
,182
1
,198
728
724
8
47
935
84
3
480
524
6
58
7
49
804
34
4
389
4
10
5
42
654
34
2
427
447
497
57
6
559
547
568
568
543
234
316
4
12
45
6
5
01
244
275
291
338
4
04
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Diagram 07
Residence permits issued: top ten countries of origin in 2007-2011Source: IND, 2012 (revised figures)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Female students enrolled inhigher education (HO)
Male students enrolled inhigher education (HO)
Female students enrolled inacademic higher education (WO)
Male students enrolled inacademic higher education (WO)
Female students enrolled inhigher professional education (HBO)
Male students enrolled inhigher professional education (HBO)
42.3%41.1%40.9%40.4%40.7%
57.7%58.9%59.1%59.6%59.3%
45.9%46.1%46.1%45.7%46.2%
54.1%53.9%53.9%54.3%53.8%
43.8%43.3%43.3%42.9%43.4%
56.2%56.7%56.7%57.1%56.6%
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Diagram 08
International students in government-funded education according to gender, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
18 19
student numbers from Tanzania, Kenya, Nepal,
Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Ethiopia and
Thailand dropped by more than 10% (with
Tanzania and Kenya seeing their share plunge
by more than 20%). Even though the number
of students from Morocco and Turkey in
governmentfunded education is rising,
no increase has been seen in the number of
residence permits issued to students from these
countries. The reverse is true: the upward trend
for Turkish students was interrupted the previous
year, plummeting suddenly by almost 10% while
the number of residence permits for Moroccan
students has definitely been falling since 2005.
Suriname enrolments too were up until the
previous year, but the number of residence
permits has remained reasonably stable since
the decline seen between 2006 and 2007.
From a regional perspective, the number of
residence permits for students from the United
States and Canada has risen by 264% since
2005 and by 142% for students from Oceania,
by 34% for students from Asia and by 2% for
students from Africa. The figure for Oceania
rose sharply until 2008 but was followed by
a moderate decline, while the figure for Africa
grew until 2009 but has since continued to fall.
Diagram 07 (see page 19)
2.1.3 Ratio of male to female students The ratio of male to female international students
in governmentfunded higher education has
changed in recent years. In the 199899 academic
year the ratio was 54% male to 46% female
students. With the 200001 academic year
marking a turning point, the ratio recorded since
200809 is 57% female to 43% male students.
In higher professional education over 59% of
students are female while women account for
54% of students in academic higher education.
Diagram 08 (see page 19)
2.1.4 Bachelor’s or master’s degree programmes The majority of international students in
governmentfunded education pursue a bachelor’s
degree programme. This is primarily attributable
to students in higher professional education
where almost all international students pursue
a bachelor’s degree programme. In academic
higher education the number of master’s students
exceeded the number of bachelor’s students in
201011 (revised data).
Diagram 09
Diagram 10
Diagram 11
As expected, international students in higher
professional education pursue all CROHO
components, particularly bachelor’s degree
programmes. Only in the Language & Culture
and Education components a notable percentage
of these students are pursuing a master’s degree
programme. Bachelor’s programmes are only
pursued in the crosssectoral academic higher
education component (at the University Colleges)
while most international students who are
studying Behaviour & Society are enrolled on
14,722 (26.2%)
41,273 (73.5%)
73 (0.1%) 63 (0.1%)
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Post-master’s
Undivided
Diagram 09
International students in government-funded higher education by phase, 2011-12Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
20
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
8,6
52
7,3
01
41
324
10,0
96
8,7
99
49 218
1
1,40
9
10,
626
44 159
12
,390
12
,513
59 101
13,
603
13,
635
73 63
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Post-master’s
Undivided
Total
jaar 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10Bachelor 6.618 7.773 8.859 10.336 11.286Master 4.638 5.857 7.410 8.919 9.958Ongedeeld 1.474 668 354 246 189Post-master 46 50 42 53 45Totaal 12.776 14.348 16.665 19.554 21.478
16,318
19,162
22,238
25,063
27,374
Bachelor’s
Master’s
Total0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
21,3
83
1
,025
22,9
93
1
,061
25,
258
1
,071
26,
939
1
,127
2
7,67
0
1
,087
22,40824,054
26,329
28,06628,757
Diagram 10
International students in government-funded academic higher education by phase, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
Diagram 11
International students in government-funded higher professional education by phase, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
21
0 20 40 60 80 100
By phase
Natural Sciences
Agriculture &Natural Environment
Law
Engineering
Language & Culture
Behaviour & Society
Healthcare
Education
Economics
Cross-sectoral2.3%0.0%
97.7%0.0%
64.7%0.0%
19.7%15.6%
81.9%12.0%0.0%6.1%
61.8%0.6%
18.5%19.2%
36.4%0.1%
43.4%20.2%
49.8%14.3%16.5%19.3%
45.5%0.0%
15.1%39.4%
0.0%0.0%
47.2%52.8%
26.7%0.0%9.1%
64.2%
0.0%0.0%
24.4%75.6%
49,3%1,9%
24,2%24,5%
Higher professionaleducation bachelor’s
Higher professionaleducation master’s
Academic higher education bachelor’s
Academic higher education master’s
Diagram 12
International students in government-funded higher education by type of study, and phase by CROHO component, 2011-12Source: DUOCFI, 2012
22
The percentage of international students as a
share of the total CROHO component population,
which is an indicator of the degree of international
orientation, shows a completely different picture.
The crosssectoral category, which refers to
University Colleges, is the most notable category.
In Agriculture & Natural Environment too, the
percentage of international students is above 20%,
while the percentage in the CROHO component
of Economics is almost 20%. Behaviour & Society
as well as Engineering follow at some distance
reflecting percentages of around 12%. Education
concludes the list accounting for only 4.3% of
international students. The only component
showing signs of stabilisation is Agriculture &
Natural Environment while continued growth
is evident in all other sectors.
Diagram 14 (see page 25)
Diagram 15 (see page 25)
The most popular component in government
funded higher professional education in terms of
student numbers is Economics, which again saw
a growing number of international students in the
201112 academic year. By contrast, the number
of international students studying the Language
& Culture component once again declined in the
201112 academic year relative to the previous
year. The Healthcare field of study also saw student
numbers drop for the first time.
At 23.5%, the Language & Culture component
(art academies) reflects the highest percentage
of international students as a share of the total
component population in higher professional
a bachelor’s degree programme. On the other
hand, the reverse applies to Agriculture &
Natural Environment, and Natural Sciences
and Engineering, the components in which the
largest majority of international students are
pursuing a master’s degree programme. The
students pursuing the other academic higher
education components are more evenly
distributed across the bachelor’s and master’s
degree programmes.
Diagram 12
Diagram 13 provides a breakdown of the
nationalities with 100 or more students in the
Netherlands by study type and phase. It is
interesting to note that certain groups of countries
have no clear preference for the type and phase
of study programme. Most EU countries can
primarily be seen in academic higher education
although this does not apply to countries such
as Germany, France, Spain or Sweden. This
evidently depends on the characteristics and
circumstances of each individual country.
Further research would be required.
Diagram 13 (see page 24)
2.1.5 Fields of studyLooking at the numbers of international students
in governmentfunded academic higher education,
the CROHO components of Economics, and
Behaviour & Society are especially popular.
Although these two fields of study are perhaps
showing stronger growth than the other fields
of study, in all cases consistent growth has
been seen in recent years.
IND figures show that of the students who
obtained a student residence permit for
the first time in 2005, 19% were still in
the country at the beginning of 2012, 2%
were still studying while 17% had obtained
a different residency status. Of the 2006
cohort, 21% were still in the country, 4%
were still studying while 17% had obtained
a different residency status. Of the 2007
final cohort, 23% were still in the country,
8% were still studying and 15% had
obtained a different residency status.
23
Higher professional education bachelor’s
Higher professional education master’s
Academic higher education bachelor’s
Academic higher education master’s
0 20 40 60 80 100
Latvia
Japan
Italy
Israel
Iran
Indonesia
India
Ireland
Iceland
Hungary
Greece
France
Finland
Ethiopia
Estonia
Germany
Denmark
Czech Republic
Colombia
China
Canada
Cameroon
Bulgaria
Brazil
Belgium
Austria
Afghanistan63.0%
0.0% 27.6%
9.4%
41.2%5.0%
30.1%23.7%
34.3%4.4%
37.8%23.5%
51.8%4.1%
14.1%30.0%
53.9%0.6%
18.5%27.0%
82.8%0.0%
10.2%7.0%
36.9% 3.7%
11.2% 48.1%
49.8% 0.4%
15.7% 34.0%
21.0% 2.1% 8.2%
68.7%
22.9% 2.4%
26.8% 47.8%
49.1%4.6%
23.4%22.9%
57.2%0.5%
30.5%11.7%
44.3%2.9%
20.7%32.1%
12.7%0.0%2.7%
84.7%
35.9%3.4%
37.2%23.5%
55.5%4.7%
17.6%22.2%
11.3%3.0%8.1%
77.6%
49.3%5.9%
14.0%30.7%
38.9%11.1%12.0%38.0%
30.3%4.8%
17.0%47.9%
9.7%0.2%8.7%
81.4%
40.5%0.6%
14.3%44.5%
36.3%2.5%
20.8%40.4%
44.9%14.0%22.4%18.7%
31.7%4.7%
21.2%42.4%
57.3%18.8%
8.5%15.4%
51.6%2.9%
23.8%21.7%
0 20 40 60 80 100
Vietnam
United States
United Kingdom
Ukraine
Turkey
Thailand
Taiwan
Switzerland
Sweden
Suriname
Spain
South Korea
Slovenia
Slovakia
Russia
Romania
Portugal
Poland
Pakistan
Norway
Nigeria
Nepal
Morocco
Mexico
Luxembourg
Lithuania36.4%
4.0%21.5%38.0%
53.0%4.0%
25.0%18.0%
19.1%3.2%8.8%
68.9%
82.8%0.3%
13.2%3.6%
57.7%0.0%4.1%
38.2%
61.9%0.0%
14.8%23.3%
67.2%3.2%
15.9%13.6%
50.4%0.0%
15.1%34.5%
41.2%3.0%
24.9%30.8%
51.7%6.7%
10.8%30.9%
30.8%1.9%
14.9%52.5%
51.2%3.7%
18.0%27.1%
45.0%0.8%
17.4%36.8%
30.5%7.6%
16.2%45.7%
52.6%11.1%18.1%18.1%
41.9%13.3%14.8%30.0%
43.5% 0.4%
32.8% 23.4%
51.9%2.4%
29.3%16.4%
42.9%5.7%
17.0%34.4%
24.3%5.8%8.7%
61.2%
43.4%4.7%8.5%
43.4%
61.4%1.6%
11.7%25.3%
55.3%1.1%
16.0%27.5%
37.6%5.1%
29.2%28.2%
25.0%6.9%
18.3%49.7%
59.0%0.0%
10.4%30.6%
Diagram 13
International students in government-funded higher education, phase by country of origin, 2011-12Source: DUOCFI, 2012
24 25
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
4
,275
3,5
37
2,
252
1,5
53
1,
317
9
19
1,0
08
889
527
41
5
,219
4
,132
2,6
66
1,71
4
1
,455
1,16
7
1,1
14
998
64
849
6,2
46
4
,820
3
,025
1
,952
1,6
12
1
,417
1,23
7
1,1
09
776
44
7,0
30
5,4
09
3,
375
2
,163
1,6
97
1
,643
1,5
03
1,
301
8
8359
7,5
82
5
,837
3,8
05
2,2
92
1
,807
1,8
06
1
,629
1,5
03
1,0
4073
16,318
19,162
22,238
25,063
27,374
Economics
Behaviour & Society
Engineering
Language & Culture
Natural Sciences
Law
Agriculture &
Natural Environment
Healthcare
Cross-sectoral
Education
Total
Diagram 14
International students in government-funded academic higher education by CROHO component, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
29.
2%
21.
4%
13.
3%
8.4
%
8
.1%
8
.2%
5.2
%
3.5
%
3.1%
3.8
%
7
.7%
31.
7%
21
.6%
15
.3%
9
.6%
9.
3%
8.
6%
5.5%
4.
3%
3.4
%
4.4
%
8
.7%
31
.9%
21.7
%
17
.0%
10
.4%
10.
2%
8
.9%
6
.0%
5.0%
3.7%
3
.3%
9.6%
31
.8%
23.
4%
1
8.1%
11.
3%
11
.0%
8.
9%
6
.5%
5
.8%
4.
2%
3.
7%
10.
4%
3
2.6%
23.
3%
19.
1%
1
2.4%
1
1.8%
9.0
%
7.1
%
6
.4%
4
.8%
4.3
%
1
1.2%
Cross-sectoral
Agriculture &
Natural Environment
Economics
Engineering
Behaviour & Society
Natural Sciences
Language & Culture
Law
Healthcare
Education
Average
Diagram 15
International students in government-funded academic higher education by CROHO component as a percentage of the total component population, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
24 25
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
25
.5%
7
.2%
8.
9%
6.8%
4
.0%
3
.8%
1.4
%
6.0
%
2
4.5%
7.8
%
9.0
%
7.0
%
4.
1%
3.9
%
1
.5%
6.3%
2
4.4%
8.3%
8.4
%
7.1
%
4
.5%
4
.0%
1.
6%
6
.5%
*
24.
0%
8.8%
8.2%
6.
8%
4.8%
4
.4%
1.
6%
6.7%
*
2
3.5%
8.
8%
6
.5%
6.3
%
5.
0%
4
.7%
1
.7%
6.
8%*
Language & Culture
Economics
Agriculture &
Natural Environment
Healthcare
Behaviour & Society
Engineering
Education
Average
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
9,7
50
4,
334
2
,198
2,27
1
2,1
97
947
7
11
10,
952
4
,262
2,37
5
2,
366
2,38
6
992
72
1
12
,358
4
,333
2,7
68
2,
582
2,52
0
1,0
49 7
14
1
3,42
2
4,2
43
3,1
46
2,8
86
2
,543
1
,094
72
7
13,9
06
4,1
01
3,
343
3
,177
2,48
5
1,1
26 5
94
22,408
24,054
26,329*
28,066*28,757*
Economics
Language & Culture
Behaviour & Society
Engineering
Healthcare
Education
Agriculture &
Natural Environment
Total
Diagram 17
International students in government-funded higher professional education by CROHO component as a percentage of the total component population, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
Diagram 16
International students in government-funded higher professional education by CROHO component, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
* Includes crosssectoral: five students in 200910 and 201011, 25 students in 201112.
* Includes crosssectoral: five students in 200910 and 201011, 25 students in 201112.
26 27
students. Fontys University of Applied Sciences
and Saxion University of Applied Sciences
clinched their second and third positions with
Delft University of Technology retaining its fifth
place and the University of Amsterdam retaining
its ninth place. With an additional 500 international
students the University of Groningen jumped
from seventh to fourth place whereas HAN
University of Applied Sciences fell from fourth
to sixth place. The Erasmus University Rotterdam
went from eighth to seventh place, and Stenden
University of Applied Sciences went from eighth
to sixth place. The Hague University of Applied
Sciences joined the ranking to take up the tenth
spot while Zuid University of Applied Sciences
was knocked out of the top ten.
It should be noted that these figures relate to
students in governmentfunded education.
In addition to this group, the institutions often
also play host to nongovernmentfunded diploma
mobile students and noncentrally recorded
credit mobile students. The international student
population is usually higher, therefore, and
sometimes even considerably higher, than the
figures presented here. More comprehensive
records need to be maintained to accurately
reflect the total population.
Diagram 19 (see page 29)
Among the top ten institutions with the most
international students relative to their total student
populations, the Gerrit Rietveld Academie
recaptured the top spot with 46% international
students. Maastricht University fell from first to
education. The percentages for the other CROHO
components are at least 50% lower. A lower
percentage has again been recorded for three
components in the 201112 academic year.
Agriculture & Natural Environment shows the
strongest decline, dropping from 9% in 200809
to 6.5% in 201112. A longer term adjustment
applies to Language & Culture which declined
from 25.5% in 200708 to 23.5% in 201112,
while the number of Healthcare students only
began to fall in 200910 by 7.1% to 6.3% in
201112. Economics is stabilising while the
other fields of study are still enjoying continued
growth.
Diagram 16
Diagram 17
Preferred fields of study by country of origin
Diagram 18 shows subjects prioritised on the
basis of student numbers for the main countries
of origin. The largest numbers of students for
most countries can be found in the Economics
component, followed by Language & Culture,
and Engineering. Norwegian students enrol
mainly in the Healthcare component. Where the
largest group of students for most countries did
not opt for Economics or Language & Culture,
the secondlargest group did.
Diagram 18 (see page 28)
2.1.6 Higher education institutions Top 10 institutions
Maastricht University again cemented its number
one position with an additional 600 international
26 27
Afghanistan
Austria
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
China
Czech Republic
Germany
Estonia
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Hungary
Indonesia
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
South Africa
Suriname
Sweden
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
Vietnam
Canada
Denmark
Ireland
Italy
Luxembourg
Serbia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Stated
Belgium
Colombia
Ecuador
India
Iraq
Iran
Mexico
Bangladesh
Ethiopia
Norway
1st field of study 2nd field of study 3rd field of study 4th field of study 1st field of study 2nd field of study 3rd field of study 4th field of study
2 x 2 =
ABC
€
Economics
Behavior & Society
Education
Cross-sectoral
Nature
Language & Culture
Engineering
Agriculture & Natural Environment
Healthcare Law
Diagram 18
Most popular CROHO component in government-funded higher education according to country of origin, 2011-12Source: DUOCFI, Nuffic, 2012
28 29
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Haagse Hogeschool
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Stenden Hogeschool
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen
Technische Universiteit Delft
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Saxion Hogescholen
Fontys Hogescholen
Universiteit Maastricht 6,662
3,816
3,486
2,718
2,714
2,685
2,408
2,310
2,190
1,887
Diagram 19
Top ten institutions in terms of international student numbers in 2011-12 Source: DUOCFI, 2012
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Helicon University of Applied Sciences
Amsterdam School of the Arts
Design Academy Eindhoven
Stenden University of Applied Sciences
Wageningen University
Hotelschool The HagueInternational University of Hospitality Management
University of the Arts, The Hague
Codarts University for the Arts
Maastricht University
Gerrit Rietveld Academy 46.0%
45.1%
42.5%
37.0%
26.1%
23.4%
23.1%
21.5%
21.0%
20.2%
Diagram 20
Top ten institutions in terms of percentages of international students within the total student population by institution, 2011-12 Source: DUOCFI, 2012
28 29
the University of Amsterdam (36) followed by
Delft University of Technology (35) and Erasmus
University Rotterdam (35). The most widely
distributed student nationalities were German
(across 42 institutions with at least 10 German
students), Belgian (35), Chinese and French
(29), Italian (28), British and Polish (27).
Diagram 23 (see page 32)
2.1.7 Students from Neso target countriesNuffic operates a number of Netherlands
Education Support Offices (Nuffic Neso offices)
to support Dutch higher education abroad.
There are Nuffic Neso offices in Brazil, China,
Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, South Korea,
Thailand and Vietnam, and Nuffic Neso Desks
in India and Taipei. In addition to the number
of students in governmentfunded education
shown in Diagram 24, the number of students
holding a residence permit is shown in Diagram
25. The increasingly wide range of nonpublicly
funded study programmes means that Diagram
25 provides a more accurate picture of current
trends. Moreover, the diagram shows students
who actually came to the Netherlands to pursue
a study programme. The enrolment statistics in
Diagram 24 could also include students who
had already been living in the Netherlands for
some time or were born there.
Diagram 24 (see page 33)
Diagram 25 (see page 33)
second place and Codarts University for the Arts
from second to third. The University of the Arts
The Hague, Wageningen University and Stenden
University of Applied Sciences maintained their
respective fourth, sixth and seventh positions.
Hotelschool The Hague – International University
of Hospitality Management climbed from ninth
to fifth place with an additional six percentage
points while Design Academy Eindhoven slid
from fifth to eighth spot with eleven percentage
points. The Amsterdam School of the Arts moved
down one place while ArtEZ Institute of the Arts
exited the top ten ranking, ceding its position to
Helicon University of Applied Sciences.
Diagram 20 (see page 29)
Diagrams 21 and 22 show the historic
development of the numbers and percentages
of international students. We would again like
to point out that the figures relate to students in
governmentfunded higher education. The total
international student population therefore usually
is higher than shown here.
Diagram 21
Diagram 22
Preferred institution by country of origin
Diagram 23 shows the preferred higher education
institutions by country of origin. The criteria for
inclusion in this statistic are that the nationality
is registered with at least three institutions and
that at least ten students from that country are
registered at the thirdmost preferred institution.
Looking at only the minimum number of ten
students, most countries were represented at
30 31
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Helicon University of Applied Sciences
Amsterdam School of the Arts
Design Academy Eindhoven
Stenden University of Applied Sciences
Wageningen University
Hotelschool The HagueInternational University of Hospitality Management
University of the Arts, The Hague
Codarts University for the Arts
Maastricht University
Gerrit Rietveld Academy41.9%42.2%44.8%45.2%46.0%
36.0%38.9%41.4%42.8%45.1%
48.9%45.4%43.7%42.1%42.5%
35.6%34.7%35.5%34.4%37.0%
17.2%20.1%21.9%25.1%26.1%
21.4%21.6%21.7%23.4%23.4%
16.8%19.9%22.4%22.8%23.1%
25.2%26.2%29.2%32.1%21.5%
22.5%22.6%22.6%23.0%21.0%
20.1%18.4%20.5%17.1%20.2%
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
Diagram 22
Top ten institutions in terms of percentage of international students in government-funded education within the institution’s total student population, 2007-2012 Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
The Hague University of Applied Sciences
University of Amsterdam
Stenden University of Applied Sciences
Erasmus University Rotterdam
HAN University of Applied Sciences
Delft University of Technology
Groningen University
Saxion University of Applied Sciences
Fontys University of Applied Sciences
Maastricht University4,3185,0425,7516,1046,662
2,6302,7963,2123,6483,816
2,1572,6052,9903,2963,486
1,0881,3651,8172,2082,718
1,7582,0372,2452,4812,714
2,0232,1962,4582,7442,685
1,2731,4781,7752,1252,408
1,6041,9432,2612,3242,310
1,4901,7622,0322,2742,190
1,0351,2571,4471,6321,887
Diagram 21
Top ten institutions in terms of international student numbers in government-funded education by institution, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
30 31
1st institution 2nd institution 3rd institution 1st institution 2nd institution 3rd institution
Hogeschool van Amsterdam,
University of Applied Sciences
Maastricht University
The Hague University of Applied Sciences
Delft University of Technology
Gerrit Rietveld Academy
AVANS University of Applied Sciences
Wageningen University
Leiden University
Utrecht University
Groningen University
University of the Arts, The Hague
Fontys University of Applied Sciences
Eindhoven University of Technology
Saxion University of Applied Sciences
Hanze University of Applied Sciences,
Groningen
Stenden University of Applied Sciences
Rotterdam University
University of Amsterdam
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Hotelschool The Hague-International
University of Hospitality Management
INHOLLAND University of Applied Sciences
HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht
CAH Dronten University of Applied Sciences
Tilburg University
Utrecht School of the Arts
Amsterdam School of the Arts
HAN University of Applied Sciences
Zuyd University of Applied Sciences
Afghanistan
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Canada
China
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Israel
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania
Mexico
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Vietnam
2 x 2 =
ABC
€
Diagram 23
Institutions with the largest number of students from a specific country in 2011-12Source: DUOCFI, 2012
32 33
1st institution 2nd institution 3rd institution 1st institution 2nd institution 3rd institution
Hogeschool van Amsterdam,
University of Applied Sciences
Maastricht University
The Hague University of Applied Sciences
Delft University of Technology
Gerrit Rietveld Academy
AVANS University of Applied Sciences
Wageningen University
Leiden University
Utrecht University
Groningen University
University of the Arts, The Hague
Fontys University of Applied Sciences
Eindhoven University of Technology
Saxion University of Applied Sciences
Hanze University of Applied Sciences,
Groningen
Stenden University of Applied Sciences
Rotterdam University
University of Amsterdam
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Hotelschool The Hague-International
University of Hospitality Management
INHOLLAND University of Applied Sciences
HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht
CAH Dronten University of Applied Sciences
Tilburg University
Utrecht School of the Arts
Amsterdam School of the Arts
HAN University of Applied Sciences
Zuyd University of Applied Sciences
Afghanistan
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Cameroon
Canada
China
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Finland
France
Ghana
Greece
Hungary
Ireland
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Israel
Italy
Japan
Latvia
Lithuania
Mexico
Morocco
Nepal
Nigeria
Norway
Pakistan
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Slovakia
South Korea
Spain
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Turkey
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Vietnam
2 x 2 =
ABC
€
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
3,334 1,072 264 358 280 275 171 126 150 111
3,405 1,017 312 426 287 271 174 134 159 117
3,787 951 393 455 283 272 193 139 148 126
4,145 900 487 482 286 277 234 161 119 114
4,313 930 515 510 270 268 251 170 106 103
China
Indonesia
India
Russia
South Korea
Vietnam
Mexico
Brazil
Thailand
Taiwan
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000
2011-12
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
4,146 1,332 480 344 342 244 377 302 207 219
4,435 1,281 524 389 427 275 364 301 229 231
5,102 1,230 658 410 447 291 388 278 271 239
5,435 1,182 749 542 497 338 377 303 296 175
5,717 1,198 804 654 576 404 389 303 298 157
China
Indonesia
India
South Korea
Russia
Mexico
Vietnam
Taiwan
Brazil
Thailand
Diagram 24
Students from Neso target countries in government-funded higher education in the Netherlands, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
Diagram 25
Students from Neso target countries holding a temporary residence permit in higher education in the Netherlands, 2007-2012Source: IND, 2012 (revised figures)32 33
0.98%
0.28%
0.26%
0.74%
1.68%
3.88%
0.75%
0.90%
0.80%
0.96%
1.09%
0.23%
0.22%
0.84%
2.36%
4.47%
0.69%
0.87%
0.73%
0.73%
China
India
South Korea
Russia
Vietnam
Indonesia
Taiwan*
Mexico
Brazil
Thailand
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2008-092007-082006-072005-062004-05
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
402,805
139,743
101,002
38,776
20,796
30,056
32,525
23,209
19,562
23,681
406,594
139,228
104,899
41,171
23,325
28,351
34,058
24,138
20,018
23,859
429,578
155,100
109,984
42,946
28,020
31,022
37,171
25,207
21,671
24,805
0.90%
0.27%
0.30%
0.77%
1.03%
4.13%
0.91%
0.95%
0.89%
0.90%
459,026
177,170
114,801
44,221
36,534
32,257
33,021
25,772
23,136
24,430
0.87%
0.27%
0.32%
0.91%
0.83%
3.81%
0.90%
1.02%
0.87%
0.92%
512,418
195,405
122,824
47,143
43,670
33,645
33,339
26,863
26,282
25,192
Diagram 26
Percentage of outbound students from Neso target countries holding a temporary residence permit in higher education in the Netherlands, 2004-2009Source: UNESCO, IND, 2012 (revised figures)
* Source: Ministry of Education, Taiwan (http://english.moe.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=9354&ctNode=1184&mp=1). UNESCO does not maintain data for Taiwan.
34 35
Language & Culture while students from one
country, namely Thailand, chose Agriculture &
Natural Environment.
Diagram 27
The Dutch share of student numbers from Neso
target countries in centrallyregistered study
programmes in OECD countries is growing in
the case of Russia and Mexico; the share is
more or less stable for South Korea, Thailand,
India, Taiwan, Brazil and China; but is falling
in Vietnam and Indonesia. The data inevitably
refers to 200809 (the most recent figures).
While this adds no information about the Dutch
share of the total number of students from the
Neso target countries, Diagram 25 shows that
the number of students from Neso target
countries in the Netherlands climbed by 2,000
or 24%. In percentage terms the largest increase
was seen in student numbers from South Korea
(+68%), India (+53%), Mexico (+47%), Russia
(+35%), Brazil (+30%) and China (+29%).
By contrast, there was a decrease in student
numbers from Thailand (32%) as well as
Indonesia (6%).
Diagram 26
Preferred fields of study for students
from Neso target countries
As is the case for the entire international student
population, Economics is the preferred field
of study among students from the majority of
Neso target countries. In 201112 students from
South Korea and Taiwan also opted mainly for
Language & Culture while students from India
and Mexico opted mainly for Engineering.
A more varied picture applies to the second field
of study. Students from four countries chose
Engineering, students from three countries chose
Economics, students from two countries chose
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
All Neso countries
Taiwan
Thailand
Brazil
Mexico
Vietnam
South Korea
Russia
India
Indonesia
China
Economics
Engineering
Language & Culture
Agriculture &
Natural Environment
Behaviour & Society
Natural Sciences
Law
Healthcare
Cross-sectoral
Education
Diagram 27
Students from Neso target countries in government-funded higher education by CROHO component, 2011-12Source: DUOCFI, Nuffic, 2012
34 35
2.2
Outbound diploma mobility
36 37
2.2.1 Developments in outbound mobility The number of Dutch nationals enrolled abroad
continued to rise to over 18,100 between 200708
and 200809. Although the Dutch student
population abroad has been growing since the
turn of the century in terms of absolute numbers,
the upward trend is currently continuing in
percentage terms too, and has even been
reinforced. The general portability of student
grants and loans in 2007 may have contributed
to the increase between 200607 and 200809
(while more interest was certainly shown in this
option, as described below, it is unclear to what
extent this group was included in the OECD
figures: for instance, some students might study
at institutions that have not been included in the
statistics). The Dutch share in the total outbound
flow from the EU27 countries rose from 2.6%
to 2.8% between 200708 and 200809 but is
still smaller than what might be expected given
the size of the Dutch student population (see
also Chapter 5).
Diagram 28
Portable student grants and loans
Although portable student grants and loans had
been an option for a limited number of fields of
study and host countries for many years, they
became generally available in September 2007.
The only restriction is that the study programme
abroad must be of sufficient quality.
As shown in Diagrams 29 and 30, the number of
studyabroad countries has primarily increased
since the implementation of the general portability
of student grants and loans. The number of
countries grew from 14 in 200607 to 78 in
201112. However, 87% of the students funded
still study abroad in Belgium, the United Kingdom,
the United States, Germany, Sweden and
Portugal (see below).
Diagram 29 (see page 38)
Diagram 30 (see page 38)
2.2.2 Destination countries When enrolling for a full study programme abroad,
the host country for almost 80% of Dutch
nationals is another EU country. In 200809
the largest number of Dutch students studied
abroad in the United Kingdom, followed by
Belgium, the United States and Germany.
Dutch enrolments are increasing in almost all
countries. The increase even accelerated in
Belgium where an additional 820 students
enrolled in 200809, as well as in the United
Kingdom where Dutch student numbers were
up by 600. This applies to a lesser extent to
Spain (+80) and, outside the EU, to the United
States (+155) and Switzerland (+60). The limited
increase of 50 Dutch students has evidently
halted the prolonged decline of Dutch students
studying in Germany.
Diagram 31 (see page 39)
Destination countries for portable student
grants and loans
Most of the Dutch governmentfunded
students studied abroad in Belgium, with the
Diagram 28
Dutch students studying abroad to obtain a diploma, 2004-2009Source: OECD, 2012
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
2008-092007-082006-072005-062004-05
Abroad% of total enrolments in the Netherlands
2.33%
2.66%
2.45%2.50%
2.93%
13,184
14,18814,725
16,01818,115
36 37
Diagram 29
Number of students funded abroad, 2007-2012Source: DUOInformation Management Group, DUOCFI, 2012; figures as of 1 March of each year
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
Number of students% of total enrolments in the Netherlands
0.0%
0.4%
0.8%
1.2%
1.6%
2.0%
7,929
5,517
6,429
1.07%
7,432
8,347
1.25%1.21%1.17%
0.94%
Diagram 30
Number of countries where study programmes are funded by the Dutch government, 2007-2012Source: DUOInformation Management Group, 2012; figures as of 1 March of each year
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
Number of studentsNumber of countries
0
20
40
60
80
100
65
55
69
7,929
5,517
6,429
7,432
8,347
77 78
38
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
2008-092007-082006-072005-062004-05
3
,463
3,0
78
1,5
40
1
,703
571
35
3,
984
3,27
3
1,6
23
1,6
07
603
49
4,46
4
3
,462
1,6
22
1,55
8
626
57
4
,975
4,
056
1,
682
1,54
4
652
399
5,57
7
4,8
77
1
,839
1
,593
6
73
485
United Kingdom
Belgium
United States
Germany
France
New Zealand
Diagram 31
Destination countries, 2004-2009Source: OECD, 2012 39
United Kingdom in second place in 201112,
in turn followed by the United States, Germany,
Sweden and Portugal. While Belgium enjoyed
a 7.8% increase of 335 students, the number of
Dutch students studying abroad in the United
Kingdom is stabilising. The number of Dutch
students studying in the United States seems
to be declining slightly, which surprisingly also
seems be the case in Australia, Canada, Ireland
and New Zealand. As the differences between
the other countries have narrowed, the diagram
has been expanded to include six countries.
Incidentally, there is a marginal difference between
the number of Dutch governmentfunded students
in Portugal and the subsequent countries
(Denmark, France, Spain, etc.).
Over one third (34%) of the total number of
Dutch governmentfunded students studied at
5 Flemish institutions: the K.U. Leuven (1,042),
the University of Antwerp (758), the University of
Ghent (536), Antwerp University College (319) and
KH Kempen University College (210). Students
enrolled at a total of 55 Belgian institutions.
In the United Kingdom, Dutch students pursued
studies at 180 institutions. More than 50 Dutch
governmentfunded students studied at 7
universities (London Metropolitan University,
University College London, the University of
Cambridge, the University of Edinburgh, the
London School of Economics, the University of
Oxford and King’s College London). Small groups
of Dutch students were reasonably evenly
distributed across the other 173 institutions.
In the United States, 232 institutions hosted
enrolled Dutch governmentfunded students.
The largest number, 10 students, attended
Columbia University.
In Germany Dutch students pursued studies at
94 institutions. RWTH Aachen University (53),
Freie Universität Berlin (14), the WWU University
of Munster (12) and the University of Cologne
were the only institutions attended by 10 or more
Dutchgovernment funded students.
In Sweden Dutch students pursued studies at
21 institutions, with 10 or more students attending
the Universities of Jönköping (21), Lund (21),
Uppsala (19), Gothenburg (12) and Stockholm
(11), as well as the Stockholm School of
Economics (10).
Concluding the list, Dutch students pursued
studies at 14 institutions in Portugal, mainly at
the Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades
e Technologias in Lisbon (65).
The latest figures showing enrolments at 1,064
institutions in the 78 countries included in the
diagram confirm that the portability of the student
grants and loans system has contributed to
boosting a broad international experience.
Eightysix countries and as many as 1,584
institutions have accepted enrolments since
2007.
Diagram 32
Diagram 32
Main host countries, 2007-2012 Source: DUOInformation Management Group, 2012; figures as of 1 March of each year
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
3
,539
8
25 1
64
209
24 6
3,7
85
1,1
64
293
22
758 13
4
,066
1
,548
3
67
279
61
35
4
,284
1,7
67
41
2
267
86
55
4
,619
1,7
70
379
2
81 1
38 9
6
Belgium
United Kingdom
United States
Germany
Sweden
Portugal
Total 6 countries
4,767
5,540
6,356
6,871
7,283
40 41
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
3
,539
8
25 1
64
209
24 6
3,7
85
1,1
64
293
22
758 13
4
,066
1
,548
3
67
279
61
35
4
,284
1,7
67
41
2
267
86
55
4
,619
1,7
70
379
2
81 1
38 9
6
Belgium
United Kingdom
United States
Germany
Sweden
Portugal
Total 6 countries
4,767
5,540
6,356
6,871
7,283
40 41
Credit mobility to and from the Netherlands
3 Note: We have elected to examine inbound mobility first in this publication and then outbound mobility. With respect to diploma mobility, inbound student mobility is the key indicator in terms of both numbers and policy. Although the reverse is true in respect of credit mobility – more students probably go abroad rather than come to the Netherlands, and more importance is usually attached to outbound mobility in terms of education – for consistency we have first looked briefly at inbound credit mobility.
3.1
Inbound credit mobility
42 43
Credit mobility refers to students who travel
abroad to pursue a partial programme or take
up a work placement during their studies
within the context of their study programme.
3.1.1 Developments in inbound mobility The only information on inbound credit mobility
– meaning students who come to the Netherlands
to pursue studies or take up a work placement
within the context of their study programme
abroad – has to date been derived from the
administration of scholarship programmes.
Mobility outside these programmes or more
accurately, outside the recognised scholarship
programmes, remains largely undocumented.
This situation could be changed by including
questions about destination countries in
international comparative graduate surveys
more often. With regard to Germany, however,
we know that just 4% of credit mobile German
students study in the Netherlands, placing the
Netherlands in seventh place on the list of host
countries. This contrasts with the 18.5% of
diploma mobile German students who come
to the Netherlands. In the latter category, the
Netherlands ranks as the second destination
country, after Austria. Fortyfive per cent of
credit mobile German students study in the
United Kingdom, France, Spain and the United
States (DAAD, HIS, WBV, 2011).5
When taking account of the total of 28,200
outbound credit mobile students (see the
supporting information under 4.2.1) and
assuming that there is a certain degree of
reciprocity – the assumption is 85%6 – the number
of inbound credit mobile students could total
23,950. However, it should be noted that this
is a rough estimate of inbound mobility which
is given merely for the purpose of providing an
overall picture as well as to put outbound
mobility into some perspective.
The following information only refers to mobility
within the context of the Erasmus programme.
3.1.2 Inbound credit mobility under the Erasmus ProgrammeMobility within programmes is largely determined
by the specific features and conditions of the
relevant programme. Programme mobility
therefore is only indicative of general mobility
trends to a limited extent. The European
programmes are the most interesting in this
context as they facilitate comparisons between
countries. Although here too, outbound mobility
is limited to a certain extent by the available
budgets, inbound mobility reflects a greater
amount of freedom; although the number
of students travelling abroad per country is
limited, students are relatively free in their
choice of destination country, provided that
cooperation agreements are in place and a
certain degree of reciprocity applies.
As in previous years, most Erasmus Programme
students came from Spain in the last reference
year 200910. France and Germany also remained
the second and third countries of origin.
5 DAAD, HIS, WBV. (2011). Wissenschaft weltoffen, Daten und Fakten zur Internationalität von Studium und Forschung in Deutschland. Bielefeld: DAAD.
6 The figure of 85% is taken from the results of the REFLEX project among graduates in 19992000 (Allen, J. Coenen, J. & Velden, R. van der (2007). Higher education graduates compared with other countries; Results of the REFLEX project. The Hague, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science). On average, credit mobility from other EU countries was 85% of the credit mobility from the Netherlands.
42 43
The total number of incoming Erasmus
programme students rose sharply, from 6,894
to 7,239. Among the countries of origin with
more than 150 students, in percentage terms
the largest increase was seen in student numbers
from Sweden (+37%), Germany (+16%) and
Finland (+15%). On the other hand, a decrease
was seen in Erasmus programme students from
Portugal (12%), Poland (11%) and Austria (8%).
Diagram 33
How popular is the Netherlands among
international Erasmus programme students?
Ten per cent of Swedish Erasmus programme
students came to the Netherlands in 200910
as did 9% of Finnish Erasmus programme
students, 7% of the students from Hungary,
and 6% from Belgium and Turkey. Compared
with the previous year, most countries that
supplied more than 150 students saw their
share decline. The popularity of a short study
period in the Netherlands declined most among
Austrian (12%), Polish (10%) and Portuguese
students (9%). On the other hand a larger
share of students came from Sweden (+21%),
Germany (+13%) and Finland (+12%). Of the
total Erasmus programme population, the share
of students coming to the Netherlands
decreased to 4.0%.
Diagram 34
The previous Leonardo da Vinci Programme for
work placements abroad, known as Erasmus
Work Placements, has been part of the Lifelong
Learning Programme since 200708. Following
a preliminary year, we now have a reasonable
picture of EUsponsored credit mobility in terms
of work placements. The total number of visiting
student trainees increased notably from 1,185
to 1,355 between 200809 and 200910.
As stated in Mapping Mobility 2011, French
and German students again primarily took the
opportunity offered by the Erasmus programme
to carry out a work placement in the Netherlands
in 200910. The 200910 figures show, however,
that their numbers are falling by 13% and 9%
respectively, while a sharp increase is being
seen in student numbers from Belgium (+110%),
Poland (+71%) and Spain +33%). The share
of students in the total Erasmus Programme
population who opted for the Netherlands
decreased from 3.9% in 200809 to 3.8% in
200910.
As stated above, inbound Erasmus work
placement mobility represents but a fraction
of total inbound work placement mobility.
Moreover it is uncertain whether the countries
of origin in the Erasmus programme are
representative of the countries of origin in
general. International surveys will need to be
conducted among graduates if we are to obtain
a complete picture of inbound credit mobile
students to the Netherlands.
Diagram 35 (see page 46)
44 45
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
PortugalAustriaCzechRepublic
HungarySwedenFinlandBelgiumPolandUnitedKingdom
TurkeyItalyGermanyFranceSpain
51
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
1,11
9
1,1
50 1
,128
1,1
76
7
64
77
769
3
803
63
0 6
1560
7 6
12
353
41
8
4
16
4
50
323
3
61
36
8
3
80
3
31
314
293
31
4
306
261
274
314
2
3219
0 1
99
273
176
222
228
234
263
22
720
6 2
14
212
2
25
220
202
2
07
207
2
0718
2
4
53
456
420
374
823
836
8
58
862
Diagram 33
Erasmus countries of origin, for the purpose of study (150 or more Erasmus students), 2006-2010Source: Nuffic, 2012
0%
3.0%
6.0%
9.0%
12.0%
ItalyPolandGermanyFrancePortugalCzechRepublic
SpainUnitedKingdom
AustriaTurkeyBelgiumHungaryFinlandSweden
51
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
9.16
%8.
09%
8.2
5%
1
0.01
%
8.1
1%7.
99%
7.97
%
8.9
0%
5.81
%
6.7
4%
6
.48%
6.84
%
6.4
7%
6
.57%
5.81
% 5
.96%
7.9
5%
6.66
%
6.0
1%5.
61%
5
.26%
5
.44%
5
.43%
4.
77%
4.46
%
4.8
0%
4.9
5%
4.72
%
5.0
1%
4
.98%
4
.62%
4.28
%
5.
18%
4
.25%
3.79
% 4
.01%
4.
68%
4.6
3%
4.2
8%3.
89%
3.5
8% 3
.71%
3.6
4%3.
53%
3.
20%
3.3
0%
2.96
%
3
.34%
4.
04%
3
.84%
3.5
6%
3.22
%
3
.66%
3.50
%
3.4
2%
3.20
%
Diagram 34
Erasmus countries of origin, for the purpose of study (150 or more Erasmus programme students), percentage of the total Erasmus population by country who opted for the Netherlands, 2006-2010Source: Nuffic, 2012
44 45
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
ItalyUnited KingdomPolandSpainBelgiumGermanyFrance
51
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
168
281
244
126
242
221
37
72
151
70
83
110
20
48
82
36
7281
29
6473
Diagram 35
Erasmus countries of origin, work placement (50 or more Erasmus work placement students), 2007-2010 Source: Nuffic, 2012
Note: The data for 200708 is incomplete; the growth measured between 200708 and 200809 is largely the result of improved registration.
46 47
46 47
3.2
Outbound credit mobility
48 49
Diagram 36 (see page 50)
Diagram 37 (see page 50)
The mobility target agreed during the Bologna
conference in Leuven set out that by 2020 at
least 20% of graduating students should have
been internationally mobile.7 Obviously, the
results of a graduate survey are the best way of
determining whether this target is being met.
Outbound credit mobility continued to decline
among the academic higher education cohort
that graduated in 200708. Although the figures
probably also fell between 200708 and 200809,
for reasons of prudence we have assumed that
the percentage for academic higher education
has remained unchanged since 200708.
Following a reasonably sharp increase in that
period, as noted in the publication of two years
ago, higher professional education also saw a
decline of up to 19.9% between 200708 and
200809. The decline was mainly attributable
to a decrease in two fields of study: Education
and Economics. The latest higher professional
education figures for students graduating in
200910, however, again reflect a limited
increase of up to 20.5%. The previous decline
in Education was more than offset while an
increase was also recorded in the number of
Economics and Language & Culture graduates
(see Chapter 2.2.3).
The averages for academic higher education
and professional higher education, 26.6% and
20.5% respectively, would have resulted in
3.2.1 Developments in outbound credit mobility Diagram 36 shows the results of the Student
Monitor from 2001 while Diagram 37 reflects
the results of surveys conducted among
graduates. Until 2009 the Maastricht University
Research Centre for Education and the Labour
Market (ROA) conducted surveys among both
higher professional education and academic
higher education graduates. Since 2009,
however, the IVA Institute for Social Policy
Research, which is affiliated with Tilburg
University, has been responsible for carrying
out surveys among academic higher education
students. Both surveys are carried out on
behalf of the respective umbrella organisations:
the HBOraad (Netherlands Association of
Universities of Applied Sciences) and the VSNU
(Association of Universities in the Netherlands).
The ROA survey among higher professional
education graduates is held annually, and the
survey among academic higher education
graduates every two years. The latest IVA
survey, however, only covered mobility in the
master’s phase. This means that no figures
are available on a portion of outbound credit
mobility in academic higher education and that
it is not possible to update previous academic
higher education figures. In making comparisons
with the more recent figures for higher
professional education and in determining
the higher education averages, the academic
higher education percentages are assumed
to have remained unchanged.
7 ‘In 2020 at least 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have had a study or training period abroad’ (closing statement at the Bologna Leuven conference on 2829 April 2009). Incidentally, the 20% target has not been taken from surveys among graduates but among students in general, and as a result is probably too low. As shown by the results of the REFLEX project, the international average among graduates was 25% in 19992000 (and the average among graduates from the twelve participating EU countries was almost 26%). See footnote 6 for the REFLEX project reference source.
48 49
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
20102009200820072006200520042003
51
%
Academic higher education total
Higher education total
Higher professional education total
Academic highereducation, senior students
Higher education, senior students
Higher professional education, senior students
20%19% 19%
22%
19%20% 20%
22%
19%
17%
15% 15% 15% 12%
19%
17%16%
17%
15%
17%16%
17%
15%15%
1
8%
15%
13%
17%
1
4%
12%
17%
1
4%
13
%
17%
14
%
13%
17%
14
%
1
2%
16%
12%
10%
1
9%
16%
14%
18%
16%
14
%
Diagram 37
Percentage of outbound credit mobility among graduates, 2002-2010Source: ROA, 20032012; VSNU/IVA, 2010
Diagram 36
Percentage of outbound credit mobility among students, 2003-2010Source: ResearchNed, 20042012
51
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
2009-102008-092007-082006-072005-062004-052003-042002-03
Academic higher education
Higher education
Higher professional education
3
6.1%
23.
2%
18.6
%
3
6.0%
2
4.2%
19
.4%
3
1.6%
2
2.0%
17
.2%
31.
3%
22.
8%
18.3
%
29.
1%
23.
1%
20.2
%
26.
6%*
2
3.2%
21.5
%
26.
6%*
**
22.0
%
19.9
%
26.6
%*
**
2
2.5%
20.5
%
** Source: VSNU/IVA.** Data for 200708.
Note: The senior student population is the total population minus the firstyear student population.
50 51
an average for the entire graduate student
population of 22.5%.
When comparing the results of the Student
Monitor with the results of the graduate surveys,
it is apparent that the Student Monitor results
are less likely to show rising or falling trends.
Based on the total figures, a gradual increase
and decrease was seen in higher professional
education followed by a sudden surge, and
stabilisation in the last measurement year.
Academic higher education recorded a horizontal
line which plunged suddenly in 2008, only to
subsequently climb more strongly and then
recover slightly.
Greater clarity is needed about the difference in
results between the two surveys. In addition to
the time at which the survey is held – during or
after a study programme, and the fact that in
the first case students who do not graduate
(and are less mobile) are also surveyed – the
mobility of students or graduates at the time
of the survey may also affect the population
surveyed, and therefore the results. This may
have a different impact on the results of the
two different surveys.
Unlike the percentages referred to under diploma
mobility, which provide an annual picture, these
figures relate to mobility during the entire study
programme. It is unclear in which year mobility
occurred although it is most likely to have been
during the penultimate or final year of the study
programme. In order to draw a comparison
between the percentages expressing mobility in
a specific year, the mobility percentage during
the study programme should be divided by the
duration of the programme in years. If the study
programme has an average duration of four years
and 22.5% of students were internationally
mobile during that period, the annual percentage
would be 5.6%.
To get an idea of the number of credit mobile
students, the percentage should be multiplied
by the number of graduates in 200910: 92,250
(Statistics Netherlands, 2012).8 The result is
around 5,200 students. Students who did not
graduate were also internationally mobile, but
probably less so than those who did graduate.
A total of 634,100 students were recorded in
the 200910 academic year, which amounts
to 158,525 students in each academic year.
If mobility were the same, there would be around
8,925 mobile students per cohort. Somewhat
arbitrarily, this works out as 5,200 + 8,925 ÷ 2 =
7,050 mobile students per cohort (the number
has been rounded). This figure, times the number
of academic years (four) amounts to 28,200
credit mobile students a year. This means that
total annual outbound mobility would be around
18,100 (diploma mobile) students plus 28,200
(credit mobile) students, bringing the total to
46,300 students.
3.2.2 Ratio of male to female students The survey conducted among higher professional
education graduates revealed that female
8 In previous publications the total number of graduates in higher professional education and academic higher education was taken as a basis. However, this no longer corresponds with the graduate survey populations, consisting mainly of bachelor’s graduates in higher professional education and doctoral and master’s graduates in academic higher education. We currently refer to these totals in the above text. In order to obtain an accurate picture, separate surveys will ultimately need to be conducted among bachelor’s and master’s graduates in both higher professional education and academic higher education.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
20102009200820072006200520042003
51
%
Academic higher education total
Higher education total
Higher professional education total
Academic highereducation, senior students
Higher education, senior students
Higher professional education, senior students
20%19% 19%
22%
19%20% 20%
22%
19%
17%
15% 15% 15% 12%
19%
17%16%
17%
15%
17%16%
17%
15%15%
1
8%
15%
13%
17%
1
4%
12%
17%
1
4%
13
%
17%
14
%
13%
17%
14
%
1
2%
16%
12%
10%
1
9%
16%
14%
18%
16%
14
%
Diagram 38
Percentage of graduates with experience abroad according to gender, graduates in 2009-10Source: ROA, 2012; VSNU/IVA, 2010
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Academic highereducation*
Higher professionaleducation
18%
22%
28%
26%
Male
Female
* Data for 200708
50 51
students were more mobile than male students
whereas past surveys conducted among
academic higher education graduates showed
a reverse trend.
Diagram 38 (see page 52)
With more women than men graduating in both
higher professional education and academic
higher education, the number of mobile women
was higher than the number of mobile men.
In higher professional education 61% of mobile
graduates were women in 200910, with 54%
in academic higher education in the 200708
academic year.
3.2.3 Fields of study In the CROHO components of Agriculture &
Natural Environment, Engineering and
Healthcare, more than 40% of academic higher
education graduates were mobile during their
study programme. This applied to 2030% of
the academic higher education graduates in
Natural Sciences as well as Language &
Culture, and to less than 20% of graduates in
Economics, Law, Behaviour & Society as well
as Education. Regrettably more recent
comparative data is not available.
Just as in academic higher education in 200708,
at more than 50% a relatively high level of mobility
was seen among Agriculture & Natural
Environment graduates in higher professional
education during their studies in the 200910
academic year. Around 23.5% of higher
professional education graduates in Economics,
Language & Culture, and Healthcare and 13.5%
of graduates in Engineering, Education and
Behaviour & Society were mobile. Higher
professional education graduates in the Education,
Economics and Language & Culture fields of
study recorded increased mobility in 200910,
while a limited decrease applied to Agriculture &
Natural Environment, Healthcare and
Engineering.
Diagram 39
Diagram 40
3.2.4 Higher education institutionsTop ten institutions
A list of top ten institutions has been compiled
on the basis of graduate surveys. As stated
above, due to the unavailability of more recent
figures for research universities, the percentages
for 200708 have been used. In higher
professional education Codarts University for
the Arts and the Design Academy Eindhoven
reflected strong increases of 14.8 and 6.6
percentage points respectively, while NHTV
Breda University of Applied Sciences recorded
a sharp decline in outbound credit mobility of
7.4 percentage points.
Diagram 41 (see page 54)
3.2.5 Work placement or study programme, or both On average, the majority of students travel
abroad to take up a work placement, possibly
combined with a study programme. Sixty per
cent of higher professional education graduates
52 53
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Behaviour &Society
EngineeringEducationHealthcareLanguage& Culture
EconomicsAgriculture & Natural
Environment
51
48.3
%
52.
3%
52.
4%
5
3.2%
53.0
%
52.
1%
25.
8%25
.1%
25.
8%
28.5
%25
.3%
26
.3%
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
17.4
%
2
0.2%
19.7
%
2
0.1%
22.
5%
23.1
%
13.8
%
14.9
%
19.7
%
21.5
%
21.
9%
2
1.2%
11.9
%
15.2
%
15.3
%
14
.3%
1
3.8%
1
3.7%
10.5
%
11.
9%
12
.7%
1
4.8%
12.8
%
15
.2%
8.5%
8.5%
11.
3% 9
.3%
11
.9%
12
.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
EducationBehaviour &Society
LawEconomicsLanguage &Culture
NaturalSciences
HealthcareEngineeringAgriculture& Natural
Environment
51
55.8
%
58.
0%
5
9.5%
5
8.0%
5
8.0%
5
8.0%
45.
3%42
.3%
42.
7%
4
5.0%
45.
0%
4
5.0%
4
2.9%
41.3
%41
.2%
4
3.0%
4
3.0%
4
3.0%
2
9.8%
22.8
%
29.4
%
29.0
%
29.0
%
29.0
%
3
1.6%
3
4.4%
2
6.4%
22.0
%22
.0%
22.0
%
3
1.9%
3
4.2%
28
.8%
17.0
%17
.0%
17.0
%
19
.8%
1
7.8%
2
0.4%
16.0
%16
.0%
16.0
%
18.
2%
18.5
%
16.
7%12
.0%
12.0
%12
.0%
11.0
%11
.0%
11.0
%
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09*
2009-10*
Diagram 40
Percentage of credit mobility among higher professional education graduates according to field of study from 2004-2010Source: ROA, 20042012
Diagram 39
Percentage of credit mobility among academic higher education graduates, according to field of study, from 2004-2010Source: ROA, 20042009; VSNU/IVA, 2010
* Data for 200708
52 53
Diagram 42
Credit mobility, type of experience abroad, graduates in 2008-09Source: ROA, 2012
Higher professionaleducation
% Work placement
% Study programme
% Work placement and
study programme21%
19%60%
Diagram 41
Top ten institutions in terms of outbound credit mobility among graduates in 2009-10Source: ROA, 2012; VSNU/IVA, 2010
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
NHTV BredaUniversity of
AppliedSciences
CodartsUniversity
for the Arts
Van HallLarenstein
University ofApplied
Sciences
DelftUniversity ofTechnology*
DesignAcademyEindhoven
EindhovenUniversity ofTechnology*
CAH DrontenUniversity of
AppliedSciences
WageningenUniversity*
HASDen Bosch
University ofApplied
Sciences
HotelschoolThe Hague
InternationalUniversity ofHospitality
Management
90
.7%
88
.9%
5
8.1%
5
2.9%
49.
1%
46.
9%
42.0
%
4
1.1%
4
1.0%
4
0.8%
* Data for 200708
54 55
NVAO Internationalisation Certificate Credit mobility, the topic discussed in this chapter, often forms part of a broader internationalisation
strategy for the study programme. In 2010 the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands
and Flanders (NVAO) defined, tested and applied an assessment framework for assessing the
internationalisation strategy of a study programme. The framework is based on five assessment
standards:
1. Vision and policy
2. Education results
3. Education environment
4. Personnel/lecturers
5. Students
If the assessment results are satisfactory, the study programme qualifies for the distinctive
(quality) feature for internationalisation, and if the assessment results are positive the study
programme qualifies for the NVAO Internationalisation Certificate. Of the 21 study programmes
in the Netherlands and Flanders that participated in the first round, 18 institutions were awarded
the distinctive (quality) feature while ten were even awarded the NVAO Certificate. On the basis
of the initial experience gained, a new assessment framework for the distinctive (quality) feature
for internationalisation was defined in November 2011. The institution may now also apply for
the distinctive (quality) feature, together with accreditation, if desired. A grant application has
been submitted for the purpose of developing a European certificate, clarity on which will be
provided in the course of 2012.
The NVAO approved twelve Dutch applications for study programmes leading to a joint degree,
four of which relate to Dutch institutions in collaboration with partner institutions abroad, while
the remaining eight relate only to Dutch institutions. In five cases a new study programme was
assessed. In the other seven cases, existing study programmes underwent accreditation.
For more information, see www.nvao.com.
54 55
The percentage of Dutch outbound mobility
within total outbound mobility under the Erasmus
programme was up from 2.9% to 3.0% between
200809 and 200910.
Diagram 43
The previous Leonardo da Vinci Programme for
work placements abroad, known as Erasmus
Work Placements, has been part of the Lifelong
Learning Programme since 200708. Following
a preliminary year, we now have a reasonable
picture of EUsponsored credit mobility in terms
of work placements.
The United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and
Belgium again were the main destination
countries for outbound Erasmus work placement
mobility. The 42% increase in outbound work
placement mobility to the United Kingdom is
particularly noteworthy and is only surpassed by
the 46% increase in outbound work placement
mobility to Ireland shown at the bottom of the
list. Other countries experiencing strong growth
are Turkey and Sweden where the number of
Erasmus programme trainee students from the
Netherlands rose by 36% and 26% respectively.
Italy and France proved less popular, reflecting
declines of 26% and 6% respectively compared
with 200910. The share of Dutch outbound
mobility within total outbound mobility for work
placement under the Erasmus programme fell
between 200809 and 200910 from 6.9% to
6.5%.
Diagram 44
with international experience stated they had
taken up a work placement abroad in 200910,
a 2% increase relative to 200809.
3.2.6 Outbound credit mobility under the Erasmus programmeThe 2011 Student Monitor results show that
20% of mobile students use study programme
grants.
Mobility within programmes is largely determined
by the specific features and conditions of the
relevant programme. Programme mobility
therefore is only indicative of general mobility
trends to a limited extent. The European
programmes are the most interesting in this
context as they facilitate comparisons between
countries.
An increasing number of students are pursuing
a study component abroad under the Erasmus
programme. Student numbers climbed from
5,358 in 200910 to 5,946 in 201011 (see figure
45). Large numbers of students once again opted
for Spain in 201011. The United Kingdom
reinforced its number two ranking, followed by
France and Sweden. The destination countries
enjoying the largest increase where at least 100
students studied abroad were Austria (+33%),
Belgium (+32%), France (+26%), Hungary (+23%)
and Turkey (+21%). Students showed slightly
less interest in pursuing a study component in
Finland (3%).
56
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
HungaryIrelandPortugalAustriaBelgiumDenmarkNorwayTurkeyItalyFinlandGermanySwedenFranceUnitedKingdom
Spain
2007-08
2006-07
2008-09
818
825
89
3
93
9
1,01
9
554
6
03
631
740
806
468
4
85
515
51
2
643
458
53
7
510
577
6
04
3
75 3
6435
7 3
67
400
2
89
3
0427
1
3
04
296
2
69 2
51
266
257
280
138
15
5
1
81
225
273
139
168
2
19
25
8
2
64
170
1
9017
1
227
239
1
94 1
82
2
0917
5
231
116
13
4 1
23 1
25
166
98
90 1
10
149
157
112
107
110
139
14
7
65 8
3
9
8
1
02
12
5
2009-10
2010-11
Diagram 43
Erasmus destination countries, for the purpose of study (100 or more Erasmus students), 2006-2011Source: Nuffic, 2012
Diagram 44
Erasmus work placement destination countries (50 or more Erasmus students), 2007-2011Source: Nuffic, 2012
0
200
400
600
800
IrelandItalySwedenTurkeyFranceBelgiumSpainGermanyUnitedKingdom
2007-08
2008-09
238
4
10
452
6
43
199
317
41
6
463
223
373
41
1
43
9
200
3
64
3
37
346
113
149
142
1
33
45 6
6
76
1
03
50 64
78
9
8
57
1
13
1
08
8
0
13 24
3
9
57
2009-10
2010-11
57
5,946
2,644
7,239
1,355
*
**
**
5,358
2,320
7,239
1,355
*
*
*
4,902
2,103
6,894
1,187
4,699
1,287
7,002
710
4,502
1,179
6,914
no data
Outbound Erasmus (study programmes)
Outbound Leonardo/Erasmus (work placements)
Inbound Erasmus (study programmes)
Inbound Erasmus (work placements)
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
2010-11
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
Diagram 45
Total Erasmus outbound and inbound mobility for the purpose of study and work placement, 2006-2011Source: Nuffic, 2012
** Erasmus work placements.** Estimate.
50%
56%
62%
68%
74%
80%
2007-082006-072005-062004-052003-04
68.9%
75.8%
74.9%
77.2%
75.9%
56.5%
59.4%
59.0%
61.3% 61.3%
Without experience abroad
With experience abroad
Diagram 46
Percentage of academic higher education students who stated they were employed at least at the level of their study programme, with or without experience abroad, graduates in 2003-2008Source: ROA, 20042009; VSNU/IVA, 2010
58 59
The figures for students in higher professional
education are ambiguous. Over the years,
students who have gained experience abroad
often have a slightly higher average final mark;
however, they feel somewhat less often that
they are employed at the same level as their
study programme and they usually also earn
somewhat less than students who have not
gained experience abroad. This odd paradox
requires further study. Higher professional
education students with the prospect of a job
could perhaps be less mobile. In a previous
year, it was observed that higher professional
education students who stayed abroad for
a shorter period achieved better scores than
those who were abroad longer and those who
were not mobile. However, these results were
not unambiguous either.
Diagram 46
Diagram 45 shows total outbound and inbound
mobility under the Erasmus programme.
The Dutch share of total outbound mobility
under the Erasmus programme rose from 3.5%
to 3.6% between 200809 and 200910, while
the Dutch share of total inbound mobility under
the programme fell from 4.1% to 4.0%. The
balance between outbound and inbound
mobility seems to be progressively improving.
Diagram 45
3.2.7 Effects of experience gained abroad during the study programme Previous graduate surveys have revealed that
academic higher education students who had
gained experience abroad during their study
programme consistently achieved higher average
final marks than those who had not gained
experience abroad. Regrettably it was not
possible to confirm this finding in the latest
survey as the question was no longer included.
The percentage of students who had gained
experience abroad and who stated that they
were employed at least at the same level as their
study programme is still almost 15 percentage
points higher than that of students who had
not gained experience abroad, according to the
graduate figures for 200708. According to the
same figures, the average income following
graduation is also higher in all years in the case
of students who had gained experience abroad.
58 59
60 61
60 61
Total mobility
4
62
How many international students are there in
the Netherlands and how many Dutch students
are there abroad? These simple questions are
not easy to answer. It is only possible to make
an estimate based on various sources.
However, due to the use of various sources and
the lack of information collected in a consistent
manner abroad, it is not possible to compare
these figures at an international level. Such
international comparisons can only be made
for centrallyrecorded diploma mobility, EU
programme mobility and internationallyorganised
ad hoc surveys, such as the EUROSTUDENT
surveys.9
Taking account of the limitations stated above,
we have first provided an estimate of total
inbound and total outbound mobility below.
9 See section 5.3, page 100.
63
4.1
International students in the Netherlands
64
We can only estimate the number of international
students who are in the Netherlands for the
purpose of obtaining a higher education diploma
or credits on the basis of highly divergent sources
of information.10 If the inbound flow of credit
mobile students is around 85% of the outbound
group11, the entire group could possibly comprise
87,100 students. This would equate to around
63,150 international students who are in the
Netherlands for the purpose of obtaining a
diploma, and to 23,950 inbound credit mobile
students.
With respect to the first group of 63,150 students,
more data has been derived from student
registrations in governmentfunded higher
education and from student residence permit
records. The latter applies to students from
outside the EU and EFTA countries and covers
a total of almost 60,550 students (see Diagram
47). With respect to the latter group of 23,950
students, more data has been derived from
European Erasmus Programme participation
records and student trainee residence permit
records. This applies to 8,900 students.
This brings the total number of international
students about whom more data is available to
69,450 (60,550 plus 8,900). Compared with the
same group in previous academic years, inbound
mobility is rising (Diagram 48).
Map 01
Diagram 47 (see page 66)
Diagram 48 (see page 67)
Higher education indicators
There are two types of higher education
institutions in the Netherlands: government
funded and private institutions. Government
funded study programmes are by definition
accredited by the Accreditation Organisation of
the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), but not
all accredited study programmes are
governmentfunded.
Governmentfunded institutions are financed by
the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
In the 201112 academic year, there were 39
universities of applied sciences attended by
423,173 students, 13 research universities
attended by 243,686 students, and the Open
University of the Netherlands. In 201112, a
total of 666,859 students were enrolled at the
above 52 higher professional education and
academic higher education institutions, an
increase of 1.6% in the total student population
over the previous year. The increase in students
in higher professional education was slightly
higher while the increase in the number of
students in academic higher education
reflected a slightly lower percentage.
This publication focuses mainly on mobility
within governmentfunded higher education
and relates to mainstream higher education.
Most of the data is centrally recorded and
regularly updated as mainstream education
is funded by the Dutch government. This
publication does not include any statistics
on the Open University of the Netherlands.
50,450
2,000
1,800
2,050
150
13,000
Europe**
Asia
Africa
North America
Latin America
Australia/Pacific
Map 01
International students in the Netherlands, 2011-12*Source: Education Executive Agency (DUO)Central Funding of Institutions Agency (CFI), Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND), Nuffic, 2012
** Excluding other diploma mobile and credit mobile students (2,600 and 15,050), rounded off to the nearest 50.
** Statistical figures.
10 For the methodological background to these statistics, see Appendix 7.2, and specifically the note on page 127.
11 See section 3.1.1 and, for the number of outgoing credit mobile students, see section 3.2.1, page 49.
65
= 100 students
300
300
300
300
250
200
200
200
200
150
150
150
150
150
400
150
400
350
300
300
300 100
100
150
150
150
100
100
250
250
250
Germany
China
Belgium
Spain
France
Italy
Bulgaria
United States
United Kingdom
Greece
Poland
Turkey
Indonesia
Romania
India
Finland
South Korea
Hungary
Portugal
Lithuania
Russia
Austria
Sweden
Suriname
Iran
Latvia
Norway
Czech Republic
Mexico
Vietnam
Denmark
Canada
Saudi Arabia
Ireland
Taiwan
Brazil
Ethiopia
Slovakia
Ukraine
Colombia
Switzerland
Nigeria
Singapore
Japan
Nepal
Estonia
Pakistan
Slovenia
Thailand
Australia
Ghana
Zimbabwe
Cameroon
South Africa
Kenya
Iceland
Peru
Luxembourg
Tanzania
= 1,000 students
69,450Total
41,100From EU and EFTA countries
19,450From non-EU and EFTA countries
8,900 8,100 Erasmus excl, Turkey
800 From non-EU and EFTA countries, incl, Turkey
Diploma mobilityCredit
mobility
450
600
600
600
600
550
550
550
500
500
5,700
2,900
2,200
1,750
1,700
1,650
1,600
1,550
1,450
1,350
1,200
800
650
650
26,050
2,150
1,050
450
Diagram 47
International students in the Netherlands, 2011-12*Source: DUOCFI, IND, Nuffic, 2012
* Excluding other diploma mobile and credit mobile students (2,600 and 15,050), more than 100, rounded off to the nearest 50.
66 67
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-082006-072005-06
From EU and EFTA countries in Dutch government-funded higher education
From non-EU and EFTA countries in Dutch higher education
With Erasmus (excl. Turkey)
From non-EU and EFTA countries for work placement (incl. Turkey)
Total inbound student mobility
43,150
46,300
50,450
55,300
62,100
66,500
69,450
21,
300
13,
900
7
,300
600
23,
700
14,
650
7,
200
750
26,9
00
1
5,50
0
7,
200
850
30,6
00
16,
300
7
,600
800
3
4,95
0
1
8,20
0
8
,100
900
38,
600
19,
050
8
,100
*
750
41,1
00
19
,450
8
,100
*
800
60,000
70,000
Diagram 48
International students in the Netherlands, 2005-2012Source: DUOCFI, IND, Nuffic, 2012
* Erasmus data for 200910
66 67
4.2
Dutch students abroad68 69
OECD data and data from annual surveys
among graduates show that an estimated
46,300 Dutch students studied abroad in the
200809 academic year: 18,100 Dutch nationals
enrolled for a diploma at a higher education
institution abroad and there were 28,200 credit
mobile students.12 7,000 credit mobile students
took part in the European Erasmus programme.
Together with the 18,100 diploma mobile
students, they form a group of 25,100 students
about whom more detailed information is
available. Of these 25,100 students, 21,750
remained in Europe (20,800 in the EU) and
3,350 outside Europe. Of the 18,100 diploma
mobile students, 14,950 were enrolled at a
higher education institution in another European
country (14,300 within the EU). Students not
enrolled in centrally recorded education have
not been included, nor have diploma mobile
students who studied abroad in nonOECD
countries.
Map 02
Diagram 49 (see page 70)
Diagram 50 (see page 70)
12 See also section 3.2.1, page 49.
21,750
50
no data
2,200
750
350
Europe**
Asia
Africa
North America
Latin America
Australia/Pacific
Map 02
Dutch students abroad, 2008-09*Source: OECD, Nuffic, 2012
** OECD plus Erasmus, excluding other credit mobile students (21,200), rounded off to the nearest 50.
** Statistical figures.
68 69
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2005-06 2006-07 2007-082004-052003-04
In EU to obtain diploma
In a non-EU country to obtain diploma
In EU scholarship programmes
Total
5,25
0
2,65
0
10,2
00
18,100
5,90
0
2,80
0
10,4
00
19,100
5,75
0
2,90
0
11,2
50
19,900
5,70
0
2,90
0
11,8
50
20,450
6,00
0
3,40
0
12,6
00
22,000
2008-09
7,00
0
3,80
0
14,3
00
25,100
Diagram 50
Dutch students abroad, 2003-2009Source: OECD, Nuffic, 2012
= 100 students
6,600
5,450
1,650
1,350
850
500
500
400
400
400
400
300
United Kingdom
Belgium
Germany
United States
Spain
France
Sweden
Italy
New Zealand
Norway
Denmark
Switzerland
Canada
Finland
Austria
Turkey
Australia
Portugal
Ireland
Hungary
= 500 students
25,100Total
14,300Registered in the EU
3,800Registered in a non-EU country
7,000Erasmusstudents
Diploma mobility Credit mobility
300
200
200
100
2,250
1,850
450
450
Diagram 49
Dutch students abroad by country, 2008-09*Source: OECD, Nuffic, 2012
* OECD plus Erasmus, excluding other credit mobile students (21,200), more than 100 students, rounded off to the nearest 50.
70
Dutch mobility from an international perspective
571
72 73
This chapter puts student mobility to and from
the Netherlands into an international perspective.
Developments across the globe do, after all,
impact on the Netherlands’ position in the
international student market as well as on
student flows from key student recruitment
countries. The chapter opens (section 5.1) by
describing worldwide mobility patterns and the
position the Netherlands occupies in the world.
In section 5.2 we have analysed mobility
developments in ten Nuffic Neso target countries
in a worldwide context. The Neso target countries
are nonEU countries which the Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science has designated
as focus countries for the international positioning
of Dutch higher education. To conclude the
chapter we have examined two specific forms
of mobility: credit mobility (section 5.3) and
lecturer and researcher mobility (section 5.4) to
and from the Netherlands in a European context.
72 73
5.1
The Netherlands’ position in the international student market
74 75
5.1.1 Patterns of international mobilityThe number of students studying abroad has
soared in the past two decades: according to
the latest UNESCO data, from 1.7 million in
199495 to 2.1 million in 199900 and to almost
3.7 million in 200809. The latter figure equates
to 2.23% of all higher education students
across the globe (GED 2011, UNESCO/UIS).
One of the main growth drivers is the arrival of
the knowledge economy, which has created
global competition for knowledge workers and
highly skilled personnel. Numerous countries
have developed policy strategies to recruit
knowledge workers and international students
with a view to improving the international
competitiveness of their economy.
The growth in international student mobility is
set to continue worldwide in the years ahead
– despite the gradual expansion and increasing
quality of the supply of higher education in many
emerging knowledge economies, allowing more
students to pursue highquality education in
their own countries. The recent economic crisis
experienced in parts of the world has not curbed
growth either, given that local government
authorities are unable to meet shortterm demand.
In 200809, almost half of all diploma mobile
students worldwide studied abroad in five
countries. At 18% the United States recorded
the largest share of all international students
worldwide, followed by the United Kingdom
(9.9%), Australia, Germany and France
(accounting for 7.0%, 7.0% and 6.8%
respectively). Substantial numbers of
international students also enrolled in institutions
in Canada (5.2%), Russia (3.7%) and Japan
(3.6%). With an increasing number of countries
actively recruiting international students, the
number of destination countries is growing.
Consequently, the percentage of the mobile
student population attracted by the main host
countries is shrinking (although an increase
might be seen in absolute numbers). In 2006
07, half of the student population went to four
rather than five host countries.
Diagram 51 (see page 76)
Worldwide in 200809, most international
students came from China (which accounted
for 16.5% of all international higher education
students across the globe), India (6.2%),
South Korea (3.8%) and Germany (2.9%).
Diagram 52 (see page 76)
Diagram 53 shows the share of the total mobile
population in the relevant year. The first point
worthy of note is that almost 41% of total student
mobility worldwide still has an EU context.
Yet, once again the EU share is contracting
slightly, a development that is also evident in
North America, the nonEU European
countries, SubSaharan Africa, Latin America
and Central Asia. The decline is benefiting
East Asia/Pacific, South and West Asia as well
as the League of Arab States. The centre of
gravity for diploma mobility generally seems to
74 75
0,0% 5,0% 10% 15% 20%
The Netherlands
Japan
Canada
Turkey
Russia
United States
France
Germany
South Korea
India
China 16.48%
6.20%
3.84%
2.88%
1.64%
1.58%
1.57%
1.43%
1.42%
1.41%
0.35%
Diagram 52
Main countries of origin for international students worldwide, 2008-09 Source: OECD, 2012
0.0% 5.0% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Sweden
The Netherlands
Belgium
Switzerland
South Korea
Austria
South Africa
China
Italy
New Zealand
Spain
Japan
Russia
Canada
France
Germany
Australia
United Kingdom
United States 22.93%17.98%
10.76%9.89%
5.10%7.01%
9.03%6.99%
6.62%6.78%
5.18%
1.99%3.71%
1.23%2.31%
1.90%
1.20%1.79%
1.76%1.66%
1.65%2.19%
1.36%0.16%
1.34%1.25%
1.26%1.87%
1.21%0.68%
1.08%1.23%
1.62%1.47%
0.40%
2000
2009
4.56%
3.21%3.58%
Diagram 51
Distribution of international students in higher education by destination country, in 1999-2000 and 2008-09Source: OECD, EAG 2011 C3.2, C3.3
Note: This diagram defines international students on the basis of their nationality.
76 77
outbound mobility in relation to the relevant
country’s own student population. The
information below relates to the total student
population, including international students
(some publications deduct the international
student population from the total student
population). In terms of both international
students in the Netherlands (7.2% of the national
student population) and Dutch students abroad
(2.9% of the national student population), the
Netherlands scored below the EU27 average
(8.0% and 3.3%).14
Diagram 54 shows that the Netherlands hosts a
lower percentage of international students than,
for example, Belgium, Sweden and Denmark.
While Denmark and Sweden have smaller student
populations, the Netherlands still attracts more
international students than these two countries
despite its lower share.
Diagram 54 (see page 78)
As shown in Diagrams 54 and 55, in 200809
the average percentage of international students
in the EU27 countries was higher (8.0%) than
the percentage of international students in the
United States (3.5%), Japan (3.4%) and China
(0.2%). The percentage of nonEU27 students
who go to EU27 countries also is higher,
at 5.3% (of the total student population in the
relevant EU27 countries).
The average percentage of EU27 students
who study in another (EU or nonEU) country at
3.3% clearly also is higher than the outbound
be undergoing a gradual shift from the EU to
East Asia and the Pacific.
While the past decade has seen an increasing
number of students study in another country
within their own region, a comparative analysis
between 200708 (in brackets) and 200809
reflects a more balanced picture. While the
regionalisation of international student mobility
continued in the EU and East Asia/Pacific, with
the internal mobility of the total mobile population
in 200809 accounting for a larger share in that
period compared with 200708, this does not
apply to the other regions. This situation is
corroborated when looking at the development of
internal mobility as a share of total regional
mobility rather than total global mobility (the
respective total regional mobility is set at 100,
with internal mobility expressed as a fraction
thereof). Central Asia and Latin America, for
instance, have recorded a decline in their share
of internal mobility relative to total mobility
connected with the region by 3.2% and 2.2%
between 200708 and 200809 respectively.
Diagram 53
5.1.2 The position of the NetherlandsThis chapter describes the Netherlands’ position
within the worldwide mobility patterns described
above.13
The percentages for total diploma mobility
worldwide are stated above. The comparative
country analysis usually examines inbound and
13 According to the latest OECD figures, 1.21% of all international students came to the Netherlands in 200809 (Diagram 51). The figure is slightly lower than in 200708, but still is 0.5 percentage points higher than in 19992000.
14 EU20 figures published by the OECD were taken as a basis in previous publications. If these figures were to be taken as a basis, with a total population of 17,755,146, inbound mobility would equate to 8.5% and outbound mobility to 3.0%.
25.2%(25.5%)Inbound
EU27**40.7%(40.8%)
East Asia/Pacific 36.7%(35.3%)
North America***24.1%(24.3%)
11.7%(11.4%)Internalmobility
11.9%(11.4%)Internalmobility
3.8%(3.9%)Outbound
8.7%(7.8%)Inbound
16.1%(16.1%)Outbound
1.1%(1.2%)Internalmobility
1.8%(1.8%)Outbound
21.1%(21.3%)Inbound
Europe (non-EU)14.4%(14.6%)
2.0%(2.3%)Internalmobility
6.1%(6.0%)Outbound
6.0%(6.3%)Inbound
League of Arab States11.3%(11.2%)
1.4%(1.4%)Internalmobility
5.6%(5.5%)Outbound
4.4%(4.3%)Inbound
South and West Asia9.8%(9.4%)
0.1%(0.1%)Internalmobility
9.4%(8.9%)Outbound
0.3%(0.3%)Inbound
Sub-Saharan Africa7.9%(8.2%)
1.8%(2.0%)Internalmobility
5.4%(5.5%)Outbound
0.7%(0.7%)Inbound
Central Asia4.1%(4.5%)
0.8%(1.0%)Internalmobility
2.7%(2.9%)Outbound
0.6%(0.6%)Inbound
Latin America and Caribbean6.5%(6.7%)
1.2%(1.4%)Internalmobility
4.5%(4.3%)Outbound
0.8%(1.0%)Inbound
Diagram 53:
Inbound, internal and outbound mobility by region, in 2008-09 (2007-08)* Source: UNESCO, Nuffic, 2012
*** Excluding 424,054 students of unknown origin among a total of 3,387,805 students
*** Of the 3.39 million mobile students worldwide in 200809, 25.2% actually entered the EU, 3.8% left the EU and 11.7% were mobile within the EU itself: representing a total of 40.7%.
*** United States and Canada.
76 77
Germany2,438,600
Belgium425,219
Sweden 422,580
The Netherlands618,502
Finland296,691
% Inbound
10.5% 4.0%
10.9% 2.7%
9.4% 4.1%
Denmark234,574 9.6% 3.0%
7.2% 2.9%
4.2% 3.2%
% Outbound
Total of 27 EU countries19,470,4008.0% 3.3%
Diagram 54
Diploma mobility to and from various countries, in relation to the total student population by country, 2008-09Source: OECD, Eurostat, Nuffic, 2012
78
between 199900 and 200809 is worthy of
note. A large percentage of these additional
outbound German mobile students are likely to
have studied abroad in the Netherlands and –
more recently – in Austria. A recent brochure
published by the Bundesagentur für Arbeit,
NordrheinWestfalen lists six reasons why German
students chose to study in the Netherlands:
the proximity of the education institution,
a wider range of study programmes, better
subject structure, no limited intake (‘quota’),
a better learning environment (contact with
lecturers, smaller groups, problemfocused
education) and good quality of education.15
Diagram 56 (see page 81)
Compared with other EU countries, the
Netherlands hosts a relatively high percentage
of international students from the EU and few
from outside the EU (see Diagram 57). In 200809
the percentage of international students from
the EU in the Netherlands was three percentage
points higher than in the previous year. The high
percentage of inbound EU students in the
Netherlands is mainly attributable to the high
number of German students studying in the
Netherlands. Of the other EU countries only
Luxembourg, Slovakia and the Czech Republic
recorded a higher percentage of international
EU students (as a percentage of all international
students in the relevant country). In all these
cases, the international students primarily
originated from one or more neighbouring
countries.
percentages for China, Japan and the United
States. In absolute terms, outbound mobility
from the EU27 member states is around 31%
higher than that from China, 14 times higher
than that from Japan and 12 times higher than
that from the United States (see footnote 13,
page 77).
In percentage terms, however, fewer EU27
students go to countries outside the EU than
Chinese or Japanese students who study
abroad. In absolute numbers, EU27 outbound
mobility represents over a quarter of Chinese
outbound mobility. In fact EU27 outbound
mobility is almost thrice and over twice that
of Japan and the United States respectively.
Diagram 55 (see page 80)
The number of diploma mobile students from the
EU/EEA who studied in the Netherlands surged
by 306% between 199900 and 200809 relative
to other EU/EEA countries (see Diagram 56).
The percentage is five times higher than the EU
average. Denmark also experienced relatively
high growth (although less marked than in the
Netherlands) while the inbound flow into
Sweden fell. In the same period, the number of
Dutch students who pursued an entire study
programme in another EU/EEA country was up
by 57%. The growth percentage, however, is
below the 64% EU average.
The substantial increase in the number of
German students who pursued a full study
programme in another EU/EEA country
15 Bundesagentur für Arbeit, Regionaldirektion NordreinWestfalen. (2010). ‘Kom Langs!’, Studieren in der Niederlandische Grenzregion, Ausgabe 2010.
79
Japan3,874,224
% Inbound Major world economies
3.4% 1.2%
% Outbound
EU-27 (as a whole)19,470,4005.3% 0.7%
China29,295,841*0.2% 1.7%
United States19,102,8143.5% 0.3%
Diagram 55
Diploma mobility to and from the EU, the United States, China and Japan, in relation to the total student population, by region, 2008-09Source: OECD, Eurostat, 2012
* UNESCO, 2012
80 81
Diagram 56
Development inbound, by country, from other EU, EEA and candidate EU countries, and development outbound to other EU, EEA and candidate EU countries, in 1999-2000 and 2008-09*Source: Eurostat, Nuffic, 2012
-50%
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
300%
350%
Inbound from EU-27,
EEA and candidate
EU 2000
Outbound to EU-27
from EU, EEA and
candidate EU 2000
EU-27SwedenGermanyFranceBelgiumUnitedKingdom
FinlandDenmarkTheNetherlands
30
6%
57%
22
1%
10%
64%
-3%
5
4%
8%
3
8%
23%
18%
38%
12%
137
%
-16%
43%
61%
64%
* Excluding parttime students
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Lithuania
Slovenia
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Portugal
France
Romania
Poland
Italy
Sweden
Finland
Spain
Germany
United Kingdom
EU-27
Estonia
Ireland
Malta
Latvia
Denmark
Hungary
Greece
Belgium
Austria
The Netherlands
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Luxembourg
Percentage of
international students
from the EU
Percentage of
international students
from non-EU countries
Offset level
92% 8%
75% 25%
74% 26%
68% 32%
66% 34%
66% 34%
59% 41%
55% 45%
45% 55%
41% 59%
41% 59%
37% 63%
34% 66%
66%34%
33% 67%
69%
73%
27% 73%
25% 75%
75%
75%
82%
83%
84%
85%
86%
87%
90%
25%
25%
18%
17%
16%
15%
14%
13%
10%
31%
27%
Diagram 57
International inbound diploma mobility by country, from the EU and outside the EU, 2008-09Source: Eurostat, Nuffic, 2012
Note: The offset level is given for countries where the flow of inbound students from other EU countries is larger than the flow of outbound students to other EU countries. Example: Of the total number of international students in the Netherlands (44,409) 68% (30,176) come from the EU. Fortyseven per cent of that number (14,307), however, is offset by Dutch students who are studying in other EU countries.
80 81
EU countries is higher than the outbound flow
to other EU countries. Fortyseven per cent of
inbound mobility from other EU countries in the
Netherlands is offset by Dutch students studying
abroad specifically in other EU countries.
The offset level for Germany is almost 100%
whereas it is only 7% for the United Kingdom.
In 2011 Dutch higher education institutions
offered over 1,500 Englishtaught programmes,
including 232 bachelor’s programmes, 870
master’s programmes and 54 PhD programmes,
according to the EU bachelor’s/master’s/PhD
portal. The Netherlands tops Scandinavia and
Germany in terms of Englishtaught bachelor’s
and master’s programmes and significantly
outperforms other European countries (except
for the United Kingdom where English obviously
is the official language). Incidentally, the other
countries are catching up. Germany, Switzerland,
the Czech Republic, Slovakia, France and Italy
offer more Englishtaught PhD programmes than
the Netherlands (see http://www.phdportal.eu).
Outbound diploma mobility
According to the OECD, the number of Dutch
students pursuing an entire study programme
abroad climbed by over 4,900 between 200405
and 200809. Expressed as a percentage of all
Dutch students, this represents an increase of
2.3% to 2.9%, and therefore stronger growth.
While the Netherlands indeed moved ahead of
Belgium (which recorded 2.7% just as in 200708),
countries such as Denmark (3.0%), Finland
(3.2%), Germany (4.0%) and Sweden (4.2%)
A number of countries, including Portugal, France,
Spain and the United Kingdom, host a relatively
large number of students from outside the EU.
This is mainly because these countries attract
many students from their former colonies,
although in all cases a large and growing number
of students come from Asia. It is also interesting
to note that no less than twothirds of the
international students in Germany come from
outside the EU, compared with just one third
of all international students in the Netherlands.
Germany is reputed the world over for having
the EU’s largest single and strongest economy
and the quality of education provided in Germany
enjoys a good reputation.
Furthermore, compared with the Netherlands,
Sweden, Finland and Denmark too have notably
attracted more international students from
outside the EU. Part of the mobility originates
from nearby nonEU countries, such as Norway
and Iceland. Another contributing factor is that
Sweden and Finland had not yet implemented
higher costeffective tuition fees for nonEU
students in 200809. The measure took effect
in Sweden from September 2011. According to
the online magazine ScienceGuide, the measure
caused a decline in the number of international
student applications of almost 90%, and a
decline of over 90% in the number of international
students who paid their first tuition fees on time.16
Diagram 57 (see page 81)
Diagram 57 includes the offset percentage for
countries where the inbound flow from other
16 http://www.scienceguide.nl/201107/internationalstudentsshunsweden.aspx.
82 83
certain conditions. In principle, this measure
makes the decision to study abroad easier.
For an overview of the numbers of Dutch
governmentfunded students studying abroad,
see Section 3.2.1 on page 49. Regrettably, it
is still too premature to compare the effects of
portable student grants and loans between the
Netherlands and other countries.
achieved higher scores. Likewise the European
average is higher (3.3%). The Netherlands
should score above the European average and
this is easy to justify. After all, the Netherlands’
economy has an aboveaverage level of
dependence on overseas markets. This raises
the question, however, to what extent it should
score above average. We would like to point
out that a higher outbound diploma mobility
score is not necessarily better than a lower
score as high outbound mobility might after all
be indicative of shortcomings in the range of
study programmes offered in the country itself.
The main destination countries for Dutch students
are the United Kingdom, Belgium, the United
States and Germany, followed at a distance by
France and New Zealand (Diagram 35, page 46).
The popularity of Sweden, which in previous
years still ranked among the top six destination
countries, dwindled among Dutch students in
200708 for reasons that are unclear. In general,
the destination countries for Dutch students
correspond closely with the main destination
countries for students from Denmark, Sweden,
Finland, Germany, Belgium and France. The
most popular destinations for students from
Northwest Europe are the United Kingdom, the
United States, Germany and two or three
neighbouring countries.
Various countries, including the Netherlands,
Belgium (Flanders), Norway, Sweden and
Finland, allow students to take their ‘national’
student grants and loans with them abroad on
82 83
5.2
Developments in the Neso target countries
84 85
5.2.1 Inbound and outbound mobilityThe main objective of Nuffic’s Neso programme,
which is supported by ten Netherlands Education
Support Offices, is to raise the Netherlands’
international profile in the selected target countries
as a country with a knowledgedriven economy
that provides goodquality higher education.
The Nuffic Nesos’ efforts involve carrying out
generic promotions, fostering institutional
cooperation, providing information on the
education market and facilitating Holland Alumni
networks. The offices are located in Brazil, China,
Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, South Korea,
Thailand and Vietnam. There are also two Nuffic
Neso desks in India and one in Taipei (Taiwan).
In general, the Neso target countries and regions
are characterised by growing youth populations,
an increasing demand for higher education and
rising levels of prosperity, which afford more
students the opportunity to study abroad. This
means that these countries offer significant
potential for recruiting highly talented students.
Diagram 58 indicates the potential by country.
It has emerged from the 200809 data that
considerable differences exist between the
Neso target countries in terms of both numbers
and percentages of students studying abroad.
On average 1.5% of the student population in
the Neso target countries studied abroad. In all
Neso target countries the number of students
studying abroad has risen over 200708.
The studyabroad percentage of the student
population in the Neso target countries has
also climbed in most countries.
To capitalise on the available potential in these
countries, an increasing number of countries
and higher education institutions are actively
recruiting international students. The countries
that began recruiting international students at an
early stage, however, remain the major players.
This category includes Australia, the United
Kingdom and the United States (see Diagram 59).
The dominance of the major players in most
Neso target countries, however, seems to be
ebbing somewhat. This is assumed to be
attributable to the growing number of students
from the Neso target countries who are opting
for a wider range of study destinations.
This trend has in part contributed positively to
the number of students from the Neso target
countries who have chosen the Netherlands as
a study destination. Based on residence permit
data, the total number of students from the
Neso target countries studying abroad in the
Netherlands climbed by over 2,500 to 10,500
in 201112 against 200708. Please refer to
Diagrams 24 and 25 (see page 33) which reflect
the exact Neso inbound mobility data for the
Netherlands.
Mobility developments in each Neso target
country are examined in greater detail below.
84 85
The main study destinations, developments in
mobility to the Netherlands, the mobility policy
of the relevant Neso target country and the
expected mobility developments are discussed
in succession. Further information on the
education markets in the Neso target countries
is provided on the market information pages
on the Nuffic website: www.nuffic.nl/
marketinformation.
Diagram 58
Diagram 59 (see page 88)
5.2.2 BrazilIn 201112 close to 300 Brazilian students
studied in the Netherlands, a 44% increase
over 200708. It should be noted that Brazilian
students holding a European passport who
are studying in the Netherlands have not been
included in the Netherlands’ mobility figures.
The size of this group is unknown. However,
what we do know for certain is that students
originating from Brazil and holding a passport
from an EU member state do study in the
Netherlands. We therefore assume that the
actual number of Brazilian students in the
Netherlands is higher.
A small majority (52%) of Brazilian students in
Dutch governmentfunded education pursued
a bachelor’s programme in higher professional
education in 201112. Thirty per cent pursued a
master’s degree programme in academic higher
education. Most Brazilian students (33%) opted
for a study programme in Economics while 24%
chose Language & Culture as their field of study.
Of all Neso countries Brazil has the lowest
percentage of outbound students relative to
the total student population, recording almost
26,300 mobile students in 200809. The United
States attracts the most Brazilian students (33%)
with France (13%), Portugal (9%), Germany (8%)
and Spain (7%) following at a distance.
The component of Brazil’s outbound mobility
policy that has recently attracted the most
attention – and is set to continue to do so –
is the Brazilian government’s Science without
Borders programme. Under the scholarship
programme initiated by the President of Brazil,
Dilma Rousseff, 100,000 student grants will be
awarded in the period up to and including 2014.
The Netherlands is also scheduled to host
Brazilian students who utilise the Science
without Borders Holland programme.
Outgoing mobility is also facilitated by
encouraging Brazilian institutions to enter into
partnerships with institutions abroad. In addition
to the outbound mobility of Brazilian students,
many of these partnerships also deal with the
inbound mobility of international students to
Brazil. A certain level of reciprocity therefore
is the principle underlying such partnerships.
Leading Brazilian institutions will furthermore
become more actively involved in inbound mobility
in Brazil. This is initially expected to help boost
regional mobility across Latin America.
86 87
Diagram 58
Neso target countries, an overviewSources: *** UNESCO 2012
*** a) Taiwan Statistical Data Book 2011 http://www.cepd.gov.tw/encontent/m1.aspx?sNo=0015743
b) Taiwan Ministry of Education http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/nationalnews/2010/06/15/260722/Fewerinterested.htm
*** IND 20102012
Total population
(201011)*
Total higher
education
population
(200809)*
Change in
higher education
population effective
200708
Share of higher
education
population studying
abroad (200809)*
Share of the
student population
from that country
studying abroad
in the Netherlands
(200809)***
Change in the
number of students
studying in the
Netherlands
between 200809
and 201112***
Brazil 196,655,014 6,115,138 2.6% 26,282 (0.4%) 229 (0.87%) 30.1%
China 1,347,565,324 29,295,841 9.8% 512,418 (1.7%) 4,435 (0.87%) 28.9%
India 1,241,491,960 18,648,923 8.4% 195,405 (1.0%) 524 (0.27%) 53.4%
Indonesia 242,325,638 4,859,409 10.0% 33,645 (0.7%) 1,281 (3.81%) -6.5%
Mexico 114,793,341 2,705,190 3.1% 26,863 (1.0%) 275 (1.02%) 46.9%
Russia 142,835,555 9,330,115 -1.2% 47,143 (0.5%) 427 (0.91%) 34.9%
South Korea 48,391,343 3,219,216 0.5% 122,824 (3.8%) 389 (0.32%) 68.1%
Taiwan 23,162,123**a 1,337,455**a 0.9% 33,339**b (2.5%) 301 (0.90%) 0.7%
Thailand 69,518,555 2,417,262 -0.5% 25,192 (1.0%) 231 (0.92%) -32.0%
Vietnam 88,791,996 1,774,321 7.2% 43,670 (2.5%) 364 (0.83%) 6.9%
86 87
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
Diagram 59
The main destination countries for outbound students from the Neso target countries and the Netherlands, 2008-09Source: UNESCO 2012 (22 March 2012)
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15%
29%
9%
14%
24%
8%
0.87%
China
12%
14%
17% 52%
3%
2%
0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%
3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%
11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11%
47%
13%
0.89%
0.83%
0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5% 34%
19%
17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%26%
13%
Vietnam
7%
3%3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
20%
9%
13%
30%
33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15% 29%
9%
14%
24%
8%0.87%
China
12%
14%
17%
52%
3%
4%0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11% 47%
13%
0.89%
0.83% 0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5%
34%
19%17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%
26%
13%
Vietnam
20%
7%
3% 3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
9%
13%
30%
33%
7%
8%
0.87%
Brazil
15% 29%
9%
14%
24%
8%0.87%
China
12%
14%
17%
52%
3%
4%0.27%
1.02%
India
8%
5%
22%
30%
26%
5%3.81%
Indonesia
17%
7%
6%
5%
54%11%
Mexico
10%
10%
8%
6%
43%
22%
0.91%
Russia
8%
10%
11%
11% 47%
13%
0.89%
0.83% 0.32%
0.92%
Taiwan
9%
5%
34%
19%17%
15%
Thailand
18%
7%
7%
29%
26%
13%
Vietnam
20%
7%
3% 3%
60%
6%
South Korea
United States
Australia
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
France
South Korea
Canada
Malaysia
New Zealand
Russia
Ukraine
The Netherlands*
Spain
Portugal
Other
* IND 2012
88 89
The extensive Science without Borders
programme will have a positive impact on the
development of mobility in the years ahead.
The participating nations are likely to see an
increasing number of Brazilian students. Their
numbers are similarly expected to grow in
studyabroad countries that do not take part
in the programme. Four factors play a key role
in this context: (1) While relatively few Brazilian
students studied abroad in 200809, it is only
logical for their numbers to continue to rise.
(2) As a result of growing prosperity more
families will be able to fund a study programme
abroad. (3) There is a huge demand for
employees with a higher education background
on the Brazilian labour market. (4) Brazil has a
particularly large youth population, which means
that the demand for higher education is set to
rise in the years ahead.
5.2.3 ChinaGrowing numbers of Chinese students are
studying in the Netherlands each year. Their
number jumped by 38% over 200708.
The nominal growth seen in the past two years
seems to be slowing down somewhat.
Nonetheless China remains the largest country
of origin of students outside the EU/EEA for the
Netherlands, with over 5,700 students. In 201112
half the number of Chinese students in Dutch
governmentfunded education pursued a
bachelor’s programme in higher professional
education, with 34% pursuing a master’s degree
programme in academic higher education.
Most Chinese students (64%) pursued a study
programme in Economics, while one out of five
opted for Engineering.
With over 500,000 students studying abroad
in 200809, China is by far the largest country
of origin for international students. The most
popular study destinations are the United States
(24%), Japan (15%), Australia (14%), the United
Kingdom (9%) and South Korea (8%).
China has been pursuing an active policy to
boost outbound mobility for two decades.
The simplification of the Chinese passport
application process has made it easier for
Chinese nationals to travel abroad. The
Chinese government has also initiated several
scholar ship programmes. Its current outbound
mobility policy seems to be increasingly directed
towards facilitating mobility to countries in the
Southeast Asia region. A notable aspect of
China’s mobility policy is its strong emphasis on
international cooperation with higher education
institutions. At the end of 2010 some 160 of the
over 2,000 Chinese higher education institutions
had entered into a cooperation agreement with
an institution abroad. International partnerships
aim to improve the quality and reputation of
Chinese institutions. The growing number of
Chinese institutions that appear in the top 500
international university rankings affirms that the
reputation of Chinese institutions is in fact
improving.
88 89
India has the secondlargest number of outbound
students, ranking after China. In 200809,
195,405 Indian students studied abroad. Just
over half studied abroad in the United States
(52%). Other popular destinations were the
United Kingdom (17%) and Australia (14%).
Similar to the majority of emerging countries,
India is making every effort to improve its higher
education system. Part of this policy includes
aligning study programmes with those of other
countries, for example by drawing up
internationallycomparable curricula. Another
example is the Foreign Universities Bill, a law
that seeks to permit foreign institutions to offer
study programmes in India, and which has
long been awaiting parliamentary approval.
Scholarship programmes, institutional cooperation
agreements and exchange programmes provide
tangible evidence of concrete policy designed
to boost outgoing mobility. The Indian
government has signed agreements with other
countries to ensure the recognition of diplomas
awarded in India and abroad. Such agreements
will also help boost incoming mobility to India.
To accommodate incoming mobility, Indian
universities have been asked to provide English
language courses to international students.
The soaring number of Indian students studying
abroad reflects the huge demand for higher
education from the vast youth population. The
Indian government is working on satisfying a
larger part of demand in India by establishing
China has also initiated an active policy to boost
inbound mobility and has set a specific target of
hosting 500,000 enrolled international students
at Chinese higher education institutions in 2020.
According to UNESCO, 61,200 international
students studied in China in 2009.
The country is facing an ageing population and
limited population growth. Combined with more
attractive higher education in China itself, this
might in the long term curb interest in studying
abroad. At present, however, fewer students
are applying for the national university entrance
examination in China each year and the growing
group who do not sit the examination are likely
to opt for a study abroad programme. The
number of Chinese students studying abroad is
therefore expected to continue to grow in the
years ahead.
5.2.4 IndiaThe number of students from India studying in
the Netherlands reflects unremitting growth.
Their numbers surged by 68% between 200708
and 201112. The vast majority of students (81%)
from India pursued a master’s programme in
Dutch governmentfunded academic higher
education in 201112, while 10% pursued a
bachelor’s programme in higher professional
education. No less than 65% of the students
pursued a study programme in Engineering,
while 12% studied Economics. What is rather
noteworthy is the popularity of the Natural
Sciences field (e.g. Mathematics, Physics,
Biology etc.) among 9% of Indian students.
90 91
Over 33,600 Indonesian students studied abroad
in 200809, with the majority (30%) opting for
Australia. Other popular destinations were
Malaysia (26%) and the United States (22%).
Japan and Germany (both recording 5%)
complete the top five.
In recent years, the Indonesian Ministry of
National Education has made available DIKTI
student grants to PhD candidates and post
doctoral positions. These grants were originally
intended to enable Indonesian teachers to
pursue master’s degree programmes abroad.
Emulating higher education, more international
education standards will also be applied to
primary and secondary education in Indonesia.
Cooperation with higher education institutions
abroad will be sought to facilitate internationali
sation in higher education. In short, Indonesia
pursues an active policy in the internationali
sation of higher education.
The above corroborates that a permanent feature
of national higher education policy includes
boosting outbound mobility. At the national
level, however, boosting inbound mobility does
not yet seem to be a key priority, even though
it is supported by national scholarship
programmes. However, certain institutions in
Indonesia are in fact working on this and have
created international study programmes.
They are also recruiting international students,
primarily from Indonesia’s neighbour, Malaysia.
more higher education institutions. However,
the quality of higher education currently forms,
and is expected to remain a major impediment
in the short term. It is doubtful therefore whether
the increased supply will in fact be able to
match demand. The demand for pursuing study
programmes abroad is more likely to grow,
particularly on account of the quality issues
in India.
The assumption therefore is that the demand
for study programmes abroad will continue to
grow. Another reason for the predicted trend is
that the Indian economy is in dire need of highly
skilled workers with studyabroad experience.
The growing number of Indian families who can
afford to have their children educated abroad
should also help bridge the gap.
5.2.5 IndonesiaThe 201112 academic year saw Indonesian
students studying in the Netherlands decrease
by 10% against 200708. Student numbers
have again been growing (+1%) since 201011,
bucking the trend positively compared with the
previous years. Fortyfive per cent of Indonesian
students in Dutchgovernmentfunded education
pursued a master’s programme in academic
higher education in 201112, while 41% pursued
a bachelor’s programme in higher professional
education. Economics and Engineering study
programmes were the most popular (36% and
27% respectively).
90 91
dimension to the current study programmes and
to the activities carried out by the Mexican higher
education institutions. This includes cooperation
with institutions abroad. Furthermore at the
national level consultations are being held with
other countries (including the EU member states)
about the recognition of diplomas and setting up
exchange programmes. To boost both outbound
and inbound mobility the Mexican government
has initiated a range of scholarship programmes.
The demand for higher education in Mexico is
set to grow in the years ahead. A larger share of
demand for higher education is expected to be
met within the Mexican higher education system
by implementing capacity improvements. The
extent to which demand for higher education
abroad will increase depends largely on economic
and political developments in Mexico. The trend
is relatively difficult to predict given the strong
interdependence between the Mexican and
United States’ economies. Interest in studying
abroad is expected to grow due to the focus on
the internationalisation of higher education in
Mexico. The vast majority of the population who
have reached university entrance age will help
further boost outbound mobility.
5.2.7 RussiaA growing number of Russian students are
studying in the Netherlands each year. Their
numbers were up by 68% in 201112 relative
to 200708. Fiftyone per cent of Russian students
in Dutchgovernmentfunded education pursued
a bachelor’s programme in higher professional
Indonesia has a large, growing youth population
and an increasing gross domestic product, which
also contributes to the huge demand for higher
education. In these circumstances and the
circumstances described earlier on, the interest
in studyabroad programmes is expected to
continue to grow. The Netherlands also seems
to be reaping the benefits in the light of the
increased number of Indonesian students studying
in the country in the current academic year.
5.2.6 MexicoCompared with 200708, the number of Mexican
students studying in the Netherlands in 201112
soared by 66% to just over 400 students. The
majority of students (69%) from Mexico pursued
a master’s programme in Dutchgovernment
funded academic higher education in 201112,
while 19% pursued a bachelor’s programme in
higher professional education. Almost half (45%)
of Mexican students pursued a study programme
in Engineering, with 18% opting for an Economics
study programme and 14% opting for a study
programme in the Language & Culture field.
In 200809, close to 26,900 Mexican students
studied abroad. More than half studied abroad
in the United States (54%), distantly followed
by Spain (11%), France (7%), Germany (6%)
and the United Kingdom (5%).
In Mexico the plan for improving education
incorporates the internationalisation of higher
education. Internationalisation is to be shaped,
among other things, by adding an international
92 93
international students in terms of student
numbers. In 200809, 137,000 international
students studied in Russia.
The demographic and economic situation in
Russia may prove a limiting factor in respect
of the number of Russian students opting to
study abroad in the future. Russia is facing a
diminishing youth population, which means
that demand for higher education may begin to
decline. The current economic crisis has also
clearly affected Russia’s economic growth.
By contrast, higher education tuition fees are
rising, master’s programmes in Russia often have
a twoyear duration (as opposed to the oneyear
master’s programmes in the Netherlands,
for instance) and the higher education offered
abroad definitely is of higher quality in specific
fields of study. These aspects might spur a larger
number of Russian students to study abroad
despite the demographic and economic situation.
5.2.8 South KoreaIn 201112, over 650 South Korean students
studied in the Netherlands, an increase of no
less than 90% over 200708. Just over half
(53%) of the South Korean students in Dutch
government funded education pursued
a bachelor’s programme in higher professional
education in 201112, while 18% pursued
a master’s programme in academic higher
education. Another 18% opted for a bachelor’s
programme in academic higher education.
A notably high number of students (11%) pursued
a master’s programme in higher education.
education in 201112, while 27% pursued a
master’s programme in academic higher
education. Economics and Language & Culture
were the most popular fields of study, recording
45% and 22% of Russian students respectively.
In 200809, 47,100 Russian students studied
abroad, with 22% opting for Germany.
The United States and Ukraine both recorded a
share of 10%. France and the United Kingdom
hosted 8% and 6% respectively of the total
number of mobile Russian students.
Reforms in Russia’s higher education system
are well under way. Russia participates in the
Bologna process and against this background
most of the study programmes in Russia have
undergone conversion to the bachelor’smaster’
structure. One of the Russian government’s
key priorities is to improve the quality of higher
education. The focus seems to be directed
towards improving the existing leading institutions
in major Russian cities. The Russian government
has made student grants available to boost
outbound mobility. While only a limited number
of student grants are currently available, there
are plans to increase the number significantly.
To improve the quality of the higher education
system, the Russian government seeks to attract
more international researchers, teachers and
students. To that end an agency, EduRussia,
was established to promote Russian education
abroad. It should be noted that Russia is
currently already quite a popular destination for
92 93
South Korea has set itself the target of hosting
100,000 international students in 2012. The
country’s visa procedures have therefore been
simplified and investments are being made in
improving the facilities (accommodation and
student grants) and study options (such as
Englishtaught study programmes) for inter
national students. The rationale behind the
promotion of inbound mobility is the imminent
decline in South Korean student numbers,
with South Korea too facing diminishing
population growth.
The increasing quality of the South Korean higher
education system and the declining population
growth could affect the total number of South
Korean students studying abroad in the long
term. There is no certainty about whether – and
if so, when – this will occur with student interest
in studying abroad expected to continue to
remain high, at least in the short term.
5.2.9 TaiwanSome 300 Taiwanese students study in the
Netherlands. Their number has remained stable
in recent years. In 201112 the majority (61%)
of Taiwanese students in Dutchgovernment
funded education pursued a master’s programme
in academic higher education, while 24% pursued
a bachelor’s programme in higher professional
education. Of the Taiwanese students, 35%
chose to major in Language & Culture. Other
popular fields of study were Engineering and
Economics (both recording 17%).
A larger number (57%) of South Korean students
opted for a Language & Culture study programme.
In addition Economics (16%) and Engineering
(13%) programmes proved to be quite popular.
Over 123,000 South Korean students studied
abroad in 200809. Sixty per cent of the students
in this group studied in the United States, the
most popular destination by far among South
Korean students. Other popular destinations
were Japan (20%) and Australia (6%).
The quality of South Korea’s higher education
system has accelerated rapidly in recent years.
Several institutions have now edged their way
into the top 100 international rankings. The South
Korean government has clearly reaped the results
of its prolonged investments in improving the
higher education system. The government’s
policy incorporated internatio nali sation.
Concrete policy achievements include
institutional cooperation between South Korean
higher education institutions and institutions
abroad, the number of branch campuses of
foreign institutions located in South Korea
and a policy for promoting outbound and
inbound policy.
The South Korean government has made student
grants available to boost outbound mobility.
South Korea also works jointly with its neigh
bouring countries on the harmonisation of higher
education systems (similar to Europe). A cautious
step was taken by recognising credits awarded
to students in a partnership country.
94 95
has also permitted Chinese students (albeit a
limited number) to study in Taiwan.
The policy pursued by the Taiwanese government
to attract primarily students correlates with
the diminishing population growth. The current
situation is such that the number of places in
bachelor’s programmes offered by Taiwan’s
higher education institutions exceeds demand.
The demographic situation could in the long
term affect the number of Taiwanese students
opting for a studyabroad programme. As long
as the Taiwanese government and universities
continue to promote outbound mobility
through international cooperation, the number
of Taiwanese students studying abroad is,
however, expected to remain stable.
5.2.10 ThailandIn 201112 close to 160 Thai students studied
in the Netherlands. A gradual decline was seen
in their total number since 200708. In 201112,
43% of Thai students in Dutchgovernment
funded education pursued a bachelor’s
programme in higher professional education,
and the same percentage pursued a master’s
programme in academic higher education.
Although the majority (41%) of Thai students
pursued a study programme in Economics,
compared with the fields of study chosen
by students from the other Neso countries,
Agriculture & Natural Environment (20%) enjoys
notable popularity. In addition Engineering
studies (16%) proved to be quite popular.
In 200809, over 33,300 Taiwanese students
studied abroad. The most popular destination
was the United States (47%), followed at a
distance by Australia (11%), the United Kingdom
(11%) and Japan (10%).
In recent years the Taiwanese government’s
policy has focused on creating worldclass
universities and on the internationalisation of
the higher education system. Taiwan therefore
conducts an active policy for boosting both
inbound and outbound mobility. Student grants
and loans are available to support outbound
mobility and Taiwan’s goal is to become an
education hub for inbound mobility. Taiwan
has set a concrete target of hosting 95,000
international students (mainly from Southeast
Asia) in 2014. To that end the Taiwanese
government is making substantial investments
in the ongoing development of the education
environment as well as in marketing and
promoting studying abroad in Taiwan. An
increase in the number of study programmes
taught entirely in English helps facilitate both
inbound and outbound mobility.
The Taiwanese government has recognised
Chinese diplomas (and vice versa) since 2010,
which makes it more attractive for Taiwanese
students to opt for a study programme in China.
This could also result in increasing student
mobility from Taiwan to China, given the lower
language barrier and closer economic cooperation
between Taiwan and China. Effective 2011 Taiwan
94 95
Over 25,000 Thai students studied abroad in
200809. The main study destinations were the
United States (34%), the United Kingdom (19%),
Australia (17%), Japan (9%) and Malaysia (5%).
Various explanations can be offered for the
diminishing number of Thai students studying in
the Netherlands. The decline could be attributable
to the lower number of Dutch scholarships
available to Thai students and to the fact that
the Netherlands is still a relatively unknown study
destination. Another reason, again compared
with the other Neso target countries, might be
the Thai government’s lack of policy in promoting
outbound mobility. Only a relatively small
scholarship programme exists for the purpose
of funding mobility. However, the Thai government
has stated that it plans to increase the number
of studyabroad scholarship programmes.
It is interesting to note that the Thai government
has set clear inbound mobility goals and plans
to make Thailand an education hub. To achieve
its goal, the Thai government is endeavouring to
improve the quality of the Thai higher education
system, including fostering institutional
cooperation and setting up student exchange
programmes. These measures should help
boost outbound mobility.
As a larger number of Thai secondary school
pupils are coming into contact with different
cultures and influences, and on account of the
ongoing internationalisation of education in
Thailand, continued interest is expected to be
seen in studyabroad programmes. Whether
this will also affect the number of Thai students
who actually study abroad depends on various
factors. The growth in the number of families who
can afford to pay for a studyabroad programme
will be the deciding factor. Assuming Thailand’s
limited economic growth over 2011 and the
forecast growth of around 5% in the years ahead,
the number of students opting for a studyabroad
programme is not expected to grow sharply.
Incidentally, the newly announced scholarship
programmes may indeed have a positive effect
on their numbers.
5.2.11 VietnamSome 360 to 390 Vietnamese students have
been studying in the Netherlands since 200708.
Their number is reasonably stable. The high
percentage (59%) of Vietnamese students in
Dutchgovernmentfunded education who
pursued a bachelor’s programme in higher
professional education in 201112 proves that
the Vietnamese student market affords
opportunities for higher professional education.
Thirtyone per cent of Vietnamese students
pursued a master’s programme in academic
higher education. Economics (57%) and
Engineering (21%) are popular fields of study.
In 200809, 43,700 Vietnamese students studied
abroad. Twentynine per cent studied in the
United States, 18% in Australia, 13% in France,
while 7% opted for both Japan and Russia.
96 97
The Vietnamese government promotes
outbound mobility by offering a relatively large
number of student grants. A requirement imposed
on student grant recipients is that they return
to Vietnam after their study period abroad. The
Vietnamese government thus endeavours to
avoid a brain drain. The government also seeks
to align its higher education system with higher
education systems abroad and has concluded
numerous agreements with other countries.
The cooperation obviously also aims to improve
the quality of Vietnamese higher education.
More importantly – given the economic interest,
the Vietnamese government’s apparent priority
is to improve the quality of higher education.
As a result the promotion of inbound mobility
may perhaps not be high up on the priority list.
A target for attracting a larger number of inter
national students has, however, been formulated.
Vietnam’s economic growth and growing
prosperity will enable an increasing number of
Vietnamese students to study abroad. Interest
is likely to be fuelled – at least in the short term
– by the substantial difference in the quality of
higher education in Vietnam and that offered
abroad. Taking the difficult access to higher
education in Vietnam into the equation, the
number of Vietnamese students choosing to
study abroad is only expected to grow.
5.2.12 ConclusionEconomic and demographic developments in
most of the Neso target countries are favourable,
which should help further increase outbound
mobility. In concrete terms, this means that the
demand for higher education will continue to
grow. The larger numbers of students from
the Neso countries who are studying in the
Netherlands is one of the factors evidencing
the growing demand and increasing capacity
for funding a studyabroad programme. The
assumption is that the increase correlates with
the policy designed to promote mobility as
implemented in the majority of the Neso target
countries. The efforts undertaken by the
Netherlands to promote and position inbound
mobility similarly play a role.
In 201112 a larger number of students from all
Neso target countries, apart from Thailand and
Taiwan, studied in the Netherlands. Compared
with 200708, in percentage terms the three
best performers were South Korea, Russia and
India, with South Korea, Mexico and Russia
recording the best performance compared with
201011. Of all students in Dutchgovernment
funded education from the Neso target countries,
the majority (45%) pursued a bachelor’s
programme in higher professional education in
201112, while a large number (39%) pursued
a master’s programme in academic higher
education. In 201112 half of the students from
the Neso target countries pursued a study
programme in Economics. The other popular
fields of study were: Engineering (23%),
Language & Culture (8%), and Agriculture &
Natural Environment (7%).
96 97
In terms of country market shares in the Neso
target country education markets, a shift was
seen between 200708 and 200809. The overall
picture is that the collective share of the top five
destination countries declined in each Neso target
country. Combined with the growing numbers
of students studying abroad, this therefore
means that mobility flows have seen ongoing
differentiation. Logically, the Netherlands has a
modest market share compared with the most
popular destinations. The Netherlands recorded
an average market share of 1.07% across the
ten Neso target countries in 200809.
For all Neso countries, the number of students
studying abroad is expected to continue to
grow, or to remain stable – at least in the short
term. Dutch higher education institutions will
definitely continue to have the opportunity to
recruit highly talented students from the Neso
target countries. A development seen in most
Neso target countries is that governments also
aim to improve the higher education system in
their respective countries. In this context,
cooperation with institutions abroad is
repeatedly sought. Against this background,
institutional cooperation in facilitating student
mobility seems to be playing a more important
role. The Neso programme will therefore continue
to heighten its focus on facilitating institutional
cooperation between Dutch higher education
institutions and those in the Neso countries in
the years ahead.
98 99
98 99
5.3
Credit mobility100 101
Inbound and outbound mobility under
the Erasmus programme
The European Commission estimates that
approximately 4.5% of all European students
study or take up work placements abroad
under the Erasmus programme at some point
during their studies.17
The 200910 academic year saw a 7% increase
in the number of Erasmus students in all 31
countries participating in the Erasmus programme
relative to 200809. Spain, France, the United
Kingdom, Germany and Italy hosted the largest
numbers of Erasmus students (with the
Netherlands ranking seventh). Spain, France,
Germany and Italy recorded the highest outbound
Erasmus student mobility (with the United
Kingdom coming sixth, and the Netherlands
eighth in this respect).
Diagram 60 shows the extent to which the
outbound and inbound Erasmus populations
deviate from our expectations based on the total
population enjoying education in the relevant
country. The countries referred to in Diagram 60
actively participate in the Erasmus programme
and, generally speaking, their Erasmus outbound
and inbound figures are higher than might be
expected given the size of their student
populations (larger than one). This does not
apply to outbound Swedish students, whose
numbers lag behind the share of the Swedish
population enjoying education out of the total
Swedish population in education in Erasmus
countries. In general, the inbound flow in the
No regular annually updated key figures are
available on credit mobility that would help put
the Netherlands into a wider context. International
comparative surveys however, are occasionally
carried out, which can be used for reference
purposes. The EUROSTUDENT project launched
in 2000 is one such survey. It coordinates and/or
compiles specific national surveys concerning
student socioeconomic backgrounds. The
Netherlands contributes data to the survey from
the Student Monitor (ResearchNed.nl).
Eurostudent IV, the fourth project round in which
25 countries took part, ran from 2008 to 2011.
These surveys included asking students about
their studyabroad experience. EUROSTUDENT
interprets the results of the participating countries
and compiles a summary of the most common
denominators. This often gives rise to new criteria
as it were, which are difficult to transpose to the
national criteria but the surveys do enable country
comparison.
According to EUROSTUDENT IV, a relatively
large number of Dutch students gain experience
abroad during their study programme. Together
with Finland and Norway, the Netherlands records
the highest number of study programme
enrolments from international students (14%
of the students who took part in the survey),
and the highest number of work placement
enrolments (9%) after Hungary (11%). Incidentally,
the final report published by EUROSTATIV
corroborates the opinion expressed in previous
Nuffic mobility publications concerning the
Bologna target value of 20%.
17 European Commission. (2012). The Erasmus Programme 2009/2010: A statistical overview. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc/stat/0910/report.pdf.
100 101
countries referred to in Diagram 60 is larger
than the outbound flow. Germany, where the
outbound flow exceeds the inbound flow forms
an exception. In terms of Erasmus inbound
mobility, the Danes – just as the previous year
– score the highest in relation to their student
population while the Germans reflect the lowest
score. Looking at outbound mobility, the Finns
top the list while the Swedes show the lowest
score.
Diagram 60
102 103
Inbound Erasmus
Belgium
Finland
Germany
TheNetherlands
Denmark
Sweden
1.03
Outbound Erasmus
1.84
1.49
2.74
2.39
2.54
1.59
1.70
1.30
1.29
1.03
0.72
Diagram 60
Percentage of the outbound and inbound Erasmus population among the total Erasmus population, relative to the share of the national student population in the total student population (in Erasmus countries), 2008-09Source: OECD, Nuffic, 2012
102 103
5.4
Lecturer and researcher mobility
104 105
5.4.1 Mobility to the NetherlandsAccording to the European London Communiqué
(2007), like student mobility, researcher and
lecturer mobility are deemed to play an important
role in the development of the European Higher
Education Area. Unfortunately, there is a lack
of available data concerning staff mobility to
the Netherlands on doctoral candidates and
lecturers as well as other members of staff.
A number of other countries, including Denmark,
Germany and the United Kingdom, have supplied
such data.
Of the available data, general data from the
Association of Universities in the Netherlands
(VSNU) shows that 42% of the doctoral
candidates employed by Dutch universities in
201011 were of foreign nationality (this equates
to a total of 3,613 foreign doctoral candidates),
an increase of 11 percentage points (35%) over
200506 (see Diagram 61). Hardly any comparable
data is available from other countries.
Diagram 61
The VSNU does not publish detailed figures
about the countries of origin of foreign doctoral
candidates in the Netherlands. However,
a study of doctoral candidates at four Dutch
universities, published by Utrecht University
and Erasmus University Rotterdam in 2010,
estimates that most international doctoral
candidates in the Netherlands come from
Western Europe, Asia and Eastern Europe.18
According to the study, international doctoral
candidates in the Netherlands are primarily
found in the fields of agricultural, natural and
engineering sciences. Data provided by the
IND and EUROSTAT on newly issued residence
permits to paid researchers shows that 1,485
of these permits were issued in 2010, against
1,305 in 2009, and 864 in 2008. Of the
researchers from outside the EU (and EFTA), in
2010 the majority originated from China (26%),
followed by Iran (8%), India (6%), the United
States (6%) and Indonesia (6%).
Only EUROSTAT supplies centralised data on
lecturer mobility to (and from) the Netherlands.
The number of lecturers in higher education who
taught in the Netherlands for a short period of
time under an Erasmus exchange programme fell
from 767 to 695 between 200809 and 200910,
according to Erasmus programme figures (499
were recorded in 200001). The above number
of inbound Erasmus lecturers puts the
Netherlands in sixteenth position and within the
lower middle bracket of Erasmus countries. The
most popular destination countries were Germany,
Italy, France and Spain.
Total lecturer mobility under the Erasmus
programme represents 29,031 people, whose
number grew in the previous year by 1.5%.19
In 200910, the largest group of international
Erasmus lecturers in the Netherlands were from
the United Kingdom, followed by Belgium,
Germany, Finland and Spain. Compared with
the previous year, the Netherlands has become
less popular among Erasmus lecturers from the
18 Sonneveld, H., Yerkes, M. & Schoot, R. van de. (2010). PhD trajectories and labour market mobility: A survey of recent doctoral recipients at four universities in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Netherlands Centre for Graduate and Research Schools.
19 EUROSTAT. (2009). The Bologna Process in Higher Education in Europe:
Key indicators on the social dimension and mobility. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. URL: www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/documents/KS7809653EN.pdf.
Diagram 61
Doctoral candidates employed by the universities, expressed in numbers of persons and percentages broken down by Dutch and non-Dutch nationality, 2005-2011Source: VSNU/WOPI, reference date 31 December 2010 (by number of people).
Total doctoral candidates,
nationality known
Total doctoral candidates
nationality unknown/stateless
Dutch nationality
Non-Dutch nationality
2009-102008-09
2007-082006-072005-06
267
31%
69%
7,462
1
8,016
2
8,318
28
7,732 7,701
33%
67%
41%
59%
2010-113
8,564
42%
58%
35%
65%
38%
62%
104 105
the number of international doctoral candidates
that remain in the Netherlands is larger than the
number of Dutch doctoral candidates leaving
the country. We should point out, however,
that at the time of completing the questionnaire
some of the doctoral candidates were not yet
sure whether they would be working in the
Netherlands or abroad. Moreover, there is no
comprehensive overview of Dutch nationals
who have earned their doctorate abroad and
subsequently stayed abroad to work.
Just as the number of inbound Erasmus
lecturers, the number of outbound Erasmus
lecturers also declined in 200910. In that year,
709 Dutch higher education lecturers went abroad
to teach, against 721 lecturers in 200809
(with 592 recorded in 200001). Occupying the
sixteenth spot, the Netherlands ranks within the
lower middle bracket of Erasmus countries for
outbound lecturer mobility. The majority of the
Erasmus lecturers originated from Poland,
Spain, Germany and France. The most popular
destination countries for Dutch Erasmus lecturers
were Belgium, the United Kingdom, Germany
and Finland, followed by France and Spain.
Compared with the previous year Germany,
Portugal and Finland enjoyed less popularity,
whereas Belgium, Hungary, France and Spain
hosted a larger number of lecturers.
Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Italy,
but more popular among Austrian and Finnish
lecturers. In 200910, 327 people came to the
Netherlands as part of the Erasmus staff mobility
training programme whereas 375 were recorded
in 200809. Mobility was mainly generated by
Germany, Finland, Poland, Latvia and Turkey.
5.4.2 Mobility from the NetherlandsTraditionally, university researchers are relatively
mobile internationally because they work abroad
as visiting staff or attend conferences and
seminars abroad. However, it is difficult to
measure international mobility for researchers
exactly. Unfortunately data is not available on
the number of Dutch nationals who have obtained
a doctorate abroad and their destination
countries. Such data is not usually compiled
centrally in other countries either.
According to the above study of doctoral
candidates at four (and therefore not all) Dutch
universities, 19% of doctoral candidates in the
Netherlands leave the country to work abroad
after earning their doctorate degrees (see
footnote 18, page 105). This figure applies to
both Dutch and nonDutch doctoral candidates
at Dutch universities. The most important
destinations are Western Europe (9%) – with
Germany, Belgium and the United Kingdom as
the main destination countries – followed by
North America (3%) and Asia (3%). According
to the study, the balance between the brain
drain and brain gain initially looks positive:
106 107
Internationalisation between secondary school and university:
the gap year
6Theme
106 107
6.1
Introduction108 109
The international mobility of students during
their study programme was discussed in the
preceding chapters. This chapter addresses
the international experience acquired by young
people during the gap year, prior to commencing
a university study programme.
The gap year refers to the year out between
ceasing secondary education and commencing
tertiary education. After obtaining their secondary
school (HAVO or VWO) diploma, most students
in the Netherlands embark on a study
programme at a university of applied sciences
or research university as soon as possible.
While other students start working, a growing
group of young people choose to take a break
of at least one year between secondary school
and university to carry out other activities. This
is called a gap year, a term commonly used in
AngloSaxon countries. Taking a gap year has
been common practice in the United Kingdom
for quite some time with more young people in
the United Kingdom taking a gap year than in
the Netherlands.
Young people use the gap year for various
purposes. Common activities undertaken
include gaining work experience, learning a
language or a skill and/or travelling abroad.
Young people who do not yet know what field
of study they wish to pursue often decide to
go to high school or community college abroad,
mainly in the United States, to familiarise
themselves with the different fields of study.
Various Dutch organisations offer high school
and college programmes. An increasing number
of companies, volunteer organisations and
professional agencies specialise in student
exchange programmes and offer guidance on
study programme choice geared towards the
gap year.
This chapter addresses going abroad in the gap
year. We have presented the figures for Dutch
students participating in a gap year abroad,
the reasons for taking a gap year abroad and
the expected trends in participation figures.
We subsequently discuss the main gains for
the participants and the incentives and
impediments in the education system, using
examples from various countries. We also
examine in what way the gap year contributes
to achieving the internationalisation targets in
higher education. We have lastly formulated
recommendations for making better use of
the gap year in Dutch higher education.
108 109
6.2
Going abroad in the gap year
110
6.2.2 Reasons for taking a gap year abroadThe reasons for taking a gap year abroad also
emerged from the above study conducted by
ResearchNed. The respondents were asked to
state several reasons. Fiftyseven per cent of
the respondents stated that they hoped going
abroad would be beneficial for their ultimate
choice of study programme. Nine per cent
stated that going abroad helped them prepare
for the study programme they had chosen while
another 9% had failed to get a place in their
study programme of choice because of a draw
procedure. A vast majority of 83% of the
respondents stated that they also had a non
study related reason for their gap year mobility.
Students in higher academic education more
often had a nonstudyrelated reason than
students in higher professional education
(88% and 77% respectively).
This picture corresponds with another survey
conducted on young people’s reasons for
opting to take time out to pursue other activities
between leaving secondary school and starting
university. The reason often is a combination
of the desire for ongoing personal development
and the expectation that a gap year helps in
selecting and successfully completing a university
study programme. For countless young people
it obviously also serves to take time out to relax
between secondary school and university.
The organisations involved in arranging a gap
year stated that they are increasingly seeing the
balance shift towards a valuable experience
6.2.1 Trends in gap year mobility – figuresRecent figures compiled by ResearchNed on
behalf of and in conjunction with Nuffic show
the developments in the percentage of students
taking a year out to travel abroad prior to
commencing their study programme. Of the
students who commenced their study
programme in 2011, 2.6% took a year out to
travel abroad. In terms of secondary school
students, VWO students travelled abroad more
often than HAVO students, while students in
academic higher education travelled abroad
more often than students in higher professional
education. In the period 2008 through 2011, the
percentage rose from 2.4% in 2008 to 2.9% in
2010, but subsequently fell to 2.6% in 2011.
Aside from the difference between students
in higher professional education and those in
academic higher education, a notable difference
is evident depending on the degree programme.
Students attending University College and
those majoring in Language & Culture, and to
a lesser extent Behaviour & Society, travelled
considerably more than the average firstyear
student. Engineering students in particular
achieved a score that was notably lower than
the average.
Diagram 62
Diagram 63 (see page 112)
Diagram 64 (see page 112)
Diagram 62
Percentage of students who travelled abroad (HAVO/VWO)Source: ResearchNed, 2012
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
2011201020092008
1.4%
4.0%
1.9%
4.7%
1.9%
5.1%
1.8%
4.4%
Secondary education (HAVO)
Secondary education (VWO)
111
Diagram 64
Percentage of students who travelled abroad (degree programme)Source: ResearchNed, 2012
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
2011201020092008
1.5%
4.5%
2.4%
2.0%
4.6%
2.8%
1.9%
5.3%
2.9%
1.8%
4.7%
2.6%
Higher professional education
Academic higher education
Total
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
TotalLanguage &Culture
Behaviour &Society
LawEconomicsHealthcareEngineeringNaturalSciences
Agriculture& Natural
Environment
EducationUniversityColleges
1.5%
2.
0%
1
.9%
1
.8%
4.5
%
4.6%
5.
3%
4.7
%
4.0
%
5
.7%
3.6%
3
.9%
7
.1%
6
.8%
8.9
%
7
.6%
2.
9%
2.3
%2.
1%
2
.5%
6
.9%
6
.0%
5.8
%
5.3
%
1.0%
2.0
%
1.5%
1
.3%
3.6%
3.9%
5.7
%
4
.4%
1.6%
2.
4%
2
.3%
2.0
%
3.4%
4.3
%
4.7%
4
.1%
3.8
%
4.
0%3.
1%
4
.2%
0.7%
0
.9%
0
.9%
1
.0%
2.0%
2
.2%
3.1
%
2.
0%
0.0%
1.1
%
4.1%
1
.9%
1
.6%
2.7
%
6.4%
2.9%
4
.9%
4
.3%
3.7%
4.7%
1.0%
1.1
%
1.5%
1.3%
7.1%
8.
9%
1
0.8%
Sectoroverstijgend
Landbouw &
Natuurlijke omgeving
Economie
Gedrag &
Maatschappij
Techniek
Natuur
Taal & Cultuur
Rechten
Gezondheidszorg
Onderwijs
Totaal
Higher
professional
education
2008
2009
2010
2011
Academic
higher
education
2008
2009
2010
2011
Diagram 63
Percentage of students who travelled abroad (HBO/WO)Source: ResearchNed, 2012
112 113
that will still benefit young people in the years
ahead. Even parents seem to increasingly view
the gap year as a valuable investment. If the
reasons for taking a gap year often closely
relate to a future study programme, this also
means that changes in the study climate may
possibly affect participation in a gap year.
6.2.3 DevelopmentsHigher education is in a state of flux. In recent
years governments in numerous countries have
either taken or announced measures to curb
the rising costs of higher education. In the light
of the economic recession, study costs have
been substantially increased in various European
countries. This is consequently expected to
affect participation in a gap year and the type
of activities young people undertake during
that year.
The first signs are already evident. In England
the number of participants in a gap year activity
(including those travelling abroad) plummeted
after it was announced that tuition fees would
be increased from September 2012. The decline
in this case is probably attributable to young
people taking advantage of the current lower
tuition fees to enrol at a university. It cannot be
ruled out, however, that participation in gap
year activities will again rise once the new fees
have become a fact. In this context it is difficult
to predict what the impact of higher tuition fees
will be on taking a gap year or not, and on the
activities young people will undertake in that
year. On the one hand it is conceivable that
young people will perform salaried work prior to
commencing their study programme to pay for
their studies, but the favourable lending rates,
on the other hand, may possibly render this
step redundant.
Higher education in the Netherlands too is under
going change. Examples include: the larger
number of options for universities to select
students; the introduction of a fine for perpetual
students; and privatelyfunded master’s degree
programmes. It is quite conceivable that these
developments will spur a growing number of
students to take a gap year after passing their
schoolleaving examination. After all, it is all the
more important to choose the right study
programme particularly in view of the serious
financial implications of making the wrong
choice. The gap year is increasingly developing
into an opportunity for students to acquire
essential experience and skills and make it
through the ever more stringent university
selection procedures and raise their chances of
successfully completing higher education. For
that matter it should also be born in mind that
there is a greater chance that the higher tuition
fees may compel young people to continue to
extend their gap year and ultimately end up never
pursuing a study programme at all.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
TotalLanguage &Culture
Behaviour &Society
LawEconomicsHealthcareEngineeringNaturalSciences
Agriculture& Natural
Environment
EducationUniversityColleges
1.5%
2.
0%
1
.9%
1
.8%
4.5
%
4.6%
5.
3%
4.7
%
4.0
%
5
.7%
3.6%
3
.9%
7
.1%
6
.8%
8.9
%
7
.6%
2.
9%
2.3
%2.
1%
2
.5%
6
.9%
6
.0%
5.8
%
5.3
%
1.0%
2.0
%
1.5%
1
.3%
3.6%
3.9%
5.7
%
4
.4%
1.6%
2.
4%
2
.3%
2.0
%
3.4%
4.3
%
4.7%
4
.1%
3.8
%
4.
0%3.
1%
4
.2%
0.7%
0
.9%
0
.9%
1
.0%
2.0%
2
.2%
3.1
%
2.
0%
0.0%
1.1
%
4.1%
1
.9%
1
.6%
2.7
%
6.4%
2.9%
4
.9%
4
.3%
3.7%
4.7%
1.0%
1.1
%
1.5%
1.3%
7.1%
8.
9%
1
0.8%
Sectoroverstijgend
Landbouw &
Natuurlijke omgeving
Economie
Gedrag &
Maatschappij
Techniek
Natuur
Taal & Cultuur
Rechten
Gezondheidszorg
Onderwijs
Totaal
Higher
professional
education
2008
2009
2010
2011
Academic
higher
education
2008
2009
2010
2011
112 113
6.3
Utilising the gap year in higher education
114
6.3.1 Participant gainsAccording to ResearchNed’s figures, the main
gains of taking a gap year abroad in respect
of pursuing a university study programme are
as follows: positive contribution to a student’s
ultimate choice of study programme, more
certainty about the choice of study programme,
substantive relevance to the study programme
to be pursued and opting for a more inter
nationallyoriented study programme. Another
important aspect – at least among students in
academic higher education – is the lower drop
out rate resulting from a gap year abroad.
Among students in higher professional education
the lower dropout rate among students who
had enjoyed a gap year was attributable to
students who had worked during that period.
Only one fifth of the research participants stated
that the gap year abroad had not influenced
their choice of study programme. This largely
substantiates what young people expect of a
gap year. Many young people stated that they
had opted for a gap year to help them in their
ultimate choice of study programme, and this
often turns out to be the case. The students
themselves not only stated that it had been
beneficial for their ultimate choice of study
programme but the lower dropout rate also
corroborates this statement.
6.3.2 The role of the gap year in government policy and education institution policy The previous sections elaborated on the
number of young people in the Netherlands
taking a gap year and their primary reasons for
doing so. This section discusses several examples
of the gap year in other countries. As stated
earlier on, compared with the Netherlands the
gap year has been a longfamiliar phenomenon
in the United Kingdom, and in Australia too for
that matter. In addition to providing examples
from these two countries, we have described a
remarkable institutional initiative taken in Japan,
an example from the United States, and the
Danish government’s endeavours to spur students
to commence their studies at an earlier stage,
and somewhat discourage them from taking
a gap year.
The United Kingdom: government grant
for a gap year
The gap year is a household word in the United
Kingdom. In the previous year, however,
participant numbers plummeted, most probably
on account of the imminent implementation
of higher tuition fees at British universities from
September 2012. To help make up for the decline,
the government announced that it would fund
7,000 young people taking a gap year in the
next three years. Obviously certain conditions
are attached to the grant. Students should be
engaged in activities in governmentdesignated
sectors, such as water management and
combatting HIV, primarily in aid projects abroad.
The British government deems this essential
because, on the one hand, the projects serve a
worthwhile purpose and on the other hand the
experience gained is beneficial for the personal
development of young Brits.
115
commencing a study programme has been
falling since 2005, which means that the measure
may possibly be redundant. The discouragement
and limitation of the gap year has fuelled
prolonged political debate and may have already
prompted young people to commence their
studies at an earlier stage.
Australia: the University of Canberra’s
Gap Year Plus
In Australia the gap year is viewed in a positive
light. Young people are encouraged to venture
abroad to gain experience between secondary
school and university. The experience gained
abroad is recognised when they enrol at
university. A good example of such practice
is the University of Canberra’s Gap Year Plus
programme which enables participants to
acquire recognition of the experience acquired
during a gap year activity. Students register at
a university, and postpone their studies for one
year once they have been accepted. They then
register for the Gap Year Plus programme and
take part in a subsequent instruction session.
The student embarks on the gap year and
compiles information and proof for a portfolio.
The student’s portfolio is assessed upon return
and they are awarded a certificate of
competencies acquired in the gap year.
The advantage of the programme for students
is that they already have certainty about their
future after the gap year, and the competencies
they have acquired will be recognised by their
university of choice. It is an excellent way for
Another incentive for taking a gap year in the
United Kingdom is that it offers young people
the opportunity to gain recognition for the
competencies they have acquired in that year.
City & Guilds, a leading examination and
accreditation body in the United Kingdom,
offers students the opportunity to undergo an
assessment procedure to measure and certify
the competencies they have acquired. Young
people thus obtain tangible evidence to help
them in their job search or to enter university.
Denmark: discouragement policy
The average Danish student takes part in higher
education at a late stage largely because count
less young Danes start working or travel abroad
upon completing their secondary education.
This is not usually limited to one gap year.
The government and employers in Denmark say
that this is not good for the Danish economy.
They believe that it would be more beneficial for
the Danish labour market and the income to be
earned by young people in the future if they
were to commence their higher education study
programme earlier. The Danish government
there fore pursues an active gap year
discourage ment policy. From 2009 the results
of the schoolleaving examination – which are
essential for entering university – are multiplied
by 1.08 if young people enrol at a university
within two years after passing the exam.
Rather surprisingly the average time between
passing the schoolleaving examination and
116 117
United States: the bridge year at Princeton
The gap year is gaining more appeal in the
United States too. A larger number of
universities have responded by creating the
opportunity to defer university entrance and
commence a study programme a year later.
With its Bridge Year programme Princeton
University has gone one step further. The
programme was launched in 2009 and offers
students the opportunity to perform volunteer
work in local communities in different countries,
the costs of which are absorbed by the university.
Young people can opt for Ghana, India, China,
Peru and Serbia. The participants undergo an
intensive language and communication course
before venturing abroad. They stay with local
families and take part in daily life. Different
types of volunteer work are offered, such as
working in a local clinic or teaching young
children. The programme objective is to raise
the participants’ commitment to people and
society and offer them a unique learning
experience before they embark on their first
academic year at Princeton University.
6.3.3 Relationship with internationalisation policy in Dutch educationWe have provided several examples of
governments and institutions that actively
encourage gap year participation in the above
sections. We have also included an example
of discouragement policy. One of the reasons
for encouraging participation in a gap year,
the university to nonetheless bind students who
do not wish to go straight to university after
passing their schoolleaving examination. In this
case, however, the positive effect a gap year
may have on the student’s choice of study
programme no longer applies.
Japan: shift in the academic calendar
The University of Tokyo in Japan has taken
the initiative to adjust the academic calendar.
The university’s academic year currently
commences in April. However, the university
believes it would be advisable to move the start
of the academic year to September to align more
with the international level. One of the arguments
in favour of the shift is to facilitate Japanese
students in acquiring essential experience by
working or travelling abroad in the period
between passing the schoolleaving examination
and entering university. This currently is one
month but could become six months. Around
thirty Japanese universities support the initiative.
A representative from Waseda University stated
that the interim period would be an excellent
opportunity for young people to improve their
language skills and work abroad for a short
period of time to increase their job prospects.
A growing group of Japanese multinationals are
also said to favour graduates with international
experience. The president of Tokyo University
aims to have the adjusted academic calendar
in place within five years.
116 117
particularly a gap year abroad, is the presumed
positive effect of international experience on the
participant’s personal development. Moreover
the added value of international experience
counts on the labour market.
This sounds familiar. We also regularly come
across these arguments in the internationali
sation policy of the Dutch government as well
as universities of applied sciences and research
universities. Three themes play a key role in the
current debate in the Netherlands about the
pros and cons of international student mobility,
i.e. the value of an international classroom, the
importance of an international student having
ties with the Netherlands and the need to boost
the outbound mobility of the Dutch youth
population.
The underlying rationale is that international
mobility is vital for the quality of education, the
labour market and the economy. If international
experience is so important, it would be advisable
to utilise all the international experience in
education as much as possible. Greater added
value can be derived from the international
class room if account is taken of cultural
differences. This implies that students should
at least be aware of the existence of these
differences. It would be extremely beneficial if
part of the student community had already gained
international experience by travelling around
the world or undertaking volunteer work in a
developing country.
The same applies to boosting outbound mobility.
This is often based on the philosophy that young
people need to prepare for an increasingly
international labour market. Travelling abroad in
a gap year enables young people to gain some
international experience. A survey carried out
by News (the Dutch Worldwide Students
Association) has revealed that those who had
travelled abroad in a gap year also pursued a
study period abroad more often than those
who had not already travelled abroad.
The third priority in current internationalisation
policy – international students should have ties
with the Netherlands – requires a climate that
promotes internationalisation and where
international students feel welcome. What may
help in this context is for many young people to
understand what it is like to be selfreliant in a
different country. Moreover it could perhaps be
beneficial to promote the Netherlands among
international students wishing to take a gap
year. This will enable the Netherlands to bind
prospective students at an early stage.
6.3.4 Recommendations On the basis of the above we have formulated
several recommendations for the higher education
sector aimed at raising the value of the gap year
for the institution and the participant.
First and foremost, the secondary schools and
universities have a role in providing young
people information about the gap year options.
118 119
As stated above, acquiring international
experience prior to commencing a study
programme often is assessed as positive in
university selection procedures. This applies
primarily to more internationallyoriented and
more selective institutions, such as the university
colleges. However, selection could also impede
the decision to take a gap year, mainly due to
the selection test which is becoming more
common and makes a gap year less attractive
and sometimes impossible. It would be advisable
for higher education institutions to broaden the
conditions under which selection tests are held.
In view of the acknowledged gains acquired
from a gap year abroad, i.e. positive contribution
to the ultimate choice of study programme and
lower dropout rates, it would also be in the
interests of the higher education institutions
themselves to focus ongoing attention on this
phenomenon.
In addition to the information about study
programme options as provided by secondary
schools, students should also be made aware
of other ways to fill in the period after passing
the schoolleaving examination. This aspect
should also be communicated in the PR activities
carried out by the universities of applied sciences
and research universities. This is less selfevident
because the primary aim of these activities is to
recruit students rather than defer their choice
of study programme, unless this is linked to the
study programme in some way. In view of the
positive effects of a gap year on a student’s
choice of study programme and on academic
achievement, it might nevertheless be worthwhile
for the higher education institutions to focus
attention on this aspect.
Another option is the involvement of research
universities or universities of applied sciences in
arranging a gap year as organised, for instance,
by the University of Canberra and Princeton
University. These universities have set up their
own programmes for students embarking on
their study programmes the year after the gap
year. This enables institutions to maintain ties
with prospective students while offering them
an additional learning experience even before
they have commenced their actual study
programme. It would be advisable to recognise
the participant’s acquired competencies, which
might for instance result in granting exemptions
for curricular components.
118 119
120 121
Appendix
7120 121
7.1
Nuffic programme mobility
122
7.1.1 Inbound mobilityTotal inbound programme mobility recorded just
over 11,000 participants. This is mainly due to
an increase in the number of Erasmus programme
participants coming to the Netherlands.
The 200708 academic year marked a transition
for Erasmus student trainees as some were still
taking part in the previous Leonardo da Vinci
programme. To a certain extent the growth seen
between 200708 and 200809 therefore was
administrative (actual growth did apply after
200809). All other programmes recorded a
decline from 200910. In terms of international
sponsors, the Ford programme was discontinued
as was the IAEA programme.
According to the data currently available, inbound
mobility administered by Nuffic is estimated at
close to 1.7% of the Dutch student population.
Diagram 65 (see page 124)
7.1.2 Outbound mobilityTotal outbound mobility seems to have increased
sharply between 200708 and 200809. However,
the largest growth was seen in outbound
Erasmus student trainees; the increase is
largely attributable to improved recordkeeping
in Brussels. What is certain, however, is that a
larger number of Erasmus students pursued part
of their study programme abroad in the same
period. An actual increase was recorded in the
number of both outbound Erasmus student
trainees and outbound Erasmus students from
200809. Although the most recent Erasmus
inbound mobility data relates to 200910 and
no new data is available about the trend from
that year onward, there seems to be a better
balance between Erasmus outbound and inbound
mobility. The number of grants awarded by the
Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
declined between 201011 and 201112 while
the number of VSBfonds grants reflected an
upward trend. According to the data currently
available, outbound mobility administered by
Nuffic is estimated at around 1.3% of the
Dutch student population.
Diagram 66 (see page 125)
123
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
7,71
2*
2,9
98
424
14
3
20
8
,081
*
2
,311
3
34
63
20
8,59
4*
2,5
60
3
07
69
15
8,59
4* *
*
2,42
8
2
74
65
10
8,59
4* *
*
2
,354
21
5
2 N/A
European Commission
Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Netherlands Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science
International sponsors***
United Nations (IAEA)
Total
11,297
10,809
11,54511,371
11,165
Diagram 65
Total inbound programme mobility within the programmes administered by Nuffic, according to sponsor, 2007-2012Source: Nuffic, 2012
*** From 200708 including Erasmus work placements.
*** Estimated.
*** Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and the Ford Foundation (until 2011).
124
European Commission (EU)
Netherlands Ministry of Education,
Culture and Science
Private VSBfonds
Total
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
5,986
135
194
7,005
210
186
7,678
194
186
8,590
216
125
8,590
167
153
*
*
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
2011-12
7,401*
8,058*
8,931
8,910
6,315
*
Diagram 66
Total outbound programme mobility within the programmes administered by Nuffic, according to sponsor, 2007-2012Source: Nuffic, 2012
* Estimated
125
7.2
Definitions and methods126 127
7.2.1 Mobility as part of internationalisationMobility is not an isolated factor. It usually
forms part of a broader strategy focused on the
internationalisation of education, which seeks
to increase the quality of education, generate
economic impact and/or achieve more idealistic
goals, for instance to overcome differences.
As well as boosting mobility, curricula are being
internationalised to improve the international
competencies of graduates. After all, the majority
of students are not internationally mobile.
7.2.2 Types of mobilityWe distinguish different types of mobility.
Mobility primarily relates to:
students
researchers
lecturers
study programmes
7.2.3 Diploma mobility and credit mobilityA distinction is made between two main types
of student mobility. If the student pursues an
entire bachelor’s or master’s degree programme
abroad, this is referred to as diploma mobility.
If the student’s stay abroad aims to enhance the
study programme in the student’s own country
by means of a work placement or pursuing a
study component, this is referred to as credit
mobility. After all, the results are usually expressed
in terms of credits. Other terms used to describe
credit mobility are ‘shortterm mobility’ and
‘exchange mobility’. The latter term largely fails
to cover work placement mobility, which often
does not involve any type of exchange.
The distinction between ‘diploma mobility’ and
‘credit mobility’ is relevant because the terms
relate to different groups of students with
different objectives and different requirements
in terms of support.
Programme mobility
In addition to diploma mobility and credit mobility,
reference is often made to programme mobility,
which takes place within a grant programme.
Programme mobility could entail diploma and
credit mobility as well as other types of mobility,
such as lecturer mobility (particularly in the case
of programmes with a broad educational aim).
The term ‘programme mobility’ is sometimes
also used to refer to the mobility of entire study
programmes, termed ‘study programme mobility’
in this document. Unfortunately there is still a
lack of available data on this type of mobility.
7.2.4 Mobility source dataThere are two different types of data sources:
those that are regularly updated and ad hoc
sources. The former are usually designed to
show general trends while the latter often go
into greater detail and are used to interpret the
trends. The first source mainly relates to files
that were usually set up and updated for other
purposes (which is why mobility information has
sometimes been referred to as ‘supplementary
data capture’).20 They include records on the
20 Mobility is usually also only one element of ad hoc research. Examples are graduate surveys, which are primarily designed to gain an insight into the relationship between education and the labour market, or research for the Student Monitor, which focuses mainly on the socioeconomic backgrounds and circumstances of current students. Ad hoc research could of course also focus specifically on the issue of mobility or on the effects of internationalisation in general.
126 127
they enrolled at a higher education institution
and were sometimes even born there, nationality
is no longer a conclusive criterion for mobility
within higher education. At the international
level it has therefore been agreed to collect
information about the students’ country of
prior education and/or country of permanent
residence. As the latter criterion conflicts with
reality and European objectives, which allow
students to reside, work and spend their leisure
time anywhere in the EU, we have disregarded
it in this document.
For a few years now, we have been able to
access information on a substantial number
of participants in higher education confirming
whether they obtained their secondary school
diploma in the Netherlands or abroad.
If students completed secondary education
abroad, it is assumed that they have travelled
to the Netherlands specifically for the purpose
of enjoying higher education and that they can
indeed contribute to achieving the internatio
nali sation objectives.
It is interesting to note that this information also
provides insight into Dutch students returning
to the Netherlands to pursue higher education
after attending secondary school abroad.
Students who fall in this category, those who
attended secondary school in another country,
are referred to as ‘Dutch international students’
rather than just ‘international students’. Please
note that these statistics are not conclusive:
financing or funding of education, or support
immigration policy.
Therefore there is a lack of data that specifically
ties in with the above types and forms of mobility.
Moreover, the information is often incomplete.
With regard to enrolment, the information is
limited to financed and governmentfunded
education (although a gradual transition is being
made to accredited education). Residence
permit records specifically focus on nonEU
and nonEFTA countries. Therefore virtually
no information is available on EU and EFTA
students in privatelyfinanced education.
Another problem is that there are no clear
definitions of the different categories. However,
there more or less is general consensus about
diploma mobility: this is the area in which the
most data is available. Credit mobility is a
relatively new concept that is gradually being
accepted. For that reason, the relevant data
files really still need to be developed.
Conversely, opinions vary as to the status of
PhD students and researchers, and records
consequently also vary.
Nationality, country of prior education,
country of permanent residence
Until recently, it was only possible to determine
student mobility on the basis of nationality data.
We therefore still use the term ‘foreign’ or
‘international’ students. However, as more and
more students of different nationalities reside
for a longer period of time in the country where
128 129
completed by national organisations in the
participating countries. In the Netherlands this
is carried out by Statistics Netherlands, based
largely on data provided by the Ministry of
Education, Culture and Science.
Although the same data is used, the information
is not always used in the same way. For instance
on the OECD website, comprehensive data
regarding nationality, country of prior education
and country of permanent residence is shown
whereas the UNESCO website mainly uses
the country of prior education. As none of the
series are complete, the missing information
is often added from other series to make
estimates for reporting purposes. In addition
to the different criteria used, i.e. nationality,
country of prior education or permanent
residence, the differences often noted in
mobility figures often arise from the extent to
which, and the way in which, other series are
used to supplement missing data.
Due to the quality of Dutch and other data on
country of prior education, in this publication
we still mainly use nationality as a mobility
criterion. Although this therefore means that
mobility will be overestimated, from a historical
point of view these series are the most
consistent and the most useful for identifying
trends – and trends are the most important
aspect in terms of policy.
in the 201112 academic year we also still
do not know where a large group of students
attended secondary school, i.e. 3.5% of the
total student population. If these students all
enjoyed prior education abroad, which is unlikely,
this means that actual mobility would rise
sharply based on this criterion. The percentage
of students who attended secondary school
abroad is in fact 7.1%. More consistent record
keeping therefore is essential.
Diagram 67 (see page 130)
Diagram 68 (see page 130)
Revised figures for international students holding
a Dutch secondary school diploma reflect a
gradual increase over the last five years from
2,740 students in 200708 to 3,743 students in
201112. These international students in fact
are not internationally mobile at all. Conversely,
the 12,799 Dutch nationals holding a foreign
secondary school diploma can indeed be
regarded as internationally mobile. Taking this
into account, the previous total of 56,131
diploma mobile students in governmentfunded
education (Diagram 1, page 14) increases to
65,187 diploma mobile students.
UOE tables
UNESCO, OECD and EUROSTAT collect
education statistics at the international level
based on a handbook that sets out the mutual
criteria agreed among these organisations and
member countries. The information is recorded
in tables known as UOE tables on account of
the organisations involved. The UOE tables are
128 129
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
2011-122010-112009-102008-092007-08
2
1,74
4
10,
810
9 0
34
,013
12,
728
155
3
33
,953
12,
799
410
2
28,9
14
1
1,98
4
88 2
23,9
45
10,
975
17 1
Foreign nationality
Dutch nationality
Nationality unknown
Other
Total
32,563
34,938
40,988
46,899 47,164
Dutch diploma awarded upon
completion of same study programme
Diploma awarded by disposition
(state examination, or similar)
Foreign diploma
Diploma of unknown origin
2011-122010-11
2009-102008-092007-08
85.8%
4.1%
5.6%4.5%
85.2%
4.5%
5.8%4.5%
83.8%
5.7%
6.5%4.0%
82.9%
6.5%
7.1%3.4%
83.0%
6.4%
7.1%3.5%
Diagram 68
Number of students holding a foreign secondary school diploma according to nationality, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
Diagram 67
Origin of secondary school diploma in percentages, 2007-2012Source: DUOCFI, 2012 (revised figures)
130 131
over the last decade. There is a lack of
information about the situation in other
countries.
Diagram 69
Use of data in the maps and diagrams
in this publication
Each diagram in this publication usually shows
only one type of data. For instance, diploma
mobility is based on enrolment data provided
by the Ministry of Education, Culture and
Science and DUO or, at the international level,
by the OECD or UNESCO, or residence permit
data provided by the IND. One exception is
the estimated total number of inbound and
outbound students in Maps 01 and 02 and in
Diagrams 47–50, where diploma and credit
mobility data have been added up. We have
used Erasmus data to reflect credit mobility
for the purpose of general estimates based on
graduate surveys. The Erasmus data has been
supplemented with IND residence permit data
concerning work placements to reflect inbound
credit mobility.
Diploma mobility is based on IND data
concerning residence permits issued to
students from countries outside the EU and
EFTA for the purpose of study, and enrolment
data for students from the EU and EFTA
countries. In principle, the residence permit
figures provide a more accurate and complete
picture of mobility within higher education.
7.2.5 In short: what do we know, and what do we not know?Diagram 69 provides a general overview of the
information that is known and the information
that is not known. To this end, a distinction is
made between diploma mobility and credit
mobility to or from the Netherlands, and to
or from other countries. The latter category,
relating to inbound mobility to or outbound
mobility from other countries, is essential for
making a comparison with the Dutch figures.
Diploma mobility per student only includes host
institutions where enrolment data is usually
compiled at the national level. In the Netherlands
the latter applies to governmentfunded
education, and this often also, but not always,
is the case abroad. These enrolment figures
are available in the international UOE tables.
Residence permit figures are also available in
the Netherlands about students from outside
the EU and EFTA regions.
Credit mobility not only includes host
institutions but also seconding institutions per
student. The seconding institutions are always
higher education institutions whereas the host
institutions might also be noneducational
institutions, such as work placement companies.
In the Dutch context, the distinction between
governmentfunded and nongovernmentfunded
education institutions is relevant particularly in
view of the growth seen in the latter category
(for which there also is a lack of mobility data)
Inbound
Outbound
Direction
To NL
To other countries
From NL
From other countries
Destination/origin
The Netherlands
Host countries
Host countries
Host countries (incl. NL)
Source Type of education
+++
-
++
++
++
+++
++
++
++
++
Availability of data
Inbound
Outbound
To NL
To other countries
From NL
From other countries
Host institution (in NL)
Seconding institution/country
Host institution/country
Seconding institution/country
Host institution/country
Seconding institution (in NL)
Host institution/country
Seconding institution/country
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+++*
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+++*
-
-
-
-
Type of mobility
Diploma mobility
Credit mobility
EU and EFTA Rest of the world
Government-funded education
Non-government funded education
Education
Education
Education
Government-funded education
Non-government funded education
Extra educational
Education
Education
Extra educational
Education
Education
Extra educational
Government-funded education
Non-government funded education
Education
Extra educational
Education
Diagram 69
Availability of mobility dataSource: Nuffic
+ Total number++ Breakdown (country of origin/destination)
+++ Breakdown (discipline, etc.) * Destination country unknown
130 131
This is because the figures exclude international
students who have been residing in the
Netherlands for some time, but do include
students in nonpublicly funded education.
Unfortunately – only for the purpose of this
publication – students from the EU and EFTA
countries have not been included in these
records. We have used enrolment data based
on nationality for these students, to which the
advantages described above do not apply.
We have only used OECD data based on
nationality (i.e. international enrolment data)
to reflect outbound diploma mobility in the
relevant diagrams.
132 133
132 133
Abbreviations 134 135
BUZA Ministry of Foreign Affairs
CBS Statistics Netherlands
CROHO Central Register of Higher Education Study Programmes (DUO)
DUO Education Executive Agency
EEA European Economic Area: EU plus Liechtenstein, Iceland and Norway
EFTA European Free Trade Association: a free trade association between Iceland, Liechtenstein,
Norway and Switzerland
Erasmus Erasmus European action programme for higher education, which is part of the Lifelong
Learning Programme (LLP)
EU European Union
HBO Higher professional education (hoger beroepsonderwijs)
IND Immigration and Naturalisation Service
MVV Authorisation for Temporary Stay
Neso Netherlands Education Support Office
NL The Netherlands
Nuffic Netherlands organisation for international cooperation in higher education
OCW Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
ROA Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (Maastricht University)
VO Secondary education (voortgezet onderwijs)
WO Academic or researchoriented higher education (wetenschappelijk onderwijs)
134 135
Publication information ISBN
9789054640547
Authors
Eric Richters, Project Leader
Sjoerd Roodenburg
Renze Kolster
Editor-in-chief
Marijn Willemse
Design
Ontwerpwerk, The Hague, The Netherlands
136
Nuffic
PO Box 29777
2502 LT The Hague
The Netherlands
T +31 70 4260 260
F +31 70 4260 399
I www.nuffic.nl
Although the information in this publication
has been compiled with the utmost care,
Nuffic cannot guarantee the accuracy and/or
completeness of the data. The information may
have changed or been amended. Nuffic accepts
no liability in this regard. It is advisable to verify
the accuracy of the information yourself,
where appropriate.
