«Modernisation of European Universities: Challenges

for Small Countries»

April 2008
Speech by:
Paris A. Constantinou
Former President of the Pancyprian Federation of Students’ Unions (POFEN)

«Mobility of Students, Researchers and University Educators»

Dear Representatives from the Council of Europe,

Dear Ministers,
Dear Honourable countries Representatives,
Dear Sirs and Madams,

Firstly I would like to welcome you all on our beautiful island and hope that you all enjoy
your stay here.

The Pancyprian Federation of Students’ Unions (POFEN) is considered as one of the

most internationalised body in Europe, representing 17 National Student Unions of
Cypriots internationally and locally. So, the mobility issue for us is extremely important
and we hope that this event will foster our efforts towards a better future for all of us.

I have been asked to talk about the Mobility of students, researches and university
educators. What are the problems and where are we going? in the context of the
modernisation of Higher Education Institutions.

When talking about student mobility, cultural experiences and individual growth have
traditionally been emphasised and these are still among the most important skills to be
gained from a study period abroad. However, as students we feel that the academic value
of a study period abroad has for a long time been neglected. Issues such as recognition,
comparability and language tuition must b determinedly addressed in order to make the
exchange period genuinely meaningful for both the individual and the institution. There
are still many problems in access to mobility, such as financial difficulties, administration
obstacles and lack of clear information. Social services are not accessible to all mobile
students. Sufficient language tuition and relevant integrative measures coordinated by
various actors are key to full academic and social integration.

Challenges to free movers, horizontal and vertical mobility are diverse and require
special attention. Cypriot students are more likely to be vertical mobility students for a
number of reasons such as lack of positions in universities, the trend, maybe the lack of
information for the high quality of education, courses etc.
Mobility is a strong interest of students. Changes in the operational environment, in all
fields of the society and also in the labour market mean that students also need to obtain
new skills to be able to successfully participate in today’s society after graduation. These
new skills can only be achieved in a learning environment, where teachers, students and
administrative staff are aware of the international developments and are prepare to take in
new information and have academic discussions also in international forums. The
presence of international students, teachers, staff etc in HEI, in a natural way gives
students possibilities to learn to act in a multicultural environment. Internationalisation of
higher education does not refer to comodification of education or phenomena connected
to it. The internationalisation of higher education (HE) is very much linked to the quality
of HE. The concept of mobility should encompass incoming and outgoing exchange
students, degree structures, teachers, researches and administrative staff. Gaining most
advantages from mobility should be on the agenda of both the mobile person and the
institution as mobility should be seen as a positive academic resource for the institution.
Also, I would like to address that the development of new information and
communication technologies, new terms such as e-learning and e-mobility have started to
be used in the HE community. Physical mobility as such has an irreplaceable value as
mobility implies movement of person from one place to another thus e-mobility does not
exist.

Dear friends,

The situation in the EHEA is changing slowly. Although a lot of time and effort has been
put into discussion on overcoming the obstacles, little action has been taken. Despite the
fact that portability of loans and grants was identified as a goal in 2003 in the Berlin
communiqué, there are still countries in the EHEA in which portability of loans and
grants is not possible and in the cases where it is possible student unions report numerous
obstacles.

Portability of loans and grants has not only proven to still be a problematic issue but it
also in many cases does not meet the costs of living in host countries. It reduces the
financial burden mobile students have to cope with when studying abroad, but it only
presents a very limited support which mainly benefits western and northern European
students. Portability of loans and grants, although being valuable financial support
system, is however not solving the problem of financial obstacles mobile students face.
Additional financial support such as European Mobility Fund or different financial
support system similar to CEEPUS system is necessary for dealing with the financial
issue comprehensively.

Mobile students, in the majority of cases, face different treatment from home students
and find themselves in situations where living and studying is more difficult than in their
home country. In addition, they don‘t receive the support students living in the host
country receive. For the majority of countries this situation will not improve but will
more likely get even worse. Despite the fact that mobility is considered to be one of the
core goals of the Bologna Process it is still far from being reached. Too often politicians
and stakeholders bring discussions only to a declarative level while consensus on
concrete action is rarely made and action is taken even more rarely.

Also, one of the core reasons for low mobility rates is the insufficient funding for
students and this needs to be seriously addressed. We see substantial obstacles to mobility
on one hand in the influence of economic and educational background of a student and on
the other hand in excessive and unnecessary administrative rules. We repeat the need to
guarantee equal access for foreign students to all social services offered to domestic
students.

Problems of recognition, financing, information-sharing and language barriers must be

determinedly addressed in the context of both horizontal and vertical mobility. Mobility
must be a genuine option, not a requirement and degree structures must allow students to
be able to choose when to study abroad. Students should not face the negative
consequences if a study period abroad prolongs studies.

Furthermore, we can say that there is direct relationship between mobility and the Social
dimension within Bologna process. Social dimension was introduced into the Bologna
Process in Prague 2001. Nowadays social dimension is considered a transversal action
line that has an impact on all other action lines. The impacts of the reform should be
considered also from a socio-economical point of view. Higher Education and the
reforms should help to create more social cohesion. This means that the student body
entering, participating in and completing higher education should reflect the diversity of
European societies and that all students should have the possibility to study in Higher
Education no matter what their background is. In Bergen in 2005 the ministers charged
the Bologna Follow-Up Group with presenting comparable data on mobility of students
and staff and on social and economic situation of students in the participating countries to
serve as a basis for future stocktaking.

The debates at the national level don’t highlight the importance of social dimension as it
is done at the European level. Only a few national unions of students reported
improvements in the financial situation of students. However, most often any positive
changes focused primarily in the development of student loans, rather than on the
improvement of grants available. At the same time the expenses of living and studying
have increased, especially in the countries that have introduced tuition fees.
Only a few countries such as Czech Republic, Georgia, Slovenia and the UK report
having introduced special funding schemes for students from less privileged background.
The social dimension of the Bologna Process has not been discussed at the national level.
Students in more than half of the countries within Bologna report that there is less
discussion on the social dimension than on other Bologna action lines meaning that
developments at the national level are still missing.

There is a need for adequate data on the social conditions of students, the composition of
the student body and the level of participation in higher education. Furthermore, the
national support schemes for students need to be sufficient to cover the living costs of
students. We acknowledge the potential benefits from students working during their
studies, but this employment should primarily be linked to the study subject and students
should not be forced to work in order to pay subsistence costs. Loan-based systems can
seriously damage the financial situation of students with a weaker socio-economic
background. Furthermore, study financing systems should be portable, to enhance
mobility, and independent of parental income. Lastly, we stress that a social support
system for students, which covers housing, health care, food and other counselling and
social services should be properly implemented and enhanced to guarantee the social
well-being of students. Also, in the design and steering of these systems, students should
form an integral part since they know student needs best.

Ending, I truly hope that this conference will further solidify the great bonds between all
parties in Cyprus and our European counterparts in order all together to move forward
together in the challenging and promising future for the best for all of us.

Thank you very much,

Paris A. Constantinou
Former President of the Pancyprian Federation of Students’ Unions (year 2007)

Further reading and references:

ESU website
ESU policy papers
POFEN and ESU Conference on Student Mobility outcomes (2007)