Students become more mobile as they reach more advanced levels of education. International students account for only 6% of total enrolment in tertiary education, but they represent 26% of enrolment in doctoral programmes.
International tertiary students favour fields in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM): one-third of them enrolled in these fields in 2016. International students represent at least 9% of tertiary enrolment in natural sciences, mathematics and statistics, and information and communication technologies, and 7% in engineering, manufacturing and construction.
Asian students are more internationally mobile at short-cycle tertiary and master’s level, while European students tend to be more mobile at bachelor’s and doctoral level. Student mobility increases at the doctoral level for all other regions of origin of international students.
Education at a Glance 2018
Indicator B6. What is the profile of internationally mobile students?
Figure B6.1. Incoming student mobility in tertiary education, by level of education (2016)
1. Share of foreign rather than international students.
2. Year of reference 2015.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of international or foreign students in tertiary education.
Source: OECD (2018), Table B6.1. See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Context
Studying abroad has become a key differentiating experience for young adults enrolled in tertiary education, and international student mobility has received increasing policy attention in recent years.
Studying abroad is an opportunity to access quality education, acquire skills that may not be taught at home and get closer to labour markets that offer higher returns on education. Studying abroad is also seen as a way to improve employability in increasingly globalised labour markets. Other motivations include the desire to expand knowledge of other societies and to improve language skills, particularly English.
For host countries, mobile students may be an important source of income and have a disproportionate impact on economic and innovation systems (OECD, 2016[1]). In the short run, international students often pay higher tuition fees than domestic students and, in some countries, incur higher registration fees (see Indicator C5). They also contribute to the local economy through their living expenses. In the longer run, highly educated mobile students are likely to integrate into domestic labour markets, contributing to knowledge creation, innovation and economic performance.
Attracting mobile students, especially if they stay permanently, is therefore a way to tap into a global pool of talent, compensate for weaker capacity at lower educational levels, support the development of innovation and production systems and, in many countries, to mitigate the impact of an ageing population on future skills supply (OECD, 2016[2]). There is, however, a risk of squeezing out qualified national students from domestic tertiary educational institutions that differentiate tuition fees by student origin, as they may tend to give preference to international students who generate higher revenues through higher tuition fees.
For their countries of origin, mobile students might be viewed as lost talent. However, mobile students can contribute to knowledge absorption, technology upgrading and capacity building in their home country, provided they return home after their studies or maintain strong links with nationals at home. Mobile students gain tacit knowledge that is often shared through direct personal interactions and can enable their home country to integrate into global knowledge networks. Recent data suggest that students leaving to study overseas are a good predictor of future scientist flows in the opposite direction, providing evidence of a significant brain circulation effect (Appelt et al., 2015[3]). In addition, student mobility appears to shape future international scientific co-operation networks more deeply than either a common language or geographical or scientific proximity.
For increasingly autonomous educational institutions, competition for talent has become more intense and global, prompting them to access a wider pool of high-potential students, with a view to increasing their reputation and revenues and promoting cross-faculty fertilisation (Hénard, Diamond and Roseveare, 2012[4]); (OECD, 2016[2]). In that respect, the popularity of university league tables and other institutional rankings has reinforced a perception of differences in quality across institutions and the value of enrolling at prestigious institutions (Perkins and Neumayer, 2014[5]). As part of their internationalisation strategy, more and more institutions are creating offshore satellite campuses or double degrees, changing admission rules for foreign students, revising curricula to encourage teaching in foreign languages, or offering online courses and international internships. For example, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have expanded the reach of existing campuses (see Box C6.1 in Education at a Glance 2017 (OECD, 2017[6])). As a consequence, the international activities of tertiary educational institutions have not only expanded in volume and scope, but also in complexity.
Other findings
The number of foreign students engaged in tertiary education programmes worldwide has exploded in past few decades, rising from 2 million in 1999 to 5 million 17 years later. In the OECD area, there were 3.5 million international or foreign students for study purposes in 2016 (see Definitions section at the end of this indicator).
Incoming student mobility has increased for almost all OECD and partner destination countries, and it has almost doubled between 2013 and 2016 in Estonia, Latvia and Poland. Outward mobility towards OECD destination countries is more varied: the number of nationals leaving their country for study purposes increased the most for Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Saudi Arabia, but it decreased in some countries.
Analysis
Profiles of internationally mobile students
The relative concentration of international and foreign students in different levels of tertiary education gives a fair indication of the attractiveness of educational programmes across countries.
The more advanced education programmes are, the more internationally open they are likely to be. In all but a few countries, the share of international students enrolled in tertiary programmes increases gradually with education level. On average across OECD countries, international students account for 6% of total enrolment in tertiary programmes, but 26% of all enrolments at doctoral level.
Several factors could account for these trends, including capacity constraints in the countries of origin at higher levels of education levels; higher returns on investing in international studies, especially in prestigious institutions or the existence of narrow specialisations in the host countries or post-migration programmes. Students who are more likely to travel and live abroad because of their socio-economic background are also more likely to access more advanced educational programmes. For host countries, there are strong incentives to invest in these later stages of education, especially at doctoral level, because graduates at that level make a large contribution to research and development (R&D) and innovation, and to addressing socio-economic challenges.
International enrolment in bachelor’s programmes remains relatively low (below 5% in half of the countries for which data are available and below 10% in more than 80% of the countries under review) (Figure B6.1). However, a few countries show a more international profile at this level (10% or more of international students). In Austria, Luxembourg and New Zealand, more than 15% of students at bachelor’s level are international.
International enrolment increases significantly at master’s level. On average across the OECD, there is more than one international student for every ten students enrolled at this level. The proportion of incoming students at least doubles between bachelor’s and master’s levels in two-thirds of OECD countries. Spain and Sweden host at least four times more international students at master’s than bachelor’s level, while Australia (46% vs. 14%), Denmark (19% vs. 6%) and Norway (7% vs. 2%) host at least three times more. The most striking increases in inflows of students at master’s level occur in Australia (46% vs.14%) and the United Kingdom (36% vs. 14%), as both are already large recipients of international students at bachelor’s level. Austria, on the other hand, seems relatively less attractive to master’s students, as its inflows are fairly similar to those at bachelor’s level. Data based on foreign students’ citizenship show a similar trend. In Korea (7% vs. 2%) and Turkey (4% vs. 1%), the increase in student inflows is noticeable between bachelor’s and master’s programmes.
International enrolment is much higher at doctoral level in the OECD area. The proportion of international students in doctoral programmes in Iceland and the United States is much larger than in master’s programmes, and it reaches 40% in the United States. However, the increase of student inflows from master’s to doctoral programmes is much less homogenous across countries than the increase from bachelor’s to master’s programmes. This is particularly striking in Australia (decreasing from 46% at master’s level to 34% at doctoral level), Germany (from 13% to 9%), Hungary (from 16% to 12%), Latvia (from 16 to 11%), Lithuania (from 8% to 5%) and Poland (from 4% to 2%).
Doctoral programmes in the United States attract a large share of international students, as do those in some small countries such as Belgium, Ireland, Norway and Sweden. In Luxembourg and Switzerland, there are more international students in doctoral programmes than national students (85% of enrolments in Luxembourg and 55% of enrolments in Switzerland come from overseas at this level). France, Iceland, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and the United States host three times more students from abroad in doctoral programmes than in master’s programmes. This is also the case for doctoral programmes in Chile, Colombia and Mexico, although incoming international mobility in tertiary education is generally low in these countries (Figure B6.1).
Preference for studies in science technology, engineering and mathematics
International students tend to mainly enrol in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields of study, as well as in business, administration and law. About one-third of OECD mobile students at all tertiary levels are enrolled in STEM fields of study, with the following break-down: engineering, manufacturing and construction (17%); natural sciences, mathematics and statistics (10%); and information and communication technologies (6%). In the fields of natural sciences, mathematics and statistics, as well as in information and communication technologies, international or foreign students represent at least 9% of total tertiary enrolment across the OECD. This percentage reaches 7% in the fields of engineering, manufacturing and construction.
The lower language proficiency required to perform in STEM fields could partly explain the internationalisation of these fields of study. But the central role played by science, engineering and business management in innovation processes and value creation (Hénard, Diamond and Roseveare, 2012[4]), (OECD, 2014[7]) and the wage premium and better career opportunities associated with graduating in these disciplines (see Indicator A4) are probably of greater importance.
Across the OECD, international or foreign students represent 7% of all students enrolled in social sciences, journalism and information and 6% of those enrolled in arts, humanities, business, administration and law. International students represent the majority, or a high share (at least 19%), of total enrolment in tertiary education in most fields of study in Luxembourg. International students also account for more than one-third of all students in Australia in information and communication technologies, in New Zealand in the fields of services, business, administration, law, information and communication technologies, and in Switzerland in the fields of natural sciences, mathematics and statistics.
International student flows in tertiary education
In 2016, there were 3.5 million international students enrolled in tertiary education programmes across OECD countries. The pools and flows of this mobile talent remain very concentrated worldwide, and mobility pathways are deeply rooted in historical patterns.
Origin and destination of mobile students studying in OECD countries
Data on international student flows illustrate the strength of proximity factors, such as language, historical ties, geographical distance, bilateral relationships and political framework conditions (e.g. the European Higher Education Area) as key determinants for mobility.
Students from Asia form the largest group of international students enrolled in OECD tertiary education programmes at all levels (1.9 million, 55% of all international students in 2016, Figure B6.2). Of these, over 860 000 come from China. Two-thirds of Asian students converge towards only three countries: Australia (15%), the United Kingdom (11%) and the United States (38%).
The second major region of origin of international students is Europe, with 845 000 European students crossing borders for the purpose of studying (24% of all mobile students enrolled in OECD countries). European students prefer to stay in Europe: 80% of them enrol in tertiary studies in another European country. This is partly explained by the existence and popularity of the Erasmus student exchange programme within the European Union.
Africa and the Americas (North America, South America and the Caribbean) – both with fewer than 300 000 international students – remain far behind as sending regions. Three-quarters of African students enrolled in OECD countries study in Europe, especially France (35%), the United Kingdom (12%) and Germany (7%), whereas North and Latin American students are divided between the United States (37%) and Europe (45%). Among Latin American students in OECD countries, 12% choose to study in Spain. This reflects their stronger cultural, linguistic and historical connections, as does North American students’ tendency to gravitate towards the United Kingdom (22%).
The United States is the top OECD destination country for mobile tertiary students. Of the 3.5 million international students in the OECD area, 971 000 enrol in programmes in the United States. English-speaking countries are the most attractive overall, with four countries receiving over half the mobile students. After the United States, the United Kingdom accounts for 432 000 international students, Australia 336 000 and Canada 189 000. International students in these countries mainly originate from Asia, accounting for 87% of international students in Australia, 77% in the United States, 61% in Canada and 52% in the United Kingdom.
The European Union is another key geographical area of inward mobility, with 1.6 million international students enrolled in European programmes. France and Germany (both at 245 000) are major host countries for international students, far ahead of Italy (93 000), the Netherlands (90 000) and Austria (70 000). But mobility channels differ significantly between these two large players. While a majority of mobile students entering France come from Africa (42%), other European countries remain the main source of international enrolment for Germany (40%). For both countries, Asia comes second as a region of origin, accounting for 21% of total incoming mobile students in France and 36% in Germany. International students in Austria, Italy and the Netherlands are also mainly European, while inflows from Latin American countries make a significant contribution to Spanish tertiary cohorts, as well as to those of smaller receiving countries, such as Portugal. Small European countries particularly rely on intra-European mobility. More than 80% of students entering the Czech Republic, Denmark, Luxembourg, Poland, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia travel from inside Europe.
The Russian Federation is also a major destination country, with 250 000 students enrolled from abroad. It is also a regional catalyst of student inflows, with two-thirds of them coming from neighbouring countries that have historical links with the former Soviet Union: Azerbaijan (6%), Belarus (6%), Kazakhstan (28%), Turkmenistan (7%), Ukraine (9%) and Uzbekistan (8%).
Asian students (55% of OECD international students) enrolled in short-cycle tertiary and master’s programmes are more mobile than those enrolled in bachelor’s or doctoral programmes. They represent 66% of the number of international students at short-cycle tertiary level and 57% at master’s level. By contrast, European students (who represent 24% of the OECD international enrolment in tertiary education) tend to be more mobile at bachelor’s (25%) and doctoral level (32%). Student mobility increases at the doctoral level for all the other regions of origin of international students, with students from Africa, the Americas and Oceania representing a higher share of international students than at lower educational levels (Figure B6.2).
Figure B6.2. Distribution of international students studying in OECD countries, by region of origin and level of education (2016)
Source: OECD (2018), Education at a Glance Database, http://stats.oecd.org. See Source section at the end of this indicator for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Brain circulation: the state of play
The growth in international student mobility and its impact on national talent pools also vary significantly across countries.
Some countries experience an outward flow of students, measured by the percentage of all national students studying abroad. This percentage reaches at least 7% in several European countries, such as Estonia, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and the Slovak Republic. Luxembourg is a particularly stark example, with nearly three-quarters of its students enrolled in foreign tertiary programmes (seven out of ten national students abroad are enrolled in neighbouring countries). In these countries, the percentage of national students enrolled abroad significantly exceeds the share of international students enrolled in national institutions, with the exception of Ireland and Latvia.
In some countries, large cohorts of international students outnumber their own national talent. This inflow of students is measured by the number of international (or foreign) students on a country’s soil every hundred national students enrolled in tertiary education programmes (at home or abroad). The top destinations for international students are mainly, but not exclusively, English‑speaking countries. The countries where the ratio between incoming international students and national students is the highest are Australia (21), New Zealand (24) and the United Kingdom (22), but also Luxembourg (23) and Switzerland (20) (Table B6.3).
Determinants of international mobility
Identifying the determinants of international student mobility is key for designing efficient policies to encourage brain circulation. Student migration is mainly driven by differentials in education capacity (i.e. a lack of educational facilities in the country of origin or the prestige of educational institutions in the country of destination). It is also driven by differentials between origin and destination countries in the returns to or rewards for education and skills. Economic factors include: 1) higher economic performance in the host country; 2) exchange rate differentials that could influence mobility and education cost differentials; and 3) more affordable mobility and education costs in the host country (due, for instance, to lower tuition fees or higher education subsidies). In addition, the decision to study abroad may be determined by non-economic factors, such as political stability and the robustness of institutions in the receiving country, or cultural and religious proximity between origin and destination countries (Guha, 1977[8]), (UNESCO, 2013[9]) (Weisser, 2016[10]).
Fixing appropriate tuition fees remains one of the most debated topics in education policy, in a context in which policy makers aim to increase participation in higher education and achieve greater equity in education. The cost of education for individuals varies substantially across countries, as a result of different systems of tuition fees and costs of ancillary services, combined with different levels of public allocations for tertiary education and public support for students (see Indicator C5). The perceived quality of instruction abroad and the perceived value of host institutions are key criteria for international students when selecting their country of destination (Abbott and Silles, 2016[11]); (Beine, Noël and Ragot, 2014[12]); (Marconi, 2013[13]). Top destinations for internationally mobile students include a large number of top-ranked higher education institutions.
Students worldwide are increasingly aware of differences in quality among tertiary education systems, as university league tables and other international university rankings are widely diffused. At the same time, the ability to attract international students has become a criterion in assessing the performance and quality of institutions. As governments seek to encourage the internationalisation of higher education, they have revised performance agreements with domestic institutions, for example by taking into account the inflows of international students in university funding formulas.
The language of instruction is a strong determinant of students’ choice of destination. Countries where the language of instruction is widely spoken and read, such as English, French, German, Russian and Spanish, can be particularly attractive to international students.
English is the lingua franca of the globalised world, with one in four people using it worldwide (OECD, 2016[2]) (Sharifian, 2013[14]). Not surprisingly, countries where English is an official language (either legally or de facto), such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, are top OECD destination countries for international students. In many countries, English has increasingly been included in the mandatory school curriculum, even at early education levels, and many students aim to improve their English-language skills through immersion in a native context. In addition, an increasing number of institutions in non-English-speaking countries offer tertiary-education programmes taught in English. In Europe, the diffusion of English as a medium of instruction is especially noticeable in the Nordic countries (see (Wächter and Maiworm, 2015[15]) and Box C4.1 in (OECD, 2015[16])).
Trends in the number of international students
The increase in foreign enrolment has been driven by a variety of domestic and external factors, both push (encouraging outward mobility) and pull (encouraging inward mobility) (UNESCO, 2013[9]). The skills’ needs of increasingly knowledge-based and innovation-driven economies have spurred demand for tertiary education worldwide, while local education capacities have not always evolved fast enough to meet growing domestic demand. Rising wealth in emerging economies has further prompted children in a growing middle class to seek educational opportunities abroad. At the same time, economic factors (e.g. costs of international flights), technological factors (e.g. the spread of the Internet and social media to maintain contacts across borders) and cultural factors (e.g. use of English as a common working and teaching language) have contributed to making international mobility substantially more affordable and less irreversible than in the past.
Initiatives at national, regional, local, supranational or institutional level have also contributed to cross-border mobility. In 2011, the European Union set the ambitious goal of increasing the proportion of EU graduates from higher education who complete study or training abroad to 20% by 2020 (Council of the European Union, 2011[17]).
In Europe, many students benefitted from the Erasmus programme. In addition, the Nordic and Baltic countries operate the Nordplus Higher Education Programme, a broad mobility and network programme that aims to reinforce collaboration, joint curriculum planning, student and teacher mobility and the sharing of best practices between institutions. Most countries have implemented reforms aiming to lower barriers to migration of the highly skilled, beyond education purposes, and most countries operate funding programmes to support inward, outward or return mobility. While their conditions of migration differ (e.g. short-term vs. long-term settlement), the most common target populations of these programmes are pre-doctoral students and early stage researchers (both doctoral and postdoctoral).
Box B6.1. Long-term growth in the global number of mobile students
The number of foreign students enrolled in tertiary education programmes worldwide has exploded over the past two decades. It rose from 2 million in 1999 to 5 million in 2016, at an average annual rate of 5.1% among OECD countries and 6.4% among non-OECD countries. This increase was exponential until early 2010, when data show a levelling off in long-term trends (Figure B6.a). However, the number of international students began increasing strongly again in 2014 (an increase of 9% compared to 2013) and the following years (an increase of 7% in 2015 and 6% in 2016) (Figure B6.a).
Figure B6.a. Growth in international or foreign enrolment in tertiary education worldwide (1998 to 2016)
Note: The data sources use similar definitions, thus making their combination possible. Missing data were imputed with the closest data reports to ensure that breaks in data coverage do not result in breaks in time series.
Source: OECD / UIS / Eurostat (2018). See Source section at the end of this indicator for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Student migration into the OECD area remains dynamic, but new migration poles are consolidating in developing economies. Data on the students who cross borders for the sole purpose of study (also defined as international students, see Definitions section at the end of this indicator) between 2013 and 2016 show an estimated 19% increase in international student flows towards the OECD area. The largest increases in incoming student numbers have been observed in Estonia, Latvia, Poland and the Russian Federation, where the number of international students enrolled in national tertiary programmes nearly doubled over the period. Other attracting poles include Chile (an increase of 52%), Mexico (58%) and Turkey (62%). Conversely, Austria and the Slovak Republic experienced a slight decline (a decrease of 1%) in the number of international enrolments between 2013 and 2016.
Outward student mobility towards OECD countries also increased between 2013 and 2016 for many origin countries, but to a more limited extent. The largest increase was observed for students coming from India (an increase of 78% compared to 2013), far ahead of students coming from OECD countries, such as Finland, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom (increases between 22% and 37% over the same period) and from China and Saudi Arabia. Conversely, outward mobility decreased by 10% or more for students coming from Ireland, Korea, Latvia and Lithuania.
Figure B6.3. Change in the outflow compared to the inflow of mobile students (2013 to 2016)
Note: Excludes incoming mobile students in short-cycle tertiary education for Italy and Spain. The black diagonal line represents where the inward mobility change equals the outward mobility change.
Source: OECD (2018), Education at a Glance Database, http://stats.oecd.org. See Source section at the end of this indicator for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Definitions
Foreign students are those who are not citizens of the country in which they are enrolled and where the data are collected. Although they are counted as internationally mobile, they may be long-term residents or even be born in the “host” country. While pragmatic and operational, this classification may be inappropriate for capturing student mobility because of differing national policies regarding the naturalisation of immigrants. For instance, Australia has a greater propensity than Switzerland to grant permanent residence to its immigrant populations. This implies that even when the proportion of foreign students in tertiary enrolment is similar for both countries, the proportion of international students in tertiary education is smaller in Switzerland than in Australia. Therefore, for student mobility and bilateral comparisons, interpretations of data based on the concept of foreign students should be made with caution. In general, international students are a subset of foreign students.
International students are those who left their country of origin and moved to another country for the purpose of study. The country of origin of a tertiary student is defined according to the criterion of “country of upper secondary education”, “country of prior education” or “country of usual residence” (see below). Depending on country-specific immigration legislation, mobility arrangements (such as the free mobility of individuals within the European Union and the European Economic Area) and data availability, international students may be defined as students who are not permanent or usual residents of their country of study, or alternatively as students who obtained their prior education in a different country.
The country of prior education is the country in which students obtained their upper secondary qualification (upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary completion with access to tertiary education programmes) or the qualification required to enrol in their current level of education. Where countries are unable to operationalise this definition, it is recommended that they use the country of usual or permanent residence to determine the country of origin. Where this too is not possible and no other suitable measure exists, the country of citizenship may be used.
Permanent or usual residence in the reporting country is defined according to national legislation. In practice, this means holding a student visa or permit, or electing a foreign country of domicile in the year prior to entering the education system of the country reporting the data.
Country-specific operational definitions of international students are indicated in the tables as well as in Annex 3 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Methodology
Defining and identifying mobile students, as well as their types of learning mobility, are a key challenge for developing international education statistics, since current international and national statistical systems only report domestic educational activities undertaken within national boundaries (OECD, 2018[18]).
Data on international and foreign students are therefore obtained from enrolments in their countries of destination. This is the same method used for collecting data on total enrolments, i.e. records of regularly enrolled students in an education programme. Students enrolled in countries that did not report to the OECD or to the UNESCO Institute for Statistics are not included and, for their countries of origin, the total number of national students enrolled abroad may be underestimated.
The total number of students enrolled abroad refers to the count of international students, unless data are not available and the count of foreign students is used instead. Enrolment numbers are computed using a snapshot method, i.e. counting enrolled students at a given period of time (e.g. a specific day or period of the year).
This methodology has some limits. OECD international statistics on education tend to overlook the impact of distance and e-learning, especially fast-developing MOOCs, students who commute from one country to another on a daily basis and short-term exchange programmes that take place within an academic year and are, therefore, under the radar. Other concerns arise from the classification of students enrolled in foreign campuses and European schools in host countries’ student cohorts.
Current data for international students can only help track student flows involving OECD and partner countries as receiving countries. It is not possible to assess extra-OECD flows and, in particular, the contributions of South-South exchanges to global brain circulation.
For more information, please see the OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications (OECD, 2018[18]) and Annex 3 for country-specific notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Lithuania was not an OECD member at the time of preparation of this publication. Accordingly, Lithuania does not appear in the list of OECD members and is not included in the zone aggregates.
Source
Data refer to the academic year 2015/16 and are based on the UNESCO-UIS/OECD/EUROSTAT data collection on education statistics administered by the OECD in 2017 (for details, see Annex 3 at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Data from Argentina, China, India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and South Africa are from the UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS).
Note regarding data from Israel
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and are under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
References
[11] Abbott, A. and M. Silles (2016), “Determinants of international student migration”, The World Economy, Vol. 39/5, pp. 621-635, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/twec.12319.
[3] Appelt, S. et al. (2015), “Which factors influence the international mobility of research scientists?”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, No. 2015/2, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js1tmrr2233-en.
[12] Beine, M., R. Noël and L. Ragot (2014), “Determinants of the international mobility of students”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 41, pp. 40-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.ECONEDUREV.2014.03.003.
[17] Council of the European Union (2011), “Council conclusions on the modernisation of higher education”, 3128th Education, Youth, Culture and Sport Council Meeting, Brussels, 28 and 29 November 2011, Council of the European Union, Brussels.
[8] Guha, A. (1977), “Brain-drain issue and indicators on brain-drain”, International Migration, Vol. 15/1, pp. 3-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2435.1977.tb00953.x.
[4] Hénard, F., L. Diamond and D. Roseveare (2012), Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for Strategic Management and Institutional Practice: A Guide for Higher Education Institutions, OECD, http://www.oecd.org/education/imhe/Approaches%20to%20internationalisation%20-%20final%20-%20web.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2018).
[13] Marconi, G. (2013), “Rankings, accreditations, and international exchange students”, IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, Vol. 2/1, p. 5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-9012-2-5.
[18] OECD (2018), OECD Handbook for Internationally Comparative Education Statistics 2018: Concepts, Standards, Definitions and Classifications, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304444-en.
[6] OECD (2017), Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.
[1] OECD (2016), “International mobility of highly skilled”, in OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-17-en.
[2] OECD (2016), OECD Science, Technology and Innovation Outlook 2016, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_in_outlook-2016-en.
[16] OECD (2015), Education at a Glance 2015: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2015-en.
[7] OECD (2014), OECD Science, Technology and Industry Outlook 2014, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/sti_outlook-2014-en.
[5] Perkins, R. and E. Neumayer (2014), “Geographies of educational mobilities: Exploring the uneven flows of international students”, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 180/3, pp. 246-259, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12045.
[14] Sharifian, F. (2013), “Globalisation and developing metacultural competence in learning English as an International Language”, Multilingual Education, Vol. 3/1, p. 7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2191-5059-3-7.
[9] UNESCO (2013), The International Mobility of Students in Asia and the Pacific, UNESCO, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002262/226219E.pdf (accessed on 03 July 2018).
[15] Wächter, L. and F. Maiworm (2015), “English-taught programmes in European higher education: The state of play in 2014”, ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Education , http://www.aca-secretariat.be/fileadmin/aca_docs/images/members/ACA-2015_English_Taught_01.pdf (accessed on 07 May 2018).
[10] Weisser, R. (2016), “Internationally mobile students and their post-graduation migratory behaviour: An analysis of determinants of student mobility and retention rates in the EU”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 186, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwxbvmb5zt-en.
Indicator B6 Tables
Table B6.1. International student mobility and foreign students in tertiary education (2016)
Table B6.2. Share of international and foreign students among tertiary students and distribution by field of education (2016)
Table B6.3. Mobility patterns of foreign and international students (2016)
Table B6.4. (web only) Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by country of origin (2016)
Table B6.5. (web only) Distribution of international and foreign students in tertiary education, by country of destination (2016)
Data can be found on line at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-data-en. More breakdowns can be found at http://stats.oecd.org/, Education at a Glance Database.
Table B6.1. International and foreign student mobility in tertiary education (2016)
International or foreign student enrolment as a percentage of total tertiary enrolment
1. Data on short-cycle tertiary programmes are based on nationality and refer to the Flemish Community only.
2. Year of reference 2015.
Source: OECD / UIS / Eurostat (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table B6.2. Share of international and foreign students among tertiary students and distribution by field of education (2016)
Note: The distribution excludes one field (Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary) which tends to represent a lower share of international enrolment in tertiary education. Data for all fields are available at http://stats.oecd.org/, Education at a Glance Database.
1. Data on Information and communication technologies are included in other fields.
2. Columns 2 and 11 include all interdisciplinary programmes, columns 8 and 17 include public administration.
Source: OECD / UIS / Eurostat (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.
Table B6.3. Mobility patterns of foreign and international students (2016)
Percentage of national students enrolled abroad and balance of cross-border mobility in total tertiary education
1. Neighbouring countries are considered to be those with land or maritime borders with the host country.
2. National tertiary students are calculated as total enrolment minus foreign students instead of total enrolment minus international students.
3. Excluding internationally mobile students enrolled in short-cycle tertiary programmes.
4. Year of reference 2015.
Source: OECD / UIS / Eurostat (2018). See Source section for more information and Annex 3 for notes (http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en).
Please refer to the Reader’s Guide for information concerning symbols for missing data and abbreviations.