High Educ (2009) 57:335354

DOI 10.1007/s10734-008-9149-x

Exploring the orientations of international students

in Mexico: differences by region of origin

Brendan Cantwell Sandra G. Luca Jenny J. Lee

Published online: 26 May 2008

Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This study examined the dispositions, experiences, and expectations of inter-
national students in a developing country to understand the increasing phenomenon of
reverse student flows and the role of the political economy in international student
mobility. Students dispositions, experiences and expectationsreferred here collectively
as orientationsserved as the guiding framework for this study. Data were drawn from
survey responses from 279 international students at universities throughout Mexico and
analyzed to explore the orientations among students from Europe, Latin America and
North America. Findings showed significant differences among international students
dispositions, experiences, and expectations by these geographical regions of origin. In a
broader context, this research addressed the important role of developing countries as not
only senders but also receivers of international students. This research also demonstrated
the ways that the political economy shape the orientations of students studying abroad.

Keywords International mobility
Mexico
Political economy
Student choice

Student experiences
Study abroad

Introduction

The number of students who cross national borders for higher education has increased
substantially over the past several decades and this growth has garnered scholarly attention.
Much of what is already known about international students has been based on data on
aggregate flows (e.g., Institute of International Education [IIE] 2006; OECD 2007a) or
research on students individual experiences adjusting to a new educational setting (e.g.,
Deumert et al. 2005; Lee and Rice 2007). Some research has analyzed how international
students chose where to study abroad and the experiences of these students (e.g., Li and
Bray 2007; Mazzarol and Soutar 2002). Most studies, however, address only students

B. Cantwell (&)
S. G. Luca
J. J. Lee

Center for the Study of Higher Education, The University of Arizona, Education,
Room 321, Tucson, AZ 85721-0069, USA
e-mail: cantwell@email.arizona.edu

123
336 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

studying abroad in developed countries, despite the considerable numbers now studying in
developing countries. Additionally, as Lee et al. (2006) have pointed out, international
student choice research rarely considers issues related to the political economy. Given the
growing number of international students, the diversification of educational destinations
and the increased importance of higher education within economic and social structures, it
is time to take stock of the various aspects of international education in settings around the
world. From this point of view, it seems important to disaggregate international students in
terms of numerical distributions by home and host country but also to understand the
various educational, social and economic implications associated with international
education.
This paper was built upon an assessment of international student choice and experiences
studying in Mexico (Lee forthcoming) and took steps towards addressing three under-
explored areas in international student research. First, we focused on a developing country
as the host educational setting. Second, we explored differences by international students
region of origin, which included North America, Latin America and Europe. Third, we
examined how student dispositions, experiences and expectations were associated with
features of the political economy. We referred to students dispositions, experiences and
expectations collectively as orientations. The data used in this analysis were drawn from
survey responses from 279 international students at universities throughout Mexico. These
data were disaggregated by students geographical region of origin and compared along a
number of variables that explored students dispositions, experiences and expectations
towards studying in Mexico.
This article is organized as follows: in the following section, we offer context to the
study by reviewing some trends in international education and giving a brief account of the
Mexican higher education system. Next, we review relevant literature and outline our
theoretical framework. Then, we present the methods employed in this study and our
findings. The findings are then discussed and implications are offered with an eye towards
future research.

The context

While empirical research on international education has increased considerably in recent

decades, international education itself is not new. The history of individual crossing borders
for education can be traced back to around 300 BC when Greek scholars traveled to
Alexandria to further their academic training (Jalowiecki and Gorzelak 2004). However, the
scale and, to some extent, direction of international education has changed rather dramati-
cally from previous times. Prior to the Second World War, Western Europe was the
preeminent destination for students from both colonized countries and industrial countries in
the new world. By the mid-1940s, the United States of America had supplanted European
countries as the top destination for international students. In the mid-1960s, international
education became associated with development aid. During this period, the dominant pattern
was of students from developing countries traveling to developed countries, often with
the support of government or philanthropic programs (Barber et al. 1984). Today, the pattern
of student flows from developing countries to developed countries largely persists but is
now more often associated with revenue generation by host institutions from fee paying
students (Lee et al. 2006) than with students supported by development aid.
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of students crossing
borders. According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 337

Table 1 Number of
2000 2003 Percent
international students studying
change (%)
in OECD and non-OECD
countries from 2000 to 2003
OECD countries 1,522,718 1,976,371 23.0
Non-OECD countries 98,091 28,7586 65.9
Total 1,622,809 2,265,960 28.4

(OECD), the number of international students worldwide increased from just over
1.6 million in 2000 to nearly 2.3 million in 2003 (OECD 2007a) and this expansion will
likely continue. While most students still travel to study in a handful of developed
countries, as Table 1 indicates, the number of students traveling to developing countries is
on the rise. OECD member states are the wealthiest countries in world. Non-OECD
countries tend to be less-affluent but vary from poor small states to large and relatively
affluent countries. While the growth in the number of international students shown in these
data was likely due in part to more extensive reporting, it seems that there is a trend of
increased numbers of international students choosing to study in developing countries. For
example, countries as varied as Chile, India and the Philippines have all experienced high
growth in international student enrollments over the past few years (OECD 2007a).
The prevailing belief about international education is that students elect to study abroad
in order to expand their educational and economic opportunities; thus, student flows follow
the structure of the global economy (Chen and Barnett 2000). Yet a growing number of
international students are choosing to study in developing countries and it may not be
possible to understand these student movements in the same way. The case of Mexico is
one example. Among U.S. students studying abroad, Mexico is the sixth most popular
destination overall, and the most popular destination among all developing countries. Over
9,000 American students enroll in Mexican institutions annually, more than traditional
European destinations like Germany and the Republic of Ireland (IIE 2006). Mexico has
also been an important educational destination for students from Latin America (Altbach
2004) and is a destination for a relatively small but not insignificant number of European
students. The impetus for students who chose to attend universities in developing countries
like Mexico is often overlooked and as a result, is less understood in terms of the decision
making process and the expectations for studying abroad as well as the actual experiences
of international students.

Mexican higher education

Mexico is considered a middle income or developing country by international indicators

(World Bank [WB] 2007; United Nations [UN] 2006). It is the only Latin American
country that is a member of the OECD and has one of the lowest gross domestic product
per capita among OECD countries (OECD 2007b). In regards to higher education, Mexico
has a long history. The first university in Mexico was established by Royal Decree during
the colonial period in 1551. Since the time of its independence, higher education has
played an important civic and political role in Mexican society. In 1999 there were around
1,600 higher education institutions in Mexico, enrolling over two million students and
employing nearly 200,000 professors (Casanova-Cardiel 2006, p. 884). In that same year,
the participation rate among the 2024 year-old age group was 17.7% (Casanova-Cardiel
2006, p. 888). The OECD has identified four categories of higher education institutions in

123
338 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

Table 2 Number of interna-

Continent of origin 1999 2000 2001 2002
tional students in Mexico by
continent of origin from 1999
Africa 19 24 19 24
to 2002
North America 1,608 559 1,180 1,353
South America 503 523 568 381
Asia 30 36 41 26
Europe 128 226 124 111
Oceania 0 4 6 2
Total 2,288 1,372 1,938 1,897

Mexico: (1) universities; (2) technological institutions; (3) teacher training schools; (4)
other institutions, including research centers and stand alone graduate schools (OECD
1997). There are public and private institutions of all types. Historically, the bulk of
enrollments in Mexican higher education have been in the public sector. While the public
sector still enrolls around two-thirds of all students, the private sector has grown rapidly
since the 1980 s and accounts for a substantial portion of the growth in Mexican higher
education (Casanova-Cardiel 2006).
In terms of international student circulation, Mexico is a net sending country. This
means that there are more Mexican students who study abroad than students who travel to
Mexico to study. In 2002, 18,228 Mexican students were enrolled in higher education
institutions abroad, while only 1,897 international students were enrolled in Mexico
(OECD 2007a). Table 2 provides a breakdown of international students in Mexico by
region of origin. These OECD data likely under-represent the number of non-Mexican
students who spend some time in Mexican higher education each year. A number of
students are enrolled in Mexican higher education through relatively short-term exchange
programs and are thus not captured in the OECD dataset. The data reporting on student
exchange within Latin America and the Caribbean tends to be especially incomplete
(Tremblay 2003). For example, according to the 2006 Open Doors report, over 9,000 U.S.
students spent some time in the Mexican higher education system during the 20042005
academic year (IIE 2006) whereas the data from the OECD report approximately 20
percent this number from all parts of the world. However, the OECD numbers are useful as
they primarily capture degree-seeing students and show the general proportions of where
international students in Mexico originate.
Most Mexican institutions do not host large numbers of international students. Some
may only host a handful of students from abroad and do not have an office to support
international education. That said, there is growing institutional support for international
education in Mexico. A number of institutions have joined associations aimed at promoting
international exchange in Mexico and the region. In 1992, the Asociacion Mexicana para la
Educacion Internacional (AMPEI) was founded to promote international education in
Mexico. AMPEI focuses on training professionals who work in the area of international
education, promoting academic exchange and national and international collaboration. As
of this writing, AMPEI has 80 institutional members throughout Mexico. In addition, the
Consortium of North American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC) was foun-
ded in 1997 and has 128 members, of which 63 are Mexican. CONAHEC promotes
international student and educational exchange throughout the North America Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) area.

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 339

Literature and theory

Over the years there has been an important shift in how international students are
understood by host nations and institutions. In previous decades, international students
were typically viewed simply as the recipients of development aid (Barber et al. 1984) and
many participated in programs like Fulbright and Colombo. Today, international students
are more often understood as sources of revenue by host countries and institutions and are
being recruited as a means of income generation (Lee et al. 2006). Along with viewing
international students as sources of revenue, countries also see international students as a
potential source of skilled migration and are adjusting immigration policies in order to
make it easier for more international students to maintain residency and work in host
countries after their studies have been completed (Tremblay 2005). From the point of view
of developing countries students heading abroad can be a double-edge sword. On the one-
hand, a skilled workforce is considered important to development and a number of
developing countries, including Mexico, fund students to study abroad. On the other hand,
many international students have not returned home at the conclusion of their studies. In
fact, this type of brain drain is a significant problem for many developing countries (Schiff
2005). Given this, researchers have sought to understand the determinants of international
student flows and international student experiences.

International student dispositions and expectations

Push-pull models have been used most often to explain international student dispositions
and expectations towards studying abroad. While there are many variants, the push-pull
model essentially postulates that students choice to study internationally occurs when they
are pushed from their home country by factors like lack of educational and employment
opportunities and political instability and are pulled toward destinations by specific
educational opportunities and general economic and social dynamism (Altbach 2004).
An early push-pull model showed correlations between the number of international
students from source countries, global economic integration, poor domestic economic
performance and domestic educational emphasis (McMahon 1992). Specifically,
McMahon demonstrated that countries with lower incomes tended to send a higher
percentage of all tertiary students abroad. Furthermore, among lower income countries,
she found a positive (although not significant) correlation between studying aboard and
coming from a poor country with relatively high expenditures in education and a positive
and significant correlation between studying aboard and coming from a poor country
with extensive international trade. On the pull side, McMahon found that the size of the
economy in higher income host countries and high levels of trade between home and
host countries were positively and significantly correlated with attracting students from
abroad but that development aid from the host to the sending country was not a sig-
nificant pull factor.
Using data from the 1980s, a similar structural approach draped student movements
along world systems and, using a macro network analysis, found connections between
geopolitical and economic factors such as economic interaction and Cold War alliances
(Chen and Barnett 2000). While Chen and Barnetts network analysis was not a push-pull
model per se it did attribute student movements to large-scale economic and political
forces. Stemming from these geopolitical and economic conditions is a set of general
expectations that studying abroad will lead to educational and economic advancement.

123
340 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

More recent studies have updated the push-pull model to focus on student choice.
Examining Asian students who chose to study in Australia, Mazzarol and Soutar (2002)
identified knowledge about institutions and programs, cultural awareness, and social in-
terconnectivities as factors in choosing an institution abroad. Another study showed that
linguistic and cultural connections can explain the stability over time in the number of
international students who chose to study in Quebec, many of whom come from Franco-
phone Africa, as opposed to greater variability in international student numbers at
Anglophonic Canadian universities from year to year (Racine et al. 2003). Li and Bray
(2007) complicated the notion of the international student in their study on mainland
Chinese students who choose to study in Hong Kong and Macau. They pointed out that
these students are both domestic and international because Hong Kong and Macau are
autonomous administrative districts with independent higher education systems within the
Peoples Republic of China. This perspective led Li and Bray to pay attention not only to
the negative push factors that drive students from their home country but also positive
pull factors that encourage them to stay home. The pull forces at home include a desire
to stay with ones family, awareness of the relevance of domestic education and increasing
internalization of domestic institutions (Li and Bray 2007, p. 795).
Despite the insights gleaned from push-pull research, the model has a number of limi-
tations. For one, push-pull models are unable to fully explain the process of individual
students who choose to study abroad (Lee et al. 2006; Lee 2007). Push-pull models offer
information about students who have chosen to study abroad, often from a macro per-
spective, but cannot account for those students who have not been affected by the forces that
push and pull (Li and Bray 2007). These models also rely on the dominant pattern of student
mobility (from developing countries to developed) almost exclusively and do not take into
consideration the possibility of students from developing countries who are studying in
other developing countries or contra flow, such as students from developed countries who
elect to study at institutions in developing countries. Even studies that do focus on a slice of
global cross-border student movements tend to be locked into the mono-directional tide
presented in macro accounts. Furthermore, push-pull models neglect to link student agency
with the political economy. That is, such approaches cannot explain how students negotiate
structural features of the political economy in their decision to study aboard.
Recently, there had been an attempt to embed Hossler et al. (1998) three-phase model of
college choice into a push-pull model for explaining the ways in which East Asian students
choose graduate schools in Canada (Chen 2007). The three-phase model asserts that students
decisions to enter higher education and to attend a particular institution are determined over
three successive stages: Predisposition, Search, and Choice (Hossler et al. 1989). Likewise,
Chen (2007) hypothesized that different push-pull factors occur at three distinct phases in the
study abroad choice processthe decision to leave the home country, the choice of a host
country, the choice of a host institution. While Chens work appears not to have completely
synthesized the two models (for example, traditional push-pull factors emphasize the first
stage and some ambiguity remains in the distinctness of stages two and three as both can occur
simultaneously) some of her findings suggest the importance of various features of the
political economy in international education in ways that are not as deterministic and allow
for more agency by students than in macro push-pull models. Among the numerous concepts
Chen examined in each of her three stages, there were many significant differences by country
of origin, including variables such as foreign advanced degrees improve job prospects,
international education is important in my home country and the opportunity to experi-
ence a western culture, indicating that political economy factors may be important in
understanding international students dispositions and expectations.

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 341

International student experiences.

Researchers have also been interested in international student experiences. There is a
considerable amount of literature on the psychological well-being and adjustment of
international students but this body of work has largely focused on the individual.
Andrade (2006) surveyed much of this literature. Until recently few studies addressed social,
political and economic experiences that related to the structures of international education. An
extensive qualitative study from Australia challenged the idea that students are simply con-
sumers of educational services (Deumert et al. 2005). This study found that social protections
for international students in that country do not adequately meet their rights as migrants,
workers and human beings (Deumert et al. 2005). A quantitative study from the United States
similarly found that international students face barriers in gaining access to services and
experience unfair treatment from faculty and university staff (Lee 2007). For the most part,
these types of problems are experienced by students from developing and non-western coun-
tries and are not addressed adequately in most of the student adjustment literature which places
the responsibility to adjust squarely on the student (Lee 2007). Deumert et al. (2005) argued that
policies should be implemented to ensure that students rights are met. The extent to which such
policy initiatives are being pursued around the world is unclear; however, from a U.S. insti-
tutional point of view it seems few higher education graduate programs are preparing university
professionals to understand and address the needs of the growing number of international
enrollees (Schultz et al. 2007). Furthermore, there is evidence that international student
experiences not only reflect inadequate social and security networks but in some cases, expe-
rience neo-racism through hostile and abusive encounters (Lee and Rice 2007).
These studies have highlighted the importance of examining international student expe-
riences in the context of social, political and economic structures. Focusing on student
experiences entirely from an individual psychosocial point of view obscures wider structural
implications, thereby overburdening the student to adjust. What scholars have not yet
examined extensively are international student experiences in developing countries. Like
most international student research in general, studies on international student experiences
have tended to take place in a handful of developed, often Anglophonic, countries. Lee
(forthcoming) has found international student experiences in Mexico challenges the domi-
nant discourse of student flows and that inquiry into contra or reverse flows warrants further
attention.

Theoretical framework

There has been relatively little theoretical work on international students. Push-pull models
are the most common frameworks used in research on international student patterns and
institutional choice but, for the reasons discussed above, we believe that the push-pull
model is not adequate in capturing the differences among students in Mexico from various
geographical regions. While the push-pull model does take into account pull factor dif-
ferences by region of origin, it is implicitly a quantitative difference only. In other words,
push factors, such as lack of educational options and limited social and economic and
opportunities, are assumed to exist in all sending countries but vary by the number of
factors that are present and by their intensity. Such an approach limits the ability to
understand the diversity of meanings attached to international education by students from
various places. Furthermore, the actual student experiences are not well captured by push-
pull models but are important because they identify some of the social, political, and
economic structures involved in international education. Additionally, exploring

123
342 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

experiences can draw attention to reflective interpretations of why a particular social action
was undertaken; thus, it seems difficult to make a tidy separation between the intentional
and the experiential.
Our analysis identified international student orientations towards studying in Mexico and
how they differed by geographical region of origin. Unlike push-pull approaches, which tend to
elicit impressions of cross-border student movements as passive and automatic, our under-
standing is informed by the Weberian concept of social action (Weber 1978). Action is defined
as behavior that is invested with meaning by the actor. Action is social if it is oriented to other
actors or to an order (Swedberg 2005, p. 2). In particular, we drew on the concept of brauch, or
usage orientation towards social action (Weber 1978, p. 29). Usage orientation refers to the
regular orientation towards an action. Orientations are based on actual practices common
within groups. Using orientations towards international education in Mexico, rather than choice
and experience alone, acknowledges that expectations of social action not only involve satis-
faction of personal ends but also deal with an estimation of the behavior of others (Weber 1978,
p. 30) within the context of wider social, political and economic structures. Hence, brauch
allowed us to explore the regular or typical orientations towards study abroad in Mexico
among students from various geographical regions of origin.
We approximated students orientations with variables on dispositions, experiences and
expectations. Dispositions were students general approach towards their studies and
included incoming factors such as degree-seeking status and the importance of reasons for
choosing their host institutions. Experiences included students perceptions of how they
were treated as well as difficulties they encountered while studying abroad. Expectations
had to do with what students hoped to gain from their time in Mexican higher education,
including the relevance of future educational and occupational goals. The components of
this tripartite conception of students orientations are interconnected and mutually rein-
forcing rather than a linear progression of decisions. There is a direct relationship between
dispositions and expectations as they are both intentional. Experiences are likely condi-
tioned by dispositions and can influence expectations. Nevertheless, a temporal distinction
can be drawn between the three orientation components as they each represent different
points in time. Dispositions are formed before a student arrives in Mexico and involve
decisions about where to study, whether to seek a degree in the host country and so forth.
Experiences occur during the time that students spend in Mexico. Expectations are future
goals and intentions as they relate to studying and working in the host country. These three
components may be actualized at separate time points (pre-college, during college, post-
college) but the orientation towards international study continues throughout the process.
In using time to parse out the components of students orientations towards study abroad
in Mexico there are obvious similarities to both Chens (2007) recent work and to Hossler
and Gallaghers (1987) three-phase model of college choice. This latter model represented
three phases that include Predisposition, Search, and Choice and had been widely utilized
and cited in explaining the college going process among domestic students in the U.S. Like
their proposed model, this study took into account the predisposition to pursue higher
education as well as the decision to attend a particular college or university. However,
unlike Hossler and Gallaghers model, this study examined the college choice process
among international students and their different orientations towards studying outside their
home country. We propose a wider range of dispositions that come into play as a student
decides not only whether to pursue higher education, but also whether to study abroad and
which country and institution to study in.
We argue that the decision-making process for international students is not necessarily
linear and can be combined to include a general set of dispositions and expectations,

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 343

whereby factors related to Predisposition, Search, and Choice can simultaneously interact
and affect one another. Our study most resembles Chens (2007) three-phase model of
deciding to study abroad, choosing a host country, and then selecting the institution within
the host country. However, we argue that this decision-making process is not necessarily a
linear process and includes an orientation that takes into account these three factors as
well as expectations regarding future plans post-studying abroad.
Additionally, our study, like most others on international student choice, gathered data
from students who are already studying abroad. When these students were asked to assess
factors that were important in choosing to study abroad, they already had experiences as
international students. The data were derived from students who were looking back on their
intent through the lens of experience, making it difficult to make a clean separation
between the intentional and the experiential. This does not imply that intent reflects
experiences; although, intentions may influence experiences. It does acknowledge the
possibility that current experiences have altered students interpretations of their intentions
at the time of data collection. While many studies on international students use data that
were collected from students during their time aboard, most did not account for the
possibility that experiences have impacted the way students think about why they chose to
study internationally. Bundling dispositions, experiences and expectations as orientations
allowed us to conceptually present choice, experience and aspirations as dialectic while at
the same time offering the possibility to separate out these points in time in ways that are
pragmatic and measurable for analyses.
We also drew broadly on other empirical and theoretical work on international students
and higher education internationalization more generally. Li and Bray (2007) found dif-
ferent characteristics, approaches and expectations between students from mainland China
who chose to study in either Hong Kong or Macau. In that study, variance was shown
between groups from the same home country who studied in different host locations. We
sought to understand differences by home region among students in the same host country.
Additionally, we took a political economy approach (Lee et al. 2006; Marginson and
Rhoades 2002). Political economy has to do with the political, economic, and social
structures both within and across countries. We focus on how economic and academic
aspects of international study in Mexico by students from different part of the world and
the relationship between geography and these aspects. In other words, we are interested in
exploring how the political economy of students home region influences their perspective
about studying in Mexico. Our approach has similarities with Marginsons (2002) argu-
ment that the surge in international students from Asia is related to geographical,
economic, and social factors such as proximity, cost, and familiarity. Such an approach
allowed us to understand the structures involved in the students choice to study in Mexico
and the differences between groups of international students and how they may relate to
larger political and economic constructs, particularly in the context of the global economy.
It is our goal that this exploratory study will shed light on the individual and social
meanings attached to international study in Mexico within a wider global context.

Methodology

The objective of the study was to explore the orientations of international students in
Mexico. Our primary research question was: How do the dispositions, expectations, and
experiences of international students in Mexico differ by their region of origin?

123
344 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

Data source

Data were collected as part of an on-line survey administered during 20052006 in collab-
oration with CONAHEC, an international exchange organization that focuses on the North
American region. Questions for the online survey were formulated by drawing on concepts
from the international student literature. The survey was produced using Microsoft Front-
Page, a webpage design software application. Survey items asked students to reflect on their
study abroad experiences, identify the sources used to select host institutions, assess
important considerations for choosing Mexico as a destination, report on their interactions
inside and outside of the classroom, and report on levels of satisfaction as a student in Mexico.
The survey consisted of 32 questions and took about twenty minutes to complete. The online
survey was distributed to 50 of CONAHECs university partners throughout Mexico.
International students were identified by the institutions and invited to participate in the study.
Overall, data were collected from 312 international students who were enrolled in Mexican
universities when the survey was administered. It is unclear as to how many students were
eligible to compete the survey because institutional data on international enrollments was
incomplete, which is not uncommon in the region (Tremblay 2003). These data were first
analyzed in an examination of student mobility to developing countries (Lee forthcoming).
In this study, we sought to explore how differences in international students orientation
towards study in Mexico differed by region of origin. Among the 312 completed surveys,
285 students reported their country of origin. The 285 students were then grouped into the
following regions: North America, Europe and Latin America. Due to the relatively small
sample of the remaining students from other parts of the world, these 6 students were not
included in the analysis. Data from 279 students served as the basis of the analyses, which
consisted of: 131 students (47%) from North America, 102 students (36%) from Europe
and 46 students (16%) from Latin America.

Methods

Factor Analyses and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were utilized to determine if there
were significant differences by students region of origin. Survey items were classified and
divided into categories that reflected aspects of dispositions, expectations and experiences.
Separate factor analysis tests were then run to consolidate the survey items into meaningful
measures. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that explores levels of inter-correlation
between groups of variables. We chose to use factor analysis because several of the
variables in each of the three categories may have been highly inter-correlated and related
to a single concept. It is useful to consider these variables collectively in analysis. Survey
items were factor analyzed using Varimax rotation. The factor loadings that produced
Cronbach alpha scores greater than 0.5, which indicated internal reliabilityor high levels
of inter-correlation between variablesserved as the composite variables for our ANOVA.
The composite variables, and the factor loadings and Cronbach alphas are presented in the
Appendix. The composite factors were not intended to replace the individual items. Rather,
the labels served as a concise term for a series of complex, highly interrelated variables.
Our analyses utilized seven factors. Among the disposition variables, only one factor
emerged: Full Time and Degree Seeking (a = 0.59). There were no factors evident for
the expectation variables. Six factors emerged that related to student experiences: Insti-
tutional Interactions (a = 0.754), Personal Comfort and Acceptance (a = 0.731),
Difficulty with academic and financial support (a = 0.690), Disrespectful Treatment

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 345

(a = 0.677), Satisfaction with jobs and housing (a = 0.627) and Social Difficulty
(a = 0.517). ANOVA was then conducted to compare in-group variable and factor means
with between group variable and factor means. This technique allowed us to examine
possible differences based on geographical region of origin. ANOVA tests were run on
each of the composite and individual variables.

Findings

In the following sections we demonstrate how international students from North America,
Europe, and Latin America differ in their orientations to studying in Mexico. We present
these findings by the three components of international students orientations: disposition,
experiences, and expectations. In taking a political economy approach, we were interested
in how regional political, economic and academic structures influence students orienta-
tions towards studying in Mexico. Our Weberian framework is directed towards exploring
how these features of the political economy generate regular orientations among stu-
dents from different geographical regions.

Disposition

The mean responses from students are shown in Table 3. This table summarizes the
Disposition variables including their enrollment status, and considerations for choosing

Table 3 Comparing mean scores of international student dispositions by geographical region

Variables International students from: Significance

North America Europe Latin America

(n = 131) (n = 102) (n = 46)

Importance in choosing to study in Mexicoa

Costs 1.96 (n = 125) 1.63 (n = 101) 1.86 (n = 44) 0.006
Diversity 2.18 (n = 127) 2.66 (n = 101) 2.21 (n = 43) 0.000
Friends recommendation 1.87 (n = 123) 1.94 (n = 101) 1.91 (n = 44) 0.814
Ranking 2.02 (n = 124) 1.91 (n = 101) 2.40 (n = 43) 0.002
Financial aid 1.81 (n = 126) 1.71 (n = 99) 2.05 (n = 40) 0.106
Research 1.25 (n = 124) 1.23 (n = 97) 1.67 (n = 43) 0.000
Not accepted into first choice 1.10 (n = 114) 1.15 (n = 92) 1.13 (n = 39) 0.587
destination
Specific educational program 1.75 (n = 106) 1.49 (n = 93) 1.83 (n = 41) 0.039
Applied to other schools outside 0.06 (n = 124) 0.30 (n = 102) 0.23 (n = 44) 0.000
the countryb
Overall degree objectivec,d 2.52 (n = 124) 2.73 (n = 95) 2.71 (n = 45) 0.299
Full-time and degree seekinge 1.99 (n = 128) 0.86 (n = 102) 1.72 (n = 46) 0.000
a
Not important = 1; somewhat important = 2; very important = 3
b
No = 0; yes = 1
c
Non-degree = 0; 2-year associates/technical = 1; BA/BS = 2; MA/MS = 3; Ph.D. = 4
d
The survey question referred to the overall degree objective in any country
e
Composite variables are not intended to replace the individual items that comprise each factor. Rather, the
label serves as a concise term for a series of complex and highly-related items. In this case, the scale for
Full-time and Degree-seeking was no = 0; yes = 1; the Cronbach a = 0.59

123
346 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

Mexico. Significant differences were found in several areas. The European students ranked
Diversity as a more important consideration for choosing the Mexican institution in
comparison to students from North America and Latin American. The European students
were also more likely to have applied to an institution outside of their home country other
than the one they were attending at the time of the study in comparison to the other two
groups. By way of contrast, the European students were less concerned with Costs,
Rankings and Research than the North American and Latin American students. Among
the three groups, the North American students were most concerned with cost. Academic
rankings and research were significantly more important for the Latin American students
than the other two groups.

Experience

Among the experience variables, statistically significant differences emerged in terms of

student experiences with Social Difficulty and aspects of satisfaction. Table 4 presents a
summary of the Experience variables analyzed. The North Americans reported slightly
more difficulty feeling Welcomed on Campus. They also reported greater Social Dif-
ficulty and more Disrespectful Treatment. The North American students also reported
feeling less Personal Comfort and Acceptance and Fair Treatment outside Campus than
did the Latin American and European students. Another area of difference was Afford-
ability of Living whereby students from Latin America report the most difficulties in

Table 4 Comparing mean scores of international student experiences by geographical region

Variables International students from: Significance

North America Europe Latin America

(n = 131) (n = 102) (n = 46)

Satisfaction: quality of classesa 3.67 (n = 127) 3.37 (n = 99) 3.80 (n = 45) 0.060
Difficulty: affordability of livingb 1.91 (n = 127) 1.71 (n = 102) 2.29 (n = 45) 0.010
Difficulty: feeling Welcomedc 2.00 (n = 125) 1.55 (n = 102) 1.50 (n = 46) 0.000
Fair Treatment: outside campusc 0.77 (n = 125) 0.80 (n = 102) 0.87 (n = 46) 0.340
Composite variablesd
Institutional interactions 14.95 (n = 123) 15.02 (n = 99) 15.91 (n = 45) 0.244
Personal comfort and acceptance 8.60 (n = 102) 11.74 (n = 94) 12.25 (n = 44) 0.000
Difficulty with academic and 11.77 (n = 109) 11.89 (n = 93) 11.74 (n = 43) 0.972
financial support
Disrespectful treatment 2.91 (n = 124) 2.37 (n = 102) 1.54 (n = 42) 0.000
Social difficulty 3.48 (n = 125) 2.97 (n = 102) 3.73 (n = 45) 0.019
Satisfaction with jobs and housing 10.06 (n = 106) 9.10 (n = 89) 9.07 (n = 40) 0.029
a
Not satisfied = 1; between not and somewhat satisfied = 2; somewhat satisfied = 3; between somewhat
and very satisfied = 4; very satisfied = 5
b
No difficulty = 1; between no and some difficulty = 2; some difficulty = 3; between some and much
difficulty = 4; much difficulty = 5
c
No = 0; yes = 1
d
Composite variables are not intended to replace the individual items that comprise each factor. Rather, the
label serves as a concise term for a series of complex and highly-related items

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 347

Table 5 Comparing mean scores of international student expectations by geographical region

Variables International students from: Significance

North America Europe Latin America

(n = 131) (n = 102) (n = 46)

Importance in choosing to study in Mexicoa

Better job opportunities at home 2.00 (n = 126) 2.17 (n = 101) 2.28 (n = 43) 0.091
Better jobs outside of home country 1.90 (n = 126) 2.25 (n = 101) 2.05 (n = 44) 0.004
Future goalsb
Hope to complete degree at 0.08 (n = 131) 0.06 (n = 102) 0.43 (n = 46) 0.000
Mexican institution
Hope to complete degree in home 0.80 (n = 131) 0.84 (n = 102) 0.39 (n = 46) 0.000
country
Pursue further education in Mexico 0.15 (n = 131) 0.08 (n = 102) 0.43 (n = 46) 0.000
Pursue further education in home 0.63 (n = 131) 0.38 (n = 102) 0.30 (n = 46) 0.000
country
Work in Mexico 0.24 (n = 131) 0.25 (n = 102) 0.26 (n = 46) 0.925
Work in home country 0.61 (n = 131) 0.30 (n = 102) 0.57 (n = 46) 0.000
a
Not important = 1; somewhat important = 2; very important = 3
b
No = 0; yes = 1

comparison to students from North American and Europe. The Latin American students
also reported being somewhat less Satisfied with Jobs and Housing than the North
American and European students.

Expectation

As reflected in Table 5, six of the eight Expectation variables demonstrated significant

differences by students region of origin. The students sampled from Latin America
reported different expectations than the other students. In comparison to North American
and European students, more Latin American students hoped to complete their degree at
the Mexican institution they were attending at the time of the study and to further their
education in Mexico. Conversely, both the majority of Europeans and North Americans
hoped to earn a degree in their home country. Moreover, while students from North
America were much more likely than others to wish to further their education in their home
country, more European students shared this goal compared to Latin American students.
There are also differences in terms of occupational expectations. The European students
were more likely to view studying in Mexico as important to their chances of getting a job
outside of their home country. On the other hand, North and Latin Americans were much
more likely to work in their home country as a goal they hoped to achieve by studying in
Mexico.

Discussion

Our study found that the dispositions, experiences and expectations of international stu-
dents in Mexico vary by their region of origin. From these findings, we have interpreted

123
348 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

that there are distinct geographically based orientations towards study in Mexico. First,
many of the students from North America and Europe seemed oriented towards short-term
study and appeared more interested in the overall experience of studying in Mexico than
earning a degree in Mexico. Second, students from Latin America tended to be more
academically oriented towards studying in Mexico compared to the North American and
European students. That is, many of the students coming from the Latin American region
were more interested in the rankings and research of Mexican institutions and hoped to
complete their degree and further their education in Mexico.
Beyond this distinction, it is possible to interpret the results from our analysis as providing
evidence for three geographically based orientations towards study in Mexico. We do not
suggest that these orientations capture all Europeans, Latin Americans or North Americas. Nor
do we mean that our sample captures the experiences of all international students from these
regions or even every international student in Mexico. Rather, these orientations are only an
interpretation of our analysis of the limited number of students in the sample. Nevertheless,
features of the global political economy help to explain these regionally differentiated orien-
tations. In the following sections, we elaborate our findings by students regions of origin and
offer some interpretations. We conclude this section with implications for future research.

European students in Mexico

The European students who were sampled in this study are more internationally and inter-
culturally oriented. Their disposition was towards diversity; they shared fairly positive social
experiences; they do not expect to study further or work in Mexico, they tend to not have the
goal of working in their home country. More than any other group, the European students in our
sample perceived study in Mexico as important for securing a job outside of their home country.
We offer that European students are from the continent that has experienced the most
political, economic and perhaps social integration in the world. Living in such a cross-
national environment may have given these students an international outlook in which they
expect to live, study, and work in a number of countries over the course of their lives. As
European higher education systems become harmonized through the Bologna Process and
large numbers of students in the region experience inter-Europe educational exchange
through programs like Erasmus, students from this region may be looking further away to
countries like Mexico to pursue international education to gain intercultural skills and to
prepare for future endeavors abroad. It is important to note, that it may not simply
be openness to international and intercultural experiences that characterize European
students orientation towards studying in Mexico. They may also be concerned with how
these experiences contribute to global economic competitiveness as many expect to work
outside of their home country. To us, it appears that the political economy of the European
Union contributes at least in part to the process by which the European students in our
sample have decided to study in Mexico and in identifying their expectations from this
action. For at least some students from this region, considerations and experiences related
to international economic and social integration seems to have contributed to their
orientation towards studying in Mexico.

Latin American students in Mexico

In contrast to the European students, the Latin American students seem to be more
regionally and academically oriented than the other groups students in our sample. As
discussed above, their dispositions were academic as they perceived rankings and research

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 349

as more important than their European and North American peers; more than any other
group, their experiences were of general personal and social acceptance and comfort and
their expectations were about future education in Mexico and subsequent work in their
home countries.
Latin America is a region predominately comprised of less affluent developing countries.
Mexico is one of the largest and wealthiest countries in the region. As Altbach (1998, 2004) has
pointed out, Mexico has long played a dominant role in Latin American higher education. For
students from this region, international education in Mexico may represent increased educa-
tional and economic opportunities. Our findings that Latin Americans tend to be socially
satisfied in Mexico but less satisfied with jobs and housing than students from the other regions
may reflect upon their cultural familiarity and comfort but also to their need for employment and
affordable housing because of the generally lower incomes in their home countries. Our
analysis of students from this region in our sample suggests that they are oriented towards
advancement within the region. These students are interested in the academic value of their
studies in Mexico and how their current and future educational experiences in Mexico will help
them secure jobs in their home countries. Given that these students reported difficulties in terms
of employment and housing costs during their time as students in Mexico, it may be speculated
that they do not come from particularly priviledged financial backgrounds.

North American students in Mexico

Finally, the students from North America seem to differ from their European and Latin
American peers in that they do not exhibit a strong international orientation. Rather, the
North American students in this study tended to be more oriented towards their home
country compared to the European and Latin American students. They experienced less
social and personal comfort in Mexico than the other groups; they want to further their
education and work at home and do not appear to see studying in Mexico as important for
getting better jobs as the other groups.
For North American students, Mexico is a near-by and relatively inexpensive option for
international education. While it is important not to conflate North America with the United
States, it is worth mentioning that the large majority of the students in the North American
sample are from the U.S., where international travel is not a strong cultural norm. The
Guardian (Travel Guardian 2002) has reported that only 22 percent of all U.S. citizens hold
a passport; until recently, travel from the U.S. to Mexico did not require a passport. Fur-
thermore, a recent study of bi-national academic collaboration between universities in
Mexico and the United States found that individuals in U.S. higher education often see
Mexico as an unequal partner and student exchange to Mexico is often viewed as not par-
ticularly valuable for academic or occupational preparation (Maldonado-Maldonado and
Cantwell in press). Thus, given this context, it is possible to understand the North Americans
in this study as sojourners to Mexico who are primarily oriented towards their home region.
The fact that the North American students in the sample were most interested in Cost as an
important consideration in choosing their host institution in Mexico suggests to us that these
students may not have the same financial resources as their European counterparts.

Implications

There are a number of implications from our study. First, patterns of international student
flows and experiences in developing countries may be different than in developed countries

123
350 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

and this warrants further investigation. For example, previous research has found that
international students from developing countries face more social difficulties than inter-
national students from more developed regions (Lee 2007; Lee and Rice 2007). However,
this study found that North American students encountered greater social difficulties than
both European and Latin American students. While it is not clear from this study what
accounts for this difference, it is evident that assumptions made about international stu-
dents and their experiences are based on research conducted in developed countries may
not hold true in developing country settings. Future research should more closely inves-
tigate why North American students experience more social difficulties in Mexico, and if
similar patterns emerge at other developing host-countries. Given the attitude by some in
U.S higher education that Mexico and Mexican higher education is not on equal standing
with the U.S. (Maldonado-Maldonado and Cantwell in press), social difficulty may simply
be a reflection of pre-conceived ideas about Mexico. It may also have to do with these
students having limited previous experience outside their home country. However, it may
be related to the somewhat contentious relationship between Mexico and its neighbors to
the north of its border and the ways this tension plays out in interpersonal encounters.
Second, rather than just speaking about international students or internationally mobile
students in general terms, it is important to look at a variety of aspects of international
education, including wider social and political economy facets. We have suggested
approaching international study as a type of social action. Drawing on Webers (1978)
concept of brauch, we find value in exploring international student choice not only from
the point of view of individual students aims but also to the social structures through
which the actor attributes meaning to the action. That is, students who elect to study abroad
in Mexico appear not only to be responding to forces which push and pull them individ-
ually but also to the way in which they negotiate the political economy of their home
region.
By exploring students orientations towards study in Mexico, we have found significant
differences in disposition, expectations and experiences do exist between students from
Europe, Latin American and North America, at least among the students represented in our
data sample. The orientations that we have suggested are not intended to stand as templates
that can be easily applied to other groups of international students. These orientations
capture the social meaning of study abroad in Mexico by students from the three geo-
graphical regions in our sample. Webers (1978) notion of brauch has to do with the
regular or typical orientations of groups. Rather than using the same rationale for
exploring international student choices and experiences, we have found that focusing on
the differences between students from various locations in a specific host country is
important to understand the meaning invested in international education. The meaning that
students give to the action of studying abroad is dependent on aspects of the political
economy in both the sending and receiving countries, as well as the actors understanding of
these aspects, and may not be assumed as the same for all students. Future research could
expand upon this approach by further differentiating by institutional type, field and level of
study. Another potential line of future research is to consider the way social class influ-
ences students dispositions, experiences and expectations. Our study hits at the social class
of the participants through the way they responded to questions about the importance of
cost and satisfaction with the availability of employment and affordability of housing.
Future studies could examine more explicitly how socio-economic class contributes to
students orientations.
A third implication is closely related to the first two. Traditional push-pull models for
understanding international student mobility may be incomplete, especially when looking

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 351

at international students in developing countries. Instead, it may be useful to develop

conceptual frameworks that are more suited to varying contexts. We have put forward a
framework for examining international students orientations. In a broader context, this
research aimed to address the value of international exchange, particularly considering the
international education opportunities in developing countries, as in the case of Mexico.
Rather than focusing exclusively on aggregate numbers and individual experiences,
research should begin to work towards understanding the meaning of international edu-
cation with reference to social and economic structures. In doing so, a richer understanding
of the role international students and higher education institutions in the global economy
may emerge through an examination of local, national and global considerations (Marg-
inson and Rhoades 2002) that encompass the action of study aboard. Webers (1978)
concept of usage orientation (brauch) is one way of understanding the meaning given to
study aboard by human agents within social structures.
A fourth implication to consider has to do with the development of national and
institutional policies with regard to international students. In terms of national policy, this
involves looking at issues of brain drain as well as ease of the student visa process and even
which international student markets will be recruited at the national level. At the institu-
tional level, there are choices about which international students to target. For example,
should the institution cater to North American students who are oriented towards short
term educational experiences but will bring in revenues and may require few services? Or
should institutions invest in programs and resources to build the human capital of the
region by establishing partnerships in order to offer degrees and services to students from
Latin America? Furthermore, thiswhich may be referred to as the institutional orien-
tationmay be an important element to international student experiences.

Acknowledgements We express our appreciation to Francisco Marmolejo and the CONAHEC staff for
their assistance and support provided throughout this project. We would also like to thank two anonymous
reviewers for their useful comments. Any errors, ambiguities, or misstatements are our own.

Appendix: dimensions of student experience

The data for this study was gathered in cooperation with the Consortium of North
American Higher Education Collaboration (CONAHEC). A version of the paper was given
at the annual meeting of the Association of the Study of Higher Education (ASHE)
International Forum on November 8, 2007 in Louisville, KY, USA.

Scales: dimensions of the student experience

Measure and composite variablesa Factor loading Alpha (a)b

Institutional interactions 0.754

Overall college experiencec 0.73
Quality of classes d 0.60
Fair treatment by professorse 0.56
Teaching staff d 0.51
Helpfulness of staffd 0.47

123
352 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

continued
Scales: dimensions of the student experience

Measure and composite variablesa Factor loading Alpha (a)b

Personal comfort and acceptance 0.731

Personal and family safetyd 0.85
Social atmosphered 0.63
Acceptance by faculty and staff f,g -0.59
Difficulty with academic and financial support 0.690
Availability of support servicesh 0.74
Availability of financial assistanceh 0.54
Affordability of school expensesh 0.52
Satisfaction with faculty advisorsd,i -0.45
Satisfaction with research and equipmentd,i -0.49
Disrespectful treatment 0.677
Treated disrespectful: sex orientationj 0.71
Treated disrespectful: religionj 0.69
Treated disrespectful: languagej 0.67
Treated disrespectful: racej 0.66
Treated disrespectful: nationalityj 0.62
Treated disrespectful: genderj 0.56
Difficulty: languageh 0.42
Satisfaction with jobs and housing 0.627
Off-campus work opportunitiesd 0.71
On-campus work opportunitiesd 0.63
Housing optionsd 0.60
Social difficulty 0.517
Difficulty: acceptance by studentsh 0.75
(reverse of) fair treatment by classmatesi,j -0.69
Difficulty: advisement by international officeh 0.54
a
Composite variables are not intended to replace the individual items that comprise each factor. Rather, the
label serves as a concise term for a series of complex and highly-related items
b
Cronbach alphas are based on reliability analysis using the variables that comprise the composite variable
c
Not satisfied = 1; between not and somewhat satisfied = 2; somewhat satisfied = 3; between somewhat
and very satisfied = 4; very satisfied = 5
d
Non-degree = 0; 2-year associates/technical = 1, BA/BS = 2, MA/MS = 3, Ph.D. = 4
e
No = 0; Yes=1
f
No difficulty = 1; between no and some difficulty = 2; some difficulty = 3; between some and much
difficulty = 4; much difficulty = 5
g
Response values were reversed after the factor analysis for the purposes of conducting the reliability
analysis and scoring this factor
h
Composite variables are not intended to replace the individual items that comprise each factor. Rather, the
label serves as a concise term for a series of complex and highly-related items. In this case, the scale for
Full-time and Degree-seeking was no = 0; yes = 1; the Cronbach a = 0.59
i
Not satisfied = 1; between not and somewhat satisfied = 2; somewhat satisfied = 3; between somewhat
and very satisfied = 4; very satisfied = 5
j
The survey question referred to the overall degree objective in any country

123
High Educ (2009) 57:335354 353

References

Altbach, P. G. (1998). The university as center and periphery. In P. G. Altbach (Ed.), Comparative higher
education. knowledge, the university and development (pp. 4965). Hong Kong: Comparative Edu-
cation Research Center, The University of Hong Kong.
Altbach, P. G. (2004). Globalisation and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary
Education and Management, 10, 325. doi:10.1023/B:TEAM.0000012239.55136.4b.
Andrade, M. S. (2006). International students in English-speaking universities: Adjustment factors. Journal
of Research in International Education, 5, 131154. doi:10.1177/1475240906065589.
Barber, E., Altbach, P. G., & Myers, R. G. (1984). Introduction: Perspectives on foreign students. Com-
parative Education Review, 28, 163167. doi:10.1086/446428.
Casanova-Cardiel, H. (2006). Mexico. In J. Frost & P. Altbach (Eds.), International handbook of higher
education (pp. 881897). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Chen, L. H. (2007). Choosing Canadian graduate schools from afar: East Asian students perspectives.
Higher Education, 54, 759780. doi:10.1007/s10734-006-9022-8.
Chen, T., & Barnett, G. A. (2000). Research on international student flows from a macro perspective: A
network analysis of 1985, 1989 and 1995. Higher Education, 29, 435453. doi:10.1023/A:100396
1327009.
Deumert, A., Marginson, S., Nyland, C., Ramia, G., & Sawir, E. (2005). Global migration and social
protection: The social and economic security of foreign students in Australia. Global Social Policy, 5,
329352.
Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. (1987). Studying college choice: A three-phase model and the implication for
policy makers. College and University, 2, 20721.
Hossler, D. R., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college choice. In J. D. Smart
(Ed.), Higher education, handbook of theory and research (Vol. 5, pp. 231288). New York, NY:
Agathon Press.
IIE. (2006). Open doors: Report on international educational exchange. New York: IIE.
Jalowiecki, B., & Gorzelak, G. J. (2004). Brain drain, brain gain, and mobility: Theories and prospective
methods. Higher Education in Europe, 29, 299308. doi:10.1080/0379772042000331589.
Lee, J. J. (2007). Beyond borders: International student pathways to the U.S. Journal of Studies in Inter-
national Education, 20(10), 120.
Lee, J. J. (forthcoming). An examination of student mobility from developed to developing countries: The
case of Mexico. Manuscript in preparation for publication. Center for the Study of Higher Education,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Lee, J. J., Maldonado-Maldonado, A., & Rhoades, G. (2006). The political economy of international student
flows: Patterns, ideas, and propositions. In J. C. Smart (Ed.), Higher Education: Handbook of Theory
and Research, XXI (pp. 545590). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Lee, J. J., & Rice, C. (2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination.
Higher Education, 53, 381409. doi:10.1007/s10734-005-4508-3.
Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push- pull factors and
motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53, 791818.
doi:10.1007/s10734-005-5423-3.
Maldonado-Maldonado, A., & Cantwell, B. (in press). Caught on the border: A study of academic col-
laboration between universities along the Mexico-US border. Comparative Education.
Marginson, S. (2002). The phenomenal rise of international degrees down under. Change, 34, 3443.
Marginson, S., & Rhoades, G. (2002). Beyond national states, markets and systems of higher education: A
glonacal agency heuristic. Higher Education, 43, 281309. doi:10.1023/A:1014699605875.
Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). Push-pull factors influencing international student destination
choice. The International Journal of Educational Management, 16, 8290. doi:10.1108/09513540
210418403.
OECD. (1997). Reviews of national policies for education: Mexico. Paris: OECD, United Nations. Human
Development Report 2006. New York: United Nations Development Program.
OECD. (2007a). Education and training statistics portal. Retrieved 17 October, 2007, from http://stats.
oecd.org/wbos/default.aspx?DatasetCode=RFOREIGN.
OECD. (2007b). OECD statistics, breakdown of GDP per capita in its components. Retrieved 17 October,
2007, from http://stats.oecd.org/WBOS/Default.aspx?DatasetCode=DECOMP.
Racine, A., Villeneuve, P. Y., & Theriault, M. (2003). Attracting foreign students: The case of two Uni-
versities in Quebec. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7, 241252. doi:10.1177/102831
5303254428.

123
354 High Educ (2009) 57:335354

Schiff, M. (2005). Brain gain: Claims about its size and impact on welfare and growth are greatly exag-
gerated (World Bank Working Paper No. WPS3708). Washington, DC: World Bank.
Schulz, S., Lee, J. J., Cantwell, B., McClellan, G., & Woodard, D. (2007). Moving toward a global
Community: An analysis of the internationalization of student affairs graduate preparation programs.
NASPA Journal, 44, Article 3.12. Retrieved October 24, 2007, from http://publications.naspa.org/
naspajournal/vol44/iss3/art12/.
Swedberg, R. (2005). The Max Weber dictionary: Key words and central concepts. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
The Guardian. (2002). Travel guardian: In brief. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/
2002/aug/24/guardiansaturdaytravelsection5.
Tremblay, K. (2003). Student mobility between and towards OECD countries in 2001: A comparative
analysis. Paper presented at the Education, Research, Migration: The European Policy in the Context of
Globalization Conference, 5 December 2003, Universita degli Studi de Roma, Italy. Retrieved Sep-
tember 5, 2007, from http://www.uniroma1.it/internazionale/relazioni/conferenza_51203/.
Tremblay, K. (2005). Academic mobility and immigration. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9,
196228. doi:10.1177/1028315305277618.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (trans: E. Fischoff et al.).
Berkley: University of California Press (Original work published 1925).
World Bank. (2007). World development indicators. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

123