Introduction

Policy makers and practitioners in higher education (HE) often take for granted that skills acquired abroad are valued in the labour market (Netz & Cordua, 2021). Research also shows that improving career prospects is the main motivation for students to undertake education abroad (Nilsson & Ripmeester, 2016; Petzold & Moog, 2018). However, evidence is mixed regarding whether academic and extracurricular skills gained abroad are rewarded in the labour market. While graduates themselves often perceive that international student mobility (ISM) has had a positive effect on their employability (Bryła, 2015; Liwiński, 2019; Potts, 2015; Teichler & Janson, 2007), studies comparing labour market outcomes of graduates with and without ISM experience generally reveal small differences between these groups, particularly when controlling for various forms of selectivity (Di Pietro, 2021; Netz & Cordua, 2021; Van Mol et al., 2020; Waibel et al., 2017; Wiers-Jenssen & Støren, 2020).

The discrepancy between graduates’ perceptions and measured rewards in the labour market may be due to different understandings and measures of employability and labour market outcomes, as well as different methodological approaches. Studies addressing the perceptions of graduates often focus on horizontal career aspects such as the value of cultural learning, language acquisition, or personal development on employability (Di Pietro, 2019; Roy et al., 2019). This strain of research is mostly based on qualitative methods or small-scale surveys, and comparisons with graduates without ISM experience are rare, partly because questions less relevant to the latter group are addressed. Contrasting this, research that quantitatively compares graduates with and without ISM experience tends to focus on vertical career outputs such as employment rates or wages.

In this paper, we contribute to the understanding of the relationship between mobility and horizontal job aspects. We ask if graduates with ISM experience are more likely to work abroad and if they hold more international jobs in the domestic labour market. To this end, we exploit rich survey data that allows us to compare individuals who graduated abroad (degree-mobile graduates), individuals who have taken parts of their higher education abroad (credit-mobile graduates), and individuals without ISM experience (non-mobile graduates). Hence, we do not only contrast mobile and non-mobile students, but also address whether the labour market outcomes are linked to the mode of mobility. In our main analysis, we address the challenge of self-selection into mobility by employing multiple regression, using a comprehensive set of controls. Furthermore, we conduct propensity score matching (PSM) to test the robustness of our results to alternative estimation strategies.

Our study provides fresh insights into the impact of mobility on career trajectories, contributing to long-standing questions regarding whether ISM assists in meeting domestic demand for international experience, whether ISM increases the likelihood of brain drain, and whether ISM alters career opportunities. A key contribution is the inclusion of degree-mobile graduates, acknowledging that the distinct logic of degree and credit mobility may influence career prospects (Teichler, 2017).

Previous research

The influence of mobility on qualifications, signals, and preferences

The relationship between education and labour market outcomes may be influenced by various factors related to both the graduates and the employers. These factors may interact in complex ways, rendering the question of potential mechanisms a multidimensional issue (see e.g. Marginson, 2019; Netz & Cordua, 2021).

One perspective on why student mobility can affect labour market outcomes is based on human capital theory, which suggests that skills acquired during education are valued by employers as they enhance individual productivity (Becker, 1962). Mobile students may acquire skills that make them more attractive, among internationally oriented firms in the domestic labour market as well as for employers abroad.

Studying abroad can offer an opportunity to develop different formal skills than those typically acquired by non-mobile students, alongside knowledge regarding the host country. Moreover, ISM can foster language acquisition, cultural understanding, and personal development (see Roy et al. (2019) for a comprehensive review). The extent to which ISM fosters personal development may further depend on the duration of the stay, particularly in terms of increased intercultural competence (Behrnd & Porzelt 2012).

Instead of the notion that shifts in human capital impact labour market prospects, signalling theory (Spence, 1973) suggests that education primarily serves as a signal of an individual’s skills rather than a reflection of new skills acquired during education. ISM may signal attractive features such as trainability, commitment, and willingness to work hard (Jacob et al., 2019). Additionally, ISM can signal desirable personality traits that are valued by employers. For instance, Sadeghi et al. (2022) find that graduates with ISM experience are more extraverted and open than non-mobile peers.

These aforementioned perspectives highlight the role of employers in shaping potentially different career paths for ISM graduates. However, the preferences of graduates themselves also play pivotal roles in creating employee-employer matches. Recognizing this, another explanation for potential discrepancies in labour market outcomes is that ISM can influence individual preferences. Exposure to new languages and cultures during ISM can influence the development of personal preferences affecting their likelihood of pursuing international careers (Rodrigues, 2013; see also Hoeffler and Ariely (1999) on how experiences shape preferences). Murphy-Lejeune (2003) introduces the term ‘mobility capital’ to capture how mobility itself increases the likelihood of future international experiences. She also notes that this capital may extend to include the mobility of family members. Consequently, mobility can influence the job search behaviour and moving patterns of the graduates and therefore impact eventual labour market outcomes.

Alternatively, mobility may serve as a proxy for pre-existing preferences. Van Mol (2014) argues that there is scarce support for a causal relationship between Erasmus exchange experiences and international career aspirations. Instead, Erasmus students seem to have a larger extent of such aspirations already from the outset.

The relationship between mobility and type of job

Several empirical studies have provided evidence indicating that mobile students are more inclined to live and work abroad after graduation, compared to graduates without ISM experience (Bracht et al., 2006; Pinto, 2020). Within a European context, Rodrigues (2013) found, in a study encompassing 16 countries, a positive correlation between ISM experience and working abroad for most countries in her sample. She also observed significant heterogeneity in the impacts of mobility. For example, graduates in humanities, natural sciences, and social sciences were more likely to work abroad immediately after graduation, compared to graduates in health. Additionally, the impact of ISM appeared to be positively correlated with the duration of the stay abroad (Rodrigues, 2013).

Using natural experiments, like the introduction of exchange agreements, some studies establish a clearer causal link between exchange programs and living/working abroad (Di Pietro, 2012; Parey & Waldinger, 2011). These studies find positive causal effects in the range of 15 to 25 percentage points. If career aspirations are predetermined (Van Mol, 2014), these findings could support mechanisms like signalling or human capital formation. Moreover, Oosterbeek and Webbink (2011) also observe a significant decrease in the probability of individuals returning to their home country with each additional month studied abroad, which is consistent with the argument that ISM and the length of stay foster both cultural competence and taste for living abroad (Behrnd & Porzelt, 2012). The identification of causal effects suggests that at least not all of the positive correlation between student mobility and living abroad is driven by forms of selection.

Finally, research on students who complete a full degree abroad is relatively limited, possibly due to the challenges associated with effectively tracking this specific group. An exception is Wiers-Jenssen (2008) who documented that Norwegian students who pursue their entire degree abroad exhibit a higher likelihood of working abroad in comparison to exchange students and non-mobile students.

Empirical evidence also suggests that mobility can have an impact on job content. Studies examining the career impacts of programs like Erasmus indicate that ISM alumni are more likely to hold jobs with international aspects, such as having business contacts and customers from abroad (Bracht et al., 2006; Brandenburg et al., 2014). Additionally, Van Mol (2017) shows evidence that such a pattern may, at least partially, be due to employer demand for international experience. Using a large-scale survey of employers, spanning 31 countries, he finds that while far from all employers consider international experience in their recruitment processes, a minority of firms do — especially those seeking language and decision-making competencies. These results suggest that an individual’s decision to study abroad has a causal effect on how they are perceived among certain employers.

Finally, while several studies indicate that graduates who have studied abroad perceive ISM as beneficial for their careers (Bryła, 2015; Potts, 2022), most research examining the impact of ISM on horizontal career trajectories does not compare graduates with and without ISM experience nor distinguish between exchange students and those who do their whole degree abroad. This poses a challenge in determining whether ISM is associated with job tasks and career paths different from graduates without ISM experience.

Predictions

Collectively, the various viewpoints on mechanisms propose that ISM can significantly impact graduates’ appeal to employers. ISM can foster the development of competencies and skills that are valuable in securing international employment but also forms of social connections and a taste for living abroad. The impact of the duration of stay also suggests that degree mobile might be more likely to find employment abroad relative to credit-mobile students.

Domestically, mobile students may also acquire (or signal) skills that appeal to the subset of employers seeking candidates with international experience. Therefore, we should expect that there will be disparities in the extent of international assignments among mobile and non-mobile graduates. Moreover, one might anticipate that degree-mobile students would exhibit a notably higher degree of international involvement in their professional roles for at least two reasons. First, if employers regard degree mobility as a correlate of certain competencies, such as enhanced language proficiency, these individuals may be considered particularly attractive. Second, credit-mobile students graduating from Norwegian institutions may possess a relatively stronger advantage within the domestic job market, compared to degree-mobile students, among employers that are less internationally oriented.

The Norwegian context

Historically, a high proportion of the Norwegian student body has been internationally mobile due to a combination of generous public funding schemes and limited domestic supply of HE. In the 1960s, up to 30% of all students were enrolled abroad, stabilizing at around 6 to 7% since the 1980s. Credit mobility is mostly a twenty-first-century phenomenon, driven by an active national and institutional internationalization policy. About 15% of HE graduates undertake parts of their degree abroad (DIKU, 2019). Hence, ISM experience is quite common, which may imply weaker signalling effects. The extent of English proficiency in the population, measured as “very high” (Education First, 2022), also implies that English skills acquired abroad may be less of a competitive advantage. Finally, the combination of low unemployment rates among HE graduates (OECD, 2024)—and thus promising employment prospects—coupled with a generous welfare state, could make it attractive to return to Norway.

Data

Sample

Our analyses are based on the Norwegian Graduate Survey, conducted among individuals with a master’s (MA) degree approximately 3 years after graduation (2019). The sample consists of two cohorts: (1) graduates who completed their degree in Norway in 2016 and (2) Norwegian citizens who completed their degree abroad in 2015 or 2016. All MA graduates from Norwegian HEIs in 2016 (n = 12,578) and all Norwegian citizens graduating from HEIs abroad in 2015 and 2016 (n = 5018) were invited to participate. Hence, 17,596 individuals received the digital survey, and 6188 graduates responded (35.2%). These were representative of the target population based on observable characteristics (described in detail by Skjelbred et al. (2019)). Register data on gender, age, and field of study were collected from UNIT (the Norwegian Directorate for ICT and Joint Services in Higher Education and Research) and linked to each participant’s survey responses.

We include only fields of study with a minimum of 30 respondents within all three mobility groups: humanities, social sciences, business and administration, natural sciences and technical subjects (STEM), and some degrees in health education, more specifically medicine, dentistry, veterinary, and therapeutic subjects. Moreover, we include only respondents who are employed.Footnote 1 This leaves us with a total sample of 3942 respondents.

Dependent variables

We focus on two dependent variables:

  1. (1)

    Working abroad: This is a binary variable equal to one if the graduate was employed abroad at the time of data collection and zero if the graduate was employed in Norway.

  2. (2)

    International job: To analyse international aspects of domestic jobs, we construct an Additive Index which closely follows the structure of the International Job Index applied in a previous study of graduates with ISM experience by Wiers-Jenssen (2008). It includes indicators of (1) whether the respondent’s business/firm has a headquarter or branch in a different country, (2) the number of business days abroad, and (3) whether the respondent uses other languages on a weekly basis. The index score ranges from 0 to 5, and the indicator values are described in Table 1.

Table 1 Construction of the International Job Index
Full size table

We do not assign explicit weights to the indicators, except for implicit weighting based on their scales. We argue that this approach is suitable as a baseline due to the indicators’ coarse nature, lacking specific details such as how foreign languages are used, the nature of business trips, and direct contact with foreign branches. However, we recognize that alternative weighting and aggregation methods could effectively capture international aspects, particularly in contexts where indicators offer more granularity.

Independent variables

Our main independent variable of interest is mobility during HE, separating between degree-mobile, credit-mobile, and non-mobile graduates. Self-selection of individuals into these mobility categories introduces a potential source of bias in estimating the relationship between mobility and labour market outcomes. To address this issue, we follow previous studies in controlling for individual-level characteristics, including sociodemographic variables and academic records. We include proxies for previous international exposure, a factor found to positively correlate with the decision to study abroad in other contexts (Rodrigues, 2012). These proxies may also function as signals of mobility preferences prior to HE. Hence, if differences between mobile and non-mobile graduates merely reflect preferences and experiences prior to HE, we might be able to pick this up in our analyses.

We focus on using variables determined prior to or at the same time as the respondents studied for their MA degree, thus minimizing the chances of controlling for intermediate outcomes of mobility that may bias our estimates of the relationship between mobility and labour market outcomes (Schisterman et al., 2009).

Background characteristics

We include two sets of background characteristics: The first set includes standard sociodemographic variables, while the second includes variables related to other mobility experiences. We call the latter set of variables “mobility capital” as they capture the prior international experience of the graduate as well as international experience within the family.

  1. (1)

    Sociodemographic variables: Gender is measured as a dummy for being male, and age is measured in years. Parents’ education level is a categorical variable consisting of three groups: No HE, at least one parent has short HE (1–4 years) and at least one parent has long HE (more than 4 years). Entrance grades is a categorical variable measuring the respondents’ average grade (between 1 and 6) from upper secondary school. We split respondents into three categories: high (> 5), medium (4.5–5), and low (< 4.5).

  2. (2)

    Mobility capital: Has stayed abroad before studying is a dummy equal to 1 for respondents who have stayed abroad more than 6 months (continuously) before starting HE. Parents have lived abroad is a dummy equal to 1 if the respondent’s mother, father, or both have lived abroad for more than 6 months, and Sibling has lived abroad is a dummy equal to 1 if the respondent has a sibling who has lived abroad for more than 6 months. As we cannot be sure of the timing of siblings’ or parents’ potential stays abroad, we have included robustness tests where these are left out of the analysis.

The background characteristics of the net sample across ISM groups are displayed in Table 2. Significance testing using Pearson’s chi-squared tests for categorical variables or t-tests/ANOVA for continuous variables suggests that the three groups differ in most of the abovementioned background characteristics: Degree-mobile graduates have on average lower upper secondary school grades and are younger than the two other groups. The share of respondents whose parents have long HE (more than 4 years) is more than 10 percentage points higher for mobile than for non-mobile graduates. However, in terms of parental education and the share whose parents or siblings have lived abroad, the differences between degree- and credit-mobile graduates are not significant.

Table 2 Independent variables by ISM group
Full size table

Degree characteristics

For degree characteristics, we include the following set of controls. Study field is a categorical variable including five fields of study: humanities, social sciences, business and administration, natural sciences, and health. Region of ISM indicates where the degree-mobile graduates obtained their degree and the location of the credit-mobile graduates’ stay abroad. For credit-mobile graduates with multiple stays abroad, we select the location of the longest stay. MA grades is the respondent’s self-reported average grades from their MA program, measured on a scale from A (highest) to E (lowest). We convert this to a continuous variable on a scale from 1 (low) to 5 (high). Grades are not necessarily comparable across countries and degrees but are still a measure of skill and an important signal to employers for the newly graduated.

We also include the Top 150 uni (ARWU) which is a dummy indicating whether the university the respondent graduated from was ranked among the top 150 universities in the world according to the Academic Ranking of World University in 2019, also known as the Shanghai Ranking (ARWU). Finally, the 2016 graduate indicates the year of graduation from the MA programme. To get a larger sample of degree-mobile graduates, this group includes graduates from 2015 and 2016, whereas the other two groups consist of individuals who graduated in 2015. In theory, having longer work experience at the time of data collection may affect labour market outcomes.

Methods

In addition to presenting the raw differences between the non-mobile, credit mobile, and degree mobile, we use linear regression analysis to control for selection into these three categories. Hence, we run the following regression:

$$Job\;aspec{t}_{i}=\alpha +{\beta }_{1}{\text{DegreeMobility}}_{i}+{\beta }_{2}{\text{CreditMobility}}_{i}+{\gamma }_{j}{X}_{i,j}+{e}_{i} (1)$$

where \({\beta }_{1}\) and \({\beta }_{2}\) measure the difference between non-mobile (the reference group) and credit- and degree-mobile graduates, respectively, and \({X}_{i,j}\) includes individual-level background variables and degree characteristics.

Although controls are selected to minimize the role of selection, we cannot exclude the possibility that the estimates are biased because of omitted variables. For instance, there might still be differences in abilities, motivation, and cultural capital that are not accounted for by our measures. We show in Appendix 2 that our main results do not change using propensity score matching.Footnote 2 However, we use linear regressions in the main analysis as we are also interested in the impact of different sets of control variables.Footnote 3

Beyond the issue of selection, some of the controls might themselves be intermediate outcomes of mobility, which may bias the estimate of the impact of mobility on the outcomes (Schisterman et al., 2009). This concern is particularly relevant for the variables measuring the mobility of parents and siblings. We conduct robustness tests where we exclude these variables from the analysis (Appendix 3). Finally, Appendix 4 reproduces our main analysis of the sample of graduates without any missing values.

Results

Employment abroad

The proportion of graduates working abroad varies substantially across mobility groups: 21.7% of degree-mobile graduates work abroad, compared to 6.9% of credit-mobile graduates, and 2.3% of non-mobile graduates (see Appendix Table 6). This suggests a strong link between studying abroad and subsequent international employment.

Figure 1 displays the coefficients on degree and credit-mobile graduates from a regression with a dummy for working abroad as the dependent variable. Notably, even when controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, mobility capital, study characteristics, and study region, the estimated propensities for degree- and credit-mobile graduates to work abroad remain relatively stable. Note that, in controlling for study regions, we compare degree-mobile graduates to credit-mobile graduates, as non-mobile graduates fall out of the regression. This means that this estimate represents a comparison of degree-mobile to credit-mobile graduates who have studied in the same regions. Appendix Tables 8 and 9 demonstrates that the disparities between mobile and non-mobile individuals, as well as between credit- and degree-mobile graduates, remain robust when we adjust for covariates using propensity score matching instead of a linear regression model.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Coefficient plot showing the differences in estimated propensity to work abroad between the two mobility groups and non-mobile (the omitted category) using different sets of control variables

Full size image

Next, we explore the characteristics of graduates working abroad. Table 3 presents the results from regressions with working abroad as the dependent variable. While columns 1–3 consider both mobile and non-mobile graduates, regressions presented in columns 4 and 5 include only mobile graduates.

Table 3 Factors associated with working abroad
Full size table

Graduates working abroad are younger and have better grades from upper secondary school. We find no impact on parental education. Moreover, staying abroad prior to HE and having a high MA grade are strongly associated with working abroad, across all models. In the whole sample, having parents who have lived abroad is correlated with working abroad, but when restricting the sample to mobile graduates, this coefficient is no longer significant. When it comes to the field of study, graduates in humanities and social sciences are more likely to work abroad than graduates in other fields. Comparing only mobile graduates (credit and degree) indicates that those who studied in a Nordic or Western European country have a higher propensity to work abroad than those who studied in an English-speaking country, which is the reference category.

International jobs

Table 4 shows the means of the components of the International Job Index across mobility groups for graduates working in Norway. Slightly higher shares of degree- and credit-mobile respondents use English on a weekly basis, and similar shares in the three groups use other languages than Norwegian and English. The two groups with ISM experience spend more business days abroad compared to non-mobile graduates. They are also slightly more likely to work in firms that have headquarters or branches abroad. The assembled index shows that degree-mobile graduates have approximately a 0.02 standard deviations higher index value than the mean of the entire sample. Credit-mobile graduates have higher index values than degree-mobile graduates, on average, while non-mobile graduates have significantly lower index values compared to degree-mobile graduates (t-test: p-value = 0.01).

Table 4 Means of international job aspects by ISM group
Full size table

We control for degree and background characteristics in Table 5, presenting the results of five OLS regressions with the standardized International Job Index as the dependent variable.Footnote 4 While the results in columns 1–3 include all mobility groups, columns 4 and 5 are estimated on the sample of mobile graduates only. For the analyses including the study region, we collapse Eastern and Western Europe into one category, Europe, since 19% of degree-mobile graduates have studied in Eastern Europe as opposed to only 3% of the credit-mobile graduates. In column 3, we also include the private/public sector dimension and the industries in which they work. These are collected under the label “Industry and sector”. While we are not interested in the point estimates of their coefficients, changes in the estimates of mobility might indicate whether differences are more related to sector rather than job assignments. As shown in Appendix Fig. 2, there are notable differences in index values across industries. Naturally, industry and sector might themselves be outcomes of mobility and thus change the interpretation of ISM on the international aspects of jobs.

Table 5 Relationship between ISM and international jobs
Full size table

The coefficients pertaining to credit and degree mobility across models 1–3 indicate significant disparities between graduates who are mobile and those who are not, suggesting that they have jobs with more international assignments. While the estimates in model 1 imply that credit-mobile students have higher index values, model 3 indicates that when industry and sector are included as controls, this difference is reversed. This suggests that degree-mobile graduates are more inclined to work in sectors characterized by lower index values. Still, our preferred models (2, 4, and 5), leaving out industry and sector, show that the difference is negligible and insignificant. This finding is further corroborated by the PSM analysis presented in Appendix Table 8.

Although the control variables do not explain the relationship between mobility and having an international job, several variables are significantly related to the index. Graduates with higher entrance grades have higher index values. Also, mobility capital (stays abroad prior to HE and mobility of siblings) is positively related to the extent of international aspects of a job. In terms of field of study, graduates in natural sciences and business have on average higher index values, while programmes in health have the lowest index values, almost one standard deviation lower index values compared to natural sciences.

Discussion

Impact of mobility

We find that ISM experience is associated with an increased likelihood of working abroad. Our findings are qualitatively consistent with previous research on the relationship between student exchange programmes and the probability of working abroad in Germany (Parey & Waldinger, 2011) and Italy (Di Pietro, 2012). However, our estimates indicate a substantially smaller impact of credit mobility compared to the effects observed in these studies. This disparity is supported by Rodrigues (2013) who finds that, among the 16 European countries in her analyses, Norway falls on the lower end of the spectrum in terms of the magnitude of student mobility’s impact on subsequent mobility.

The observed difference in the probability of working abroad between degree-mobile and credit-mobile students indicates that ISM, as previous research has suggested, may have a cumulative effect. Longer periods abroad might foster both an increased taste for living abroad (Rodrigues, 2013) as well as the acquisition of more relevant human capital for the host country (Dustmann, 1996). However, although we control for previous stays abroad, the observed gap may still reflect a difference in initial motivation to live abroad not captured by our control variables.

We find that graduates with ISM experience are more likely to hold jobs involving international work assignments in the domestic labour market compared to graduates without ISM experience. Including the full set of controls does not explain the difference between the mobile and non-mobile graduates. Thus, we find minimal evidence that this relationship is caused by the selection for which we can control. The differences between graduates who were degree and credit mobile vary somewhat across specifications but are vanishingly small when background and degree characteristics are included. The higher coefficient on degree mobility in model 3 (Table 5) indicates that degree-mobile graduates work in industries characterized by lower index values.

The overall lack of difference between degree- and credit-mobile graduates, with regards to the International Job Index, indicates that the cumulative effect of ISM is less important in explaining job content in the domestic labour market. This finding can be attributed to various factors on the side of the employers. For instance, Skjelbred et al. (2024) found in a survey experiment of Norwegian employers that they are sceptical towards entire degrees pursued abroad and therefore may prefer graduates who have graduated domestically but completed parts of their degree abroad. In a European setting, Van Mol (2017) found that only a subset of employers consider international experience in recruitment. Still, the difference we do find between mobile and non-mobile graduates indicates that international experience has implications for work tasks. This is consistent with Petzold (2017), who in an experimental setting, found that German employers have a higher propensity to allocate international work responsibilities to individuals with ISM experience than to those without.

On the side of the degree-mobile graduates, an explanation of the overall small impact of mobility on the International Job Index could be the Norwegian support schemes for pursuing studies abroad. Generous funding from the States educational loan fund reduces the cost of international degree mobility and could explain why a relatively high proportion study abroad for pragmatic reasons; they want to study a field with limited opportunities in Norway, rather than to obtain international jobs (Hovdhaugen & Wiers-Jenssen, 2023).

We find a remarkable consistency in the Norwegian context over time. Specifically, both sets of results regarding foreign employment and international jobs match Wiers-Jenssen’s (2008) investigation into Norwegian students who graduated between 1997 and 1999. Within these cohorts, she finds that 20% of degree-mobile graduates and only 2% of non-mobile graduates worked abroad. Moreover, she finds that credit and degree mobility demonstrated similar impacts on international job assignments in the Norwegian labour market.

The patters observed may apply to other countries where students move sideways rather than upwards in terms of economic and educational opportunities (Teichler, 2004). Outcomes may be different for students from emerging economies or the Global South, where motivational push-and-pull factors including labour market opportunities are quite different.Footnote 5

Differences across fields of study

Aside from documenting an association between mobility and employment careers, our analyses provide insights into differences between various fields of study. Compared to the reference category of natural sciences, graduates from humanities and social sciences have the highest likelihood of pursuing opportunities abroad, consistent with the results of Rodrigues (2013). When it comes to international jobs, however, this relationship is reversed, indicating a negative association with humanities and social sciences. These contrasting findings bear some similarity to the results reported by Bracht et al. (2006) finding that former Erasmus students in humanities and social sciences were less likely to be sent abroad on international work assignments by their employers.

We also find that mobile students in the health field are the least likely to work abroad and have a job with international job content. This negative correlation can be attributed to the motivations of students pursuing health degrees abroad, as previous research has shown their pragmatic perspective on mobility; many seem to choose to study abroad because they are not admitted to their preferred degree in Norway (Hovdhaugen & Wiers-Jenssen, 2023).

Concluding remarks

This article has examined the relationship between student mobility and two key aspects: the likelihood of foreign employment and the international job content within the domestic labour market. Our study makes a significant contribution to the existing literature by using a comprehensive survey to compare the outcomes of former non-mobile, credit-mobile, and degree-mobile students. The distinction between credit and degree mobility is important for understanding labour market outcomes given the potential impact of (1) study duration abroad and (2) the distinct qualifications associated with these mobility types. Furthermore, our focus on international job content within the domestic labour market expands the current knowledge base as this is an area that has received relatively limited attention, compared to foreign employment.

Overall, our findings demonstrate that mobile students are more likely to work abroad and have more internationally oriented jobs, compared to non-mobile students. This pattern remains consistent across various empirical models that include different control variables aimed at addressing the potential self-selection bias associated with student mobility. Furthermore, our research reveals a substantial difference between degree- and credit-mobile students in terms of their likelihood of working abroad after graduation. However, this distinction does not seem to extend to the international content of jobs, as our fully specified model indicates no significant difference between degree- and credit-mobile students in this regard. We welcome more research on the distinction between credit and degree mobility in other contexts, to see whether these differences are persistent across contexts.

In addition to potential issues of selection for mobility, this study has two key limitations. First, while we aim at confining the link between mobility and labour outcomes, we cannot distinguish theories of graduate preference, signalling, and human capital. Hence, whether differences in outcomes are driven by supply-side factors, such as preferences, or demand factors, such as the employer’s need for internationally acquired human capital, is still an important question to be pursued by future research. Second, future surveys of mobile students should collect more data on international job content, including intercultural understanding and specific human capital requirements. Our current index is broad and focuses on the presence of international elements in jobs but does not delve into specific tasks or, say, the purposes and locations of business travels. Making headway on both limitations would further enhance our understanding of the impact of mobility.