Our economy would benefit from sending students to study abroad

Britain reaps the benefits of welcoming overseas students to study in the UK - but internationalism works both ways. We should also be enabling UK students to study abroad.

UK students don't venture into foreign universities as much as their overseas counterparts. While this won't come as a surprise given the country's language issues, the recent publication of the "Outward Student Mobility Strategy" by the UK Higher Education International Unit (IU) has emphasised the urgency of the situation.

The strategy has been developed as an original request from the Minister of Universities and Science, David Willetts, and highlights the importance of raising awareness at a national level of the benefits associated with studying, volunteering or working abroad. In addition, it raises the issue of making this opportunity widely available to students from both a financial (i.e. scholarships) and academic (i.e. credit recognition) point of view.

Some might say the reluctance of UK students to study abroad ultimately benefits the economy, stopping a brain drain - something that Southern European countries are currently experiencing. Coincidentally, the countries with higher rates of student mobility are those least “Anglophone-oriented”, such as Spain, France and Germany. Many continental students (mostly under the Erasmus programme) use overseas experience as a means to improve their knowledge of English and also as the best alternative to a gap year, which is not so widespread in Continental Europe as it is in the UK or the US.

I don’t believe there is a risk of brain drain in the UK. The nation's economy is dynamic and attracts more international workers than any other European country. However, I do think that in the long run this lack of interest among UK students in investing a few months studying abroad could be detrimental. It is not purely the academic aspect of this experience that is valuable for students, but also the chance to be immersed in the culture and everyday life in their host country. It enables them to understand different societies and their ways of life, a better perspective of the role the UK plays at a global level, exposure to fresh thinking and ideas, and access to new networks of contacts.

I have been working on the internationalisation of university students since 1996. Back then, student mobility was perceived as the privilege of just a few. Throughout the years we have built bridges between Latin American and European universities and seen real change and growth. When Santander Universities began its activity in the UK in 2007, we knew that the contacts between UK and Latin-American universities were not as frequent and numerous as with other areas of the world, such as the USA, Asia or Australia. Today things have changed and those contacts have increased exponentially. Yet there is still tremendous potential which has not been fully developed. Economies such as Chile or Brazil grow at a yearly rate of around 5 per cent. Middle-class populations are expanding rapidly and have a particular interest in higher education. UK firms can prosper in Latin America, and not only in Brazil, but also Colombia, Mexico and Chile.

There is a need for employees who understand these markets, either by speaking the language, having lived in those countries previously, or both. A graduate who has recently been in, for instance, Chile and can speak Spanish, will be a great asset to a company wanting to export their products to Chile or expand in that market. The same rules may be applied to universities. Many Latin American students tend to choose the USA when studying abroad for proximity and reasons of cultural affinity.

However, those who choose the UK seldom regret making that decision. There is a keen interest from Latin American students to study in the UK, but not enough promotion of UK universities in those countries. A bigger marketing effort is needed to entice students into choosing the UK for their postgraduate or Master's courses.

There is also the need to provide financial support for UK students who wish to take the step towards studying abroad. This is where private institutions play an important role. Companies with a global presence such as Santander, with strong links both in the UK and Latin America, should commit themselves to helping those students to study and carry out research abroad. This financial support can come in many different shapes and sizes: from scholarships to travel grants, funding of special projects or PhDs, bilateral exchange programmes etc. All stakeholders involved, government, universities and the private sector, have a responsibility to increase contact and build networks if a hugely important opportunity for the UK is not to be missed.

Luis Juste is Director of Santander Universities UK

The Graduate School of Economics building at UNAM (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico). Photograph: Omar Torres/Getty Images.
Luis Juste, Director, Santander Universities UK
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Show Hide image

This is the new front in the battle to control women’s bodies

By defining all of us as “pre-pregnant”, women are afforded all the blame – but none of the control.

For several weeks, YouTube has been reminding me to hurry up and have a baby. In a moment of guilt over all the newspapers I read online for free, I turned off my ad-blocking software and now I can’t play a simple death metal album without having to sit through 30 seconds of sensible women with long, soft hair trying to sell me pregnancy tests. I half expect one of them to tap her watch and remind me that I shouldn’t be wasting my best fertile years writing about socialism on the internet.

My partner, meanwhile, gets shown advertisements for useful software; my male housemate is offered tomato sauce, which forms 90 per cent of his diet. At first, I wondered if the gods of Google knew something I didn’t. But I suspect that the algorithm is less imaginative than I have been giving it credit for – indeed, I suspect that what Google thinks it knows about me is that I’m a woman in my late twenties, so, whatever my other interests might be, I ought to be getting myself knocked up some time soon.

The technology is new but the assumptions are ancient. Women are meant to make babies, regardless of the alternative plans we might have. In the 21st century, governments and world health authorities are similarly unimaginative about women’s lives and choices. The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently published guidelines suggesting that any woman who “could get pregnant” should refrain from drinking alcohol. The phrase implies that this includes any woman who menstruates and is not on the Pill – which is, in effect, everyone, as the Pill is not a foolproof method of contraception. So all females capable of conceiving should treat themselves and be treated by the health system as “pre-pregnant” – regardless of whether they plan to get pregnant any time soon, or whether they have sex with men in the first place. Boys will be boys, after all, so women ought to take precautions: think of it as rape insurance.

The medical evidence for moderate drinking as a clear threat to pregnancy is not solidly proven, but the CDC claims that it just wants to provide the best information for women “and their partners”. That’s a chilling little addition. Shouldn’t it be enough for women to decide whether they have that second gin? Are their partners supposed to exercise control over what they do and do not drink? How? By ordering them not to go to the pub? By confiscating their money and keeping tabs on where they go?

This is the logic of domestic abuse. With more than 18,000 women murdered by their intimate partners since 2003, domestic violence is a greater threat to life and health in the US than foetal alcohol poisoning – but that appears not to matter to the CDC.

Most people with a working uterus can get pregnant and some of them don’t self-define as women. But the advice being delivered at the highest levels is clearly aimed at women and that, in itself, tells us a great deal about the reasoning behind this sort of social control. It’s all about controlling women’s bodies before, during and after pregnancy. Almost every ideological facet of our societies is geared towards that end – from product placement and public health advice to explicit laws forcing women to carry pregnancies to term and jailing them if they fail to deliver the healthy babies the state requires of them.

Men’s sexual and reproductive health is never subject to this sort of policing. In South America, where the zika virus is suspected of having caused thousands of birth defects, women are being advised not to “get pregnant”. This is couched in language that gives women all of the blame and none of the control. Just like in the US, reproductive warnings are not aimed at men – even though Brazil, El Salvador and the US are extremely religious countries, so you would think that the number of miraculous virgin births would surely have been noticed.

Men are not being advised to avoid impregnating women, because the idea of a state placing restrictions on men’s sexual behaviour, however violent or reckless, is simply outside the framework of political possibility. It is supposed to be women’s responsibility to control whether they get pregnant – but in Brazil and El Salvador, which are among the countries where zika is most rampant, women often don’t get to make any serious choice in that most intimate of matters. Because of endemic rape and sexual violence, combined with some of the strictest abortion laws in the world, women are routinely forced to give birth against their will.

El Salvador is not the only country that locks up women for having miscarriages. The spread of regressive “personhood” laws across the United States has led to many women being threatened with jail for manslaughter when they miscarry – even as attacks on abortion rights make it harder than ever for American women to choose when and how they become pregnant, especially if they are poor.

Imagine that you have a friend in her early twenties whose partner gave her a helpful list of what she should and should not eat, drink and otherwise insert into various highly personal orifices, just in case she happened to get pregnant. Imagine that this partner backed his suggestions up with the threat of physical force. Imagine that he routinely reminded your friend that her potential to create life was more important than the life she was living, denied her access to medical care and threatened to lock her up if she miscarried. You would be telling your friend to get the hell out of that abusive relationship. You would be calling around the local shelters to find her an emergency refuge. But there is no refuge for a woman when the basic apparatus of power in her country is abusive. When society puts social control above women’s autonomy, there is nowhere for them to escape.

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

This article first appeared in the 11 February 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The legacy of Europe's worst battle