REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION SURVEY INTO THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND OF ERASMUS STUDENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Summary of results and recommendations

I - Introduction

II - Response rates to the questionnaire

III - The interpretation of the statistical tables

- 1. General and academic issues

- 2. Social status of ERASMUS students and of their parents

- 3. Economic and financial issues

Annexes 23

- Annex 1 - Statistical tables (Tables 1 to 28)

- Annex 2 - The methodology used to conduct the survey

- Annex 3 - Selection criteria for country samples

- Annex 4 - Composition of the Steering Group

- Annex 5 - Questionnaire

SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The ERASMUS student survey

1. The Socio-Economic Survey was conducted at the end of 1998. More than 20,000 students or nearly one-quarter of those who took part in the ERASMUS Student Mobility scheme in the 1997/98 academic year were invited to take part in the survey which covered 300 institutions of Higher Education in 15 countries [1]. Replies were received from nearly 9,500 students giving an overall response rate of 46% - sufficient to ensure that the survey provides reliable information on the ERASMUS chapter of the SOCRATES programme.

[1] For practical reasons, the three smallest countries which participate in the ERASMUS Student Mobility scheme - Iceland, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg - did not take part in the survey.

2. The ERASMUS mobility scheme, which has grown from about 3,000 students when it first began in 1987/88 to over 100,000 today, is valued throughout the Higher Education world in Europe and is now extending into many of the countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The experiences available to mobile students are many and varied and are not merely educational.

3. Many of the findings of the survey support widespread views about the strengths of a study period abroad within the framework of ERASMUS and about the impact of the programme on student mobility in Europe. This confirms that the Community programmes in the field of education, training and youth play an important role.

4. The main findings of the survey which are presented below are covered in more detail in Section III of this report. The statistical tables including data for all participating countries which are referred to are presented in Annex I.

A. General issues

5. The work on the student survey has shown that there is a lack of harmonised and comparable European statistics relating to the socio-economic situation of students. There are also strong indications that the collection of such data on a national level is incomplete in a number of countries. In order to monitor the student population from a social and economic point of view and form appropriate policies in this area, an improvement in the availability of statistics would be required. The Commission hopes that the recent initiative by the German Ministry of Education and Research to co-ordinate a large scale survey concerning the socio-economic situation of the student population in Member States will be realised. This initiative has received a positive reaction from many EU Directors-General for Higher Education. The Commission will contribute to this exercise as it did for its 1997 precursor, the Euro Student Report [2].

[2] Euro Student Report. Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life, Synopsis of indicators for Austria, France, Germany and Italy, Deutsches Studentenwerk, Bonn, 1997.

6. For the SOCRATES programme in general, it is an extremely encouraging finding that the ERASMUS students show a very high degree of satisfaction with the outcome of the study period abroad both academically and socially/culturally. Not surprisingly, nearly all (98%) of students who took part in the socio-economic survey considered their ERASMUS experience to have been positive or very positive from a social and cultural point of view (Table 4) - and nearly as many (91%) - felt it was positive academically (Table 5).

However, the problems of an academic nature signalled by 9% of the students deserve attention by the National Authorities, especially in those countries which have a higher than average negative rating as there may be a variety of reasons underlying the difficulties the students sometimes encounter: Differences between the educational systems in the Member States as regards organisation and the level of funding (which, in turn, have an influence on the material conditions, the degree of teacher contact, access to computers, libraries and other resources) may be a factor but so too may be problems of a linguistic and/or cultural nature which no doubt play a role, especially in exchanges between Northern and Southern Europe. Another well-known problem is that of academic recognition by the home university of the studies undertaken abroad. The introduction of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) on an increasingly wide scale has already contributed to solving this problem, but more efforts are still necessary to ensure its broader implementation.

7. In 1997/98, although nearly 181,000 student places were available in the framework of the ERASMUS Institutional Contracts in the 18 countries which participated in ERASMUS Student Mobility, that year only 86,000 were filled (which corresponds to an overall take-up rate (i.e. actual use of places) of only about 50% (Tables 1-3)).

The discrepancy between places offered and places used can be related to a number of factors, which vary in importance from country to country. It may involve a possible overestimation of the student numbers by the universities concerned at the time of application, but other factors also play a role, of which two should be mentioned here:

(i) Countries with less widely taught and spoken languages are in general more affected by low take-up rates for incoming students. There are several measures that can be taken to improve the situation and they vary according to the local conditions: linguistic preparation, promotion/information, complementary funding, etc.

(ii) Furthermore, the high grants policy (whereby relatively high ERASMUS grants are given to a small number of students, rather than smaller grants to many students) observed particularly in the countries with the lowest cost of living and limited direct national support schemes, may be one reason why the full capacity of outgoing student places is not used. The possibility of sending ERASMUS students without an ERASMUS mobility grant (but with all the other benefits related to the ERASMUS student status) may be one way of maintaining a policy of high grants to selected students while encouraging an increase in student mobility in general. However, this should be weighed against the economic situation of the individual student.

B. Social and economic background of students

8. The relationship between the socio-economic background of students and students' access to the ERASMUS mobility scheme was one of the main concerns that prompted the current survey. Unfortunately, it has been possible to make a reliable comparison on a European level of the data from the ERASMUS student survey and the Higher Education student population or the population in general on only some of the aspects relating to this issue because of the lack of comparative data mentioned above. Socio-economic background has several meanings which must be considered independently. In the following, first the parents' income status, educational and professional background will be discussed. One or several of these are commonly used to define a person's socio-economic status. Secondly, other social aspects will be mentioned.

9. Figures from the Euro Student Report (1997) show [3] that the foreign study rate of students who come from higher income families is considerably higher than that of students from lower income families and one might expect this situation to be reflected in the ERASMUS survey. However, the survey does not appear to support the claim that ERASMUS students in general are more privileged students from an economic point of view than other Higher Education students. In fact, 53% of the surveyed students qualify their parents' income as average or below average (Table 19). Few direct comparisons with Higher Education students in general are available but one of the Euro Student Report indicators (Income of Students' Parents) suggests that ERASMUS students do not differ greatly in this respect. The family economic background - in terms of parents' income status - does not in general seem to be a selection factor for ERASMUS students. However, there are indications that low parental income does influence participation in countries where the students typically live with their parents and where the availability of direct national student support is limited.

[3] Figure 4: 'Study-related sojourn abroad by parental income'.

10. The results of our survey also show that the family economic background does not have a significant effect on the personal income of ERASMUS students: on average, the difference in income between students from the highest and the lowest family income levels is only EUR70 per month, a figure which can safely be qualified as low (Table 20). The income of ERASMUS students living at home is not higher than that of other students living at home in the countries where comparative figures are available. Furthermore, the findings seem to indicate that the economic background of students is taken into account either by the national student support systems (direct or indirect) or in the process of allocating the ERASMUS grant or both. It seems reasonable to conclude that any bias of ERASMUS students towards higher income levels to a large degree reflects the situation amongst Higher Education students in general in the Member States. Despite the efforts that have been made to provide opportunities for all social groups, access to Higher Education is still somewhat biased towards higher economic groups.

11. Something similar is found when the occupational status of parents is considered. Two-thirds of the parents of ERASMUS students have managerial, professional or technical occupations (Table 14) compared with less than two-fifths of employees in general aged 45 and over (Table 15). The available figures for the general student population (on the occupational status of heads of households containing students) drawn from the European Labour Force Survey (1997) do not appear to show significant differences compared with ERASMUS students. Although the LFS figures have to be treated with some caution, it seems reasonable to affirm that the occupational status of parents does not appear to be a significant factor in the selection of ERASMUS students.

12. However, when family educational background is considered, the results do suggest some bias towards higher educational levels of parents. Most of the ERASMUS students (59%) have one or both parents with a Higher Education degree, including both "short cycle" (less than 3 years) and "long cycle" (3 years or more) degrees (Table 17). By contrast, the available data [4] for Higher Education students in general indicate that around 30% of heads of households containing students hold a Higher Education qualification. Although the data have to be treated with some caution, especially concerning the Nordic and other countries where students do not normally live with their parents, there is some evidence to suggest that parents of ERASMUS students are on average rather more highly-qualified than the parents of other Higher Education students in Europe and that this is indeed a significant factor in the selection of ERASMUS students. In modern societies, where the educational systems are open to all social classes, it has in fact been observed that family educational background is becoming the most relevant factor for explaining the educational achievement of children, superseding the influence of economic factors. This general trend seems to be even more pronounced in the case of ERASMUS students. It might be assumed that the most highly-qualified parents are more conscious of the need for education in foreign languages and other cultures in order to provide opportunities for their children to develop initiative and independence - in short, in precisely the kind of experiences an ERASMUS study period can offer. It could also be that the knowledge of the exchange programme is more wide-spread in these families. Consequently, children from these higher social and cultural groups (but not necessarily with high economic status) are more likely to participate in the SOCRATES/ERASMUS programme.

[4] From the 1997 European Labour Force Survey: analyses of students living at home with their parents.

13. The question of how to decrease the bias towards students from the advantaged socio-cultural groups is in fact very problematic precisely because it is not based on economic grounds, but cultural ones. Programmes like ERASMUS can succeed in furthering economic equality, but cultural inequality can only be solved in the long run by the actions of the whole society. There is a need for an open discussion about how to ensure that the ERASMUS programme is available to young people from a wider variety of cultural backgrounds than seems to be the case at present. Student organisations acting at European level could be encouraged to be more actively involved in identifying and conducting information campaigns targeted towards these groups.

14. As far as gender equality is concerned, the developments observed in Higher Education in Europe in recent years are reflected in the ERASMUS figures, which in common with the student population in general, now show that women are in the majority (59% of ERASMUS students are female) (Table 9). Thus, participation in ERASMUS is not, in general, influenced by gender. In fact, as far as gender is concerned, the problem areas in student mobility may rather be found in certain subject areas which are dominated by men and which are underrepresented in mobility, reflecting the national situation in general.

15. As regards other issues related to equal opportunities, students with physical disabilities, certain social groups like the immigrant population and other minority peoples, these were not investigated in the framework of the ERASMUS survey. Certain steps have been taken in the framework of ERASMUS to provide funds to students with severe disabilities, but this is an area that remains to a large extent unexplored and where there may be potential for further action.

16. Finally, it is extremely interesting to note that around 80 % of the students who answered the survey are the first in their family to study abroad (Table 13). This finding confirms that European programmes do bring an added value to the educational system and to the lives of individual students as well as their families. Other interesting facts to note concerning the family situation of students is that in Southern Europe ERASMUS students normally live with their parents, while in Northern Europe it is most common to live in a rented room or student lodging or to live in shared accommodation with other students (Table 12).

C. Economic and financial issues

17. The analysis gives a clear indication of the extra costs involved during the study abroad period. 57% of the students reported financial problems abroad (Table 24). Students who normally live with their parents in their home country - around one-third of ERASMUS students - and students who come from countries with low direct public support for students and who therefore rely largely on parental contributions, are particularly affected by financial problems.

18. The difference in the modes of living and the national student financial support systems seem to be the main factors explaining the financial difficulties of ERASMUS students. Students who normally live with their parents in their home countries spend, on average, an extra EUR310 per month during their study period abroad - more than twice as much as at home. Not surprisingly, accommodation costs represent two-thirds of this extra amount. For students who normally live away from the parental home, the additional costs of a study period abroad represent an average increase of 25% or EUR130 over their normal monthly expenses. For these students, the additional accommodation costs are still a substantial proportion (about one-third) of the extra costs they face whilst abroad (Table 27).

19. In general, the survey confirms that the ERASMUS grant is a necessary financial supplement for mobility and that it does to some extent cover the extra costs of studying abroad. In certain countries, it can be observed that the ERASMUS grant is used to compensate for the lack of public funding for studies abroad. It is also worth noting that it is the group of students which receives the largest ERASMUS grants which reports the highest degree of financial problems. This finding may be related to the following phenomenon: the ERASMUS students do not necessarily distinguish the ERASMUS grant from other kinds of public funding that they receive when going on an ERASMUS exchange, and their financial problems are perceived as a result of low ERASMUS grants. The expectations of students are often not realistic and so there is a need for more information both on the aims of the grant (a contribution towards the marginal costs of studying abroad) and on the actual costs they should expect in the host country.

20. The findings indicate that although an increase in the Community funding for ERASMUS grants would be welcomed by the students it would not solve all the problems in so far as they are structural and related to national policies. Other ways to increase the funding for student mobility should also be explored, such as for example:

- the introduction of some kind of 'means testing' based on the experiences of the countries which already have such systems;

- the provision of alternative sources of direct or indirect support, for example: reduced price travel tickets, fund raising from industry, business and local government, etc;

- the establishment of a system of student loans at national and/or European level in order to cover the extra costs of mobility.

D. Further steps

21. The countries participating in the SOCRATES/ERASMUS programme are invited to discuss the findings of this survey with a view to the continual improvement of the programme and the widest possible access to it for all categories of students.

The members of the SOCRATES Sub-Committee on Higher Education will be invited to co-ordinate, in co-operation with the SOCRATES/ERASMUS National Agencies, national follow-up measures including a more in-depth analysis of the survey data concerning each individual country.

22. The Commission will review the results of the follow-up work and will discuss with the relevant Committees any further steps to be undertaken at Community level, in particular how to best implement the provisions mentioned in the Decision on the second phase of SOCRATES concerning the consideration of socio-economic factors in the allocation of ERASMUS student grants.

I - INTRODUCTION

Background

As part of the negotiations for the budget revision of the first phase of the SOCRATES programme, the European Parliament requested the European Commission to present a report on the social and economic background of Higher Education students participating in the ERASMUS chapter of the SOCRATES programme.

The Commission therefore set up, in co-operation with the ERASMUS National Agencies, a mechanism to collect information by means of a survey of a representative sample of ERASMUS students having participated in the programme in the 1997/98 academic year. The whole exercise was carried out between May 1998 and March 1999.

This survey exercise provides a good basis for comparison with the national allocation policies. A Steering Group (see Annex 4) assisted the Commission in this work.

Methodology adopted

The methodology to carry out this task consisted of the following phases:

Development

- The elaboration of a harmonised questionnaire (in 11 languages);

- The definition of a methodology for calculating the representative sample (see Annex 3).

Collection of data and analysis

- Through the National Agencies and a selected number of Higher Education institutions (see selection criteria in Annex 3).

- Processing of data and interpretation of the statistics.

Reporting

The present report deals with the survey, the interpretation of the data emerging from the survey, the conclusions and the recommendations. The statistical tables are included at Annex 1.

Further analysis - especially at national level - are planned based on more detailed results from the survey itself and comparative country profiles.

II - RESPONSE RATES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

(BY HOME COUNTRY)

On the basis of the criteria proposed by the Commission to the National Agencies for selecting the Higher Education institutions to form the country sample (see Annex 3), the following final results were obtained:

Response rates (overall results)

>TABLE>

The overall response rate of 46% is quite satisfactory compared to other surveys, despite the fact that the distribution of the questionnaires took place during the Christmas break. The length of this break varies between different countries (e.g. in Norway, the Christmas break starts already in November and lasts until late January. This could explain its low response rate). Only three countries have a response rate below 30%: NO (27%) , UK (26%) and NL (20%). On the other hand, IT, BE, SW and AT achieved a very high response rate.

The success of the survey is due mainly to the co-operation of the National Agencies and the selected institutions of Higher Education. In addition, the European Student Information Bureau (ESIB) undertook an information campaign amongst students in 8 of its member countries.

III - THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STATISTICAL TABLES

Explanatory note on the interpretation of the data emerging from the questionnaires

Some basic data asked for in the questionnaire (eg. country of host university, field of study, age, year of study, duration of the period abroad) could be compared with data supplied by the National Agencies as part of their normal annual reporting procedures to the Commission. This enabled an assessment to be made of the extent to which the composition of the achieved sample was representative of ERASMUS students in general. Further biographical data were surveyed, such as gender, parents' educational background and family status.

A set of issues was established allowing for the comparison of the data emerging from the survey. This set comprises:

- General and academic issues;

- Social status of the ERASMUS students and of their parents;

- Economic and financial issues

In the cases where comparable European or national data were not available, comparisons have been made only between the surveyed ERASMUS students in the different countries.

1 - General and academic issues

1.1 - ERASMUS student mobility in 1997/98

(Tables 1-3)

In 1997/98 180,985 student places were available in the framework of the ERASMUS Institutional Contracts in the 18 countries which participated in ERASMUS Student Mobility that year. The total number of ERASMUS students was 86,000 which corresponds to an overall take-up rate of 48% (Tables 1-3) or about 1% of all Higher Education students.

Take-up rates can be influenced by many factors: eg. student preferences; the language of the host country; the availability of linguistic preparation; the particular features of the Higher Education system in a given host country and its general appeal; the availability of mobility grants and loans and the length of the study programmes. The highest take-up rates (by home country) were registered in Austria (65%), followed by Belgium and Italy (both with 56%) and Spain (54%). The lowest take-up rates were in the UK (39%) and Greece (35%). As for incoming students, the highest take-up rates were in the UK (65%) and Ireland (61%), closely followed by Spain (54%), while Greece (23%), Portugal (29%), Finland (32%), Iceland (32%), and Norway (33%) had the lowest take-up rates for incoming students (Table 3).

Nearly four out of five of all Higher Education students in the 18 countries participating in ERASMUS Student Mobility in 1997/98 are registered in the five largest EU Member States (Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain). It is therefore to be expected that these five countries will both send and receive between them a very large proportion of all ERASMUS students. Indeed, in 1997/98 71% of all ERASMUS students came from these five countries - a little less than their theoretical capacity to send students abroad - whilst they hosted 74% of all ERASMUS students that year - a little less than their theoretical capacity to receive students (Table 2).

By contrast, the four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway) account for about 6% of all Higher Education students but hosted more than 8% of all ERASMUS students - rather more than might be expected.

Four EU Member States (UK, Ireland, Netherlands and France) host more ERASMUS students than they send abroad. Portugal, Greece and Norway are the least chosen host countries (altogether they hosted less than 4% of all ERASMUS students) (Table 2). This is partly because they are small countries but also because they are relatively unpopular with ERASMUS students. Italy and Germany also receive considerably fewer ERASMUS students than their size would suggest they could manage.

The UK is the leading host country with 20,770 students (24%), followed by France with 15,197 students (18%), Spain with 11,392 students (13%) and Germany with 10,969 students (13%). Italy, with 5,667 students (7%) hosted far fewer students than Spain and only slightly more than the Netherlands (4,922 students which is 6%), despite its large population.

The patterns of student mobility may be attributed to a variety of factors: for example, language barriers; the academic reputation of particular institutions or programmes; the flexibility of home programmes with respect to counting time spent abroad toward degree requirements; and the limitations of Higher Education provision in the home country. These patterns may also reflect geographical and historical links, cultural aspirations and government and institutional policies to facilitate credit transfer between home and host institutions.

The historical, cultural and linguistic links between countries are reflected in the ERASMUS student mobility patterns to a lesser extent than might be expected. For example, the Nordic countries form a homogenous group from a number of different points of view (history, languages, political and economic institutions, labour markets and cost of living). Nevertheless, only 4% of ERASMUS students from these countries go to other Nordic countries - 96% choose to study outside the region (Table 2). Similarly, only 1% of ERASMUS students from anglophone countries and 2% of students from germanophone countries go to countries within their own linguistic group (although it should be noted that many non-anglophone host countries offer their study programmes in English).

On the other hand, the common languages between French-speaking Belgium and France and Dutch-speaking Belgium and the Netherlands may play an important role in the choices of out-going Belgian, and Dutch students. Overall, 17% of ERASMUS students from Belgium go the France and 12% to the Netherlands although those from francophone Belgium are more likely to choose the Netherlands than France whilst those from Flanders are more likely to choose France than the Netherlands. About 6% of Dutch ERASMUS students go to Belgium.

1.2 - The assessment of the ERASMUS period abroad

(Tables 4-6)

The vast majority (91%) of the surveyed students considered their ERASMUS period abroad to have been 'positive' or 'very positive' from an academic point of view. (54% assessed their experience as 'Positive' and 37% considered it 'Very positive'). The most satisfied students came from Greece (97%), Portugal (97%) and Austria (96%). The highest proportions of students who considered their experience 'Negative' or 'Very Negative' were registered among the Norwegian (15%), British (14%) and Danish (14%) students (Table 5).

However, when viewed by host country, the proportion of students who considered their academic experience as 'Negative' or 'Very Negative' increases considerably for those who went to Italy (17%); Greece (16%); Portugal (14%); Spain (11%) and France (11%) (Table 6). The analysis of the data shows no correlation between this assessment and the year of study, nor with the duration of the period abroad, nor with the type of host institution. The most significant correlation was therefore by host country. ERASMUS students who went to southern European countries were clearly more dissatisfied from an academic point of view then students spending a study period abroad in another country.

A number of factors could explain this 'negative' assessment: linguistic problems and insufficient language preparation prior to the study abroad particularly in the host countries with less widely taught and used languages; educational discrepancies between Higher Education systems; different academic and organisational aspects of the programmes of study; exposure to subjects not offered at the home university or more demanding courses at the host university.

Different traditions may also have influenced the students' assessment: UK universities put a strong emphasis on out-of-class communication between teachers and students, whilst in German universities students' freedom to work independently is strongly emphasised, and less importance is given to regular class attendance. The opposite happens in France and Portugal, which place high emphasis on regular class attendance and on teachers as the main source of information.

However, from a social and cultural point of view (Table 4), 98% of all students considered their experience in the host country either as 'Very positive'(79%) or 'Positive' (19%).

It is interesting to stress that in those countries where the academic experience abroad was considered less positively (the southern European countries), views on social contacts and cultural life in those countries tended to be much more positive. Overall, only 2% of students considered the ERASMUS experience (from a social and cultural point of view) as 'Negative' or 'Very negative', in particular the British (4%) and the Danish (3%).

1.3 - Age of ERASMUS students and year of study

(Tables 7 and 8)

Age profiles of Higher Education students differ widely between countries. According to the 1997 edition of OECD's publication 'Education at a Glance', Austria, Denmark, Finland and Italy report about 75% or more of all university level graduates as aged 25 years or more. The typical university-level graduation age (i.e., assuming continuous, full-time study) ranges from around 21 years in Ireland, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom (short university-level programmes) to around 26 years or more in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Germany (long university-level programmes).

The ages of graduates reflect, in part, the lengths of degree programmes which vary quite widely between countries. However, the ages of entrants to Higher Education are also quite variable. In some countries the traditional idea that students enter university immediately after secondary school continues to prevail. For example, in France and Ireland more than 80% of first-time entrants to Higher Education are aged under 20. A similar age profile occurs in Greece too. By contrast, in Denmark, Norway and Sweden the opposite is true: 80% of first-time entrants are aged 20 or over.

The pattern emerging from the survey corresponds to the overall picture, not only in terms of all ERASMUS students, but also in terms of the whole student population. According to the figures supplied by the National Agencies, in 1997/98 the average age of all the ERASMUS students was 23.9 years. This pattern has changed little since 1988/89 when the average age was 23.4. The average age of the surveyed students was 23.7 years (Table 7). Male students are slightly older than female students on average - which may reflect the continuing existence of compulsory army service in a number of countries (which is often compulsory for men only and usually takes place between the end of secondary school and the start of Higher Education studies).

The highest average ages among the surveyed students were in Denmark (25.6 years), Sweden (25.1) and Norway (25.0). Irish students were, on average, the youngest (21.4 years).

As far as year of study is concerned, it should be noted that some surveyed students may have misinterpreted the question, having often indicated the calendar year. Moreover, 3% of all surveyed students indicated that they were enrolled in the first year, presumably meaning the first year of a second or subsequent cycle of studies as students in their first year of Higher Education are not eligible to participate in ERASMUS.

Nevertheless, according to the survey, at the time of the ERASMUS period abroad students had been in Higher Education for, on average, 3.5 years. This varies according to home country, from an average of 2.7 years in the United Kingdom to 4.4 years in Austria. The differences are likely to be due to differences in the lengths of the main programmes of study in different countries: in those with short cycles, studies abroad will tend to be undertaken earlier.

1.4 - Gender of ERASMUS students

(Table 9)

According to OECD (Education at a Glance,1997), over the last decade there has been a clear upwards trend in female participation in Higher Education. Current entry rates show that this trend is continuing. On average, about half of all 17 to 34 year-old students in Higher Education are female, with 57% in Portugal and 55% in France, Norway and Sweden. Both entry and graduation rates show a clear predominance of women. Several factors may contribute to this discrepancy. In particular, men are more likely to participate in programmes with a longer duration and/or take slightly longer to finish their Higher Education studies.

A similar pattern was noticed in this survey: 59% of respondents were female. The highest proportions of female ERASMUS students were recorded in Greece (70%), Finland (69%) and Ireland (67%).

1.5 - Subject areas

(Tables 9 and 12)

While women have made important strides towards closing the gap in educational attainment between men and women, significant gender differences in women's participation in different fields of study still persist. The programmes least likely to enrol women are those in the natural sciences and industrial and engineering fields; on the other hand, women are more likely to enrol in fields related to the health professions, education and the social and behavioural sciences. In the fields of mathematics, computer science, engineering and architecture, women earn far fewer university-level qualifications than men. The percentage of university-level degrees in engineering and architecture that are awarded to women ranges from 6% in Germany and 7% in Spain to 25% in Denmark and Portugal and 38% in Austria. However, the analysis of the 1997 edition of OECD's Education at a Glance indicates that women have progressed in specific areas that are important to domestic and international competitiveness, and this is mainly due to encouragement from parents, better preparation of mathematics and science teachers, interactions between teachers and students, curriculum content, hands-on laboratory experience, self-concept, changes in attitudes towards mathematics and resources available at home.

At a time when technological innovation is becoming an increasingly important component of European industries' ability to compete in the global market and when employment is growing in high technology and science based sectors, closing the gender gap may be an important policy objective to ensure a sufficient supply of the required skills and knowledge.

Amongst ERASMUS students, there are quite wide variations by gender in the various subject areas too. Female ERASMUS students are much more likely than men to be enrolled in Languages (84% are female) and Education Sciences (81% are female) whereas men form the vast majority of ERASMUS students in Engineering (77%) and Mathematics (65%) (Table 9). However, overall these variations are reflected amongst Higher Education students in general and do not therefore suggest any serious gender bias in the selection of ERASMUS students.

Overall, Business studies (24% of all ERASMUS students) and Languages (19%) are much more popular among ERASMUS students than Higher Education students in general. Apart from Social Sciences (10%), Engineering (9%) and Law (8%), most other subject areas are somewhat under-represented amongst ERASMUS students.

By home country, the highest proportions of students enrolled in Business Studies were registered in Sweden (91% of all outgoing Swedish ERASMUS students), Ireland (34%) and France (28%). In Languages, the highest proportions were noted in the UK (31% of all outgoing British students) and Ireland (22%) (Table 11).

1.6 - Duration of studies abroad

(Table 10)

The average duration of study abroad for ERASMUS students is nearly 7 months. Overall, 42% of the surveyed students spent between 4 and 6 months abroad; 25% spent 7-9 months, and 21% spent 10-12 months (i.e. a full academic year). Only 12% spent 3 months abroad, which is the minimum eligible period under ERASMUS (Table 10).

The duration of the study period abroad is partly related to the subject area in which the students are enrolled. The longest average duration of stay abroad is in areas such as Business studies, Languages, Social Sciences and Engineering. The average duration of study abroad is generally shorter in the subject areas which are traditionally under-represented in ERASMUS. It is possible that other factors such as type of activities undertaken during the period abroad have an influence on the duration: work placements, thesis preparation and laboratory work.

2 - Social status of ERASMUS students and of their parents

2.1 - Family background

(Tables 12 and 13)

One-third of surveyed students reported that they normally live with their parents in their home countries. This mode of living is especially common in Southern Europe. The highest proportions were reported in Spain (75%), Italy (66%), Greece (56%) and Portugal (55%). A further third of ERASMUS students live in rented rooms or student lodgings - most commonly in Northern Europe - whilst a quarter live in shared accommodation with other students (Table 12).

84% of ERASMUS students have brothers or sisters although nearly half reported having only one brother or one sister. This proportion is fairly similar across all countries except for Ireland where only 10% of ERASMUS students had one sibling but 68% had two or more brothers or sisters (Table 13).

Three-quarters of students reported that one or more of their siblings have undertaken Higher Education studies. The highest proportions were in Italy (93%), Ireland (85%) and Belgium (85%). (Table 13). When compared with the highest level of education attained by the students' parents, these figures are particularly interesting in the case of Italy where only 18% of ERASMUS students said that both their parents had a Higher Education qualification (Table 17).

However, on average only 20% of the students reported that their siblings had studied abroad, although one-third of Swedish students and one-quarter of those from Spain and Ireland reported that at least one of their siblings had done so. Furthermore, 82% of the students indicated that they were the first member of the family to undertake a study period abroad (Table 13).

During their ERASMUS study period abroad, 86% of the surveyed students indicated that their parents had 1 or more dependent children at home. The highest proportions were registered in Greece (97%), Spain (95%), Belgium (94%), Ireland (94%) and Italy (93%). Overall, nearly one in five students indicated that their parents had more than two dependent children at the time of their study period abroad. In Ireland this proportion was very high (47%) (Table 13).

2.2 - Parental occupations

(Tables 14-16)

Students were asked to indicate their parents' main occupations. The questionnaire provided a comprehensive list of the ISCO codes (International Standard Classification of Occupations) used by Eurostat and OECD. However, to facilitate the interpretation and the reading of the data, occupations have been aggregated into 6 major categories: Managers and scientific staff ; Associate professionals and technical staff ; Clerical, secretarial, service and shop workers; Craft and trade workers; Inactive or unemployed; and Other occupations.

Nearly one-third of the surveyed students indicated that both their parents had managerial, professional or technical occupations; almost the same proportion (30%) indicated that only their father had such a job and a further 6% indicated only the mother (Table 16).

The highest percentage of students with both parents employed in managerial, professional or technical jobs were in Sweden (54%), Norway (46%) and Portugal (42%). By contrast in Spain, Italy, Austria and Ireland more than two-fifths of ERASMUS students indicated that neither parent had such a job.

Overall, two-thirds of ERASMUS students have parents employed in managerial, professional or technical jobs (Table 14). This proportion is rather higher than found in the population in general. For example, less than 40% of people in employment aged 45 and over have such jobs (Table 15). Similarly, at the other end of the scale less than 10% of ERASMUS students reported that their parents were craft or trade workers or employed in other elementary occupations (Table 14) whereas nearly one-third of employed people aged 45 and over have such jobs (Table 15).

Only 2% of the surveyed students indicated that their parents were either inactive or unemployed.

2.3 - Parental qualifications

(Tables 17 and 18)

36% of the surveyed students indicated that both their parents had completed a degree or other Higher Education qualification; a further 16% reported that only their father had such a qualification and 8% stated that their mother had one (Table 17).

The highest proportion of ERASMUS students with both parents possessing a Higher Education degree were registered amongst the Scandinavians (Sweden 57%, Denmark 55% and Norway 53%) and Germans (51%). The lowest proportion was registered in Italy (18%) (Table 17).

The European Labour Force Survey (1995) indicates that only 19% of people in the European Union aged 25-59 years have Higher Education qualifications and that this proportion is even lower amongst those aged 45 and over (approximately the age group of parents of ERASMUS students) (Table 18).

3 - Economic and financial issues [5]

[5] Explanatory note: In order to define a common student population for the interpretation of the questions and answers related to economic and financial issues, the following rules were adopted:

3.1 - Parental income status

(Table 19)

Students were asked to estimate the income status of their parents as compared to the average income situation in their home country.

53% assessed their parental income as average or below average. The highest proportions were registered among Finnish and Austrian students (both 61%).

Only 6% of surveyed students assessed their parental income as considerably higher than average. This proportion varied between 2% in Spain and 18% in the Netherlands.

3.2 - Students' income in their home countries

(Table 20)

ERASMUS students who normally live away from the parental home estimated that their average monthly income whilst studying in their home country at EUR530 of which 27% was funded by a public grant or loan, and 51% by family contributions.

In cash terms, the average monthly incomes varied quite widely between countries from EUR330 in Portugal to EUR820 in Norway (Table 20). However, these figures are strongly dependent on the cost of living in each country. If the local purchasing powers are taken into account, the differences between students' incomes in the different countries are less dispersed.

Students' average incomes varied little with respect to the income status of their parents from on average nearly EUR560 per month for students from the highest income families to EUR490 for those from lower income families. Nevertheless, differences are significant in relation to the origin of this income. Those from low income families received nearly half (49%) of their income from public grants or loans and less than one-quarter (24%) from family contributions, while those from the highest income families received the majority of their income (62%) from their families and less than one-fifth (19%) from public grants and loans.

The survey also reveals substantial disparities between countries in the relative importance of public and private contributions (the latter represented mainly by the family). In Greece family contributions represent on average 85% of the income of ERASMUS students whereas in Sweden and Norway public grants and loan amount to three-quarters of more of a student's income.

3.3 - ERASMUS grants

(Tables 21-24)

The average grants awarded to ERASMUS students for a study period abroad in 1997/98 were EUR830 per student or EUR120 per month (Table 21). Greek and Portuguese students received the highest grants (on average approximately EUR1,600 per student). By contrast, Finnish and Swedish students received the lowest ERASMUS grants (around EUR500 per student or EUR80 per month). These differences reflect national policies for distributing ERASMUS grants as well as differences in the cost of living in host countries and the availability or otherwise of other forms of financial assistance.

Each year a number of ERASMUS students go abroad without an ERASMUS grant (Table 22). In 1997/98 nearly 9% of ERASMUS students had no ERASMUS grant although variations between countries were large. In many countries more than 95% of the mobile students had an ERASMUS grant but in a few (Norway, Austria, Belgium and France) the figure was less than 80%. These are countries with national and/or regional public grant schemes complementary to ERASMUS. It should be noted that 13% of ERASMUS students from Portugal (a country with little public funding for students) did not receive an ERASMUS grant.

Nevertheless, nearly half (47%) of the surveyed students who did not receive an ERASMUS grant reported having 'no financial problems' during their ERASMUS period abroad (Table 23) - only marginally more than surveyed students with an ERASMUS grant (43%) (Table 24). However, there are clear differences according to the type and level of public support systems available in their home countries. In those countries with a high level of public support (Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden), 60-65% of ERASMUS students had no financial problems abroad while the opposite was true in Greece, Italy and Portugal (the countries with a low level of public support), where between two-thirds and three-quarters of students reported having some financial difficulties (Tables 23-24).

A sizeable proportion of students indicated that their ERASMUS grant was insufficient especially students from countries with little or no other forms of public support for studies abroad. However students with an ERASMUS grant were more likely to complain of this problem than those without (34% compared with 25%).

Another significant problem for both ERASMUS grant holders and non-grant holders during their period abroad was having to leave their accommodation in their home country except for students from countries where it is most common to live with their parents.

Overall, however, the students who did not receive an ERASMUS grant seem to have faced fewer financial problems than other ERASMUS students, particularly those from countries which have high or medium levels of additional public funding for students.

3.4 - Students' income during their ERASMUS periods abroad

(Tables 25-26)

Family contributions accounted for nearly half (47%) of the income abroad of students without an ERASMUS grant. The family contribution is particularly important for Belgian (85%), Portuguese (84%), Greek (81%) and Italian (77%) students (Table 25).

Overall, the average monthly income of the surveyed students during the ERASMUS period abroad was nearly EUR600 (Table 26). Family contributions at 44% were the main source of income, followed by public grants and loans (21%) and the ERASMUS grant (20%).

The income status of parents appears to have had little influence on the students' income abroad. Those from lower income families had an average monthly income of EUR570 compared with EUR630 for those from high income families although family contributions formed a higher proportion of the income for those from wealthier backgrounds whilst public grants and loans (including the ERASMUS grant) formed a lower proportion (Table 26).

The relative importance of the ERASMUS grant as a source of income is influenced by the varying allocation policies in the individual countries. Each ERASMUS National Agency is responsible for determining the national policy for the distribution of ERASMUS grants. They have the flexibility to decide whether to award high grants to a smaller number of students or relatively small grants to a higher number of students. This flexibility aims at allowing complementarity between Community funds and national or other funds for student mobility. However, this flexibility is clearly a factor that influences not only the take-up rates in each country but also the choice of the country of destination and the duration of the period abroad, particularly for students from countries with no national assistance for studies abroad.

The ERASMUS grant represented about two-fifths of the monthly income for Austrian, Portuguese and Greek students. Public grants and loans in general (including the ERASMUS grant) represented at least two-thirds of the income of students from Nordic countries. Only in Sweden however was the ERASMUS grant less than 10% of the total income of ERASMUS students (Table 26).

3.5 - The additional costs of studying abroad

(Tables 27-28)

In the home country students living with their parents reported average monthly expenses of about EUR280 compared with an average income of EUR270 of which less than 5% was for accommodation (Tables 27-28). During their study period abroad, however, their monthly expenses more than doubled to on average of nearly EUR590 - the main increase, of course, being accommodation costs although 'other expenses' also showed a sharp rise. The additional monthly costs of studying abroad were on average EUR310 for students who normally lived with their parents.

The highest additional costs abroad incurred by students who normally lived at home with their parents were reported by Norwegian (EUR420) and Swedish (EUR390) students. The lowest were reported by British students (EUR210).

Students normally living away from the parental home spent EUR530 per month on average in their home country (including nearly EUR200 on accommodation). During their study period abroad they spent on average EUR660 per month including EUR240 on accommodation. Overall average monthly expenses for these students increased by 25% during their period abroad although accommodation costs were only 20% higher on average.

The biggest increases in total monthly expenses were incurred by Portuguese (EUR260) and Greek (EUR250) students. The lowest were reported by British students (EUR30).

For students living with their parents in their home country, their ERASMUS grant covered nearly 40% of their additional costs. However, it covers nearly 80% of the additional costs for students living away from parental home (two-thirds of all surveyed students).

Annex 1

statistical tables

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Table 4

Assessment of Erasmus period abroad from a social and cultural point of view (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Very positive 75 59 78 88 81 84 81 81 76 85 88 65 75 75 78 79

Positive 23 38 20 12 19 16 18 18 22 14 11 34 24 22 21 19

Negative 2 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 4 1 1

Very negative 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (415) (169) (1544) (1230) (1569) (178) (1007) (173) (416) (296) (186) (291) (365) (869) (89) (8796)

Question: Would you judge your ERASMUS experiences to have been from a social and cultural point of view

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 5

Assessment of Erasmus period abroad from an academic point of view (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Very positive 37 24 32 47 39 43 45 31 28 41 57 26 29 31 28 37

Positive 55 62 56 46 55 53 49 59 61 55 39 64 61 55 57 54

Negative 6 12 11 6 6 3 5 10 11 4 2 10 10 13 14 8

Very negative 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (440) (182) (1544) (1246) (1573) (178) (1005) (174) (416) (299) (189) (301) (367) (943) (94) (8951)

Question: Would you judge your ERASMUS experiences to have been from an academic point of view

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 6

Judgement of academic outcome of the ERASMUS period abroad by host country (percent*)

Host country Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO Other

Very positive 38 48 39 28 34 22 34 33 44 32 33 42 44 42 45 51 37

Positive 54 49 54 61 55 62 49 58 53 62 53 49 52 51 49 49 54

Negative 8 4 6 10 10 14 16 9 4 5 14 8 4 6 4 0 8

Very negative 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (289) (211) (1035) (1136) (1548) (156) (581) (348) (472) (169) (162) (233) (362) (2044) (116) (18) (8881)

Question: Would you judge your ERASMUS experiences to have been from an academic point of view *All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Table 7

Age at the time of the Erasmus period abroad by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Up to 20 years 26 1 2 13 24 17 2 66 15 7 13 7 2 49 7 17

21 years 27 6 10 19 30 24 12 21 26 15 24 16 11 26 14 20

22 years 25 15 23 23 23 28 26 8 27 20 24 22 18 9 13 21

23 years 13 21 20 16 13 17 25 2 18 20 20 19 21 4 17 16

24 years 5 17 16 14 6 7 17 1 8 13 7 15 21 3 20 11

25 years 1 15 10 8 2 3 8 1 2 11 4 7 10 2 12 6

26 years 1 9 7 3 1 2 5 0 2 6 2 4 6 1 5 3

27 years and older 2 15 11 5 1 3 6 1 3 8 5 9 10 7 13 6

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (457) (187) (1548) (1316) (1576) (178) (1006) (177) (416) (300) (188) (352) (369) (1054) (95) (9219)

Average age 23,1 25,6 24,7 23,6 22,9 23,0 24,2 21,4 23,1 24,2 23,6 24,5 25,1 22,7 25,0 23,7

Question: Your age

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 8

Year of study at the time of the Erasmus period abroad by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

First year 7 8 0 2 2 4 2 6 0 1 2 12 4 4 7 3

Second year 9 30 12 15 12 6 5 19 8 13 13 21 18 26 20 14

Third year 37 30 40 27 34 44 33 69 32 15 26 29 37 67 21 38

Fourth year 35 14 27 38 45 28 32 5 36 27 54 21 26 3 26 29

Fifth year 7 10 13 11 4 14 17 1 19 22 5 12 11 0 17 10

Sixth year 3 4 4 3 1 2 8 0 5 12 0 4 3 1 6 4

Seventh year or later 2 3 3 4 1 2 4 0 1 10 1 2 2 0 4 2

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (300) (178) (1496) (792) (1132) (133) (945) (158) (348) (290) (122) (309) (358) (941) (83) (7583)

Average year of study 3.4 3.1 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.6 4.0 2.8 3.8 4.4 3.5 3.2 3.4 2.7 3.6 3.5

Question: Your current year of study

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 9

Gender of Erasmus students, by subject area (percent*)

Subject area Total

Agr Arc Art Bus Edu Eng Geo Hum Lan Law Mat Med Nat Soc Com Oth

Female 42 46 65 52 81 23 63 63 84 58 35 66 51 62 67 63 59

Male 58 54 35 48 19 77 37 37 16 42 65 34 49 38 33 37 41

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (235) (256) (342) (1626) (355) (861) (126) (417) (1520) (896) (259) (480) (460) (790) (206) (114) (8943)

Question: Sex

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 10

Duration of Erasmus period abroad, by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

3 months 27 21 6 10 9 22 7 16 10 9 14 23 10 20 25 12

4 - 6 months 42 65 53 27 34 62 50 16 77 45 44 44 51 23 48 42

7 - 9 months 16 6 21 39 30 11 26 35 6 22 21 16 15 29 9 25

10 - 12 months 14 9 20 24 28 5 16 33 7 24 21 17 24 28 18 21

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (461) (187) (1544) (1308) (1579) (178) (1005) (175) (416) (300) (189) (352) (367) (1006) (95) (9162)

Average duration 5.7 5.2 6.8 7.6 7.5 5.1 6.9 7.8 5.4 6.9 6.7 6.0 6.5 7.1 5.8 6.9

Question: What was the duration of your ERASMUS study period abroad-

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

>TABLE>

Table 12

Where Erasmus students normally live, by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

With parents 37 4 12 75 30 56 66 44 16 27 55 3 12 12 10 34

Student lodging 52 36 33 3 46 18 5 9 68 21 14 74 70 34 33 32

Shared flat with other students 9 25 43 19 17 17 26 43 13 35 23 7 10 48 37 26

Other 2 35 12 4 7 9 4 4 4 17 8 15 8 7 20 8

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (455) (181) (1544) (1282) (1576) (178) (1006) (175) (416) (298) (190) (334) (365) (929) (94) (9022)

Question: As a student do you normally live (in your home country)

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 13

Family background, by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Number of brothers and sisters

None 13 16 15 20 16 5 17 22 7 19 15 18 12 17 16 16

One 48 53 54 43 48 62 53 10 51 44 54 48 52 48 43 49

Two 33 31 21 30 33 24 21 29 29 29 20 30 32 31 35 28

More 6 0 10 8 4 8 10 39 13 8 11 4 5 5 6 8

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (428) (167) (1548) (1250) (1437) (179) (1004) (175) (415) (285) (187) (324) (344) (984) (91) (8817)

Higher education of brothers and sisters

Yes 85 64 62 75 73 74 93 85 76 57 70 49 70 72 73 73

None 15 36 38 25 27 26 7 15 24 43 29 51 30 28 27 27

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (374) (146) (1304) (1014) (1229) (165) (834) (138) (385) (230) (160) (269) (304) (838) (77) (7466)

Experiences abroad of brothers and sisters

Yes 22 23 17 26 13 23 19 27 17 14 15 20 33 22 23 20

None 78 77 83 74 87 77 81 73 83 86 85 80 67 78 77 80

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (372) (145) (1268) (994) (1222) (159) (821) (135) (386) (223) (154) (264) (302) (826) (77) (7347)

(continuation of Table 13)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Number of children dependent on parents while abroad

None 6 60 9 5 11 3 7 6 16 17 9 34 60 17 56 14

1 Child 30 27 37 21 32 22 31 17 31 33 30 34 25 25 25 29

2 Children 41 10 41 44 38 60 48 31 40 35 44 22 12 39 15 39

More than 2 children 23 3 13 29 19 15 14 47 13 15 16 10 3 18 4 18

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (446) (171) (1474) (1288) (1549) (176) (958) (177) (403) (282) (184) (330) (361) (1025) (90) (8914)

First member of familiy

to study abroad

Yes 80 79 83 79 87 80 84 81 83 86 86 80 70 83 73 82

No 20 21 17 21 13 20 16 19 17 14 14 20 30 17 27 18

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (431) (173) (1526) (1246) (1535) (177) (991) (173) (415) (290) (189) (338) (361) (989) (92) (8926)

Question: Number of brothers and sisters-

Question: Are they have been in higher education-

Question: Are they studying or have they studies abroad-

Question: During your ERASMUS period, how many children were dependent on your parents-

Question: Are you the first member of your family to study abroad-

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 14

Occupations of parents of Erasmus students, by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Managers and scientific staff 69 60 63 45 52 56 46 53 76 46 58 56 72 66 70 57

Associate professional and technical staff 6 8 11 9 12 9 10 7 4 12 7 7 9 11 6 10

Clerical, secretarial, service and shop workers 16 24 16 26 23 17 29 26 12 28 22 29 13 16 19 21

Craft and trade workers, elementary occupation 7 7 6 15 11 13 11 12 5 12 11 6 5 4 5 9

Inactive or unemployed 2 1 3 3 2 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 0 2

Other 0 0 1 2 0 3 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (461) (187) (1548) (1312) (1566) (178) (1000) (178) (413) (298) (190) (353) (370) (1046) (94) (9194)

Question: What are your parents main occupations-

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

>TABLE>

Table 16

Parents' occupation: proportion of ERASMUS students whose parents have managerial, professional or technical occupations, by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Both 35 36 34 23 33 35 26 24 35 17 42 30 54 39 46 32

Only father 34 26 37 29 27 27 24 32 43 37 16 25 22 33 24 30

Only mother 7 6 5 4 6 4 8 5 4 5 7 10 6 7 8 6

None 24 31 24 44 35 34 42 40 18 41 35 35 18 22 22 32

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (436) (180) (1492) (1240) (1477) (174) (940) (168) (385) (285) (182) (341) (361) (1018) (91) (8770)

Question: What are your parents main occupations-

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 17

Level of education/training of parents: proportion of ERASMUS students whose parents have Higher Education qualifications by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Both 49 55 51 28 29 41 18 25 37 27 33 34 57 37 53 36

Only father 15 12 17 17 13 21 13 17 27 20 11 12 13 15 15 16

Only mother 11 9 3 6 8 5 7 13 5 7 9 12 10 12 10 8

None 25 23 28 48 50 33 62 46 31 46 46 42 21 35 23 41

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (450) (174) (1510) (1272) (1469) (175) (945) (170) (398) (291) (178) (328) (311) (989) (90) (8751)

Question: What is the highest level of education and/or training for each of your parents-

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

>TABLE>

Table 19

Assessment of income status of parents of ERASMUS students, by home country (percent*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Considerably higher than average 7 7 6 2 5 4 5 10 18 6 9 5 9 9 4 6

Higher than average 42 38 46 39 41 41 39 36 48 33 47 34 50 41 45 42

Average 41 43 35 43 40 46 40 40 24 42 31 46 32 35 44 39

Lower than average 8 9 8 12 12 8 12 11 8 14 9 13 7 11 5 11

Considerably lower than average 2 2 4 3 2 2 4 2 2 5 4 2 2 3 1 3

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (448) (182) (1524) (1292) (1554) (174) (984) (172) (398) (295) (178) (345) (367) (1001) (91) (9003)

Question: Please estimate the income status of your parents as compared to the average income situation in your home country.

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 20

Monthly income and major sources of income while studying in home country (mean of students living away from parental home)

Income status of parents Total

Higher than Average Lower than

average average

BE average income (Euro) 444 371 415 412

public grant / loan (%) 2 8 34 8

contribution from family (%) 86 76 46 78

DK average income (Euro) 680 657 658 668

public grant / loan (%) 55 58 51 56

contribution from family (%) 4 3 0 3

DE average income (Euro) 581 531 519 557

public grant / loan (%) 4 13 49 12

contribution from family (%) 77 60 20 65

ES average income (Euro) 383 370 309 361

public grant / loan (%) 1 20 33 17

contribution from family (%) 88 63 43 66

FR average income (Euro) 489 481 442 477

public grant / loan (%) 5 17 47 17

contribution from family (%) 77 62 25 62

GR average income (Euro) 475 385 437 428

public grant / loan (%) 1 2 0 1

contribution from family (%) 88 88 71 85

IT average income (Euro) 490 451 388 454

public grant / loan (%) 2 11 12 7

contribution from family (%) 86 73 63 76

IE average income (Euro) 533 381 393 446

public grant / loan (%) 5 34 47 25

contribution from family (%) 70 42 23 50

NL average income (Euro) 520 524 500 519

public grant / loan (%) 39 55 64 45

contribution from family (%) 38 20 10 32

AT average income (Euro) 535 515 518 523

public grant / loan (%) 7 31 62 29

contribution from family (%) 71 44 12 48

Table 20 (cont)

Monthly income and major sources of income while studying in home country (mean of students living away from parental home)

Income status of parents Total

Higher than Average Lower than

average average

PT average income (Euro) 358 307 273 331

public grant / loan (%) 0 4 37 6

contribution from family (%) 87 86 49 82

FI average income (Euro) 522 473 478 493

public grant / loan (%) 59 60 61 60

contribution from family (%) 11 9 11 10

SW average income (Euro) 797 787 825 797

public grant / loan (%) 78 86 88 81

contribution from family (%) 10 4 2 7

UK average income (Euro) 608 524 572 573

public grant / loan (%) 20 41 65 34

contribution from family (%) 62 33 12 44

NO average income (Euro) 819 805 932 819

public grant / loan (%) 74 78 75 75

contribution from family (%) 6 3 0 5

Total average income (Euro) 559 507 489 530

public grant / loan (%) 19 30 49 27

contribution from family (%) 62 48 24 51

Weighted table

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Table 23

Financial problems encountered by Non-ERASMUS grantholders during period abroad by type of public student support systems (percent*)

Public support system of home country Total

Low support Medium support High support

(GR, IT, PT) (AT, BE, DE, (DK, FI, NL,

ES, FR, IE, UK) NO, SW)

No financial problems encountered 33 44 65 47

Unable to transfer a national grant or loan 1 4 1 3

Parents contribution was insufficient 9 8 8 8

Leaving accommodation in home country 6 34 21 29

Unable to continue paid work 9 12 5 10

The ERASMUS grant was insufficient 64 23 15 25

Other 11 8 8 9

Total 133 133 122 131

(n) (61) (593) (162) (817)

Question: Did you experience financial problems in connection with your ERASMUS study period

*Only students receiving no ERASMUS support

Table 24

Financial problems encountered by students supported by Erasmus during period abroad by type of public student support systems (percent*)

Public support system of home country Total

Low support Medium support High support

(GR, IT, PT) (AT, BE, DE, (DK, FI, NL,

ES, FR, IE, UK) NO, SW)

No financial problems encountered 25 44 59 43

Unable to transfer a national grant or loan 2 3 1 2

Parents contribution was insufficient 6 7 8 7

Leaving accommodation in home country 6 31 20 26

Unable to continue paid work 5 13 9 11

The ERASMUS grant was insufficient 72 28 22 34

Other 4 8 10 7

Total 120 134 129 131

(n) (1258) (5623) (1216) (8097)

Question: Did you experience financial problems in connection with your ERASMUS study period

*Only students receiving ERASMUS support

Table 25

Sources of income of students without Erasmus grant during period abroad (mean of percentages*)

Country of home institution Total

BE DK DE ES FR GR IT IE NL AT PT FI SW UK NO

Public grant 2 48 12 19 26 18 6 13 52 72 8 58 35 18 37 25

Public loan 0 15 8 0 1 0 2 2 7 0 0 7 51 10 47 9

Private grant 2 6 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 0 1

Private loan 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 1 0 3 1 4 0 2

Contribution from members of your family 85 4 56 61 56 81 77 49 23 17 84 11 6 42 6 47

Own contribution 10 9 18 20 15 2 14 32 16 7 7 15 6 20 10 15

Other forms of support 2 17 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 5 1 2

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

(n) (57) (16) (76) (42) (163) (6) (28) (20) (18) (13) (4) (38) (54) (48) (13) (594)

Question: From the total amounts you indicated above, please estimate the percentages you received from

*All ERASMUS students participating in the survey

Weighted table

Table 26

Monthly income and major sources of income during Erasmus period abroad and financial status of parents, by home country (mean of all Erasmus students responding to the financial questions)

Income status of parents Total

Higher than Average Lower than

average average

BE average income (Euro) 584 529 555 559

ERASMUS grant (%) 17 27 33 23

public grant / loan (%) 2 4 16 4

contribution from family (%) 72 55 33 61

DK average income (Euro) 670 698 670 681

ERASMUS grant (%) 14 15 16 15

public grant / loan (%) 51 53 49 52

contribution from family (%) 6 3 2 4

DE average income (Euro) 649 581 550 613

ERASMUS grant (%) 15 17 17 16

public grant / loan (%) 4 12 42 12

contribution from family (%) 70 53 25 58

ES average income (Euro) 533 474 520 505

ERASMUS grant (%) 28 29 27 28

public grant / loan (%) 2 9 13 6

contribution from family (%) 64 51 39 55

FR average income (Euro) 603 571 559 584

ERASMUS grant (%) 18 21 22 20

public grant / loan (%) 10 18 30 16

contribution from family (%) 58 46 23 48

GR average income (Euro) 687 602 648 645

ERASMUS grant (%) 35 38 45 37

public grant / loan (%) 1 2 1 2

contribution from family (%) 59 54 40 55

IT average income (Euro) 588 552 517 562

ERASMUS grant (%) 25 28 28 27

public grant / loan (%) 8 10 15 10

contribution from family (%) 62 53 44 56

(Continuation of Table 26)

Income status of parents Total

Higher than Average Lower than

average average

IE average income (Euro) 606 490 484 542

ERASMUS grant (%) 10 16 17 13

public grant / loan (%) 2 17 29 12

contribution from family (%) 59 35 22 44

NL average income (Euro) 608 539 528 584

ERASMUS grant (%) 18 20 19 19

public grant / loan (%) 34 49 59 40

contribution from family (%) 35 18 13 29

AT average income (Euro) 638 632 675 642

ERASMUS grant (%) 43 45 44 44

public grant / loan (%) 8 21 37 19

contribution from family (%) 41 25 9 28

PT average income (Euro) 664 576 586 631

ERASMUS grant (%) 39 43 42 40

public grant / loan (%) 1 2 11 2

contribution from family (%) 56 49 39 52

FI average income (Euro) 624 588 591 603

ERASMUS grant (%) 18 18 16 18

public grant / loan (%) 49 53 52 51

contribution from family (%) 11 9 9 10

SW average income (Euro) 831 814 861 828

ERASMUS grant (%) 7 8 7 7

public grant / loan (%) 73 81 83 77

contribution from family (%) 10 4 2 7

UK average income (Euro) 634 580 610 611

ERASMUS grant (%) 19 23 25 21

public grant / loan (%) 17 38 52 30

contribution from family (%) 48 25 11 34

(Continuation of Table 26)

Income status of parents Total

Higher than Average Lower than

average average

NO average income (Euro) 876 842 911 862

ERASMUS grant (%) 18 20 22 19

public grant / loan (%) 67 68 65 68

contribution from family (%) 7 3 1 5

Total average income (Euro) 628 573 571 599

ERASMUS grant (%) 20 24 24 22

public grant / loan (%) 16 23 34 21

contribution from family (%) 53 40 25 44

Weighted table

Table 27

Monthly expenses during study at home; additional costs from studies abroad, by students' living mode and by home country (mean in Euro*)

During study at home During study abroad Additional costs

Living with Living on Living with Living on Living with Living on

parents their own parents their own parents their own

BE Total costs 278 428 574 589 296 161

Accommodation 16 159 213 219 197 60

Travel 27 26 66 68 39 42

Fees 31 26 - - -31 -26

Other expenses 203 217 296 302 93 85

DK Total costs 291 590 643 743 352 153

Accommodation 34 229 232 278 198 49

Travel 56 32 87 103 31 71

Fees 5 2 - - -5 -2

Other expenses 195 327 325 362 130 35

DE Total costs 311 535 624 678 313 143

Accommodation 13 204 244 258 231 54

Travel 56 35 69 65 13 30

Fees 8 11 - - -8 -11

Other expenses 233 285 310 354 77 69

ES Total costs 236 369 569 572 333 203

Accommodation 8 131 216 216 208 87

Travel 23 25 71 77 48 52

Fees 43 41 - - -43 -41

Other expenses 162 172 281 279 119 107

FR Total costs 296 497 596 621 300 124

Accommodation 25 180 234 247 209 67

Travel 35 40 70 88 35 48

Fees 42 55 - - -42 -55

Other expenses 195 222 292 286 97 64

(Continuation of Table 27)

During study at home During study abroad Additional costs

Living with Living on Living with Living on Living with Living on

parents their own parents their own parents their own

GR Total costs 270 417 627 669 357 252

Accommodation 6 125 198 214 192 89

Travel 33 31 102 101 69 70

Fees 3 1 - - -3 -1

Other expenses 228 260 327 354 99 94

IT Total costs 281 440 561 611 280 171

Accommodation 6 143 190 212 184 69

Travel 30 38 73 92 43 54

Fees 49 45 - - -49 -45

Other expenses 196 214 297 307 101 93

IE Total costs 251 470 554 585 303 115

Accommodation 4 187 185 194 181 7

Travel 47 32 66 85 19 53

Fees 10 11 - - -10 -11

Other expenses 190 239 302 306 112 67

NL Total costs 236 513 524 706 288 193

Accommodation 2 174 187 249 185 75

Travel 9 20 48 75 39 55

Fees 53 58 - - -53 -58

Other expenses 173 262 289 382 116 120

AT Total costs 292 530 639 700 347 170

Accommodation 9 197 215 250 206 53

Travel 37 42 46 74 9 32

Fees 1 1 - - -1 -1

Other expenses 244 289 377 376 133 87

PT Total costs 332 338 668 598 336 260

Accommodation 8 89 210 190 202 101

Travel 48 40 73 90 25 50

Fees 86 34 - - -86 -34

Other expenses 190 176 386 318 196 142

(Continuation of Table 27)

During study at home During study abroad Additional costs

Living with Living on Living with Living on Living with Living on

parents their own parents their own parents their own

FI Total costs 354 492 655 656 301 164

Accommodation 6 194 224 224 218 130

Travel 46 41 87 109 41 68

Fees 1 3 - - -1 -3

Other expenses 301 254 344 324 43 70

SW Total costs 375 751 767 812 392 61

Accommodation 29 253 244 249 215 -4

Travel 67 54 86 105 19 51

Fees 8 9 - - -8 -9

Other expenses 271 436 437 457 166 21

UK Total costs 376 594 585 627 209 33

Accommodation 31 260 176 207 145 -53

Travel 113 41 69 96 -44 55

Fees 10 6 - - -10 -6

Other expenses 222 287 339 324 117 37

NO Total costs 402 739 826 838 424 99

Accommodation 43 239 200 241 157 2

Travel 69 54 169 148 100 94

Fees 26 12 - - -26 -12

Other expenses 265 434 457 449 192 15

Total Total costs 277 526 586 659 309 133

Accommodation 12 197 212 238 200 41

Travel 35 37 71 85 36 48

Fees 37 25 - - -37 -25

Other expenses 193 268 303 337 110 69

* Mean of all Erasmus students responding to the financial questions

Weighted table

Table 28

Additional costs during the ERASMUS period abroad by mode of living while studying at home (mean in Euro*)

Living with parents while studying at home Total

Yes No

Income at home 270 530 454

Income abroad 544 622 599

Add. income abroad 274 91 145

Expenditure in home country 277 526 453

Expenditure abroad 586 659 638

Add. costs abroad 309 133 185

ERASMUS Grant 121 105 110

Percentage of additional costs covered by the ERASMUS grant 39% 79% 59%

(n) (1882) (4521) (6403)

Question: From the total amounts you indicated above, please estimate the percentages you received from

* Only Students who had received ERASMUS support

Annex 2

THE METHODOLOGY USED TO CONDUCT THE SURVEY

The methodology to carry out this task consisted of the following phases:

The development phase

- The elaboration of a harmonised questionnaire (in 11 languages);

- The definition of a methodology for calculating the representative sample.

Collection of data and data analysis

- Through the National Agencies and a selected number of higher education institutions

- Processing of data, data analysis and interpretation of the statistics

The report

The report deals with the survey as such, the interpretation of the data emerging from the survey and the conclusions. The statistical tables are at Annex 1.

The development phase

A questionnaire with a common structure was developed and distributed to the National Agencies in their own languages (see version at Annex 5). The questionnaire covered:

- The personal background of the student

- Sources of students' income (including ERASMUS grants) and their patterns of expenditure at home and abroad

- Student accommodation

- Income and occupational status of students' parents

- Educational achievement of students' parents

N.B.: The questionnaire did not require the personal identification of the student.

The questionnaire for each Member State was adapted to its national circumstances. All National Agencies were involved in this process and acted as the contact points for consulting other relevant organisations in their countries (national authorities, academic experts, offices for statistics, etc). It was essential that the issue of comparability of the national systems was taken into account at the design stage. Therefore, the text of the questionnaire and the different country and language versions were subject to consultation with academic experts and national authorities in the participating countries prior to finalisation and printing. A pre-test was also carried out with a small group of students in different European higher education institutions.

The 86,000 students who studied abroad under ERASMUS in 1997/98 formed the sampling frame for this survey. Given time and resource constraints, it was considered feasible only to produce a snapshot of the socio-economic background of ERASMUS students for the year 1997/98. To produce a longitudinal survey would have required the inclusion of ERASMUS students from previous years and would have increased substantially the scope and complexity of this work.

Distribution of the questionnaire

The questionnaires were distributed by post to National Agencies for onward transmission to their selected higher education institutions. The students returned their completed questionnaires to their National Agency in an unmarked pre-paid envelope. It was considered preferable to send the individual questionnaires back to the National Agency, to remove any grounds for the individual student to fear identification by the university.

All questionnaires were produced in precisely the same format and layout because the transfer of information from the individual questionnaire to the database took place via optical reading. The questionnaires were produced in 11 languages and 16 country versions (all EU and EEA countries, except Luxembourg, Iceland and Liechtenstein).

The National Agencies registered the serial numbers of the questionnaires sent to each institution, in order to check the response rate. In the case of very low response rates from specific institutions National Agencies encouraged them to send out reminders.

Annex 3

THE SELECTION CRITERIA FOR COUNTRY SAMPLES

Given timing, resources and the complexity of the task, it was not practical to send out a questionnaire to 86,000 individual students. This exercise was therefore based on a sample study, which is the standard method for this type of socio-economic research. The sample (20,000 students) was chosen to be representative of the whole population of ERASMUS students.

Iceland, Luxembourg and Liechtenstein did not take part in the survey.

In order to compose the sample, each National Agency was asked to select a sample of higher education institutions in its country, on the basis of criteria proposed by the Steering Group. In selecting the higher education institutions to form the sample, National Agencies were asked to ensure that, taken together, they were representative of the pattern of participation among outgoing ERASMUS mobility for the country. In particular, they were asked to ensure that the sample of higher education institutions was representative with respect to:

- Type of institution (university versus non-university)

- Size of institution

- Subject areas represented in the institution (including an appropriate balance between mono- and multi-disciplinary institutions)

- Destinations (of out-going ERASMUS students)

- Place (urban versus rural)

- Institutional funding status (public versus private)

- Institutional involvement in ERASMUS (active versus more passive)

The selected institutions were then asked to distribute the socio-economic questionnaire to all students who took part in SOCRATES/ERASMUS mobility in academic year 1997/98.

Annex 4

THE STEERING GROUP

1 - The members of the Steering Group:

- Mr Michel BOSQUET, Service des Relations Extérieurs, Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix, Namur, Belgium

- Prof. Dr. Patrick CLANCY, Associate Professor of Sociology, University College, Dublin, Ireland

- Mrs. Arlette DELHAXHE, Eurydice Central Unit, Brussels, Belgium

- Mrs. Maria Emilia GALVÃO, Deputy Director, Gabinete de Assuntos Europeus e Relações Internacionais, Ministério da Educação, Lisboa, Portugal

- Mr. Michel JOUVE , Director of the French SOCRATES National Agency, Bordeaux, France

- Prof. Dr. Socrates KAPLANIS, President of the Technological and Educational Institute of Patras, Greece

- Prof. Dr. José-Ginés MORA, Department of Applied Economics, University of Valencia, Spain

- Mr Antti PENTIKÄINEN, National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), National Union of Finnish Students, Helsinki, Finland

- Mr John REILLY, Director of the UK SOCRATES/ERASMUS National Agency, The University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

- Mr Dieter SCHÄFERBARTHOLD, European Council for Student Affairs, General Secretary of the Deutsches Studentenwerk, Bonn, Germany

2 - Mr. Pedro de SOUSA, Academic Coordinator of the project.

3 - Mr. Friedhelm MAIWORM, Statistician.

Annex 5

QUESTIONNAIRE

An example of the questionnaire in the language version(s) of the present report is attached.

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

// EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL XXII

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTH

SURVEY

ON THE

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION

ERASMUS STUDENTS

United Kingdom

INFORMATION TO HELP YOU COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE

>TABLE>

Please give just one answer unless otherwise indicated ("multiple answers possible").

Please return the ORIGINAL questionnaire (not a photocopy). DO NOT FOLD, STAPLE or PIN TOGETHER, etc.

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Thank you for your co-operation.

PLEASE DON'T FORGET to return this completed questionnaire no later than 16.12.1998 to the following address:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

// EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL XXII

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTH

SURVEY

ON THE

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION

ERASMUS STUDENTS

Ireland

INFORMATION TO HELP YOU COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE

>TABLE>

Please give just one answer unless otherwise indicated ("multiple answers possible").

Please return the ORIGINAL questionnaire (not a photocopy). DO NOT FOLD, STAPLE or PIN TOGETHER, etc.

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Thank you for your co-operation.

PLEASE DON'T FORGET to return this completed questionnaire no later than 16.12.1998 to the following address:

>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>

// EUROPEAN COMMISSION

DIRECTORATE-GENERAL XXII

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND YOUTH

SURVEY

ON THE

SOCIO-ECONOMIC SITUATION

ERASMUS STUDENTS

Norway

INFORMATION TO HELP YOU COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE

>TABLE>

Please give just one answer unless otherwise indicated ("multiple answers possible").

Please return the ORIGINAL questionnaire (not a photocopy). DO NOT FOLD, STAPLE or PIN TOGETHER, etc.

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

>TABLE>

Thank you for your co-operation.

PLEASE DON'T FORGET to return this completed questionnaire no later than 16.12.1998 to the following address: