1. PROFILE OF THE 1999 ERASMUS GRADUATE · 1. Profile of the 1999 Erasmus graduate 3 comprises...

1. PROFILE OF THE 1999 ERASMUS GRADUATEThe population surveyed consisted of 39,618 graduates – attending the

eighteen universities involved in the ALMALAUREA Project before 1999 – whocompleted the survey questionnaire. Of these graduates, 2,844 (7.2 per cent) hadtaken part in an Erasmus foreign study programme during their university studies; afurther 145 (0.4 per cent) had participated in a European Union study programmeother than Erasmus; 3,410 (8.6 per cent) had undertaken other forms of studyabroad; but the great majority of them (80.8 per cent) had gained no experienceof foreign study while attending university. The last three groups (‘other EuropeanUnion programmes’, ‘other forms of foreign study’ and ‘no experience of foreignstudy’, which together constitute 89.8 per cent of graduates, form the class of‘non–Erasmus programme’ graduates (Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES1999 – percentage values

other EUprogrammes 0.4%

Erasmusprogramme 7.2%

not stated 3.0%

other formsof foreignstudy 8.6%

no experienceof foreignstudy 80.8%

Erasmus programmenon Erasmus programme (89.8%)

Source:ALMALAUREA database.

1.1 Universities, faculties and degree coursesThe universities with the highest percentages of Erasmus graduates (more

than 10 per cent) are Trento, Siena, Trieste and the Venice Institute of Architecture

ER A S MU S/SO CR A TE S G R A D UA T ES – 1999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

(IUAV). Florence and Turin Polytechnic exceed the average value for universities asa whole (7.2 per cent), Bologna equals it, while all the other universities score lowervalues (Figure 1.2 and Panel 1.1 in the Appendix). Of course, participation inErasmus programmes by students depends on the degree courses offered by theiruniversities. It should consequently be borne in mind that each university has only acertain number of faculties, and that none of them has instituted all the nineteenfaculties present in the eighteen universities involved in the survey. Moreover,universities differ substantially in size, ranging from the 8,955 graduates from theUniversity of Bologna to the 152 of the University of Rome – Lumsa.

Figure 1.2 – ERASMUS GRADUATES BY UNIVERSITY1999 – percentage values

7.2%

2.5%

2.6%

3.4%

3.7%

4.4%

5.9%

6.0%

6.1%

6.3%

6.6%

6.6%

7.2%

8.3%

8.7%

10.6%

11.7%

12.9%

14.0%

0 20 40 60 80 100

TOTAL

Eastern Piedmont

Messina

Molise

Catania

Chieti

Parma

Modena and Reggio Emilia

Ferrara

Turin University

Udine

Rome - Lumsa

Bologna

Turin Polytechnic

Florence

Venice Architecture (IUAV)

Trieste

Siena

Trento

Erasmus programmenon Erasmus programmenot stated


As regards faculties, the School of Modern Languages, with graduates atBologna and Trieste, has by far the highest percentage of Erasmus graduates (58.5per cent), followed by Sociology (only at Trento) and Industrial Chemistry (only atBologna), two faculties with relatively high percentages of Erasmus graduates butsmall numbers of total graduates. Among the large–sized faculties, Arts (which

1. Prof i le of the 1999 Erasmus g raduate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

comprises graduates in foreign languages and literature) and Political Sciencehave the largest percentages of Erasmus graduates; Architecture and Economicsoccupy medium–to–high positions in the table, Engineering and Law occupymedium–to–low ones; Mathematics, Physics and Natural Sciences and, inparticular, Medicine are notable for their low percentages of Erasmus graduates(Figure 1.3 and Appendix Panel 1.2).

Figure 1.3 – ERASMUS GRADUATES BY FACULTY1999 – percentage values

58.5%

16.0%

13.1%

11.4%

10.7%

10.6%

8.8%

8.5%

8.1%

7.5%

6.2%

6.0%

5.5%

5.2%

3.5%

3.4%

3.0%

2.4%

2.3%

7.2%

0 20 40 60 80 100

TOTAL

Psychology

Medicine

Veterinary Science

Pharmacy

Mathematics, Physics and Natural Sciences

Statistics

Law

Education

Engineering

Economics

Agriculture

Conservation of Cultural Assets

Architecture

Political Science

Foreign Languages and Literature

Arts

Industrial Chemistry

Sociology

School of Modern Languages



Analysis of Erasmus graduates by faculty, however, is hampered by the factthat degree courses are organized in different ways among universities, so that insome cases a degree course is not taught in the same faculty of all the universitiesconcerned, but in different ones. Of particular interest for the Erasmus graduatesurvey is the case of the degree course in Foreign Languages and Literature.

There are faculties of Foreign Languages and Literature at Chieti, Udine andBologna (with a total of 262 graduates, 28 of whom are Erasmus graduates). In afurther ten universities (Catania, Florence, Messina, Parma, Eastern Piedmont,


4

Rome–Lumsa, Siena, Turin University, Trento and Trieste) – and at Bologna itself –the degree course in foreign languages and literature is part of the Arts orEducation faculties (with a total of 1,554 graduates, of whom 350 are Erasmusgraduates). Analysis carried out exclusively by faculty fails to take account ofthese 350 students because they are mixed together with the Erasmus graduatesof other Arts or Education courses.

Classification by group of degree courses overcomes this problem:graduates from the same degree course are always allocated to the same groupeven if, due to the different structuring of universities, they belong to differentfaculties. The language group, which comprises the School of Modern Languagesand courses in foreign languages and literature, has the largest proportion ofErasmus graduates (24.7 per cent), followed by the political–social science (12 percent). At the bottom of the table, with percentages amounting to less than 5 percent, are medicine, geo–biology, psychology, education, chemistry–pharmacyand science (Figure 1.4 and Appendix Panel 1.3).(1)

Figure 1.4 – ERASMUS GRADUATES BY GROUP OF DEGREE COURSE1999 – percentage values

(1) Analysis by degree course – not reported here in full for reasons of space – yields

interesting results, the most important of which are the following. Non–participation inErasmus programmes characterizes both medicine (2.5 per cent) and dentistry (1.8 percent), which is the other course taught in medical faculties. In pharmacy faculties, bycontrast, degree courses in chemistry and pharmaceutical technology (with 5.8 per cent ofErasmus graduates) surpass pharmacy (only 1.6 per cent) in terms of Erasmus participation.Of the 79 graduates in international and diplomatic studies (taught in the political sciencefaculty) at Trieste, 44.4 per cent were ex–Erasmus students, while 18.8 per cent of the total414 graduates from communication studies courses at the arts and education faculties offive universities had participated in Erasmus programmes. At the other extreme, of the 383graduates in information sciences (degree course in science faculties), only one had takenpart in an Erasmus programme.


5

24.7%

12.0%

8.8%

7.5%

6.4%

6.2%

5.8%

5.5%

4.7%

3.9%

3.3%

2.8%

2.7%

2.4%

7.2%

0 20 40 60 80 100

TOTAL

Medicine

Geo–Biology

Psychology

Education

Chemistry–Pharmacy

Science

Law

Arts

Engineering

Agriculture

Economics–Statistics

Architecture

Political–Social Sciences

Languages



1.2 Personal dataFemales made up 56 per cent of the overall population surveyed: they

constituted 55.8 per cent of non–Erasmus graduates, an amount slightly below the57 per cent of Erasmus graduates. Considering this minor difference and the factthat degree courses in languages are characterized by high participation in theErasmus programme and, at the same time, by the numerical prevalence offemale graduates, one may conclude that sex is not a discriminant in access tothe programme (Figure 1.5 and Appendix Panel 1.4).

Figure 1.5 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES, BY GENDER1999 – percentage values

Erasmus non–Erasmus


6

57.0%43.0%

males females

55.8%44.2%

malesfemales


Erasmus graduates are on average more than a year younger than non–Erasmus graduates, although their age on graduation (26.3 years on average) israther high in absolute terms (Figure 1.6 and Appendix Panel 1.5). The differencebetween the two groups is associated with the greater timeliness with whichErasmus graduate complete their degree courses (cf. § 1.4).

Figure 1.6 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES, BY AGE ON GRADUATION1999 – percentage values


average age on graduation: 26.3

29.6%

44.2%

26.2%

under 2525-26 over 27 average age on graduation: 27.5

18.0%

38.1%

43.9%

under 2525-26 over 27

Source:


7

ALMALAUREA database.

Analysis of residence reveals lower participation in Erasmus programmes bygraduates from the southern regions of Italy, who account for 25.1 per cent ofnon–Erasmus graduates and 17.3 per cent of Erasmus graduates (Figure 1.7 andAppendix Panel 1.6a). This result can be associated with the findings of the analysisby university (§ 1.1). The gap between the Centre–North and South of the countryis manifest both among graduates who reside in the same region as theiruniversities (Appendix Panel 1.6b) and among those who reside in other regions(Appendix Panel 1.6c), although a larger proportion of southern graduatesattending universities outside their regions of residence have taken part in Erasmusprogrammes.

Figure 1.7 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES, BY RESIDENCE1999 – percentage values


61.7%

19.9%

1.2%17.3%

NorthCentreSouth and Islandsabroad

59.8%

14.6%

0.6%25.1%

NorthCentreSouth and Islandsabroad


1.3 Social backgroundThe probability of participating in an Erasmus programme is influenced by

the socio–economic circumstances of a student’s family of origin.

Possession of high–level educational qualifications by the parents tends to beassociated with the greater economic well–being of the family of origin, and itmay at the same time foster a particularly favourable attitude within the householdtowards study abroad. The relation between parents’ educational qualificationsand the probability of taking part in Erasmus programmes therefore comes as nosurprise: 17.3 per cent of 1999 Erasmus graduates had both parents in possession of


8

degrees, while only 8.6 per cent of non–Erasmus participants did so. By contrast,graduates whose parents possessed no more than lower–secondary schoolcertificates represented 24.7 per cent of Erasmus graduates and 39 per cent ofnon–Erasmus graduates (Figure 1.8). These differences confirm the results of arecent European survey of the socio–economic situations of Erasmus studentswhich highlights this particular discriminatory factor.(2) Added to this is the fact thatgraduates – including those who have not pursued studies abroad – constitute agroup that is already highly select in terms of parents’ educational levels,compared with the overall population of the same age.(3)

If the parents are highly qualified, this means that their children at universityalso have a greater probability of studying abroad on programmes other thanthose of the European Union, although in this case the relation is not as clear–cutas for Erasmus (Appendix Panel 1.7).

Figure 1.8 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES,BY PARENTS’ EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS

1999 – percentage valuesErasmus non–Erasmus

17.3%

21.1%

1.8%

24.7%

35.1%both with degreesone with a degreeupper-secondary schoollower qualification or nonenot stated

8.6%

15.4%

1.8%39.0%

35.2%both with degreesone with a degreeupper-secondary schoollower qualification or nonenot stated


A similar selection process is highlighted by analysis of Erasmus and non–Erasmus graduates according to the father’s last occupation (Figure 1.9). A high–ranking occupation (executive or senior manager, free professional, entrepreneur)tends to be associated with a greater likelihood that the son or daughter will takepart in an Erasmus programme. The reverse is the case of the offspring of blue–

(2) Cf. Commission of the European Communities, 2000, and Finocchietti, 2000.(3) Cf. Università degli Studi di Bologna – Osservatorio Statistico, 1997 and 2000.


9

collar workers, who are under–represented among Erasmus students. In this casethe results differ from those obtained by the European survey, which – though usingclassification criteria different from those adopted by this Report – did not findsignificant differences between the Erasmus students and the overall universitypopulation in terms of the socio–economic circumstances of families of origin.(4)

Besides conditioning the chances of access to an Erasmus mobilityprogramme, father’s last occupation also increases the probability that a studentwill study abroad on a programme other than those organized by the EuropeanUnion (Appendix Panel 1.8).

Figure 1.9 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES, BY FATHER’S LAST OCCUPATION1999 – percentage values


25.1%

13.7%

8.6% 4.3%12.4%

27.2%

8.6%executive or senior managerfree professionalentrepreneurwhite-collar workerself-employed workerblue-collar workerfamily helper, home worker or not stated

18.2%

10.1%

16.3%4.5%

16.5%

27.6%

6.8%

executive or senior managerfree professionalentrepreneurwhite-collar workerself-employed workerblue-collar workerfamily helper, home worker or not stated


Distinguishing graduates according to social class – this being defined,besides the father’s last occupation, also by that of the mother and theeducational qualifications of both parents – yields results similar to those justreported: middle–class graduates are over–represented among Erasmus students,while working–class graduates are under–represented (Figure 1.10 and AppendixPanel 1.9).

(4) Cf. Commission of the European Communities, 2000, and Finocchietti, 2000.


10

Figure 1.10 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATE, BY SOCIAL CLASS1999 – percentage values


49.7%

26.9%

3.7%6.9%12.8%

bourgeoisiewhite-collar middle classpetty bourgeoisieworking classnon-classifiable

36.9%

27.1%

3.8%14.2%

17.9%

bourgeoisiewhite-collar middle classpetty bourgeoisieworking classnon-classifiable


Comparison between Erasmus and non–Erasmus graduates in relation toparents’ educational qualifications, father’s last profession and social class showsthat the socio–economic circumstances of the family of origin influences theprobability of participating in an Erasmus mobility programme. Marked differencesbetween Erasmus and non–Erasmus graduates are apparent within groups ofdegree courses, and especially in geo–biology, medicine and sciences –disciplinary areas in which participation in Erasmus programmes is distinctly lessfrequent. By contrast, in the group of languages degree courses, which have thehighest proportion of Erasmus students, socio–economic situation does notsignificantly differentiate between Erasmus and non–Erasmus graduates (AppendixPanel 1.10).

1.4 Success in university studiesGraduates who have undertaken Erasmus programmes are generally more

successful in their university studies. The fact that admission to these programmes isregulated by a classification drawn up according to performance in universityexaminations may explain this finding, but it is likely that the experience itself offoreign study is advantageous to Erasmus students when they return to theiruniversities.


11

As regards the general examination score (i.e. the overall average of marksobtained in individual examinations), Erasmus graduates achieve an average of0.8 points more than non–Erasmus graduates: 27.1 compared to 26.3 (Figure 1.11).It should be noted that, due to the close concentration of examination scoresaround these values (almost 20 per cent of graduates conclude their studies withgrades between 26 and 27), a difference of 0.8, though apparently minimal, is infact of particular significance. It might be argued that the difference between thetwo scores is due to the distribution of Erasmus graduates among faculties anddegree courses (if Erasmus students were particularly common in coursescharacterized by the awarding of high marks, this would explain their better finalgrades). But this is not the case: Erasmus graduates achieve an average of 0.6points more than the average among graduates from their own degree courses.Those who have instead studied abroad on another European Union programmeachieve scores which are on average only 0.3 points more than the average fortheir degree course, and those who have studied abroad on non–EU programmesachieve the same score as their course average (Appendix Panel 1.11).

It might also be argued that the more favourable socio–economiccircumstances of Erasmus graduates explain their better final examination scores.But the data contradict this hypothesis as well: on average, the scores of Erasmusgraduates are 0.7 points higher than those of graduates from their same socialclass, while the difference is 0.6 parental qualifications remaining equal.

Figure 1.11 – GENERAL EXAMINATION SCORESFOR ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES

1999 – averages

27.1

26.3

Erasmusnon-Erasmus



12

Analysis of final degree grades yields entirely similar results: Erasmusgraduates are awarded final degree grades which are 3.4 points higher onaverage than those awarded to non–Erasmus graduates, and 2.8 points higherthan the average grade earned by students on their degree courses (Figure 1.12and Appendix Panel 1.11).

Figure 1.12 – FINAL DEGREE GRADES FOR ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES1999 – averages

106.2

102.8

Erasmusnon-Erasmus


In all groups of degree courses, Erasmus graduates tend to obtain bettermarks, but especially so in Political–Social Studies (where they obtain an averageof 1.3 points more than their non–Erasmus counterparts: 27.7 compared to 26.4), inSciences (27.5 compared to 26.2), in Law (27.0 compared to 25.8), and inChemistry–Pharmacy (27.4 compared to 26.2). Within the Languages group, thedifference between Erasmus and non–Erasmus graduates is less marked (27.3compared to 27.2). Analysis of final degree grades confirms these results (AppendixPanel 1.14).

The better results achieved by Erasmus graduates is not confined to marksand grades alone; it is also apparent in their duration of studies (i.e. the time takento graduate). The difference between the two groups expressed by the medianvalue is 0.6 years (Figure 1.13). If one examines the average duration of universitystudies (which is higher than the median because it reflects long individualdurations to a greater extent), the difference between Erasmus and non–Erasmusgraduates increases to 0.9 years (Appendix Panel 1.12).

Figure 1.13 – DURATION OF STUDIES FOR ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES1999 – medians


13

6.57.1

Erasmusnon-Erasmus


Any suggestion that these differences are due to the fact that fewer Erasmusstudents attend degree courses of longer legal duration (5 or 6 years) is discountedby the index of study duration.(5) This indicator, which is not affected by differencesamong the legal durations of courses, confirms that Erasmus students as a wholecomplete their degree courses more rapidly than do non–Erasmus students (Figure1.14). Once again, Erasmus graduates in political–social sciences – with a medianduration index of 1.30 – differ markedly from their non–Erasmus counterparts (1.55).But in all groups of degree courses, Erasmus students take less time to graduatethan do non–Erasmus students (Appendix Panel 1.14).

Figure 1.14 – INDEX OF STUDY DURATIONFOR ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES

1999 – medians

(5) A graduate’s index of study duration is calculated as 1 + his/her delay before

graduating. More specifically, an index value of 1.00 is set for students who graduate onconclusion of the statutory terms of their degree courses. The greater amount of time takento graduate in ratio to this statutory term is added to 1, which yields the duration index. Forstudents who graduate before the statutory limit the index is less than 1, because theirdelay before graduating is of negative sign.


14

1.411.50

Erasmusnon-Erasmus


The distribution of graduates by number of years fuori corso (i.e. stillattending university beyond the legal duration of their courses because they havenot fulfilled examination requirements) confirms this pattern, although thepercentages of graduates who are perfectly on schedule with their studies arelargely the same in the two groups. The advantage of participation in an Erasmusprogramme is already apparent in the first year fuori corso, and it growsincreasingly evident from the fifth year fuori corso onwards, when 22.6 per cent ofnon–Erasmus students have still not graduated, compared to only 10.9 per cent ofErasmus students (Figure 1.15 and Appendix Panel 1.13).

Figure 1.15 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES,BY NUMBER OF YEARS FUORI CORSO ON GRADUATION

1999 – percentage valuesErasmus non–Erasmus

9.4%

22.2%

10.9% 0.2%

12.9%

18.5%

25.9%

on schedule1st year f.c.2nd year f.c.3rd year f.c.4th year f.c.5th year and beyond f.c.figure unavailable

9.2%

17.0%

22.6%0.2%

12.7%

17.4%

20.9%

on schedule1st year f.c.2nd year f.c.3rd year f.c.4th year f.c.5th year and beyond f.c.figure unavailable



15

Analysis of success in university studies is more thorough if Erasmus and non–Erasmus graduates are distinguished according to sex (Table 1.1).

As regards examination scores, female graduates achieve better results thanmales among both Erasmus students (with an average of 0.7 points more: 27.4compared to 26.7) and non–Erasmus students (26.7 compared to 25.8). However,the difference found by simple comparison between examination scores by sexover–estimates the difference between males and females, because the lattergreatly outnumber the former in faculties where lecturers tend to award high marks(Arts and Education in particular(6)), and this partly explains their higher scores. Infact, if one compares each graduate with the average score obtained bygraduates from his/her degree course, the differences between male and femalegraduates diminish: Erasmus males score 0.5 more points on average than dograduates from their courses, and Erasmus females score 0.7 points more. Amongnon–Erasmus graduates, males score 0.3 points less than the course average, andfemales 0.1 points more.

Analysis by final degree grade yields entirely similar results.By way of summary therefore:–Erasmus graduates achieve better examination results than non–Erasmus

graduates of the same sex;–female graduates achieve better results than their male counterparts,

although the difference is less than that found by simply calculation ofaverage marks by sex;

–within the Erasmus group the difference between males and females areslighter.

Comparison between the times taken to graduate by males and females isbased on the index of study duration, since this measure eliminates the biasintroduced by the differing legal durations of degree courses. Among Erasmusgraduates, the results for males and females are largely the same, whilst amongnon–Erasmus graduates women tend to graduate more rapidly (Table 1.1).However, it should be borne in mind that males are liable for military service, andthis inevitably delays graduation for those of them who serve their time in the armyduring their years at university (27.2 per cent of male Erasmus graduates and 35.2per cent of male non–Erasmus graduates). If the duration of military service is (6) Cf. Profilo dei laureati 1999 (Universities of Bologna, Catania, Chieti, Ferrara, Florence,

Messina, Modena and Reggio Emilia, Molise, Parma, Eastern Piedmont, Rome – Lumsa,Siena, Turin Polytechnic, Turin University, Trento, Trieste, Udine and Venice Architecture(IUAV) – ALMALAUREA, 2000).


16

subtracted from the duration of studies,(7) and if the duration indexes are thenrecalculated, male graduates obviously improve their position with respect tofemale ones. Male Erasmus students reach graduation more rapidly than femaleErasmus students, and male non–Erasmus students take substantially the sameamount of time as do female non–Erasmus students (Appendix Panel 1.15).

Table 1.1 –Principal indicators of success in university studies for Erasmus and non–Erasmus graduates – 1999

examination score degree grade index of study duration

numberof graduates

average

differencewith

respect tograduatesfrom own

degreecourse

(average)

average

differencewith


degreecourse

(average)

median average

differencewith


degreecourse

(average)

ERASMUS GRADUATESmales 1,224 26.7 +0.5 104.7 +2.2 1.42 1.48 −−−−0.16females 1,620 27.4 +0.7 107.3 +3.2 1.41 1.48 −−−−0.19

NON–ERASMUS GRADUATESmales 15,710 25.8 −−−−0.3 101.1 −−−−1.2 1.55 1.69 +0.05females 19,868 26.7 +0.1 104.2 +0.6 1.48 1.63 −−−−0.02


1.5 Upper–secondary school studiesThe large number of Erasmus graduates belonging to the Languages group

of degree courses (see § 1.1) is explained by the high percentage among Erasmusstudents of high–school leavers with diplomas in languages (11.5 per cent, almostthree times the number among non–Erasmus students). Diploma–holders fromscientific high schools are also more numerous among Erasmus graduatescompared to non–Erasmus graduates, although in this case the difference is lesspronounced. By contrast, students with diplomas from technical and teacher–training high schools are more common among non–Erasmus graduates (Figure1.16 and Appendix Panel 1.16).

Figure 1.16 – ERASMUS AND NON–ERASMUS GRADUATES, BY HIGH–SCHOOL DIPLOMA1999 – percentage values


(7) For the sake of simplicity, the duration of study was shortened by one year for graduates

who stated that they had done military service during their time at university, or did notstate when they had done it, and by six months for graduates who were doing their militaryservice at the time of graduating.

1. PROFILE OF THE 1999 ERASMUS GRADUATE · 1. Profile of the 1999 Erasmus graduate 3 comprises...

Documents

Transcript of 1. PROFILE OF THE 1999 ERASMUS GRADUATE · 1. Profile of the 1999 Erasmus graduate 3 comprises...