European students are not a homogenous group

It is often assumed – within much of the academic literature and by many of those working in higher education – that universities across Europe are homogenising, converging around an Anglo-American model as a result of market pressures and the aim of creating a single European Higher Education Area.

We interrogated these assumptions through an empirical investigation, focussing on the way in which students were commonly understood within policy.

We analysed 92 documents from six European countries – Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, Poland and Spain – chosen to provide diversity in terms of the way higher education is funded, the nature of any (financial) student support, ‘welfare regime’ and relationship to the European Union.

In each country, we examined relevant publications from key policy actors, including government, staff and student unions, employers’ organisations and organisations representing the higher education sector.

Differing understandings of students

Our analysis revealed that, while there were some important commonalities in how students were seen (such as their positioning as ‘future workers’), there were also key differences between countries – notably with respect to whether students were seen as: individual investors or a societal investment; bearers of individual rights or responsibilities; Europeans or primarily national citizens.

A particularly interesting difference was whether students were positioned as objects of criticism – this was most marked in Denmark and Poland and least apparent in England.

Students were implicitly or explicitly criticised in a number of the documents for taking too much time over their studies, making poor choices about their subject of study and being too numerous and not of sufficient quality. The examples below are typical.

“The structure of the student body, broken down by the main groups of subjects studied, underwent adverse change: we have too many graduates and students in subjects classified as ‘social sciences, commerce and law’ and ‘education’, while there may soon be a shortage of graduates in the ‘health and social care’, ‘science’, and ‘technology, industry and construction’ groups.” (Polish government document)

“Danish students take longer to complete their education than what is intended… As such, there is still lots of room for improvement.” (Danish government document)

Why should this be the case? We argue that part of the answer lies in the way in which higher education is funded.

The high fees paid by students in England, and the state’s dependence on this source of income for funding higher education, explain why English students are not criticised in the ways in which we see in some other countries. They provide a key means of funding higher education and alienating this group (through criticism) would presumably be considered a highly risky governmental strategy.

Relatedly, the large size of the student population is much more likely to be seen as problematic in countries where fees are fully or largely covered by the state (as in Denmark, for example) than in England, where a large student population is necessary to generate sufficient funds to maintain the higher education sector.

Similarly, students’ subject choices may be deemed a legitimate concern of the state in nations where higher education remains largely publicly funded, but not in nations such as England where high fees are promoted by the government as a personal investment related closely to the interests and ambitions of individual students.

Why is this important?

The differences we identify have implications for both students themselves and for broader debates about European homogenisation.

As policy documents are typically written by those occupying powerful positions in society, the language they use and the constructions they advance are likely to become part of entrenched, dominant discourses.

Dominant policy constructions have the capacity to influence how students are thought about and the way in which they think about themselves. For example, students from families without a history of higher education, who are unsure about whether they will ‘fit in’, may be put off applying entirely if they believe that students are not always viewed positively by the government.

The diversity in understandings of students also raises important questions about assumptions that are sometimes made, within the academic literature and among social commentators more generally, about the homogenisation of higher education across Europe.

Some people have argued, for example, that the Bologna Process, actively led by the European Union, has had the effect of positioning all students as consumers.

In contrast, our data emphasises the complexity inherent in such policies and the influence that continues to be exerted by national political priorities.

In this way, it supports those who have argued, with respect to higher education policy in general, that different socio-political contexts can have a significant influence on the way in which European standardisation processes are rolled out, and that European policy imperatives often provide no more than a ‘script’ that national actors interpret according to their own national and institutional traditions.

Assertions about European homogenisation thus appear to be premature.

Rachel Brooks is professor of sociology and associate dean (Doctoral College) in the department of sociology at the University of Surrey, United Kingdom. She is also executive editor of the British Journal of Sociology of Education. This article is based on a recently published academic article. You can read the full paper here. The project received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (through a Consolidator Grant awarded to Rachel Brooks, grant number 681018_EUROSTUDENTS).