An article by Esin Dunbay
Mobility is one of the most exciting aspects of higher education. By studying abroad, students have the chance to experience a different culture and gain new perspectives on their study tracks. So, what happens when all higher education institutions switch to a default, one-size-fits-all system to accommodate the circumstances of a pandemic?
I have spoken with Nadia, who works as an admissions coordinator at the Faculty of Economy and Business at KU Leuven, about her experience in navigating student mobility during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Many students have had issues with their visas, with embassies staying closed for nearly the first half of 2020. Then, embassies reopened with less capacity and a stricter screening process for applications from certain nationalities. Instead of cancelling mobility, universities started offering virtual “mobility” for students who could not travel, Nadia tells me.
Next, I have spoken with Kate, a Chinese student whose mobility was hindered due to the pandemic. Being unable to get a visa, as she explains, was not the only reason she chose to cancel her mobility. The time difference and the internet firewall in China add to the obstacles of her studies. Yet, her prospective course provider seems to have no consideration for students in her situation and tries to convince students in Kate’s situation to go on virtual mobility. Kate further speaks to an inequality in access as she reports how despite the significant decrease of active cases in comparison to richer countries in Euro-American zones, embassies in China still do not take student visa applications from Chinese citizens.
Kate explains more about how the university of her choice had been trying their best to convince students unable to get visas or travel to pursue their “mobilities” still. As EEA students generally receive tuition exemptions or major reductions in Europe, it is often through international students that institutions make most of their revenue. Hall’s conceptualisation of stereotyping, which was theorised over Blackness, could also be applied here (1997). In general, students from Asian countries such as China, Japan or India are stereotyped as “studious” or in a more crude way, “nerds” (Chang & Demyan, 2007). Universities, which are institutions for profit, sadly, seem to take stereotyping to the next level when advertising virtual mobility as a means of obtaining the highly regarded “Western education”. Nadia elaborates that for most students, the Erasmus grant is not enough to live on and that it puts a strain over students. Taking on that financial burden for inadequate online education is not worth it for mobility-seeking students from non-Euro-American countries.
Serra, a Turkish degree-seeking student at KU Leuven explains that while the university has assisted her in the process, her visa application experience was anything but smooth. As a non-EEA student, she was required to prove financial security for the duration of her studies, but she expresses doubt at the practicality and the utility of this requirement excluding any prospective EEA students. Serra further questions the insistence over non-EEA students’ proof of financial needs and stresses that as students, regardless of nationality, they should be treated the same.
Through the stereotypical conceptualisation of students from Asian countries and the scrutinisation of non-EEA students’ financial means, Robinson’s (2000) theory of racial capitalism is embodied, and the students who are capitalised on emerge as a class. Non-EEA students come across many issues regarding effort and materiality to secure their mobility which students coming from EEA countries would not have to go through often, as evident from Kate’s comments. It could also be argued that the quality of the education both classes receive, as I should refer to them now, is the same, but the point stands: whose mobility matters?
Here is the full interview with Nadia if you wish to listen:
References:
Chang, D. F., & Demyan, A. L. (2007). Teachers' stereotypes of Asian, Black, and White students. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 91.
Hall, S. (1997). The spectacle of ‘the other’. Representation: cultural representations and signifying practices.
Robinson, C. J. (2000). Black Marxism: The making of the Black radical tradition. Univ of North Carolina Press.