Does Higher Education Attained
Abroad Lead to International Jobs?
Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen
This article investigates the early career of graduates who have studied abroad (mobile
students) compared to graduates who have undertaken the entire education at domestic
higher education institutions (nonmobile students). The main question is to what
extent mobile students get jobs with international assignments compared to nonmobile
students. Results show that mobile students—particularly those who graduated abroad—
more often than nonmobile students search for and gain work experience abroad. The
vast majority of mobile students return from abroad after graduation. In the domestic
labour market, mobile students hold jobs with more international assignments than
nonmobile students.
Keywords:
career; internationalisation; student mobility
BACKGROUND
Internationalisation and globalisation are important characteristics of current
development of society, and production of knowledge and higher education (HE)
are no exception. Increased student mobility is an important part of this development, and more than 2 million students worldwide study outside their home country
(Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD], 2005). The
greater part of this student flow is from developing to developed countries; however, there is also a substantial student flow between Western countries.
Internationalisation of HE is taking place at different levels: the government level
(macro), the institutional level (meso), and the individual/student level (micro).
This article focuses on the latter but also addresses some macro-level perspectives.
Various stakeholders in the field of HE have different rationales for internationalisation, and the borders between different types of motivation are blurred. However,
some major categories can be identified. A division between educational, cultural,
economic, and political rationales is often made (Blumental, Goodwin, Smith, &
Teichler, 1996; Knight, 2004; Knight & de Wit, 1995; van der Wende, 1997). The
driving forces and policy rationales for internationalisation of HE in general overlap
the rationales for student export and student exchange. Student exchange may be
Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. X No. X, Season XXXX XX-XX
DOI:10.1177/1028315307307656
© 2008 Nuffic
1
Copyright 2008 by Nuffic.
2
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
seen as the best known and most traditional form of internationalisation of HE (Van
Damme, 2001).
In Western countries, governments’ rhetoric for supporting studying abroad tends
to underscore the cultural and educational rationales. However, political and economic
motives may also be important. The cultural experience of a sojourn abroad can be
seen as a way of promoting mutual understanding and encouraging peaceful coexistence between countries and cultures, which again may serve political purposes,
for example, the European Union’s educational programmes (ERASMUS/SOCRATES)
can be regarded as tools for advancing European integration, and the American
Fulbright Scheme may be understood as a way of making “influential friends” around
the world.
As for the economic rationales for student exchange, the most pronounced argument seems to be to provide the population with skills that will allow them to compete
in a global market with an increasingly educated population. Supporting students to
attend high-quality HE courses abroad is one way of achieving such a goal. Student
export may be used as a means for compensating for lack of national capacity in countries where the HE sector is inadequately developed to meet national demands. The
latter is relevant for many developing countries and other countries with strongly
increasing demand for HE, such as China and Malaysia. However, small countries that
also find it costly to provide a wide spectre of study programmes domestically may
adopt such a strategy (e.g., Norway, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands).
Students themselves, at least students from Western countries, tend to underscore educational and cultural aspects as rationales for studying abroad. An important motivation for choosing to study abroad is the anticipation that an education
from other countries can lead to employment abroad or an international career
(Centrala Studiestödsnämden [CSN], 1995; Opper, Teichler, & Carlson, 1990;
Wiers-Jenssen, 2003). Students emphasise the “added value” of studying abroad and
expect that extracurricular skills such as linguistic and cultural competence will be
appreciated by employers (Krzaklewska & Krupnik, 2006; Wiers-Jenssen, 2003).
However, individual rationales for studying abroad are complex and have been
shown to vary substantially by subject field. A survey among Norwegian students
abroad finds that those who study medicine and other health professions are less
motivated by cultural rationales and interest for pursuing an international career
than other groups (Wiers-Jenssen, 2003). These groups are predominantly motivated
by “push” factors, more specifically numerus clausus (admission restrictions) in
Norway, whereas students in other subject fields are above all motivated by “pull”
factors.
To what extent does education from abroad actually lead to employment abroad
or jobs with international work assignments? This rarely investigated question is the
topic of this article. The focus is on the horizontal dimension of career outcomes, asking
whether former mobile students get different jobs than former nonmobile students,
more precisely jobs where they can make use of their international skills.
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
3
Norway has a higher ratio of students abroad than most OECD countries (Kelo,
Teichler, & Wächeter, 2006; OECD, 2005). Between 6.5% and 10% of the total
student population study abroad, depending on whether exchange students are
included in the figures (Wiers-Jenssen, 2005). A high ratio of students abroad is an
objective of Norwegian HE policy (Ministry of Education and Research,
1996–1997; Ministry of Education and Research, 2000–2001) and is encouraged
by relatively favourable financial arrangements offered through the State Education
Loan Fund (Lånekassen). The most explicit rationales for this policy are educational
and cultural, though economic rationales of securing educational diversity are also
expressed (Ministry of Education and Research, 1996–1997). For a high-cost country
such as Norway, there may also be less pronounced economic rationales for supporting
student export. Domestic HE is mainly public, without tuition fees. Consequently,
state expenditure on HE is high. In many cases, providing students with grants and
subsidised loans for studying abroad may be less expensive than adjusting domestic
enrolment capacity to fluctuating demands. This is definitely the case for resourceintensive education such as medicine and arts. From a government perspective,
research shedding light on whether subsidising students abroad is a good investment should be of interest. Political rationales may also influence HE policy. For
example, increased participation in the ERASMUS programme has been given high
priority, even though Norway is not a member of the European Union.
Because of the high number of Norwegian students abroad and a long tradition for
student export, it is interesting to consider whether outcomes of HE abroad are in
accordance with individual and government rationales. Another reason why Norway
is an interesting case for investigating outcomes of study abroad is that in contrast to
most other Western countries, the majority of Norwegian students abroad are so-called
free movers (students not participating in organized programmes, generally spending
several years abroad), and not exchange students (students participating in organised
exchange programmes, generally staying abroad for a maximum of 1 year). However,
during recent years, there has been a policy shift toward encouraging students to take
short-term sojourns abroad and participate in organised exchange programmes such as
ERASMUS, rather than undertaking the entire education abroad.
In contrast to this, a country such as Denmark has recently changed the support
system to increase the number of free movers, and other European countries are
also considering raising the number of free movers. Hence, it is of particular interest
to see whether the professional value of study abroad and the rate that returns to
the home country is different for graduates with short sojourns abroad compared to
those who have undertaken several years of study abroad.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
Internationalisation and study abroad is encouraged by many stakeholders in
HE, and studying abroad seems often to be considered as an advantage per se.
4
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Outcomes of study abroad have been measured in terms of self-assessed language
improvement (Maiworm & Teichler, 2002) and development of extracurricular skills
such as intercultural communication skills (Williams 2005) and international understanding (Carlson, Burn, Useem, & Yachimowicz, 1990), showing positive impacts
of a sojourn abroad.
However, few studies have investigated labour market effects of education from
abroad in depth. Although a sojourn abroad may be rewarding from a personal
perspective and cultural exchange between countries is important, this does not
necessarily imply that individual career opportunities are improved by studying
abroad or that extracurricular skills gained abroad are required in the jobs the graduates obtain. Empirical research on this issue should be of interest to individuals to
make informed decisions on whether to study abroad or not and what kind of outcomes
to expect; stakeholders at the institutional and governmental level also may find factual
information useful when developing policy and strategies for internationalisation
and student exchange.
The research that has been done on mobile students and graduates tends not to
include control groups of students educated in the home country. Such research
may tell us that those who have studied abroad hold international jobs; however,
without corresponding information on nonmobile students, it cannot be verified
that those who have studied abroad are more likely to hold international jobs than
those who have undertaken the entire HE domestically. Research on mobile abroad
students from Western countries has mainly focused on exchange students rather
than free movers. There has been extensive research on the ERASMUS programme
(see, e.g., Bracht et al., 2006; Teichler, 2002; Teichler & Maiworm, 1996); however,
labour market outcomes of Western mobile students who take the entire degree or
greater parts of it abroad is hardly ever addressed. This may be partly due to the
fact that students not participating in organised exchange programmes tend to be
more difficult to identify and trace.
Jahr and Teichler (2000) have compared graduates who have been ERASMUS
students and other graduates who have studied abroad (mobile students) to graduates
without HE from abroad (nonmobile students). They found that the ratio of graduates
with working experience from abroad is much higher among mobile students than
among the nonmobile students. They also found that mobile students have more
international work assignments, make much more use of their language proficiency,
and that they go on business trips abroad more frequently compared to nonmobile
students. Those who have studied abroad, but not participated in the ERASMUS
programme, seem to make more use of their international competence than former
ERASMUS students. This may be due to longer sojourns. They concluded that study
abroad is a step toward a horizontal differentiation of job roles as far as the international dimension is concerned. However, as the study does not control for subject
field, the fundament for drawing such a general conclusion is somewhat weak.
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
5
A study of former exchange students in Europe shows that a majority of the graduates were employed in firms or organisations with contacts with the country of their
former study abroad or significant relations to other countries (Opper et al., 1990).
More than one half of the graduates reported frequent use of the language of the host
country in the job, and 30% get to use the firsthand knowledge of the country and
people of the host country. Studies of the professional value of ERASMUS mobility
shows similar patterns (Bracht et al., 2006). Although the numbers may seem high,
the absence of control groups of nonmobile students makes it hard to interpret the
results.
A Norwegian study focusing on the vertical career effects of graduating abroad
found that education from abroad has negative and positive effects on labour market
outcome (Wiers-Jenssen, 2005; Wiers-Jenssen & Try, 2005). Norwegian graduates
with diplomas from abroad generally faced more difficulties in entering the national
labour market compared to domestic graduates. Unemployment and overeducation
were more prevalent. On the positive side, the economic rewards among employed
were higher among mobile students a few years after graduation. The differences
between mobile and nonmobile students were robust across models, though the
size of the differences was not dramatic. Suggested interpretations of differences
are lack of relevant professional networks, limited demand for country-specific
human capital from abroad, statistical discrimination, and weak signalling effects
of diplomas from lesser known Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Employers
are not always competent to judge diplomas from abroad; hence, it may seem rational to select graduates with a known educational background rather than spending
resources on obtaining information about education from abroad. Those graduating abroad are probably considered as more attractive applicants when they have
gained work experience in the national labour market. The positive wage effect is
mainly explained by the fact that more mobile students work in the private sector
where the wage level is generally higher; however, it is also suggested that mobile
students may constitute a selected group regarding motivation, ambitions, and personality traits.
THEORETICAL APPROACHES,
RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AND HYPOTHESES
Theoretical contributions to understanding transferability and professional values
of study abroad are scarce. Hence, we draw on some general theories dealing with
the linking of HE and work. Human capital theory regards educational choice as an
investment decision where schooling enhances productivity (Becker, 1964; Mincer,
1958). This theory predicts a positive relationship between schooling and the degree
of labour market success. The standard version of the theory does not distinguish
between foreign and domestic education; however, in research on immigrants in
the labour market, a division between country-specific and general human capital
6
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
is often made (Chiswick & Miller, 2003; Duvander, 2001; Friedberg, 2000).
Examples of country-specific human capital are language skills, cultural skills, and
professional skills adapted to national requirements. It is assumed that foreign and
domestic educations are not equivalents because parts of the education are related
to country-specific human capital. In general, the latter human capital component
may be more applicable in the country where the education is undertaken than in
other countries, although country-specific human capital from abroad will certainly
be in demand in certain segments of the labour market.
The concept of country-specific human capital may also be relevant when looking
at graduates who have studied abroad. Parts of what is often labelled as the “added
value” of studying abroad can be considered as country-specific human capital, and
we hypothesise that mobile students will make more use of language skills than
nonmobile students.1 We expect free movers with longer sojourns abroad to make
more use of such skills, in line with the findings of Jahr and Teichler (2000). In
addition, we expect substantial variation between graduates from different subject
fields, as some segments of the labour market have more international work tasks
than others. Subject field may also influence the likelihood of being employed abroad.
Labour market opportunities may be different; however, most of all we expect
subject field to have an indirect effect through motivation and interest for living
abroad. Prior research on Norwegian students abroad has shown that students in
medicine and other health subjects are less motivated by pull factors, such as
cultural and linguistic aspects, and a general interest of living abroad (WiersJenssen, 2003). Although preferences may change during the sojourn abroad, we
still expect these groups to be less interested in working abroad.
One may also suggest that some forms of country-specific human capital may in
fact be more transnational than country-specific. An example of this is the English
language, which tends to be applicable in many countries. From this perspective, we
may hypothesise that those who have studied in the anglophone world make more
use of their language skills than those who have studied elsewhere. On the other
hand, Norwegians’ proficiency in English is generally high, and a sojourn abroad
may make less of a difference for a Norwegian than for someone from a country with
poorer English skills. Murphy-Lejeune (2002) used the concept mobility capital to
describe the phenomenon that people with mobility experiences seem to develop “a
taste for living abroad.” Experience with living abroad may be seen as a type of informal transnational human capital. We hypothesise that graduates who have accumulated mobility capital by studying abroad are more likely to work abroad as well.
Signalling theories focus on the sorting and signalling effects of education (Arrow,
1973; Spence, 1973). Education from abroad may signal extracurricular skills
(e.g., language skills and knowledge of a foreign country) and certain personal
proprieties (e.g., initiative or flexibility) that may be regarded as positive by employers.
However, education from abroad may also have weak or negative signalling effects
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
7
because the education is less known or acknowledged by domestic employers. This
is likely to affect vertical career opportunities such as job probability but may also
influence horizontal careers. Employers may not offer former mobile students the
best opportunities to apply their international skills.
The main questions addressed are
•
•
•
•
•
•
To what extent have former mobile students searched for, and obtained, postgraduate
working experience abroad compared to former nonmobile (domestic) students?
Are former mobile students more likely than former nonmobile students to work in
international firms and to do business trips abroad?
To what extent do former mobile students get to use foreign language skills in their
work compared to former nonmobile students?
To what extent do former mobile students apply other kinds of extracurricular skills
gained abroad in their work?
Does applicability of study experience from abroad vary by subject field?
What factors influence the probability of working abroad and holding an international
job in the domestic labour market?
Three groups are compared:
• former mobile students who graduated abroad;
• former mobile students who graduated domestically, but who have undertaken parts
of HE abroad; and
• nonmobile students—former students who have undertaken the entire HE domestically.
For simplicity, the groups are mostly labelled mobile/nonmobile students in the rest
of this article, even though they are former students.
Differences between graduates from different subject fields will also be investigated, as we assume that the added value of study abroad varies by subject field
because of differences in work tasks. Regarding certain topics (applicability of experience from abroad), questions are only relevant to those graduates with experience
from abroad. In these cases, only the two groups of mobile students are compared.
Based on former research and theory presented above, we outline three major
hypotheses. These can be summed up as follows:
Hypothesis 1: A higher percentage of mobile than nonmobile students works abroad and
holds international jobs domestically.
Hypothesis 2: Mobile students who graduated abroad are more likely to work abroad and
have more international jobs domestically than mobile students who graduated
domestically.
Hypothesis 3: The proportion working abroad and holding international jobs will vary
by subject field.
8
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
DATA AND METHOD
Data are drawn from the Norwegian Institute for Studies in Research and Higher
Education (NIFU) Graduate Survey 2002. This survey comprises college and university graduates from Norwegian and foreign institutions within most of the higher
degree studies and selected lower degree studies.2 The sample is stratified, and
graduates from HE institutions abroad are overrepresented. The analysis includes
914 respondents who graduated abroad and 1,386 who graduated in Norway. Of
the latter, 286 were mobile students, and 1,100 were nonmobile. All students in this
sample are Norwegians. The NIFU Graduate Survey 2002 also contains information
about immigrant groups, and analyses of these are analysed in other publications
(Støren, 2005).
All variables are based on self-reported data from the questionnaire, including
retrospective information for the period 3½ to 5 years following graduation. In the
tables showing mean distributions, the data are weighted according to the stratifying
sampling procedure to correct for the over- and underrepresentation in the sample.
In the regressions, no weights are used because all the stratifying variables are used
as control variables.
The overall response rate is 56%, with a significantly higher response among
domestic graduates (61%) than among those graduating abroad (47%). One reason
for the higher dropout percentage among the latter group could be inaccuracy in the
data register defining this part of the sample, causing some people to have been
included in the gross sample without being in the actual target group for the survey.3
In addition to simple bi- and trivariate analyses, logistic and linear regression analyses
are used.
Appendix Table 1A presents the definition and distribution of variables used in
the regression analyses.
Dependent Variables
Work abroad. This dichotomous variable was used as the dependent variable in the
logistic regression analyses. It distinguishes between those who were employed
abroad at the time of the data collection in November 2002 (3½ to 5 years after
graduation) and those who were employed in Norway at the same point in time.
International job. This is the dependent variable in the linear regression analyses.
An index is constructed where the use of foreign language(s) in the job is given priority; however, the extent of business travel abroad and whether the employer has
a head office or branch offices abroad is also included. The score ranges from 0 to
6, and the relative weight of different variables is as described in table 1.
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
Table 1
9
Construction of Index for “International Job”
Variable
International firm
No
Yes
Business travel abroad
No business travel abroad
Low, 1–10 days abroad per year
High, more than 10 days abroad per year
Use of language skills
Rarely or never (Score on language index: 6)
Limited purposes/infrequently (Score on language index: 7–9)
Medium (Score on language index: 10–14)
Multipurpose/frequently (Score on language index: 15–24)
Weight
0
1
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
Independent Variables
Origin of HE and duration of sojourn abroad. Educational experience from abroad is
complex. A little more than one half of the unweighted sample of those graduating
abroad completed the entire degree outside Norway, another 23% of them studied
partly in Norway with more than 2 years abroad, 15% studied between 1 and 2
years abroad, and 9% studied less than 1 year abroad even though they graduated
from abroad. Among the domestic graduates, 17% have also studied abroad. Two
percent have studied abroad more than 2 years, 2% have studied abroad between 1
and 2 years, and 13% have studied a year or less abroad. In most of our analyses,
we distinguish between three categories of graduates:
1. those who graduated from HEIs abroad (MOBILABR)
2. those who graduated from domestic HEIs but who have sojourn abroad (MOBILDOM)
3. those who have undertaken the entire HE domestically (NONMOBILE).
The distinction between mobile students who graduated abroad and mobile students
who graduated domestically corresponds roughly with those who have had a long
sojourn abroad and those who have a short-term sojourn abroad.
Country/region of study. Mobile students who graduated abroad are coded by the
country of graduation. Mobile students who graduated domestically are coded by
the country in which they spent the longest time abroad (some have been studying
in several countries).
Performance indicators. Two different measures of performance are included.
Intake score is the average grade level from upper secondary school. This score may
theoretically vary between 0 and 6, though 2 is the lowest mark for passing exams.
10
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Academic performance is the student’s assessment of academic performance in the
study relative to his or her fellow students. The latter indicator is a compounded
measure of individual and costudents’ performance and may, therefore, also measure
selectivity and quality of the HE institution. For these reasons, results should be interpreted with care. Variables for performance indicators unknown are also defined.
International firm. Graduates working in firms/organisations with head or branch
offices abroad, are defined as working in an international firm.
Use of foreign languages. Graduates were asked to report to which extent they apply
languages other than Norwegian for 6 different work tasks in their present job.
Alternatives were rarely or never (1), sometimes (2), weekly (3) and daily or almost
daily (4). Mean scores are reported in this article. A language index was constructed
adding the scores of these 6 different variables.
RESULTS
Considering and Gaining Working Experience Abroad
The graduates were asked to indicate their interest and experience with working
outside Norway. From Figure 1 we see that the mobile students reported far more
interest in working abroad than nonmobile students. However, the difference between
mobile and nonmobile students becomes more striking when it comes to actively
pursuing ambitions about gaining working experience abroad. Significantly more
mobile than nonmobile students have searched for and obtained employment abroad,
those who graduated abroad in particular. At the time of the survey (3½ to 5 years
after graduation), 1 of 5 mobile students who graduated abroad is working abroad,
whereas fewer than 1 in 50 domestic graduates is doing the same.
It is worth noticing that the ratio that has searched for employment abroad is no
lower than the ratio who have been offered employment abroad. However, though
the ratios that have searched for, been offered, and actually have worked abroad are
fairly similar, the groups are not perfectly overlapping. Some have searched without success, and some have turned down job offers abroad. In general, the highest
“success rate” is found among mobile students who graduated abroad. Among
those who have searched for jobs abroad, the ratio that has also been offered jobs
abroad is 80% among mobile students who graduated abroad, 62% among mobile
students who graduated domestically, and 48% among nonmobile students. The
latter group is also more likely to turn offers down. Of those who have been offered
work abroad, the ratio that actually has worked abroad is only 48% among nonmobile students, whereas corresponding figures for mobile students are 73%
among those who graduated abroad and 63% among mobile students who graduated domestically. This indicates that the barriers for working abroad may be
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
11
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Considered
searching for
employment
abroad
Searched for
employment
abroad
Mobile, graduated abroad
Figure 1.
Abroad.
Offered
employment
abroad
Employed abroad Employed abroad
Nov. 2002
at some stage
after graduation
Mobile, graduated domestically
Nonmobile
Percentage of Graduates Who Have Searched for and Obtained Employment
self-imposed as well as real and enforced. Anyway, we see that the vast majority
of mobile students choose to work in Norway after graduation.
Factors Influencing the Probability of Working Abroad
Pursuing a career abroad may be influenced by many factors. Logistic regression
analyses were conducted, investigating the probability of working abroad among
those who were employed at the time of the data collection.
Table 2 shows results from three different models estimating the effects of
possible job-abroad probability determinants. Starting with Model 1, we see that
background variables such as age, gender, social origin, and marital status do not
have significant direct effects on the probability of working abroad. Those who
were living abroad at age 17 years have increased probability of working abroad.
Intake score also has a positive effect; good grades from upper secondary school
increase the probability of being employed abroad at the time of the survey. Mobile
students are more likely to work abroad, and the effect is larger for mobile students
who graduated abroad than for mobile students who graduated domestically.
Looking at subject fields, we found that working abroad is most common among
graduates in science and technology, and graduates in medicine have a significantly
lower probability of working abroad.
In Model 2 we have added more variables related to education and experience.
It may be observed that the total number of years in HE, a proxy for general human
capital, has a significant positive effect.4 Significant effects from Model 1 also
remain significant in Model 2.
12
Journal of Studies in International Education
Table 2
Season XXXX
Working Abroad Estimates Logistic Regression
Model 1—All
Graduates
Variables
Gender
Age
Married
Children
Gender_children
Parents HE
Lived abroad at age 17 years
Intake score
Intake score unknown
Mobile, graduate domestically
Mobile, abroad
Business and administration
Social sciences
Humanities
Medicine
Health, high
Health, low
Arts
Other HE
Cohort 98
Cohort 99
Academic performance
Academic performance
unknown
Number of years in HE
Relevant working experience
during HE
Studied in Nordic countries
Studied in European countries
Studied in other countries
Constanta
N
–2 Log likelihood
Coefficient
.239
.030
.194
.129
–.548
.035
.984**
.661***
.276
1.531***
3.016***
–.373
–.235
–.244
–.686**
.186
–.069
–.681
–.546
–.208
–.075
–8.218***
2123
1112.679
SE
.200
.025
.186
.266
.349
.174
.388
.172
.231
.356
.279
.247
.328
.400
.334
.351
.258
.481
.371
.255
.265
1.244
Model 2—All
Graduates
Coefficient
SE
.224
–.001
.236
.105
–.528
.024
1.031***
.662***
.236
1.412***
3.078***
–.274
–.249
–.332
–.899*
.200
.192
–.731
–.502
–.179
–.092
–.002
–.208
.202
.031
.189
.268
.352
.175
.394
.177
.234
.361
.282
.254
.329
.404
.349
.358
.284
.485
.377
.260
.272
.102
.334
.171***
.003
.064
.004
–8.338***
2121
1097.945
1.375
Model 3—Mobile
Students
Coefficient
SE
.270
.018
.366*
.142
–.711*
.054
1.196***
.741***
.179
–1.479***
.217
.035
.203
.288
.379
.189
.407
.191
.246
.295
–.074
–.124
–.267
–.921**
.129
.134
–.571
–.316
.141
.253
.014
–.266
.269
.363
.463
.390
.396
.324
.497
.390
.308
.319
.111
.364
.186
–.001
.070
.004
.756***
–.306
–.997*
–6.832***
1086
909.802
.227
.242
.551
1.464
Note: HE = higher education; NONMOBILE = Those who have undertaken the entire HE domestically.
a. Model 1 & 2: men, not married/cohabitant; age 24 years, no children; parents without HE; lived in
Norway at age 17 years; low intake score; nonmobile; higher degree in science/technology; cohort
1997; medium academic performance; no relevant working experience during HE. In Model 3, mobile
students only, the reference category is mobile students who graduated abroad, and the county/region is
the United States or the United Kingdom.
*p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
In Model 3 we ran a separate analysis for mobile students. The reference group
here is mobile students who graduated abroad, where we see that being a mobile
student who graduated domestically has a negative effect compared to the reference group. Apart from this, the general pattern is quite similar to Models 1 and 2;
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
13
0,25
0,20
0,15
0,10
0,05
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
BUSINESS & ADMINISTRATION
Nonmobile
Mobile, graduated
domestically
Mobile, graduated
abroad
Nonmobile
Mobile, graduated
domestically
Mobile, graduated
abroad
Nonmobile
Mobile, graduated
domestically
Mobile, graduated
abroad
0,00
MEDICINE
Figure 2. Estimated Probabilities of Working Abroad 3 ½ to 5 Years After Graduation
for Selected Groups of Mobile and Nonmobile Students.
however, we found that those who are married are more likely to work abroad. The
interaction term of Gender and Children is significant and negative. In other words,
women with children are less likely to work abroad. In Model 3 we also control for
the geographic region in which HE abroad is undertaken. The reference category is
United Kingdom and United States of America, and we see that those who have
studied in Nordic countries are significantly more likely to work abroad than the
reference category, whereas those who have studied in “other countries” are less
likely to work abroad.
Figure 2 shows the estimated probabilities for working abroad for graduates in
science and technology (higher level), business and administration, and medicine,
based on Model 2 in Table 2. The comparison values are the average values for the
reference group in the model. The figure illustrates clearly that the probability of
working abroad varies by mobility experience, also after controlling other variables.
In summary, mobile students are far more likely to consider and acquire working experience abroad compared to nonmobile students. Mobile students with
diplomas from abroad have the highest probability of working abroad. The multivariate analyses show that the tendency for former mobile students to work abroad
persists also when controlling for sociodemograpic variables, type of education,
etc. Graduates with good grades from upper secondary schools are more likely to
work abroad. As for subject field, we found that graduates with a medical education are significantly less likely to work abroad than others. Among mobile students, family situation influences the likelihood of working abroad.
14
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Working abroad is one way of pursuing a career where skills gained abroad can be
applied. Having a job domestically that includes work tasks with an international
dimension is another way of using international skills. In the next section, the focus is
on international career dimensions among those who are employed in Norway.
International Work Dimensions
Among Those Employed in Norway
This section looks at those who were employed in Norway at the time of the survey and investigates the extent to which they work for international employers and
have work tasks with international dimensions.
International firms and business travel abroad. Figure 3 shows that significantly
more mobile than nonmobile graduates work in international firms and Norwegian
firms with branch offices abroad.5 The proportion working in international firms is
highest among those who graduated abroad. The figure also shows that both groups
of mobile students are more inclined to undertake business travel abroad.
Use of language skills. Ninety percent of mobile students who graduated abroad,
92% of the mobile students who graduated domestically, and 82% of the nonmobile students claim that they occasionally use languages other than Norwegian in
their present job. More than 95% reported that English was the most frequently
used language. Irrespective of the country in which the graduates have studied,
English is the most applied foreign language in the current job. From Figure 4 we
can see that mobile students report more frequent use of foreign languages for different purposes than domestic graduates. However, differences between mobile
graduates with diplomas from foreign HEIs versus domestic HEIs are small.
Those who have studied in English-speaking countries apply language skills
more frequently than others. Graduates with a higher degree in natural science and
technology report they apply languages more than other groups, and those with
degrees in business and administration also report frequent use of languages. At the
other end of the scale, we found those who have a lower degree in health care sciences (nursing and physiotherapy). The effect of subject fields and other variables
are further examined in multivariate analyses later in this article (Table 3).
Use of skills among mobile students. Mobile students were asked to provide more
detailed information on applicability of language skills and other skills gained
abroad in their current job. Figure 5 displays the extent to which the graduates
report to use different skills acquired abroad in their current jobs.
Mobile students who graduated abroad reported using the professional content of
the HE from abroad in their jobs more often than mobile students who graduated
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
15
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Firm with head office
Firm with branch office
abroad
Business travel abroad
abroad
Mobile, graduated abroad
Mobile, graduated domestically
Nonmobile
Figure 3. Percentage of Graduates Working in International Firms and Making
Business Trips Abroad.
3
2,5
2
1,5
1
Telephone, E-mail, letters
direct contact
Reading
specialist
literature
Mobile, graduated abroad
Writing notes, Presentations,
Informal
reports, etc. conferences, contact with
meetings
colleagues
Mobile, graduated domestically
Mean score
on all
indicators
Nonmobile
Figure 4. Use of Foreign Languages in Different Work Tasks. Mean score, 1 (rarely
or never) to 4 (almost daily)
domestically. This is not surprising given that those who graduated abroad generally have undertaken a larger part of their HE abroad. The duration of the sojourn
abroad may also partly explain why those graduating abroad reported more use of
personal proprieties developed abroad. The term personal proprieties may seem
somewhat vague but was included in the survey because prior research has shown
that it is considered very important among Norwegian students while they are
16
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
100 %
90 %
Not at all
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
Little
extent
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
The professional Language skills
content of HE
Knowledge of
culture/society
MobDOM
MobABR
MobDOM
MobABR
MobDOM
MobABR
MobDOM
MobABR
0%
Personal
properties
developed
abroad
Some
extent
Great
extent
Figure 5. Applicability of Skills From Abroad Among Mobile Students Employed in
Norway (N = 904).
Note: HE = higher education; MOBILABR = Those who graduated from Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) abroad; MOBILDOM = Those who who graduated from domesic HEIs but who have sojourned
abroad.
studying abroad (Børdahl, 2003; Holmes, 2004; Wiers-Jenssen, 2003), and similar
perspectives are found in research on mobile students from other countries
(Klinenberg & Hull 1979; Krzaklewska & Krupnik, 2006; Opper et al., 1990).
Students claim that the sojourn abroad exposes them to challenges that make a difference to their personal development, and apparently such experiences are considered useful also after entering the labour market. From Figure 5, we also see that
there are hardly any differences in the reported use of language skills between
mobile students who graduated abroad and domestically. This is somewhat surprising and diverges from our expectations. Neither are there substantial differences in the application of knowledge about the culture and society of the host
country. Only 1 in 5 graduates report using such knowledge to any great extent.
Figure 6 shows the percentage using language skills acquired abroad in their
work among mobile students who have studied in different countries/regions. Here
we see all mobile students together, independent of where they graduated abroad
or domestically.6 Graduates who have studied in English-speaking countries
reported to make more use of the language they learned while studying abroad than
those who have studied in countries such as France or Germany.
In summary, we have seen that skills in English language are widely applied in
the graduates’ current jobs. Skills in other languages and knowledge of the host
country’s culture and society seem to be of less applicability. The English language
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
17
100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
Not at all
60 %
Little extent
50 %
40 %
Some extent
30 %
Great extent
20 %
10 %
0%
Nordic
countries
n = 161
Figure 6.
Jobs.
UK
n = 256
USA
n = 172
France
n = 52
Germany
n =110
Other
n = 155
Percentage of Graduates Using Language Skills Acquired Abroad in Their
Note: UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America.
has in many respects become a lingua franca; command of English may be seen as
transnational human capital, rather than country-specific human capital. The results
indicate that country-specific human capital from abroad is less transferable to a
domestic labour market than more transnational human capital.
Who Holds International Jobs in the Domestic Labour Market?
What is an international job? This can be defined in many ways. Here, it is measured through an index based on whether the graduates work in an international
firm, extent of business travel abroad, and to what extent the graduates apply (foreign) language skills in their current job (see Data and Method section for further
details).7 The score goes from 0 to 6, the higher the score, the more international
the job. Mobile students’ scores on this index are higher than nonmobile students:
2.89 for mobile students who graduated abroad and 2.91 for mobile who graduated
domestically, compared to 1.88 for nonmobile students. The mean scores vary substantially by subject field, as seen in Figure 7.
Mobile students with a higher degree in science and technology constitute the
group with the highest score (3.92) on the international job index. Business and
administration graduates have a high score, independent of whether they have been
mobile or not. Mobile students with degrees in the social sciences, humanities, and
arts have higher scores than nonmobile students with degrees from the same subject fields. The group with the lowest score is former nonmobile students with a
lower degree in health sciences (.92). To some extent, the international job index
18
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
Mobile
Figure 7.
Fields.
Total
Other
Arts
Health, low
Health, high
Medicine
Humanities
Social
sciences
Business and
administration
0
Science and
technology,
higher level
0.5
Nonmobile
Mean Score on International Job Index for Graduates in Different Subject
also varies by in which country the education is undertaken. Those who have studied
in the United States have the highest average score (3.21), whereas those who have
studied in Nordic countries have the lowest average score of mobile students (2.37).
Regression analyses were conducted to investigate to what extent differences
between mobile and nonmobile students and graduates from different subject fields
and countries persist when controlled for other variables. The results are presented
in Table 3.
Commencing with Model 1, we see that women and graduates with young children hold jobs that are less international than the reference group consisting of men
and those who do not have small children. Intake score shows significant effects—
those with good grades from upper secondary schools have jobs that are more
international, whereas those with unknown grades have jobs containing fewer international aspects. Both groups of mobile students have increased probability of holding an international job compared to nonmobile students. Subject field definitely has
an impact; all groups have jobs with less international characteristics than the reference group (science and technology, higher level). Year of examination also shows a
significant effect, meaning that the most recently graduated students have jobs with
less international aspects.
In Model 2, additional performance indications, working experience, and job
characteristics are added. Self-assessed academic performance relative to costudents has a positive effect, so has working experience from abroad after graduation.
Working more than full-time and working in the private sector also increases the
probability of having an international job.
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
Table 3
19
International Job Model Estimates. Linear Regression
MODEL 1—All
graduates
Variables
Gender
Age
Married
Children
Gender_children
Parents HE
Lived abroad at age 17 years
Intake score
Intake score unknown
Mobile, graduation domestically
Mobile, abroad
Business and administration
Social sciences
Humanities
Medicine
Health, high
Health, low
Arts
Other HE
Cohort 98
Cohort 99
Academic performance
Academic performance unknown
Number of years in HE
Relevant working experience
during HE
Working experience from abroad
after graduation
Working more than 100%
Private sector
Studied in Nordic countries
Studied in European countries
Studied in other countries
Constanta
N
Adjusted R2
Residual sum of squares
Coefficient
–.283***
–.015
–.024
–.260**
–.148
.025
.272
.421***
–.267*
.506***
.599***
–.432***
–.723***
–.871***
–1.537***
–1.369***
–2.010***
–.987***
–1.123***
–.167*
–.287***
2.100
1911
.284
4060.141
MODEL 2—All
graduates
MODEL—3
Mobile students
SE
Coefficient
.087
.010
.081
.111
.143
.073
.313
.068
.134
.108
.081
.116
.128
.140
.148
.180
.110
.231
.176
.100
.108
–.150*
–.013
–.017
–.215*
–.117
.014
.210
.312***
–.177
.473***
.503***
–.537***
–.579***
–.658***
–1.333***
–1.299***
–1.640***
–.925***
–1.093***
–.128
–.238**
.217***
–.023
.031
.002
.084
.010
.078
.107
.139
.071
.300
.067
.131
.104
.082
.113
.129
.142
.154
.175
.124
.229
.170
.096
.104
.041
.122
.027
.002
–.086
–.004
–.033
–.045
–.383*
–.124
.426
.305***
–.289
–.156
.130
.020
.117
.175
.228
.115
.346
.107
.177
.135
–.645***
–.249
–.315
–1.253***
–1.667***
–1.623***
–.884***
–1.053***
–.366*
–.394*
.190***
–.082
.042
.006*
.161
.217
.240
.250
.293
.209
.280
.219
.161
.172
.064
.206
.043
.003
.250*
.123
.208
.146
.400***
.633***
.080
.078
.482
1.543***
1869
.338
3606.416
SE Coefficient SE
.409***
.772***
–.204
–.114
–.014
.486
1.952**
871
.289
1835.614
.120
.130
.158
.136
.206
.829
Note: HE = higher education; NONMOBILE = Those who have undertaken the entire HE domestically.
a. Constant, Model 1 & 2: men, not married/cohabitant; no children; parents without HE; lived in
Norway at age 17 years; low intake score; nonmobile; higher degree in science/technology; cohort
1997; medium academic performance; no relevant working experience during HE, no working experience from abroad after graduation, not working more than 100%, working in public sector. In Model 3,
mobile students only, the reference category is mobile students who graduated abroad, and the country/
region is the United States or the United Kingtom.
*p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.
20
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Model 3 shows estimates from a separate analysis for mobile students only. The
reference category is mobile students who graduated abroad. In this model, country/
region in which HE is undertaken is included but shows no significant effects when
controlled for other variables. The effect of gender is no longer significant in this
model; however, the interaction term between Gender and Children is. In other words,
among mobile students, women with young children hold jobs that are less international. The effect of being a mobile student who graduated domestically is not
significant; hence, there is no difference between the two groups of mobile students.
Relevant working experience during HE shows a significant effect. Effects of most
other variables are similar to Models 1 and 2; however, because of a smaller sample,
fewer effects are statistically significant.
DISCUSSION
In this section, some of the main results are summed up and discussed. We aim to
link the discussion to some of the topics outlined in the introduction; hypotheses,
former research, and theory and rationales for study abroad. We found that a sojourn
abroad seems to have a stronger impact on horizontal career than the impacts on
vertical career (Wiers-Jenssen & Try, 2005). This is in line with the conclusions of
Bracht et al. (2006).
Job Abroad Versus International Job in
the Domestic Labour Market
Working abroad and holding an international job in the national labour market
are two different ways of utilising skills and qualifications gained abroad. We have
seen that mobile students are more likely to do both, compared to those who have
undertaken the entire HE domestically. Hence, the results supports Hypothesis 1.
However, the analyses show that variables predicting one of these outcomes do not
necessarily predict the other.
Some variables show significant effect on both outcomes, for example, intake
score. Other variables such as subject field show limited effects on the likelihood
of working abroad but clearly influences the chances of having an international job
in the national labour market. Working abroad is related to personal features: marital status, whether one has children or not, and previous experience with living
abroad. The latter can be related to Murphy-Lejeunes’ (2002) concept of mobility
capital—people with mobility experiences develop “a taste for living abroad.” The
decision to work abroad seems to be influenced by having a foreign partner, and
future research should look into this. To hold an international job in the domestic
labour market is more related to performance, experience, and labour marketspecific conditions, rather than sociodemographic characteristics.
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
21
It can be questioned whether working abroad can be perceived as having an international job. Some have jobs abroad that are national rather than international by
nature, and some graduates choose to stay abroad mainly because of family reasons,
not because they want “international working experience” on their curricula vitae
(CVs). However, we argue that coming from one country and working in another
can be defined as an international experience.
Working Abroad
The vast majority of mobile students return home, those who graduated domestically in particular. However, one of five mobile students who graduated abroad is
still employed abroad 3½ to 5 years after graduation. Nevertheless, working experience from abroad may be just as valuable for internationalisation as HE abroad,
also for the “added value” part. Working abroad adds to the country-specific human
capital; different experiences are acquired, and networks are formed. It is likely
that more graduates will return home at a later stage, bringing international working experience with them to the domestic labour market. Those who stay abroad
contribute to internationalise other countries’ labour markets, which may be seen
as positive if political and cultural rationales of internationalisation are taken into
consideration. However, there may be limits to governments’ interest for supporting this kind of internationalisation.
In some countries, governments seem to worry that those who go abroad to study
will not return. This is probably more likely to happen if the labour market options and
general living conditions are better in the host country than the home country, and
countries such as China and India are examples of countries that suffer from substantial “brain drain” (Özden & Schiff, 2006). However, “brain drain” cannot be considered
as a serious problem for Norway, particularly if we take into account that some of the
returnees have brought foreign partners back home.8 From previous research we have
seen that a partner is an important reason for migration among highly skilled workers
such as researchers (Nerdrum, Ramberg, & Sarpebakken, 2003).
Those who have studied medicine are less likely to work abroad than others.
This may seem contradictory because medical education is fairly standardised and
can be applied in most countries. However, as mentioned earlier, this is likely to be
related to motivation for studying abroad. Norwegians study medicine abroad
because of admission restrictions in Norway, not because they are particularly interested in living abroad (Wiers-Jenssen, 2003). Domestic labour market opportunities
may also influence decisions; there is a shortage of doctors in Norway, and consequently, it is easy to find a (well-paid) job. An additional explanation may be that
some of the graduates have recently finished their internships.
The finding that those with high intake scores are more likely to work abroad
indicates that the best graduates are more prone to succeed in a competitive market.
22
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Lack of relevant country-specific human capital, such as networks and language
fluency, may be a drawback when searching for jobs abroad, and good academic
skills may compensate for this.
The ratio of mobile students working abroad may seem low compared to the plans
students express while studying abroad. A survey mapping Norwegian students
abroad has shown that one in two students expect to work abroad 5 years after
graduation (Wiers-Jenssen, 2003). Our data shows that a lower proportion actually
searches for jobs abroad, and that the number still working abroad 3½ to 5 years
after graduation is substantially lower. Possible explanations to the fact that many
change their plans is the low unemployment rate in Norway and a comparatively
generous welfare system including long maternal leave.9 Women with young children
are less likely to work abroad, and this can be seen as a support for the latter interpretation. However, further research is needed to shed more light on this issue.
International Jobs: Variation Due to
Type of Education and Region
Mobile students’ jobs are on average more international than the jobs of nonmobile students, in line with the findings of Maiworm and Teichler (2002). However,
it is important to note that not all mobile students obtain jobs including international work assignments or an international employer. Are they likely to be disappointed, and has the sojourn abroad been a waste of time for these groups? To get
the full picture of this, qualitative interviews are required. Some graduates may
have expected to make more use of their international skills than they currently do.
Our results show that the likelihood of having an international job increases over
time, hence it seems likely that more graduates will eventually find job matches
where their international skills can be applied.
We have seen that there is substantial variation between graduates from different
subject fields, in accordance with Hypothesis 3. The variation probably reflects the
structure and the demand of the labour market more than individual attributes.
Some parts of the labour market are more internationalised and globalised than others.
For example, we have seen that graduates with degrees in business and administration hold international jobs, irrespective of whether their education is undertaken
abroad or domestically. Mobile students with higher degrees in science and technology (of which the majority are civil engineers) constitute the group with the most
international jobs. Those who have studied health sciences have jobs that are less
international than others. The added value of studying abroad may be limited for
graduates in the latter subject fields, at least from a professional point of view. This
may have been clear to the mobile students all the way. As mentioned, medical students and students in other health sciences do not express a high interest in living
abroad or pursuing an international career (Wiers-Jenssen, 2003). Thus, they may
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
23
be sufficiently content with having obtained the education and profession they were
aiming for, even though horizontal career opportunities are not substantially altered.
These groups easily find jobs in the domestic labour market, independent of the
origin of the education (Wiers-Jenssen & Try, 2005). If some mobile students are
to be disappointed, it might as well be the graduates in business and administration.
These graduates do not obtain more international jobs than their domestically
educated counterparts, which may arouse a feeling of relative deprivation—if they
had higher expectations. Potential discrepancies between expectations and professional outcomes of study abroad will be investigated in a follow-up study.
From the government’s perspective, it may not be considered a problem that
some groups do not report extensive use of linguistic and cultural skills. Again,
those who have studied health sciences constitute a good example. They supply the
domestic labour market with formal skills currently in great demand, and the cost
attached to supporting them with grants and loans for studying abroad is lower than
the potential cost of expanding the domestic enrolment capacity. Although the cultural outcome may be limited, these groups are successful in terms of educational
and economic rationales for student export.
We have seen that those who have studied in English-speaking countries make
more use of language skills gained abroad than those who have studied elsewhere.
Good command of English may be seen as general or transnational human capital
rather than country-specific human capital. However, more research on the applicability of different language skills in a domestic labour market is needed. Norwegian
students are encouraged (financially and rhetorically) by the government to study
in other countries than English-speaking ones, and evaluations of the effects of this
policy seem pertinent.
Duration of Sojourn Abroad
Mobile students who graduated abroad are more prone to acquire working experience abroad after graduation and to be employed abroad at the time of the data
collection, compared to mobile students who graduated domestically. However,
when looking at the chance of holding an international job in the domestic labour
market, the difference between the two groups of mobile students is small. Hence,
the results only partly support Hypothesis 2 and diverge from the findings of Jahr
and Teichler (2000), who found that those not participating in ERASMUS make
more use of their international competence. From this, can we draw the conclusion
that the length of the sojourn abroad is not important? It seems fairly obvious that
the country-specific human capital gained abroad accumulates over time. However,
positive signalling effects of education from abroad may not increase with longer
sojourns, and diplomas from foreign institutions may not be optimal in attracting
the interest of employers. Previous analyses of this data set indicates that shorter
sojourns abroad have more positive signalling effects than long sojourns, as mobile
24
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
students who graduated domestically had a higher employment rate than mobile students
with long sojourns abroad (Wiers-Jenssen & Try, 2005). Hence, mobile students
who graduated domestically may be offered relatively better opportunities for
using international skills, independent of the level of their skills. Also, we have to
be aware that the mobility categories used in this article are broad and the number
of respondents in the group of mobile students who graduated domestically is limited. More comparisons between free movers/spontaneous mobile students and
participants in organized exchange programmes, measuring language proficiency,
and other extracurricular skills as well as labour market outcomes should be topics
for future investigations. Our definition of international job may also be discussed—
more or other variables included or different weighting of variables in the index
may have given other results.
Extended Perspectives
International skills and international jobs cover more aspects than those measured
in this article. Applicability of language skills could be mapped in more detail, and
personal and professional relations and networks acquired abroad are not
addressed. Moreover, studying abroad enables a wide range of experiences, making
a difference to the personal development and identity of individuals independent of
immediate vertical or horizontal career changes. Such experiences can also influence
the mobile students’ perspectives and attitudes, and the way they solve their work
tasks. These aspects can also be valuable to employers and society. Country-specific
human capital and professional networks in other countries contribute to diversity
in companies and society. Such diversity is by many considered as important for creativity and economic growth. Many aspects of internationalisation and impacts of
study abroad are hard to estimate, and our focus has been to analyse a few, but measurable, outcomes, using a quite unique data set.
CONCLUSION
Human capital from abroad has significant effects on vertical career outcomes.
Mobile students are more likely to work abroad after graduation than nonmobile
students. Analysing the predictors of working abroad, we found relatively small
differences between graduates from different subject fields. The decision to work
abroad seems to be more influenced by family status and performance indicators;
however, we also found that the performance indicator intake score increases likelihood of working abroad.
Mobile students more frequently have jobs with international work assignments
in the Norwegian labour market, meaning that country-specific or transnational
human capital acquired abroad definitely makes a difference in horizontal career.
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
25
In line with our hypotheses, education from abroad has varying effects on vertical
career dimensions according to subject field and the region in which the education
is undertaken, and we argue that it is important to include such variables when
investigating differences in professional outcomes.
Mobile students who graduated abroad are far more likely to be employed abroad
than mobile students who graduated from domestic HEIs. However, regarding
holding an international job in the domestic labour market, there are relatively
small differences between the two groups of mobile students.
Appendix Table 1A
Mean Values on Central Variables
Variables Defined for All Graduates
AGE: number of years
GENDER: Female (0, 1)
CHILDREN: Children younger than school
age (0, 1)
MARRIED: Married or cohabitant (0, 1)
PARENTHE: Parents with HE, one or
both (0, 1)
ABROAD17: Lived abroad at age 17
years (0, 1)
INTAKSC: Intake score, average grade level
from upper secondary school (2, 6)a
INTAKSCX: Intake score not comparable
or unknown
ACPERF: Academic performance relative
to costudents (–2 to +2)a
ACPERFX: Academic performance relative
to costudents unknown (0, 1)
YEARHE: number of years in HE
RELEXP: number of months relevant working
experience during HE
CORHORT97 (0, 1)
COHORT98 (0, 1)
COHORT99 (0, 1)
Employed (0, 1)
JOBABR: Employed abroad November
2002 (0, 1)
Natural science and technology, high level
Business and administration
Social sciences
Humanities
Medicine
MOBILE:
Graduated
abroad
MOBILE:
Graduated
domestically
NONMOBILE
30.2
.45
.27
30.7
.56
.27
31.1
.61
.37
.68
.67
.71
.71
.73
.56
.03
.03
.00
4.50
4.80
4.56
.14
.09
.06
.81
.80
.64
.06
.08
.09
5.16
1.74
6.00
8.35
5.29
15.07
.08
.47
.44
.92
.19
.23
.50
.27
.94
.06
.16
.49
.34
.96
.02
.18
.32
.08
.02
.06
.24
.17
.11
.16
.04
.25
.06
.09
.08
.04
(continued)
26
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Appendix Table 1A (continued)
MOBILE:
Graduated
abroad
Variables Defined for All Graduates
Health sciences, high level (pharmacy,
dental, and veterinarian studies)
Health care sciences lower level (nursing
and physiotherapy)
Arts
Other sciences
Variables defined for mobile students
NORDIC: Studied in Nordic countries (0, 1)
UK: Graduated from United Kingdom or
Ireland (0, 1)
EURO: Graduated from other European
countries (0, 1)
US: Graduated from the United States (0, 1)
REST: Graduated from other countries (0, 1)
Variables defined for graduates
employed in Norway
INTERNF:Working in international firm (0, 1)
INTERNFX: Origin of firm unknown
Business travel abroad (0, 1)
Average # of days of business travel abroad
TRAVNO: 0 days of business travel abroad
TRAVLOW: 1-10 days of business travel abroad
TRAVHIGH: More than 10 days of business
travel abroad
Use of foreign language in current job (0, 1)
Use of foreign language in telephone, direct
contact (1-4)b
Use of foreign language for e-mail, letters (1-4)b
Use of foreign language for reading of specialist
literature (1-4)b
Use of foreign language in writing notes/reports
etc. (1-4)b
Use of foreign language for presentations,
conferences, meetings (1-4)b
Use of foreign language in informal contact with
colleagues (1-4)b
Mean score on the above indicators
International job, index (0-6)
EXPABR: Been employed abroad between
graduation and Nov. 2002
HELPLUSS: work more than full time
Note: HE = higher education.
a. Missing values are set equal to mean value.
b. Missing values are set to 1.
MOBILE:
Graduated
domestically
NONMOBILE
.03
.02
.02
.17
.17
.43
.04
.08
.02
.07
.01
.02
.21
.33
.13
.16
.19
.35
.22
.04
.22
.15
.50
.05
.36
8.0
.65
.19
.16
.40
.06
.40
9.9
.62
.17
.21
.26
.06
.20
3.5
.81
.12
.07
.90
2.27
.92
2.21
.82
1.79
2.24
2.66
2.22
2.82
1.64
2.24
2.02
2.16
1.59
1.85
1.89
1.52
1.87
1.88
1.46
2.34
2.89
.19
2.21
2.92
.07
1.71
1.88
.01
.34
.22
.20
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
27
NOTES
1. One also has to be aware that a lower level of country-specific human capital
of the home country may be attached to undertaking education abroad (e.g., systemspecific knowledge, national agendas, contacts). In this respect, absence of relevant
country-specific human capital may be a drawback when entering the domestic
labour market. However, we do not expect country-specific human capital to be a
drawback for mobile students when investigating the internationalisation aspects of
horizontal career dimensions.
2. Higher level studies are defined as those requiring more than 4 years of higher
education (HE) in Norway. The major higher level studies not included in the survey are law, teaching/pedagogy, and degrees related to primary industries. These
studies are excluded because very few Norwegians study these subjects abroad.
Lower degree studies included in the survey are business administration, nursing,
and physiotherapy.
3. Domestic graduates are drawn from the Education Administrative Register of
Statistics Norway, whereas abroad graduates are drawn from the State Education Loan
Fund data register. The former register includes all graduates from Norwegian institutions (except one private business and administration college: The Norwegian School
for Management BI), whereas the latter includes all graduates from abroad that have
applied for loan and grants. Because of the generous financial support schemes
directed toward students abroad, most abroad graduates will be included in the register (Wiers-Jenssen, 2003). This register does not define completed and noncompleted
studies adequately; thus students concluding their studies without graduating are
included in the gross sample but are excluded from the data set used in this article.
4. This measure may be somewhat compounded as students who are delayed in
their studies are registered with a high number of years in HE.
5. The figure is based on the numbers who have answered each of the questions.
When constructing the variable international firm for the regression analyses,
“missing values” was set to 0, hence the mean value on that variable is lower.
6. This is because the scores for the two groups were very similar.
7. For application of language, we have added all items in Figure 3 and divided
the scores into four categories, each comprising approximately 25% of the sample.
8. We do not have exact information on this. However, one in six mobile students
who graduated abroad reported to use a foreign language at home that may be seen
as an indication of a foreign partner.
9. When the survey was conducted, in fourth quarter, 2002, the unemployment
rate in Norway was 4.1% compared to 5.9% in the United States, and 7.8% as the
European Union average.
References
Arrow, K. J. (1973). Higher education as a filter. Journal of Public Economics, 2,
193-216.
28
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Becker, G. (1964). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Blumentahl, P., Goodwin, C., Smith, A., & Teichler, U. (1996). Academic mobility
in a changing world. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Børdahl, B. (2003). Norwegian nursing students and clinical studies abroad. Tacoma,
WA: Pacific Lutheran University Press.
Bracht, O., Engel, C., Janson, K., Over, A., Schombourg, H., & Teichler, U. (2006).
The professional value of ERASMUS mobility. Kassel, Germany: International
Centre for Higher Education Research.
Carlson, J., Burn, B., Useem, J., & Yachimowicz, D. (1990). Study abroad. The
experience of American undergraduates. New York: Greenwood.
Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (2003). The complementarity of language and
other human capital: Immigrant earnings in Canada. Economics of Education
Review, 22, 469-480.
Centrala Studiestödsnämden. (1995). At studera utomlands med studiemedel [Studying
abroad with student support]. Sundsvall, Sweden: Centrala Studiestödsnämden.
Duvander, A.-Z. (2001). Do country-specific skills lead to improved labor market
positions? Work and Occupations, 28, 210-233.
Friedberg, R. M. (2000). You can’t take it with you? Immigrant assimilation and
the portability of human capital. Journal of Labor Economics, 18, 221-251.
Holmes, R. (2004). Norwegian students’ perceptions of the cost and benefits of
study abroad. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Oslo, Norway.
Jahr, V., & Teichler, U. (2000). Employment and work of former Erasmus students.
Retrieved July 16, 2002, from http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/evaluation/
soc5.pdf.
Kelo, M., Teichler, U., & Wächeter, B. (Eds.). (2006). EURODATA. Bonn, Germany:
Lemmens.
Klinenberg, O., & Hull, F. (1979). At a foreign university. An international study of
adaptation and coping. New York: Praeger.
Knight, J. (2004). Internationalization remodeled: Definition, approaches and rationales.
Journal of Studies in International Education, 8, 5-31.
Knight, J., & de Wit, H. (1995). Strategies for internationalisation of higher education:
Historical and conceptual perspectives, In H. de Wit (Ed.), Strategies for internationalisation of higher education (pp. 5-32). Amsterdam, Netherlands: European
Association for International Education.
Krzaklewska, E., & Krupnik, S. (2006). The experience of studying abroad for exchange
students in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: Erasmus Student Network.
Maiworm, F., & Teichler, U. (2002). The students’ experience. In U. Teichler (Ed.),
ERASMUS in the SOCRATES programme (pp. 83-116). Bonn, Germany:
Lemmens.
Mincer, J. (1958). Investments in human capital and personal income distribution.
Journal of Political Economy, 96, 281-302.
Wiers-Jenssen / Higher Education Abroad
29
Ministry of Education and Research. (1996-1997). Om studier i utlandet [On study
abroad] (White paper No. 19). Oslo, Norway: Author.
Ministry of Education and Research. (2000-2001). Gjør din plikt—krev din rett [On
reform of quality of higher education] (White paper No 27). Oslo, Norway: Author.
Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe. London:
Routledge.
Nerdrum, L., Ramberg, I., & Sarpebakken, B. (2003). Inngående forskermobilitet
i Norge [Inward mobility of researchers to Norway] (Skriftserie 10/2003). Oslo,
Norway: Norsk Institutt for Studier av Forskning og Utdanning.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2005) Education at a
glance 2005. Paris: Author.
Opper, S., Teichler, U., & Carlson, J. (1990). Impacts of study abroad programmes
on students and graduates. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Özden, C., & Schiff, M. (2006). International migration, remittances and the brain
drain. Washington, DC, and New York: World Bank and Palgrave Macmillan.
Spence, M. (1973). Job market signalling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 18,
355-374.
Støren, L. A. (2005). Arbeidsledighet blant innvandrere med høyere utdanning
[Unemployment among immigrants with higher education]. Søkelys på arbeidsmarkedet, 22, 51-64.
Teichler, U. (Ed.). (2002). ERASMUS on the SOCRATES programme. Findings of
an evaluation study. Bonn, Germany: Lemmens.
Teichler, U., & Maiworm, F. (1996). Study abroad and early career: Experiences
of former ERASMUS students. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Van Damme, D. (2001). Quality issues in the internationalisation of higher education.
Higher Education, 41, 415-441.
van der Wende, M. (1997). Missing links. The relationship between national policies
for internationalisation and those for higher education in general. In T. Kälvemark
& M. van der Wende (Eds.), National policies for the internationalisation of
higher education in Europe (pp. 10-41). Stockholm, Sweden: National Agency of
Higher Education.
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2003). Norwegian students abroad. Experiences of students
from a linguistically and geographically peripheral European country. Studies in
Higher Education, 28, 391–411.
Wiers-Jenssen, J. (2005). Utbytte av utdanning i utlandet. Overgang fra utdanning
til arbeid blant nordmenn med høyere utdanning fra utlandet [Outcomes of
study abroad. Transition from education to work among Norwegians with
higher education from abroad] (NIFU STEP rapport 3/2005). Oslo, Norway:
Studier av Innovasjon Forskning og Utdanning.
Wiers-Jenssen, J., & Try, S. (2005). Labour market outcomes of higher education
undertaken abroad. Studies in Higher Education, 30, 681-705.
30
Journal of Studies in International Education
Season XXXX
Williams, T. R. (2005). Exploring the impact of study abroad on students’ intercultural communication skills: Adaptability and sensitivity. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 9, 356-371.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen is a senior researcher at Studies in Innovation, Research, and
Education (NIFU STEP) in Oslo, Norway. Her main research topics are study abroad,
transition from higher education to work for mobile students, student satisfaction, curriculum reforms, and medical students.