Getting to know what European students want

Getting to know

what European

students want - Market Research powered by BEST

April 2015 1

- Authors Alexia Spyridonidou Market Research Coordinator 2013-2015 Students’ Research Responsible email: alexia.spyridonidoy@BEST.eu.org

Ou Yan Zhou Vice President for External Services of XXVII Board of BEST Universities’ Research Responsible email: ou.yan.zhou@BEST.eu.org

- Designer Judit Gyenese Coordinator of Marketing Committee of BEST 2013-2014 email: judit.gyenese@BEST.eu.org

www.BEST.eu.org

table of contentS Introduction

4

Students’ Survey

5

How the survey looked like

5

Profile of respondents

6

Students’ experience and interest in Short Courses

10

Students’ experience and interest in engineering competitions

15

Students’ experience and interest in

evaluating the educational programme/system

Students’ experience and interest in

studying abroad

Students’ experience and interest in

working abroad

20

Universities’ Survey

38

How the survey looked like

39

Profile of participating universities

39

Data presentation

40

27 33

Conclusions

43

Acknowledgements

45

Introduction In a diverse and evolving environment, adapting to changes is the key to maximising our contribution towards our stakeholders. Board of European Students of Technology (BEST), aiming to evolve and meet challenges efficiently, places the Strategy of External Services as a major focal point. Through BEST Market Research we aim to observe how the needs of our stakeholders change, how our services align to these new needs, and how the Strategy of External Services should develop, taking into account the external environment.

The stakeholders of BEST (european students, universities and some companies) were reached through 3 individually designed surveys. Regarding students, BEST Students’ Survey was launched in February 2013 with the goal of gathering insight concerning their experience and expectations towards complementary education, educational involvement and career support. In total, approximately 3000 students were reached throughout Europe.

Universities were reached through interviews to assess their perceptions on the impact student organisations should have towards university, to investigate what services such organisations should provide and seek for opportunities for future collaboration.

Hereby you may read the insights that nearly 3000 European students and around 30 Universities have shared with us.

4

Students’ survey - How the survey looked like -

The report on hand contains information from two surveys: one for European Students and one for European Universities. These two stakeholders of BEST were reached with a different way, described below.

Students of Technology across Europe were reached through an online survey which was launched on February – March 2013. The survey consisted of the following 6 parts: Profile Questions, Short Courses, Engineering Competitions, Educational Involvement, Working Abroad and Studying Abroad.

In each part (following a similar structure), students were asked about: • their experience/ background in activities relevant to the part • their willingness to participate in relevant activities in the future • parameters they take into account in order to form a decision for the above mentioned topics Respondents were directed to specific questions according to the answers they were providing to the previous ones.

The parts of Short Courses and Engineering Competitions refer to short temporary activities of specific type (similar to the services that BEST provides), while the parts of Studying and Working abroad aim to investigate the decisions that students make regarding their studying and working career, and especially their mobility.

The survey was set up in a way to gather answers from students without bias or limiting their answers.

Therefore, despite the fact that the general fields were defined, the potential services were described in a broad way. The content of the survey for each student was personalised in the sense that students were directed to specific sets of questions according to their previous responses. The average time for filling the questionaire was 15 minutes. The language chosen for the survey was English. Despite the fact that the choice of language was considered as appropriate, it is contemplated that it created a barrier for students of low level of English. Finally, the questionnaire was available online and its duration depended on the respondents’ answers.

5

Students’ survey - Profile of respondents -

BEST Students’ Survey reached precisely 2922 students in total. During sample quality control, the sample was examined and incomplete questionnaires were removed. The final number of questionnaires analysed is 2143.

1

Top 10 countries participated in the survey

7,6%

5,6%

6,8% 4,5% 8,4%

6,5%

5,4% 5,3%

7,2%

The survey was promoted among the 33 European Countries with local BEST groups and to other countries and universities that do not belong to BEST network through our partners and individuals.

As it was expected, students of “BEST” Universities (not necessarily members of BEST) were reached easier and therefore form the majority of the sample.

The countries with the biggest participation are the ones of South-East Europe (approximately 50%).

Countries of South Europe participated with a percentage of approximately 20%, while Central and

6

North Europe participated with lower percentages, and specifically 11% and 10% respectively.

Countries with the highest participation were Romania, Greece, Russia and Italy (7-8% of the sample each), followed by Poland, Portugal, Belgium, Serbia and Spain (5-7% of the sample each). According to this information, about 1/3 of the (over 33) participating countries form 65% of the sample, revealing a sample, which is unequally yet broadly geographically distributed.

2 How are you related to BEST? I have never heard of BEST before (this questionnaire)

8%

54%

I know BEST, but I have never participated in any of its activities

27% 11%

I am BEST member or alumni

I have participated in BEST activities once Aiming to understand the characteristics of the sample, we found it useful to see which part of the sample was related to BEST and which not. According to the findings, 35% of the sample was students who either did not know BEST or knew BEST but have never participated to any BEST activities, indicating that BEST has big visibility in the universities of technology that it is active, and has further room for improvement regarding attracting students to join its activities. Regarding the rest of the sample (65%), it consists of students who have participated in BEST’s activities once (11% of the total sample) or became BEST members (54% of the total sample). These statistics suggest a large proportion of students are aware of BEST Services by having experienced them personally, and a significant proportion of students have provided their opinion and input but have had no prior experience to any of the BEST Services.

7

3Age of respondents Up to 18 1 % 19-22y 50 % 23-25y 38 % 26+y 11 % Majority of people who replied in the survey (88%) are between 19 – 25 years old, while 11% of them are over 26 years old.

4 What is your gender?

51%

5

The sample is balanced regarding gender distribution, formed 51% by male and 49% female respondents.

49%

What is your current field of study?

Regarding level of studies, students were asked to indicate the level to which they were during the survey completion period and not the level from which they had graduated. The vast majority of the respondents’ are at Bachelor or Master studies level (91%), while there was also input from PhD students, graduates and in some cases high school students.

8

What is your current level of 6 study?

Other

3%

I have graduated

2%

1%

Highschool

4%

PhD student

Post-graduate (such as Master)/ 2nd degree/ 2nd master

30% 61% Undergraduate (such as Bachelor)

The survey reached mostly engineering students (84,1%), BEST’s and survey’s official target group, while it also reached students of non-engineering fields of study (15,4%). Among engineering students, big part of the respondents were studying civil engineering, mechatronics, territory engineering and computational engineering. However, overall, respondents of the survey covered the majority of engineering fields.

9

Students’ Experience and interest in Short Courses BEST aiming to provide students of technology with complementary education, organises Short Courses where students have the opportunity to: 1. follow interesting lectures covering many different technology fields, economics, marketing and management and provided by academics or professionals 2. take part in case studies 3. visit companies, industrial plants and research centres, etc.

Such courses take place during the whole year in the universities that are members of BEST. They last 1-2 weeks and the language used is English.

At this part of the survey, in the original questionnaire, instead of describing the exact format of a Short Course provided by BEST, we provided a broad description to avoid bias and to get input which would allow us to view the service from a wide-ranging perspective. Through the questions, we tried to identify how much this service is needed, what are the characteristics that would make Short Courses more useful and attractive to students, covering better their needs, and which parameters they take into account in order to form the decision to attend a Short Course.

10

11

7

Have you ever participated in a Short Course?

YES

33% - 703 NO

67% - 1440

One of the most important services of BEST, complementary education, is provided through Short Courses, and according to the results, one out of three respondents have participated in a Short Course in the past.

8

In what field was the course you participated in?

Students who participated in a Short Course in the past chose mostly to follow a Course in Engineering, although 2 out of 10 chose a non-Engineering Course. Among the students who followed an Engineering Course, a bit more than half of them attended a Course in their own engineering field of study, while less than half attended engineering courses of another engineering field.

Students’ participation in short courses are a good indicator of their revealed preferences, however, since the students have to go through application and selection process in order to finally attend a Course, these numbers reveal their initial preferences only partially. The revealed preference regarding the topic of the Short Course can be better seen later on this report.

44% In my own field of Study

37% In another Engineering field of Study

12

19% In another nonEngineering field of Study

9

Do you want to participate in a Short Course in the future?

For those who HAD PARTICIPATED in a short course in the past:

YES - 93%

NO - 7%

For those who HAD NOT PARTICIPATED in a short course in the past:

YES - 85%

NO - 15%

Regardless the respondents’ experience in participating in a short course in the past, 9 out of 10 would like to attend such a Course in the future, indicating the need of students to seek for complementary education is still high. In particular, 93% of students who have participated in a Short Course in the past, would like to attend one in the future, while among those who have not participated in a Short Course in the past, 85% would like to attend one in the future.

10

In which field would you be interested to study during a Short Course abroad?

6%

Another Engineering field of Study

53%

I am interested in Short Courses for both Engineering and Non-Engineering fields

35%

My own field of Study

6%

12%

Another non-Engineering field of Study

Other

13

Most popular

#

Engineering

Non-Engineering

1

Physical Education, Sport Science

2

Architecture, Urban and Regional Planning Aerospace/Aeronautical Engineering

3

Territory Engineering

4

Power Engineering

5 6

Environmental Engineering Biological/Biotechnical/Gene Engineering

Communication and Information Sciences (Journalism, PR, Advertising, etc) Business Studies, Management Science (Marketing, Accounting, Tourism, etc) Art and Design (Fine Art, Photography, Performing Arts, etc) Education, Teacher Training Mathematics, Informatics (Statistics, Computer Science, etc)

Their interests concerning the Course’s topic vary, making clear that students are eager to obtain knowledge on various fields, whether such fields are connected to their studies or not. A significant number of students would prefer to attend a course in his/ her own field of study (35%), however slightly more than a half would be interested in various engineering and non engineering topics.

Among engineering fields, the most popular topics that students are willing to attend in a future Short Course abroad are in the areas of Territory, Power, Environmental Engineering, Architecture, Urban Planning, Aerospace/ Aeronautical and Biological Biotechnical/Gene Engineering.

Regarding non-engineering topics that students are interested in, the most popular fields are Art and Design, Business Studies, Management Science, Mathematics, Informatics and Education.

11

How much time would you dedicate during the year and during the holidays in order to go abroad for these kind of Short Courses?

I have no time available Up to 1 week Up to 2 weeks More than 2 weeks

During the year (Study Period)

During holidays (Christmas/ Easter/ Semester Break/ other)

During summer time

22%

10%

3%

44% 22% 11%

41% 34% 14%

8% 30% 60%

When it comes to the best time of the year when students are available to attend Short Course, it is visible that it varies from their origin and their study programme. Observing students’ availability at European level it was noticed that during the study period students would devote mostly up to 1 week, during holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Semester break, 1 to 2 weeks and finally, during summer time most of them would be willing to devote even more than 2 weeks in order to attend a Course abroad.

14

Students’ Experience and interest in engineering competitions Engineering Competitions is another activity that BEST provides under the scope of complementary education. They are implemented now as events where teams of students use their technical and soft skills to compete in different categories: Team Design, Case Studies, Negotiation and Debates.

Students have the opportunity to attend 3 rounds: Local BEST Engineering Competitions National and Regional Engineering Competitions European BEST Engineering Competition (EBEC) Final

Starting from the local level the winning teams are promoted to the higher level to compete on the same category.

As it happened in the case of Short Courses, in this part of the survey a broad concept of Engineering Competitions was described. The questions aimed to indicate how needed this service is, how would students prefer to use such an opportunity, under which circumstances, what skills they would like to practice, in which areas they would want to be challenged, and more. Taking into account that Engineering Competitions provided by BEST (rounds of EBEC) are the biggest in Europe at this moment, and trying to enhance this concept, we provided students with scenarios among which they had to choose what they would prefer to happen.

15

16

you ever participated in an 12 Have Engineering Competition?

76 %

4 20 % %

Yes, I have participated in an Engineering Competition organised

by BEST (Yes for future: 75, No for future: 20) Yes, I have participated in an Engineering Competition organised by another body (organisation, company or the university) (Yes for future: 359, No for future: 63) No, I have never participated in an Engineering Competition (Yes for future: 1005, No for future: 359)

Regarding the respondents’ experience in engineering competitions, only 1 out of 4 students has participated in an engineering competition in the past. In almost all of the cases this was an engineering competition provided by BEST, fact coming as no surprise, since many of the respondents are members of BEST or have participated in events organised by BEST. Among the students who have never participated in an engineering competition 3 out of 4 would like to participate in one in the future, and among the students who have participated in an engineering competition in the past 83% would like to participate again.

13

Would you like to participate in an Engineering Competition in the future?

67% - Yes 33% - No 17

62% 63%

40%

21%

n? fu ? ve rs so ha es st ju of Pr To by d te ? s? re ua ill al fo Sk ev be al m be ic fro To hn c ec pi /t to g e th rin e an ow ne pe gi ro kn En Eu ?

To a ess tly nd c os te ro m e at n p tic to ctio ac ity le pr un se rt ut To po ho op it e w th n o ? ve titi ed ha pe fil e To m on Co n ci pi ur to yo a n ci ve pi ? ha to ld To a Fie on ng te eri pe e m gin co En To wn o

18

73%

58% an

sw

er ed

67% 38%

ot

33% 79% 60%

N

T ge o co ne m ra pe l E te ng on in a ee to rin pi To g ci bi ha Fi n a na v el n e tio a d? o th n) to er ? pi / ci n T m tio o go an y na n to fie tio as a ld a na w Eu s( r l l in op co ev ne e m a e To l? r o n f t Co in pr he m te g S ac lo pe t am ki ic c a ti w lls? e m l/ or (p o k, re st et se ly c) n N ta o n To tio -E co n ng m sk in pe ill ee te s, ron a su To rp be ris ev e to al pi ua c? te d by To Co w m in pa a ni pr es iz ? e? (m on ey ,e tc )

14 What you would prefer to happen in an engineering competition?

42%

33%

37% 27%

Providing students with scenarios about what they would prefer to happen in an engineering competition, and by having to chose only one among the given options, it came out that: • 2 out of 3 students prefer to compete on their engineering field of study, instead of another engineering field of study. However, when students were given the option to compete on one field or on a combination of fields, 8 out of 10 chose the be challenged in a combination of fields.

• When students had to chose among attending a european engineering competition straight away, in comparison to getting promoted to the european level as a winner of lower levels, 60% of students evaluated that they would prefer to reach the european competition through winning in lower levels.

• Despite the fact that students showed a relatively clear preference on competing on their own field of study, when they were asked whether they want to practice mostly their engineering skills or other non-engineering skills such as teamwork and presentation skills, almost 40% chose the second, indicating a strong willingness to improve towards this direction.

• Majority of students (63%) prefers to compete on a surprise topic, instead of an announced one.

• 73% of them would prefer to be evaluated by companies instead of professors.

• Lastly, a high percentage of students (73%) finds it more appealing to compete aiming to win a prize, instead of competing just for fun.

19

students’ Experience and interest in evaluating the educational programme/ system Another area that BEST is very interested in is to provide the students with the opportunity to express their opinion about their education at local, national, and even european level.

Therefore, in this part students are asked to reveal their interest in providing their opinion for matters related to their education in various levels (local, national, european) and to describe their experience and opinions on this field.

20

21

15

Have you ever had the chance to evaluate your educational programme?

45% No

16

55% Yes

Starting with the evaluation of educational programme and system, it is visible that this process varies a lot depending on the policy of the University and the country.

Almost half of students who participated in the survey are mentioning that they have never had the chance to evaluate their educational programme, while slightly more than half enjoyed this opportunity It is important to underline that students who have not had the opportunity to evaluate their educational programme might come from universities that provide this option, however this process might not be obligatory or well promoted internally.

Have you ever had the chance to evaluate: University courses

11%

89% semester

36%

64% academic year

56%

44% national educational system

86%

14% european educational system

92%

8% no answer

45% 22

Among the 1180 students who claimed to have evaluated their educational programme, more than half evaluated individual courses, around 60% provided their evaluation for semester level and less than half at academic year level.

Regarding evaluation of educational system the percentages are significantly lower. Specifically, only 14% of them have evaluated the national educational system and hardly 10% the european educational system. The last two cases, especially European Educational System (if such term can be applied), refer to levels that students might find difficult to overview and therefore evaluate.

Supposing that the national and european dimension of educational system is not a simple sum-up of the situation described at universities, it appears as a necessity to get input from students about the advantages and disadvantages of such levels, even if they derive from students who have partial experience of these levels.

17

How were you asked to give your opinion for the evaluation?

The most popular format for each type of the evaluations was an online form. In Courses and Semester evaluations paper format was also observed in significant amount of cases, however still quite lower than online forms. Asking for evaluation through discussion was a quite unpopular option, probably explained by the fact that it is time consuming in order to collect input for an equal amount of students to the previous cases. However it is identified a missing element, since discussions on complex topics, such as educational system evaluation, not only allow a better understanding in many cases, but might also support more detailed and open sharing.

University Courses

Semester

Academic Year

On paper Online Through discussion I was not asked to give opinion On paper Online Through discussion I was not asked to give opinion On paper Online Through discussion I was not asked to give opinion

23

27% 58% 6% 9% 16% 44% 6% 34% 10% 30% 5% 54%

National Educational System European Educational System

18

On paper Online Through discussion I was not asked to give opinion On paper Online Through discussion I was not asked to give opinion

3% 9% 4% 84% 1% 7% 3% 89%

Who initiated the process of evaluation?

University Courses

Semester

Academic Year National Educational System European Educational System

Students Some authority (university, governement, EU, independent organisation) Not asked Students Some authority (university, governement, EU, independent organisation) Not asked Students Some authority (university, governement, EU, independent organisation) Not asked Either students or some authority

12% 79% 9% 7% 58% 35% 5% 40% 54% 17%

Not asked

83%

Either students or some authority

12%

Not asked

88%

Lastly, in all cases the evaluation was usually initiated by an official authority (government, university etc), while in some cases it was an initiative of students. It is noted that (a) the body that initiates the evaluation and (b) the dissemination process are parameters connected to the effectiveness of reaching the relevant target group: students. Therefore, connected to the previous comments, the fact that some levels are poorly evaluated does not necessarily indicate the lack of initiatives, but, possibly, poorly promoted initiatives which did not efficiently reach students.

24

19

What do you think that your University does with students’ opinion?

25%

nothing

changes

41%

34%

results’ circulation (either internally or publicly) Both students who have evaluated their study programme and those who have not, were asked to state what they think about what the University does with their opinion. According to their impression and possibly in some cases knowledge, 1 out of 4 students believes that university does not do anything.

Around 40% of students believe that results are being circulated internally or published and 34% believes that their opinion is taken into account in order to implement changes in the educational system.

25

Would you be interested to evaluate any 20 of the following options in the future?

University Courses Semester Academic Year National Educational System European Educational System

Yes

90%

1931

No

10%

212

Yes No Yes No Yes

80% 20% 76% 24% 79%

1714 429 1639 504 1701

No

21%

442

Yes

67%

1430

No

33%

713

When students were asked whether or not they would like to provide their opinion about educational programme and system their reply was overall positive. Starting from 90% and gradually dropping to 67% of respondents, the more broad the level becomes the less students mention that they want to evaluate it. This fact might be connected the students’ feeling of understanding the broader levels (especially the national and european ones) and their interest for the relevant level. Moreover, despite the fact that students have experience in all of these levels, European level might be perceived as more important when students want to study abroad. As it will be presented in a following part, 22% of the respondents have already studied abroad, while 46% of them aim to do it in the near future.

Comparing students’ experience and students willingness to evaluate the educational programme, the gap increases the broader the level is. Therefore it looks like students’ willingness to evaluate courses is mostly fulfilled, while in evaluating semester and academic year it is satisfied only partially with a gap of 24% and 32% respectively. When it comes to evaluating national and european system the gap is visibly high, reaching approximately 60% of students who are interested in providing their opinion but did not have the chance to do so until now.

26

Students’ experience and interest in studying abroad

27

Have you ever studied abroad or are you studying abroad now?

21

22% YES 78% NO

22 78% 8% 14%

In what field did you study abroad or are you studying abroad now? in my own field of study

In another Engineering field of Study

In another non-Engineering field of Study

Among the respondents, 1 out of 5 has studied abroad in the past or is studying abroad now. Almost 80% of the students who studied abroad chose to study abroad on their own field of study. 14% of them followed studies in a non-engineering field of study while only 8% of them followed studies in another engineering field. Moreover, 54% of these students went abroad to study at undergraduate level and 41% of them for postgraduate programme.

28

23 What type of studies did you do?

Undergraduate (such as Bachelor)

Postgraduate (such as Master)

Second Degree

Half a year 1 year Full Programme I have not studied in this level abroad Half a year 1 year Full Programme I have not studied in this level abroad Half a year 1 year Full Programme I have not studied in this level abroad

PhD

Half a year 1 year Full Programme I have not studied in this level abroad

37% 15.9% 15.4%

149 64 62

31.8%

128

27.3% 13.9% 15.5%

102 52 58

43.2%

161

4.7% 1% 4.4%

14 3 13

89.9%

268

2.1% 2.1% 3.1%

6 6 9

92.8%

271

As a sidenote, combining students’ preferences in the fields of studies together with the level of studies, it could be underlined that studies abroad for undergraduate students are usually feasible when the exchange programme involves the same department of the other university. Therefore, level of studies may affect their options and preferences regarding the field of study.

Are you planning to study abroad next 24 year?

36.8 %

Y ES

Regarding students’ willingness to study abroad in the near future, 40% of the respondents are planning to do so in the following year. Once more, the most popular option is to study in the same field (as answered in the 85% of the cases).

63.2 NO % 29

25

In what field are you planning to study abroad next year?

85% 6%

in my own field of study

In another Engineering field of Study

9%

In another non-Engineering field of Study

In which country are you planning to 26 study abroad during next year?

Regarding the countries which students are willing to visit for studies, it has to be underlined that in many cases, and especially when students move abroad for studies while being in the ongoing study level, the available options depend on the university’s exchange opportunities, and therefore destinations are not very flexible. Taking this into account, the most popular option for the respondents willing to study abroad is Germany (14%). UK and North America follow, being the 1st preferred destination for 9% and 7% of the respondents, respectively, while other countries concerning around 5-6% of the respondents, each, are France, Italy, Sweden, Austria and Denmark.

studying abroad Answer options 1

Germany

2 3 4 5

UK North America France Spain My own country Italy Sweden Austria Denmark

6 7 8 9 10

1st Answer options preference I don’t have a 14% 107 2nd preference 9% 72 Germany 7% 51 UK 6% 50 Spain 6% 46 Netherlands

16%

130

10% 7% 5% 5%

76 52 42 36

5%

42

Sweden

4%

34

Netherlands

4%

31

5% 5% 5% 5%

41 39 37 35

North America Belgium Denmark Italy

4% 4% 4% 4%

33 32 32 31

Spain North America Denmark Italy

4% 3% 3% 3%

29 27 26 24

30

2nd preference

Answer 3rd options preference I don’t have a 27% 212 3rd preference UK 6% 46 Germany 5% 43 France 5% 40 Sweden 5% 40

27

How important are the following things, when you decide study abroad?

teaching language university prestige university expertise in my field of study university research opportunities student life place/ city/ location extra-curricular activities living costs perspective to work later in the country

9%

28%

62%

29%

7%

12%

26%

45%

22%

31%

44%

19%

39%

34%

21%

15%

35%

32%

14% 5%

24%

34%

25%

13%

4%

50%

37%

11%

6%

57%

24%

31%

31%

it is very important to me it is important to me i take it into account it is not really important for me it is NOT important at all for me

Despite students’ willingness to study a specific field abroad, their final decision is depended on several other parameters. The parameters considered as important or very important by vast majority of the students were Students’ life (for 71% of the respondents), the Place/ Location/ City (for 75% of the respondents), as well as the living costs (73%). Parameters important for a lower part of the respondents were Research Opportunities and Perspective to work later in the country. This fact could be associated with the age of the respondents, as most of the participants of the survey were in early study years, and possibly not clearly interested in long term aspects yet.

Regarding the country preference, despite the fact that students did not clearly relate it with working opportunities after graduation, in the relevant question of working abroad (see below), the target countries are mostly identical.

31

Students’ experience and interest in working abroad

32

Have you ever worked abroad or are you 28 working abroad now? no, i have never worked abroad i am working abroad now yes, i have worked abroad in the past

Most of the students who participated in the survey have never worked abroad. Still around 15% of them have either worked abroad in the past, or they are working abroad now.

Are you planning to work abroad during 29 the next year?

39 % YE S

61 % N O

kind of job are you looking for 30 What during the next year?

Among the students who are interested to work abroad, there is a clear preference for full time options, them being either internships or permanent employment.

33

2% mandatory for my studies

14%

18%

full-time internship part-time internship

26%

graduate program

23%

full-time employment part-time job

7%

31

work from home

13%

In which country are you planning to work abroad during next year? working abroad

Answer options

1st Answer options preference

2nd preference 12%

130

1

Germany

14%

115

2

UK

11%

94

3

9%

5

North America My own country Netherlands

6 7 8 9 10

4

Germany

Answer 3rd options preference I don’t have a 24% 195 3rd preference

12%

76

Germany

7%

54

77

I don’t have a 2nd preference UK

10%

52

UK

6%

53

5%

44

North America

6%

42

Belgium

4%

37

5%

38

5%

36

36

4%

32

5%

34

4%

34

Spain Belgium Norway Austria

4% 4% 4% 3%

31 29 29 28

4% 4% 4% 3%

37 30 30 26

North America My own country Sweden France Spain Denmark

4%

France

France My own country Netherlands Belgium Spain Denmark

4% 4% 4% 3%

30 29 29 27

The students interested to work abroad were asked in which country they were interested in working in by making a ranking of the top 3 destinations. The general preference are countries with high GDP, with the most popular choice being Germany, United Kingdom and North America, options identical with students’ preferences for studying abroad. Other highly preferred countries for working abroad were France, Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Norway and Austria. Once more it should be underlined that these countries were not the countries of residence of the respondents, as such an option was provided separately. Therefore, the target country for work was not significantly related to the country of origin.

34

32

How important are the following things when you decide to work abroad?

Language of the working environment

2% 14%

38%

enriching cv

4% 19%

Development Opportunities in the Company Job Opportunities in the Country

5%

5%

The place & the local culture

6%

Living Costs of the Country International aspect of the company

40%

20%

6% 18%

Company Development in my field of Study

6%

44% 35%

40%

33%

39%

21%

44%

26% 26%

8%

27%

Company’s image and reputation

7%

31%

Company’s Culture

10%

33% 28%

40% 37%

27%

38% 42%

29%

40%

10%

31%

38%

Language of the Country

11%

27%

Economy of the Country

8%

33%

First Salary

25%

39% 37%

it is NOT important at all for me it is not really important for me i take it into account it is important to me it is very important to me

Once more, asking the respondents how important parameters (from a given list) would be in order for them to work abroad, Language of working environment was evaluated as important to very important by the 82% of the respondents. Other important parameters were the contribution of working experience in enriching their Curriculum Vitae (CV) (75%) and the development opportunities they have in the company (73%) and in the country (72%). Company’s culture, Company’s image and reputation were defined as important by a lower part of the students. First salary was also evaluated as important by a relatively low part of the respondents, probably considering the first working experience as a transition period.

35

Universities’ survey

36

universities’ survey - How the survey looked like -

The survey was conducted between February and April 2014 via live interviews. Specifically, members of Local BEST Groups among Europe received the survey and contacted the relevant people in their University (Dean, Professors with overview on the relevant topics etc).

The input was collected in written format with the help of minute takers who were present in the interviewing process, it was translated in english (in case the interview took place in the local language) and gathered by the Market Research Project team for data processing and elaboration.

The questions aimed to assess the universities’ perception regarding the impact that student organisations should have towards university and their point of view regarding some critical areas such as extracurricular activities, in order for student organisations to better fit the needs of universities and its students.

In order to do so, the survey is divided in 4 sections: 1. Extracurricular activities: the position that each university has regarding extracurricular activities. Are they recognised? What kind of support is given to organise such activities?

2. Support of students’ mobility: is the university satisfied witht how many students take part in international mobility programmes? what steps are being taken to improve this?

3. Involvement of students in educational matters: how much are students involved in shaping and improving the educational programme of the university? Is it having an impact or not?

4. Interest for companies’ participation in not academic curricula activities: does the university regard the participation of companies in the activities of the university important?

Data elaboration was conducted by gathering statistics regarding the involved universities and by processing the answers to the survey. All answers were summarised and clustered and conclusions were drawn afterwards.

- Profile of participating universities 29 universities that belong to BEST network participated to BEST University Survey, meaning that we covered 31% of all the universities where a Local BEST Group is present.

The most represented cluster in the survey compared to all universities that belong to BEST network number wise is Southwestern Europe with 7 out of 19 BEST universities (37%), while the most represented percentage wise is Baltic with 3 out of 3 BEST universities (100%). The least represented cluster, both number and percentage wise, is Nordic Europe with 1 out of 10 BEST universities (10%).

Instead, if we compare how geographical clusters are represented inside the survey itself, the most represented clusters are Southwestern Europe with 7 out of 29 (24%) and Southeastern Europe EU with 6 (21%). The least represented clusters are Nordic Europe with 1 (3%), Southeastern Europe nonEU and Eastern Europe with 2 universities each (7%).

37

University statistics: All surveyed universities are public universities with 10 being general universities while 19 are technical universities. We also considered the size of the universities: 2 universities have less than five thousand students (7%), 6 universities have between 5 and 15 thousand students (21%), 10 universities have between 15 and 30 thousand students (34%) while 11 universities have more than 30 thousand students (38%).

While profiling the universities we have considered their ranking in the world. To have a more objective overview of these rankings, we have taken 3 different ranking lists for 2014 (QS University Ranking, Times University Ranking and Academic Ranking of World Universities). We have then clustered the universities according to their rank in either general ranking or engineering ranking.

We did this in order to see if there is any connection between the ranking of a university and their interest in extra curricular fields.

Compared to all BEST universities, we have 6 top universities out of 22 (27%), 10 good universities out of 24 (42%), 5 average universities out of 16 (31%) and 8 unranked out of 33 (24%). In the survey, top universities are 6 out of 29 (21%), good universities represent 34%, average universities 17% and unranked 28%.

- Data presentation 29 universities that belong to BEST network participated to BEST University Survey, meaning that we covered 31% of all the universities where a Local BEST Group is present.

The most represented cluster in the survey compared to all universities that belong to BEST network number wise is Southwestern Europe with 7 out of 19 BEST universities (37%), while the most represented percentage wise is Baltic with 3 out of 3 BEST universities (100%). The least represented cluster, both number and percentage wise, is Nordic Europe with 1 out of 10 BEST universities (10%).

Instead, if we compare how geographical clusters are represented inside the survey itself, the most represented clusters are Southwestern Europe with 7 out of 29 (24%) and Southeastern Europe EU with 6 (21%). The least represented clusters are Nordic Europe with 1 (3%), Southeastern Europe nonEU and Eastern Europe with 2 universities each (7%).

Extracurricular Activities University’s opinion about the impact of student organisations on the University and its students low impact - 3% career related - 3% university image - 3% academic development - 10% educational involvement - 10% more activities - 17% social life - 17% multicultural / exchange opportunities - 21% no answer - 21% soft skills development - 41%

38

Almost all universities think that student NGOs have a positive impact on its students. Mostly this impact comes from giving opportunities to students to develop their soft skills (41%), giving multicultural competences in an international environment (21%) and enhancing the social life of students by providing a more diverse list of activities (17%). A smaller amount of universities also mentioned the impact that such NGOs have by being educationally involved, for the opportunities they provide for academic development, for improving the image of the university and for organising career related events (3%).

University’s support to student NGOs in providing extracurricular activities Following the results from the previous questions, most universities support the extracurricular activities that student NGOs provide. When further asked if they preferred to support academic related activities or soft skill related activities, a slight preference towards academic activities was shown, though the majority did not express a particular preference, pointing out that as long a concrete benefit is present for students they would support it.

ills

7%

7% 7%

values personal

professionalism

entrepreneurship

10% 10%

persuationsolving

14%

cultural

leadership

31%

conflict a w areness

sk management

41%

time

45% 45%

presentation management

project

66%

communication

TE

A

M

W O

RK

University’s opinion on 3 most important soft skills students should develop during their studies

7%

We asked which 3 soft skills universities think are the most important that students develop before starting their career. The majority answered that teamwork (66%) is a key skill, followed communication (45%), project management (45%) and presentation skills (41%).

Recognition of academic activities organised by student NGOs in students’ university curricula Around half of the universities recognise extracurricular activities in some way. 10 of these issue ECTS credits when all documentation is presented and the activity is relevant enough, 7 let students skip classes to attend these activities while 5 universities give financial support for students to participate in extracurricular activities. A big hurdle that was mentioned is that there is no framework at the moment for recognition of extracurricular activities. As these activities are usually shaped in very different ways, there is no standard documentation to present and this creates a big problem for universities to understand how valuable each event was and increases the workload they need in order to recognise them.

39

Professors’ encouragement to take part in extracurricular activities More than half of the universities encourage their professors to take part in the organisation of extracurricular activities. How this is done differs from university to university as in some cases this is just a verbal encouragement while in other cases a more tangible benefit is given to proactive professors.

Support of students’ mobility 18 universities support and promote students’ mobility. It is worth noting that half of them provide support through counseling for students while few of them provide financial support (17%).

An interesting note is that one university actually forces its student to participate in a mobility programme in order to be able to graduate.

When asked about their satisfaction, of the 15 universities that answered only 4 of them (14%) said to be satisfied of the amount of students currently taking part in mobility programme in their respective university and are working on increasing this number in the future. In most cases these universities are taking some actions to actively promote mobility programmes and have students know what benefits there are in participating and what kind of support they can expect from their university.

Involvement of students in educational matters We asked universities about if and how they ask input from their students regarding their educational programmes. Almost all universities answered positively, with half of them gathering this input through surveys, 8 of them through representatives of the student body and 4 of them through events such as meetings.

A big problem that was often mentioned is how both students and professors view this process.

According to the interviewed people, students feel that their input has no impact which results in a lower quality feedback from their side. On the other hands professors, knowing how students feel about this, disregard the outcome of the feedback process as they believe it to not be relevant. It was also mentioned that in some cases even though the university actively seek input from students on their educational programme, little to no interest was shown from students in contributing.

Interest for companies’ participation in not academic curricula activities All universities in the survey answered to be interested in career events. When asked about who organises such events, 7 universities organise these events themselves through career centers and again 7 universities support other entities or organisation in taking care of career events. Only 3 universities answered that they are working together with other entities in organising these events.

This shows that universities are now working with companies in order to provide an educational programme that fits the needs of companies. It is worth noting how usually students are not involved in organising these activities or are not supported in organising such events.

Open question about what kind of activities/ services universities would like to offer but cannot At the end of the survey, we asked what service universities felt were missing at the moment. Only 1 university answered to be satisfied of everything. Most popular answers were related to facilities such as laboratories, dormitories and so on (31%) and the need of a more diversified portfolio of activities for students (17%).

40

Conclusions Market Research was an eye-opening project revealing the needs of students in various fields, connecting the path from their study experience to their academic and professional aspirations. Students of various countries, engineering fields and level of studies shared their thoughts, concerns and goals. Connecting this input to the services that BEST provides to students, we are able to evaluate our contribution, our status in providing students with support on the areas they are missing from traditional education and helping them to develop and gain experiences.

Moreover, this survey showed that universities in Europe recognise the impact that student NGOs have on technical university students and that these have raised in status over the last decades from small groups of disorganised students to full fledged organisations that actively pursue their vision and mission. Despite the good will of universities, NGOs are still facing problems related to official support (finance and recognition wise) from universities and other important institutions, problems deriving mostly from the bureaucracy and the inflexible processes when it comes to involving such bodies. In an evolving society where the traditional education provided by universities is no longer enough to prepare students for the corporate world, it is even more important that student NGOs take it in their hands the initiative to provide what is missing.

The input gathered, both from students and from universities across Europe, will help us to keep improving the services we provide to students in order to fulfill not only the needs that students have, but also the needs of the universities.

For this to happen both universities and NGOs have to take the according steps and shifts in their policy and activities so that the most is made out of our cooperation. It is time to stop working separately and to walk the road leading towards the future together.

For any information related to Market Research project of BEST, feel free to contact the authors: Alexia Spyridonidou (alexia.spyridonidoy@best.eu.org) & Ou Yan Zhou (ou.yan. zhou@best.eu.org).

41

42

Acknowledgements This endeavor would have been impossible without the hard work of many students across Europe and especially: members of Market Research Team 2013, Andrei-Alexandr Danilov, Arnulf Moshammer & Pieter Coppens, for contributing activelly in defining the content of survey and building the online questionnaire for students. members of Market Research Team 2014 Christos Ioannidis, Cosmin Delea, Dimitris Karanassos, Guillem Orpinell, Ioanna-Maria Nella, Maria Jesus Alonso Gonzalez, Marina Marceta, Majd Mekouar Ouazzani Touhami, Norman Schaffer, Paco Gordillo, Roberto Vigliotti, Ou Yan Zhou, for carrying out the heaviest workload of this endeavor.

For their contribution on countless fields such as data pre-processing & processing, sample quality control, data clustering and data analysis, etc. For their valuable input on defining the methods and the next steps. For the knowledge they brought and they gained during their work. For their commitment and their devotion on the project and for delivering high quality work.

Vice Presidents for External Services of XXV, XXVI & XXVII Boards of BEST Wieke Villerius, Klemen Krulec & Ou Yan Zhou, for supporting actively the project.

Responsibles for the promotion of the project Marija Gogic, Judit Gyenese, Tatiana Moldovan & Vallentina Diotallevi for developing promotion strategies and allocating resources for the creation of promotional material.

Other contributors of Market Research Project: Angelina Bintoudi, Tadej Stepisnik Perdih, Tiago Monteiro, Tereza Kolaiti & Vicente Mauricio, for providing their precious help when asked in various fields.

Alejandro Sanchez Medina, Giorgos Korosidis, Joao Andrade, Orfeas Antoniou & Thomas Uyttendaele for the significant support regarding automatisation of data processing and application of advanced methods in the analysis part.

Professor A. Simeonidis from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki for his guidance regarding data analysis methods and correlations.

Reviewers of the report on hand: Ana Rosa, Christos Ioannidis, James Salmon, Marina Marceta, Olcay Sari, Francisco Gordillo, for eliminating inconherences and improving the quality of the text.

Alexia Spyridonidou Market Research Coordinator 2013-2015

43

44