Higher Education in Europe, Vol. 32, No.

4, December 2007

Student Mobility from a Greek Perspective: Benefits

and Difficulties as Expressed by the Participating
Students
NATASSA RAIKOU and THANASSIS KARALIS

This article presents the case of student mobility through the ERASMUS programme at the
University of Patras in Greece. Through research based on official records, questionnaires and
interviews with students of the University of Patras who participated in mobility programmes
during the period 20002005, this article examines the way Greek students perceive their
participation in the ERASMUS programme, the problems and difficulties they encounter as
well as the benefits they deem they derive from their participation.

Introduction
Internationalisation is quickly becoming a major issue on the tertiary education
research agenda. In the case of tertiary education institutions in the European Union
(EU) this issue is encountered in international, European and global terms (Teichler,
2004) and is as much connected to the changes in the nature of universities as it is to the
broader political, economical and social changes that have occurred during the past
two decades in the European area (Seidel, 1991; Fredriksson, 2003; Froment, 2003).
Internationalisation of education within the EU is a relatively new phenomenon, at
least in terms of organised and targeted educational policy, which we can assume to
appear after the mid-1980s. Wachter (2003) distinguishes four stages of internationa-
lisation: the first stage takes place before the mid-1980s and is described as individual
because there was no involvement of the higher education institutions; the second stage
is marked by collaboration between institutions (mid-1980s to mid-1990s); the third
stage is distinguished by an organised intervention exercised via the European
Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students ERASMUS
programme (from 1995 onwards); the fourth stage is inaugurated following the
beginning of Bologna Process and is accompanied by reforms in higher education and
particularly by the new architecture of degrees. According to Teichler (2001), the
second stage is facilitated by the EU through the first generation of the ERASMUS
programme; from 1995 onwards, ERASMUS was incorporated into the SOCRATES
programme, resulting in a programmatic change: while student mobility still remains at
the core of ERASMUS, additional activities, means and goals connected to the
restruction of higher education systems are also added to the programme (curriculum
development, recognition issues, thematic networks).
One of the main aspects of internationalisation is student mobility. This term
suggests the transfer of students from one country to another in order to study, in full
or in part, for a long or short duration. Student mobility (Szarka, 2003, p. 123) can be
considered either as spontaneous mobility, referring to students registered at higher
education institutes under standard procedures, but not through any organised

ISSN 0379-7724 print/ISSN 1469-8358 online/07/040347-11 # 2007 UNESCO

DOI: 10.1080/03797720802066211
348 N. RAIKOU AND T. KARALIS

programme, or as organised mobility, referring to mobility encouraged by organised

educational programmes (like the ERASMUS programme). In Greece, due to
historical reasons related to the limited access to tertiary education and the existence
of the numerus clausus for the students admitted into university, spontaneous mobility
has been increasing in the recent past (Kontogiannopoulou-Polydorides, Stamelos,
and Papadiamantaki, 2004). Following the countrys entrance into the EU and
the establishment of programmes encouraging and boosting student mobility,
organised mobility makes its appearance mainly from the mid-1990s on, after the
ERASMUS programme became a subprogramme of SOCRATES (European
Parliament and Council of Europe, 1995; Kokosalakis, 1999; Stamelos and
Vassilopoulos, 2004).
This paper investigates specific aspects of organised student mobility through the
ERASMUS programme in Greece, focusing on the way Greek students perceive their
participation in the programme, the problems and difficulties they encounter, as well as
the benefits they believe they derive from participating in mobility programmes.

Design of the Study

In the case of Greece, all published data regarding the application of mobility
programmes are limited to a macro-level approach and to the official evaluations of the
SOCRATES and ERASMUS programmes; in contrast to the fact that in other
countries, studies have been carried out at university level (de Jong and Teekens, 2003;
Stronkhorst, 2005).
The present study was carried out at the University of Patras and focuses on the
students who took part in the ERASMUS programme from 2000 to 2005. Despite its
relatively short history (it was founded in 1964), the University of Patras was the fourth
in line to operate in Greece. Today the University of Patras is the third largest
university in Greece in terms of student population, with its 12,500 students making up
7.5 percent of the total number of students in the country (National Statistical Service
of Greece, 2002). It has twenty-two Departments which cover a wide range of fields of
study and operate within its five Schools, namely the School of Natural Sciences, the
School of Engineering, the School of Health Sciences, the School of Humanities and
Social Sciences, and the School of Economics and Administration. As all universities in
Greece, the University of Patras is a public institution and its operation abides by the
uniform legislative rules that apply to the countrys universities.
The data presented below are based on the analysis of official records and
documents and, for the most part, on the progress reports and questionnaires that the
students participating in the ERASMUS programme filled in after their return. Out of
the 228 students that participated in the programme, a total of 144 students completed
the special questionnaires and progress reports, sixty of whom were male (41.7 percent)
and eighty-four female (58.3 percent). For an in-depth analysis it was deemed necessary
to hold structured interviews with fourteen students from the sample.
The focus of the study and the formulation of the research questions were based on
certain issues raised by previous relevant studies carried out in Europe (West et al.,
2000; Teichler, Gordon and Maiworm, 2001; Westerheijden, 2001; Stronkhorst, 2005):
i. Obstacles arising in student mobility (mainly: recognition of studies, language and
financial issues), as well as practical matters and difficulties faced by students
participating in mobility programmes.
 STUDENT MOBILITY FROM A GREEK PERSPECTIVE: BENEFITS AND DIFFICULTIES 349

ii. Benefits and experience gained through participation in student mobility

programmes and especially the students perception of their participation in
ERASMUS in academic, cultural and personal terms.

Being an ERASMUS Student

With a view to presenting a picture of student mobility in the University of Patras, we
consider that the defining elements are, on the one hand, the reasons why students wish
to participate in the programme, and on the other hand, the conditions and practical
problems they face in doing so. As can be seen from the data in Table 1, the main
reason behind the students choice is to acquire a European experience, while other
reasons include studying, experiencing new surroundings, as well as cultural reasons. It
must be noted that learning a foreign language is not really one of the reasons why
students want to take part in mobility programmes, while only a small number of
students associate their decision to participate in ERASMUS with any professional
plans. If learning a new language is excluded from the above, then Greek students seem
to prefer studying abroad for the same reasons as their fellow students from other
countries (West et. al., 2000).
For the majority of participants (94.2 percent) the duration of study ranges from
three to six months, noting that almost half of them (42.4 percent) mention a duration
of just three months. While this duration is considered satisfactory by 106 participants
(74.1 percent), it must be pointed out that according to the interviews, ten out of the
fourteen students attributed this length of time to organisational reasons, stating that
they followed the programme suggested by their home institutions co-ordinators.
Table 2 presents the students countries of choice. Comparing the figures in Table 2 to
the overall figures for the EU for the period 19972000 (Teichler et. al., 2001), it can be
seen that for certain countries (such as Germany, France, Spain and Italy) the students
of the University of Patras exhibit similar preferences as do other European students.
However, it must be noted that there is relatively little mobility towards the UK, even
though the UK holds the first place in Greek students choices for organised
undergraduate and postgraduate studies abroad and despite the fact that the language
spoken is the one that Greek students know best.
The level of support provided to students varies between home and host institution
(Table 3). The students who took part in this survey describe the services offered by the
host institutions as better; however, in either case, only a very small percentage of

TABLE 1. REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING IN ERASMUS

Reasons for participation Numbers %

European experience 104 72.2
Academic reasons 74 51.4
New surroundings 69 47.9
Cultural reasons 65 45.2
Future career plans 32 22.2
Foreign language 7 4.9
Friends abroad 5 3.5

Note: Participants were given the option to select more than one reason.
Source: Raikou (2006).
350 N. RAIKOU AND T. KARALIS

TABLE 2. HOST COUNTRIES

Country Numbers %
Spain 30 20.8
France 28 19.4
Germany 20 13.9
Italy 15 10.4
United Kingdom 11 7.6
Portugal 11 7.6
Austria 10 6.9
Sweden 9 6.3
Belgium 3 2.1
Norway 3 2.1
Netherlands 2 1.4
Finland 2 1.4
Total 144 100.0

Source: Raikou (2006).

students consider the support they received during their ERASMUS studies as
unsatisfactory. According to 70.4 percent of the participants, it was their host
institution that assisted in finding accommodation, thus solving one of the basic
problems faced by ERASMUS students. Based on these figures, it was to be expected
that 86.8 percent of the students were satisfied by the degree to which they were
accepted by the host institution; it is noted that this statement did not vary with each
host country.
The most common problem mentioned by the students of the University of Patras is
funding their ERASMUS studies. Only a small percentage (eleven percent) considered
the scholarship they received to cover their ERASMUS studies as sufficient, while the
rest sought other funding sources. As can be seen in Table 4, these additional sources
were mainly family and, to a smaller degree, the students own savings. At this point it
must be stressed that even though higher education in Greece is provided exclusively by
the State, the students family resources are the main source of funding, covering most
of their expenses from undergraduate to postgraduate studies (Stamoulas, 2005). From
the interview data it appears that the basic cause for the high cost of ERASMUS
studies is the difference in the cost of living between Greece and most of the host

TABLE 3. SUPPORT BY HOME AND HOST INSTITUTION

Host institution Home institution

Support Numbers % Numbers %
Exceptional 44 30.6 18 12.6
Good 54 37.5 42 29.4
Average 28 19.4 58 40.6
Satisfactory 8 5.6 21 14.7
Unsatisfactory 10 6.9 4 2.7
Total 144 100.0 143 100.0

Source: Raikou (2006).

 STUDENT MOBILITY FROM A GREEK PERSPECTIVE: BENEFITS AND DIFFICULTIES 351

TABLE 4. FUNDING SOURCES

Source Numbers %
Family 126 91.3
Personal savings 30 21.7
Public funding 2 1.4
Loan 2 1.4
University of Patras 2 1.4

Note: Students may fund ERASMUS studies through more than one source.
Source: Raikou (2006).

countries. According to the students who participated in the study, the countries where
significant additional funding was required were Spain, France, Germany and the UK.

Academic Issues
Table 5 shows the Schools with mobile students. It can be seen that students from the
School of Health Sciences do not participate in mobility programmes to a satisfactory
degree, which holds true generally at a European level for students of this field
(European Commission, 2005). The mobility of students from the School of Economics
and Administration is extremely low compared to other European countries, where
Business Studies is actually the subject area with the highest mobility rate (European
Commission, 2005). This must be attributed to the fact that the particular School was
only recently founded in Patras and only consists of two Departments. With regard to
the other Schools, the figures follow the European averages, though the high
percentage of participation from the School of Humanities and Social Sciences is worth
noting. The large figures for this School are due mainly to the two Departments of
Education in the University of Patras, since according to the results of the study
twenty-five percent of all students from the University of Patras who participated in
ERASMUS came from those two Departments. In this respect the University of Patras
differs significantly from the European and national average (3.2 percent and 3.8
percent respectively European Commission, 2005). This discrepancy should be
attributed to the fact that these two Departments of the University of Patras have
developed a significant number of collaborations with other European institutions over
the past few years.

TABLE 5. NUMBER AND PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PER SCHOOL OF HOME INSTITUTION

School Numbers %
Natural Sciences 20 13.9
Engineering 59 41.0
Health Sciences 8 5.6
Humanities and Social Sciences 53 36.8
Economics and Administration 4 2.8
Total 144 100.0

Source: Raikou (2006).

352 N. RAIKOU AND T. KARALIS

The research pertaining to the operation of ERASMUS focuses on issues such as

the way in which studies are carried out within mobility programmes, the recognition
of these studies and the application of the ECTS (European Credit Transfer System)
system. From almost all the interviews held during this study, there appeared to be a
different way of organising studies in each institution; however, the students stated that
they adjusted to that without much difficulty. In the case of the Greek students of the
University of Patras, there is a relatively high level of recognition of studies; according
to the findings of this study, the studies of eighty percent of the participating students
were recognised. 63.6 percent of the students mention that they did not sit for any
written exams at the host institutions, but were evaluated in other ways (written papers
and oral exams). In almost half of the cases, use of the ECTS system was made; this can
be seen in Table 6, which includes percentages of students by host country. It can
therefore be surmised that recognition and credit transfer policies are making slow
progress in as far as this particular studys findings are concerned. This corroborates
the view that problems and difficulties arising in such cases are due not only to
administrative reasons but also to the desire for national control over the higher
education systems (Westerheijden, 2001).
Although the students of the University of Patras do not consider learning a foreign
language as one of the main reasons for participating in the ERASMUS programme,
nonetheless knowledge of the host countrys language is necessary in order for them to
face everyday life in that country as well as their studies. 59.7 percent of the students
stated that they had attended preparatory language courses before or during their
ERASMUS studies and 20.6 percent of them, for that matter, said they did so in
private schools, outside their home or host institutions. There was greater participation
in language preparation courses among students whose host countries use Spanish and
Italian, while participation was relatively low among students whose host countries use
a language that is widely known in Greece (English, French and German). Students
heading for Scandinavian countries exhibited low participation in language courses,
which according to the interview findings can be attributed in many cases to the fact
that in those countries courses are also offered in English. As can be seen from the

TABLE 6. APPLICATION OF ECTS PER HOST COUNTRY

Country Yes (numbers) No (numbers) Yes (%)

Austria 8 2 80.0
Belgium 2 1 66.7
France 14 7 66.7
Germany 8 11 42.1
Spain 12 15 44.4
Italy 5 5 50.0
United Kingdom 6 4 60.0
Norway 1 2 33.3
Netherlands 2
Portugal 2 1 66.7
Sweden 5 2 71.4
Finland 1 1 50.0
Total 66 59 52.8

Note: 125 students answered this question.

Source: Raikou (2006).
 STUDENT MOBILITY FROM A GREEK PERSPECTIVE: BENEFITS AND DIFFICULTIES 353

TABLE 7. LEVEL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE COMPETENCE BEFORE AND AFTER ERASMUS

Before After
Level of competence Numbers % Numbers %
None 52 36.9 3 2.1
Unsatisfactory 44 31.2 26 18.4
High 40 28.4 71 50.4
Very high 5 3.5 41 29.1
Total 141 100.0 141 100.0

Source: Raikou (2006).

figures in Table 7, one of the side effects of the students participation in ERASMUS
was that their knowledge of the language concerned improved.

Benefits, Problems and Suggestions

The question pertaining to the benefits the students gained from participating in
ERASMUS was a closed-ended question touching on three different levels: academic
(ERAMUS contribution to the students overall studies); career (improved prospects in
the labour market); and personal (assessing the impact of the experience based on their
personality). According to the findings (Table 8), the proportion of negative replies
(none or few) is low (in the case of academic and career benefits) or non-existent
(in the case of personal benefits). It is noted here that the students assess the
contribution of ERASMUS as very positive on a personal level, while almost half the
participants assess its academic benefits as average.
It seems, therefore, that the main benefit for ERASMUS students from the
University of Patras is the overall experience of living and studying in another country.
We consider that this is proven even more clearly through the answers the students
provided to the open-ended question concerning the most important experiences and
benefits gained from their participation in ERASMUS, they could name up to three
different experiences (Table 9).
The data mentioned above are corroborated by the interviews held during the study,
in which the participants agreed on the most valuable benefits from their ERASMUS
participation; namely, on the one hand, the experience of being able to live in another
country and on the other hand, the European experience which they describe as the

TABLE 8. BENEFITS GAINED BY ERASMUS STUDENTS

Academic Career Personal

Benefits Numbers % Numbers % Numbers %
None 2 1.4 3 2.1
Few 5 3.5 14 9.7
Average 64 44.5 53 36.8 4 2.8
Significant 47 32.6 49 34.0 40 27.8
Very significant of 26 18.1 25 17.4 100 69.5
Total 144 100.0 144 100.0 144 100.0

Source: Raikou (2006).

354 N. RAIKOU AND T. KARALIS

TABLE 9. IMPORTANT EXPERIENCES FROM PARTICIPATING IN ERASMUS

Experience Numbers %
Living in another country 115 27.6
New acquaintances 74 17.7
Different educational system 60 14.4
Career prospects 50 12.0
European experience 48 11.5
Language improvement 42 10.1
Interesting courses 23 5.5
Sharing accommodation 5 1.2
Total 417 100.0

Note: Participants had the option to mention up to three different experiences.

Source: Raikou (2006).

opportunity to live in another European country and the feeling of belonging to a

common European space. The following excerpts from the students answers to this
question are characteristic:
The academic benefit was not as great as the European experience. After this
you feel its easier to travel, live and work in other European countries. You
realise others are not so different from you. (Female student, Chemical
Engineering)

Its an experience that makes you overcome any inhibitions and fear of the
unknown that you may feel in another country, because you get to see that in
reality were not so different. (Male student, Computer Science)

I considered it, and still do, as an awesome experience, going abroad, entering
another system with such ease and adjusting immediately. Immediately
afterwards, I considered it very easy to go to that country again, either to study
or to work. (Female student, Education)

Its a unique experience living as a European citizen among other nationalities,

without any differences. (Female student, Biology)

After this experience I would easily go to another country, different from the
one I visited. (Male student, Economics)

What impressed me was that although we came from different countries and
cultures, we still communicated, did the same things, coexisted and
collaborated, lived together without the slightest problem. (Female student,
Education)
Most of the participants (61.7 percent) stated that they did not encounter any
particular problems during their ERASMUS studies. From those who admitted having
problems, most of them (twenty-one cases) referred to the problem of accommodation,
while other kinds of problems were encountered to a lesser extent and were related to
organisational issues, bureaucracy and the cost of living. Besides the high cost of living,
we consider that the remaining factors constitute a kind of time lag observed among
 STUDENT MOBILITY FROM A GREEK PERSPECTIVE: BENEFITS AND DIFFICULTIES 355

TABLE 10. OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF ERASMUS STUDIES

Assessment Numbers %
Exceptional 62 43.1
Very satisfactory 70 48.6
Average 12 8.3
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Total 144 100.0

Source: Raikou (2006).

Greek students, given that problems such as accommodation are no longer considered
as serious by other European students (Teichler, 2001). It is also noted that only one
student out of all those who participated in the study reported difficulties due to the
difference in the standard of studies between home and host institution. This fact,
along with the findings presented in Table 8, leads us to the conclusion that the
students who participated in the study do not perceive any notable difference in the
standard of studies. We consider this finding to be particularly important, given the fact
that the effectiveness of the education and the quality of studies provided by Greek
universities compared with that in other EU countries has been a central debate
issue in public discussions over the past decade.
The overall experience of participating in ERASMUS is positively assessed by the
overwhelming majority of the students (Table 10), which is in agreement with the
European average (Teichler, 2001), even though almost all participants (96.9 percent)
answered that the programmes procedures are in need of improvement.

Conclusion
This paper presents the results of a study on student mobility at the University of
Patras, which in turn constitutes the first research attempt at a university level in
Greece. Previous data exist only at a macro-level, through assessment studies by
national or European authorities. The main questions this study deals with are how
students perceive the experience of participating in ERASMUS, the benefits they
believe they gain from their participation and the problems and the difficulties
they face.
Students from the University of Patras are lead to participate in mobility
programmes mainly in order to experience studying in another European country, to
experience a different environment and also for cultural reasons. The duration of study
is rather short for the majority of students and ranges from three to six months, while
for almost half of the students it is barely three months. Even though the support
students receive from their home and host institutions is quite satisfactory, they still
face certain problems, the most important ones being: (i) the cost of studying, which for
most students is quite high; this results in the students families taking on the burden of
the additional costs; (ii) the language spoken in the host country, which leads most
students to attend language preparation courses before or during their ERASMUS
studies; these are often paid for by the students themselves; and (iii) accommodation
and other practical and organisational issues which still constitute problems for Greek
students. We consider it an important finding that in one out of five cases there was no
356 N. RAIKOU AND T. KARALIS

recognition of the studies, while in one out of two cases the ECTS system was not used.
However, the students who participated in ERASMUS stated that they did not face
significant problems in adjusting to their new academic surroundings and that the
standard of studies did not differ greatly between home and host institution.
To conclude, it may be said that the students who participated in the study view their
ERASMUS studies not as a single isolated stage of their studies but as an overall
experience which forms part of a lifelong process, having effects and benefits not just at
an academic level but mostly at the level of personal development. The European
experience and experiencing life in another country seem to be the most valuable
benefits gained from ERASMUS studies, which the participating students assess in a
particularly positive way.

References
DE JONG, H. and TEEKENS, H. The Case of the University of Twente: Internationalisation as
Education Policy, Journal of Studies in International Education 7 (1) (2003): 4151.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Erasmus Statistics. Retrieved on 11 January 2006, from ,http://
ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/socrates/erasmus/stat_en.html., 2005.
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND COUNCIL OF EUROPE. Decision No 819/95/EC establishing the
Community Action Programme Socrates. Luxembourg: OJEC, 1995.
FREDRIKSSON, U. Changes of Education Policies within the European Union in the Light of
Globalisation, European Educational Research Journal 2 (4) (2003): 522546.
FROMENT, E. The European Higher Education Area: A New Framework for the Development
of Higher Education, Higher Education in Europe 28 (1) (2003): 2731.
KOKOSALAKIS, N. Non-Official Higher Education in the EU Synthesis Document, in,
KOKOSALAKIS, N. ed. Non-Official Higher Education in the European Union. Athens:
Gutenberg, 1999, pp. 1748.
KONTOGIANNOPOULOU-POLYDORIDES, G., STAMELOS, Y. and PAPADIAMANTAKI, Y. Greece, in,
HUISMAN, J., and VAN DER WENDE, M. eds. On Co-operation and Competition. National and
European Policies for the Internationalisation of Higher Education. Bonn: Lemmens, 2004,
pp. 193221.
NATIONAL STATISTICAL SERVICE OF GREECE. Statistical Yearbook of Greece. Athens: National
Statistical Service, 2002.
RAIKOU, N. The Way Greek Universities Perceive European Educational Policy: The Case of
the ERASMUS Student Mobility Programme in the University of Patras. Unpublished MA
thesis, University of Patras, 2006. [in Greek].
SEIDEL, H. Internationalisation: A New Challenge for Universities, Higher Education 21
(1991): 289296.
STAMELOS, G. and VASSILOPOULOS, A. European Education Policy. Athens: Metaichmio, 2004.
[in Greek].
STAMOULAS, A. Implementation of the Bologna Process Goals: On Greek State Funding,
Higher Education in Europe 30 (1) (2005): 4151.
STRONKHORST, R. Learning Outcomes of International Mobility at Two Dutch Institutions of
Higher Education, Journal of Studies in International Education 9 (4) (2005): 292315.
SZARKA, J. Student Mobility in the EU, European Integration Studies 2 (2) (2003): 123138.
TEICHLER, U. Changes of ERASMUS under the Umbrella of SOCRATES, Journal of Studies
in International Education 5 (3) (2001): 201227.
TEICHLER, U. The Changing Debate on Internationalisation of Higher Education, Higher
Education 48 (2004): 526.
TEICHLER, U., GORDON, J., and MAIWORM, F. eds. SOCRATES 2000 Evaluation Study. Brussels:
European Commission, 2001.
 STUDENT MOBILITY FROM A GREEK PERSPECTIVE: BENEFITS AND DIFFICULTIES 357

WACHTER, B. An Introduction: Internationalisation at Home in Context, Journal of Studies in

International Education 7 (1) (2003): 511.
WEST, A., DIMITROPOULOS, A., HIND, A. and WILKES, J. Reasons for Studying Abroad: A Survey
of EU Students Studying in the UK. London: London School of Economics, 2000.
WESTERHEIJDEN, D.F. Ex oriente lux?: National and Multiple Accreditation in Europe after the
Fall of the Wall and after Bologna, Quality in Higher Education 7 (1) (2001): 6575.