Jannecke Wiers-Jenssen

The Covid-19 pandemic resulted in significant disruptions to both international student mobility and labour markets. Against this background, this scoping review documents findings from 35 studies, published between January 2020 and February 2024, that focused on international student mobility, Covid-19, labour market outcomes, and related regulations. The review shows that the Covid-19 pandemic negatively impacted (1) the labour market outcomes of international students before studying abroad, through changes in visa regulations, (2) skill acquisition during their mobility, (3) the duration of their studies, and (4) the availability of jobs during and after their mobility period. These negative impacts occurred at a time when international students’ needs for work were heightened. This ‘double whammy’ was more pronounced among international students from lower socio-economic backgrounds, increasing pre-existing inequalities. It was also affected by students’ residency status and policy changes. These findings underline the critical role that temporality plays in shaping the returns to international student mobility. However, the existing literature on the topic is relatively sparse and has primarily relied upon qualitative approaches and rapid research. Future studies are needed to better understand the impact of Covid-19 on the labour market outcomes of international students.

While intrinsic motivation is often seen as the ideal form of motivation for entering higher education, students may also have external motivations related to the life after graduation. There has been limited focus on how different enrolment motivations are related to dropping out of higher education. In this study, we investigated how motivations and dropping out are related in nursing programmes versus business administration programmes. The study demonstrates that type of motivation predicts the risk of dropping out differently for students of the two study programmes. For nursing students, intrinsic motivation reduces the risk of leaving the programme before completion, while for business administration students an instrumental type of motivation related to status and money reduces this. The study nuances the assumption that intrinsic motivation for choosing a study programme is the most favourable form of motivation when it comes to persistence through the programme.

The future of the humanities has been the subject of debate in several countries where it is often stated that too many students are accepted into courses that offer relatively poor employment opportunities. In this article, we examine the development in mismatch among master’s graduates in Norway for the period 1995–2015, to see whether this situation is reflected here, and if it applies to all subfields of the humanities. Two types of market mismatch among new graduates are investigated: unemployment and over-education. The findings indicate that master’s graduates in the humanities are slightly more exposed to unemployment than other graduates and clearly more exposed to over-education. The proportion of over-educated graduates increased during the latter part of the 1990s but has been relatively stable since 2003. Graduates in language studies are less frequently mismatched, while graduates in literature, culture studies and philosophy face more challenges. Combined with the fact that labour market mismatch of graduates in the humanities in Norway is substantially lower than neighbouring countries, this suggests that transition from higher education to the labour market for graduates in the humanities should not be perceived as challenging per se, but depends on subfields and contextual factors.

In this paper we consider the experiences of international students studying in Norway, analysing data from more than 5,000 survey respondents. Variations according to students’ region of origin and whether they are full degree students or exchange students are the focus. Students report a high level of overall satisfaction, exchange students in particular, and the vast majority of students are content with the quality of teaching. Students from the African continent report being more content than others, despite struggling somewhat more with academic demands and having weaker social networks, something they have in common with Asian students. Multivariate analyses show that type of mobility (full degree cf. exchange), region of origin, coping with academic demands, satisfaction with teaching and interaction with Norwegians are predictors of overall satisfaction with studying in Norway. The patterns observed are assumed to be related to prior experiences and expectations.

In this paper we have investigated students’ motivations for undertaking a full degree abroad. It examines how motivations can be categorised, and if this varies according to gender, social origin, field of study and mobility capital (previous experience of living abroad or parents who have done so). The analyses are based on a survey of Norwegian students abroad, containing information from more than 4100 respondents. The three underlying dimensions of motivations identified are “Exploration”, “Pragmatism” and “Differentiation”, indicating that the traditional division between push and pull motivation is too simplistic. “Exploration”, the most strongly accentuated dimension, is particularly prominent among female students. “Pragmatism” is highly important for students enrolled in long, professional programmes with strict admission restrictions in Norway, such as medicine. “Differentiation” is more emphasised by students with high mobility capital. In general, motivations are more likely to vary according to field of study than sociodemographic factors, but mobility capital also exerts a substantial influence.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether international student mobility (ISM) has an impact on the transition from higher education to work. Two measures of labour market outcomes are investigated: unemployment and skills mismatch. To go beyond existing research, we analyse whether the effect of ISM on these outcomes vary by fields of study, intake grades, sociodemographic variables and more. Our analyses are based on data from the Norwegian graduate surveys time series from 2007 to 2017. After controlling for several confounding factors, we find very small differences in labour market outcomes between graduates with and without ISM experience. In comparison with field of study, immigrant background, previous labour market experience and business cycles, the effect of ISM on the examined labour market outcomes is small. Investigating whether graduates with different backgrounds benefit differently from ISM, we find evidence of moderate effect heterogeneities: Graduates with high intake grades and graduates in business and administration seem to benefit somewhat more. Regarding social origin and immigrant background, no heterogeneous effects are found. Contrary to findings from previous studies, we do not find that those least likely to study abroad benefit the most from it. Rather, there is a tendency that groups with the greatest likelihood of studying abroad are those who benefit most.

Norway has experienced a substantial influx of students in the 21st century. The number of students with foreign citizenship has increased from just over 5,000 in 2000 to more than 23,000 in 2018, as seen in Figure 1 (DBH, 2020). This growth may seem like a paradox, given that Norway has few well-known higher education institutions, high living expenses, a language not widely understood, and a geographical location at the northern fringes of Europe. Figure 1: Number of Bachelor and Master Students in Norway with Foreign Citizenship 2000–2018 So why do students choose Norway? A deliberate policy for internationalization of higher education developed is an important factor. From the 1980s, internationalization has increasingly become an integral part of national higher education policies as well as included as strategies of higher education institutions (Wiers-Jenssen & Sandersen, 2017). The main rationale for encouraging student mobility is educational; mobility is seen a tool for quality enhancement in higher education. However, economic, cultural,and political rationales are also present. The fact that the vast majority of higher education institutions are public partly explains why internationalization policies quite efficiently has trickled down from the national to the institutional level. Most Norwegian higher education institutions do not charge tuition fees. This has gradually become a comparative advantage, as an increasing number of neighboring countries have introduced fees for students from outside Europe. Hence, there may be economic rationales for choosing Norway as a study destination, despite high costs of living. Students from developing countries may qualify for funding from the Norwegian government, while students from other countries have to cover all expenses themselves. Higher education institutions have economic incentives other than tuition fees for attracting international students. A reform in Norwegian higher education implemented in 2003 introduced a performance-based funding system (Frölich, 2006). Higher education institutions are rewarded for the number of credit points awarded, implying a stronger focus on attracting students in general. A significant increase in the number of courses and programs in English has facilitated recruitment of international students (Wiers-Jenssen, 2019). International students cited courses in English and absence of tuition fees as the most frequently reported motives for studying in Norway (Diku, 2019a; Wiers-Jenssen, 2019). The latter is particularly important for students undertaking a full degree in Norway. Features of Norway, such as peaceful, safe, and technologically advanced society and unspoiled countryside are also accentuated. As these characteristics were present also before the number of international students started to grow, such motives must be understood in relation to conditions that have changed, such as availability of courses in English. Beautiful scenery and safety would have limited attractional value if courses in English were not offered. Quality is a less highlighted reason for choosing Norway as a study destination. But even if perceived quality is not a main attraction, international students in general give positive assessments of the quality of their education (Diku, 2019a). They cope quite well with academic demands, and their main challenges seem to be dealing with the high living expenses and limited interaction with Norwegians. The latter represents a challenge also for higher education institutions, as a major rationale for recruiting international students is to enhance “internationalization at home” (exposing Norwegian students and faculty to perspectives from abroad). If interaction is scarce, so is the exchange of ideas and perspectives. Foreign students in Norway consist of three groups (see Figure 2): (a) students who come to undertake a full postgraduate degree (international graduate students), corresponding to the definition of international students used in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2020) statistics; (b) students who come for a shorter study of 3 months or more (international exchange students); and (c)students who come for study sojourn of less than three months or who have come to Norway for other reasons, including (labor) migrants, refugees and more. In total, these three groups constituted 8.7% of total enrollments in Norwegian higher education institutions in 2018 (own calculation based on DBH). Figure 2: Bachelor and Master students in Norway with Foreign Citizenship, 2018: Number and Type of Students PhD students are not included in the figures mentioned above, and an exact numberof current doctoral students cannot be estimated. However, the number of foreign citizens completing a PhD was 657 in 2018, 42 per cent of all PhD graduates (Research Council of Norway, 2019). Hence, the proportion of foreign citizens is far higher at the doctorate level than at the bachelor and master level. This is in line with the situation in most European and North American countries (OECD, 2019). The largest universities (University of Oslo and Norwegian University of Science and Technology) attract the highest number of international students. These are also among the few Norwegian higher education institution found on international ranking lists. However, some small specialized higher education institutions such as the Academy of Fine Art, The Oslo School of Architecture and Design, and the Norwegian Academy of Music have higher proportions of international students. The majority of international students originate from Europe and Asia (Diku, 2019b). China, Nepal, Sweden and Germany are currently the major sending countries of full degree students. Exchange students are mainly Europeans, and many of these come through the European Union student exchange program ERASMUS. European exchange students are often attracted by the...

Between 2000 and 2015, Norway has experienced a large increase in the number of international students compared with many other countries. At first glance, this may seem paradoxical considering that Norway is a country with few well-known universities, a high cost of living, and a geographical location on the northern fringe of Europe. This article sheds light on why more students find their way to Norway. Global trends of increased student mobility as well as EU policies influence the flow of students to Norway. Nevertheless, national higher education policies and in this development. Courses in English and more active partnerships with higher education institutions abroad have been established to attract international students. Furthermore, tuition fees are not charged in state-owned universities and colleges, and this has become a comparative advantage in an era when institutions in other countries are introducing or increasing tuition fees for national as well as international students. Asking the international students themselves about their motivation for studying in Norway, we find that the rationale is pragmatic rather than related to perceived quality. Their choices still appear rational; they get free higher education in a safe country, and increase their career opportunities.