Photo: Bewakoof.com official / unsplash.com

Factors influencing young people’s educational mobility

“Young people in school today are accustomed to a rapidly changing world. Therefore, the education system should not remain as it was during my school days; it must adapt to meet the current needs of young people.”
(Holbæk, municipality, Denmark)

Research underscores the significant role of education in the mobility decisions of young adults (Finn & Holton, 2019). PHEIs can enable for young people in rural areas to either remain local or move shorter distances. However, many PHEIs struggle to attract students to their campuses. In this section, we present key insights from a literature review and a survey conducted among young adults in the Nordic countries, exploring the factors that influence young people’s educational mobility.

Why are students (not) choosing for PHEIs?

Gender

Within migration research, gender is usually cited as one of the primary factors in the outmigration from rural areas, particularly in relation to education. Women increasingly attend universities and frequently outnumber men (Berger & Frey, 2016), with many preferring urban education settings for their greater cultural and entertainment options (Niedomysl & Hansen, 2010). In a Nordic context, Faber et al. (2015) found a strong correlation between educational choices and outmigration of young women from rural areas, influenced by gender norms, patriarchal structures, and gender segregation in rural labour markets. Swedish research found that women are more likely to move for higher education, whereas men may choose not to pursue higher education if not locally available (Johanson, 2016).

Place of origin: Rural and urban youth

The geographical origin of young people—whether from rural or urban areas—significantly influences their migration decisions. Rural youth often relocate driven by aspirations and the appeal of urban lifestyles (Corbett & Forsey, 2017). Moreover, structural inequalities of rural areas, such as jobs scarcity (Haugen & Villa, 2006) and perceived symbolic inequalities also play a crucial role. Young people may view living in rural areas as boring or “uncool” (Pedersen & Gram, 2018), or they may stay because they feel they have “failed to leave” (Looker & Naylor, 2009). However, research from Sweden shows that staying in rural can be seen as a privilege, supported by educational and employment opportunities either locally or nearby (Forsberg, 2019).

Box 2.

A typical student profile at PHEIs (Foster & Main, 2018; Pedersen & Gram, 2018; Seyfrit et al., 2010) includes individuals who are:

Older than the average student;
More attracted to smaller student cities than to large ones;
Have lower upper-secondary grades;
Originating from the local region;
From families with no or limited history of higher education;
Responsible for caring for family member(s);
Married or living with a partner,
Choosing their study program based on proximity to their home.

Social background and grades

PHEIs are known for attracting a notably diverse body of students (see Box 2). In Sweden, a study by Haley (2020) highlighted the impact of students’ grades, parental education levels, and geographical origin on higher education choices. It revealed that rural youth with high upper-secondary grades and well-educated parents are more inclined to pursue higher education in urban areas. Conversely, rural youth with lower upper-secondary grades often attend PHEIs, potentially due to less competitive admission requirements.

Norms and narratives

The binary distinction between urban and rural areas recurs in mobility and migration research, where ‘being mobile’ is associated with ambitious individuals (Nugin, 2014), transition into successful adulthood (Cairns, 2017). Additionally, research often highlights the perceived superiority of higher education institutions located in core urban regions (Finn & Holton, 2019; Donnelly & Gamsu, 2020). However, studies from Denmark and Sweden suggest that PHEIs may appeal to rural youth by offering symbolic mobility capital. This allows them to counter the narrative of being ‘stayers’ while still being seen as ‘leavers’ by pursuing higher education close to home, thereby maintaining the insider advantages of their home region (Maersk, 2021). In Finland, a study by Adams & Komu (2022) revealed that some young adults in Finnish Lapland are redefining success by choosing for limited educational and career opportunities that allow them to stay in their rural communities, underscoring the importance of place-specific factors.

Proximity to a higher education institution

The distance to the nearest higher education institution significantly influences young people’s decisions regarding their education (Björkum & Basic, 2024). While longer distances generally affect higher education enrolment negatively, Nordic studies also account for additional factors (Haley, 2020). For example, students from lower socio-economic backgrounds often choose institutions closer to their homes, whereas those from more privileged backgrounds often seek universities in major cities. Age also plays a role; older students are more likely to prioritize nearby institutions compared to their younger counterparts (Danmarks Evalueringsinstitut, 2021).

Box 3.

Key insights from the Nordic survey:

On average in the Nordics, when selecting a place of study for post-secondary education, 38% of all young adults prioritise proximity to home. Other important factors include the availability of specific educational programs (27%), closeness to friends and social networks (23%), and a vibrant student life (17%).
Education ranks among the top three factors influencing the migration decisions of young adults across all Nordic countries, alongside job opportunities, access to social networks, and availability of services.

Survey results

A representative survey was conducted from February to April 2024 as part of the Nordic Early Career Mobility Project1. It targeted young adults aged 25 to 39 years across the five Nordic countries – Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden – and received over 5,000 responses. The survey focused on exploring migration history, motivations, and future aspirations related to migration.

What factors do young people prioritize in selecting a place to study?

The survey highlighted that proximity to one’s home is a crucial factor influencing young people’s decisions on where to study. It ranks as the most important factor in all Nordic countries except Iceland, where it is the second most important (Table 1). Other significant factors influencing young people’s educational choices include the relevance of the program offered, proximity to friends and social networks, and access to vibrant student life, with the latter scoring particularly high in Denmark and Norway. However, the significance of these factors varies across the Nordic Region (Table 1).

The importance of robust transport links is particularly emphasized in Finland (18%), Norway (17%) and Denmark (15%), but is less significant in Sweden (8%) and Iceland (3%). On average, affordable housing, which accounts for 11% in the Nordic region overall, is considered most important in Norway (16%) and Finland (13%). Factors such as access to hybrid or online learning options, and the area’s family-friendly reputation generally have a lesser impact on educational choices across the Nordic countries.

Country	Top-1 factor	Top-2 factor	Top-3 factor
Denmark	Closest place to home (36%)	Friends/networks nearby (29%)	Only place with desired program (24%) / Vibrant student life (24%)
Finland	Closest place to home (49%)	Friends/networks nearby (34%)	Only place with desired program (23%)
Iceland	Only place with desired program (43%)	Closest place to home (27%)	Vibrant student life (17%)
Norway	Closest place to home (45%)	Friends/networks nearby (27%) / Only place with desired program (27%)	Vibrant student life (20%)
Sweden	Closest place to home (32%)	Only place with desired program (19%)	Friends/networks nearby (17%)

Table 1. ”When selecting your place of study, what factors did you prioritize?” The question is directed at respondents with post-secondary education (either higher education or vocational education and training). The question allowed for multiple responses. The table displays the top three important factors from a list of nine options.

Among those young adults who pursued higher education or vocational training at PHEIs, noticeable differences in their priorities emerge compared to all respondents with post-secondary education. On average, across the Nordic countries, 53% of young adults in this group prioritise proximity to home when selecting a place of education, compared to 38% of all educated respondents (Figure 1).

Meanwhile, 17% of young adults who attended PHEIs in the Nordic countries view the availability of specific educational programs as important in their choice of study location. In contrast, this percentage increases to 27% among all educated respondents (Figure 1).

Figure 1. ”When selecting your place of study, what factors did you prioritize?” The question is directed at respondents who pursued their post-secondary education at PHEIs. The figure displays two selected factors out of nine.

When survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of various factors influencing their migration decisions, access to education consistently ranked among the top three factors across all Nordic countries, scoring between 4,8 and 6,4 on a scale of 1 to 10 (Figure 2). Besides education, the primary considerations for relocation include job opportunities, access to social networks, and availability of services; highlighting the significance of overall place attractiveness in these decisions.

Figure 2. “How significant was this factor in your decision to either relocate from or stay in your place of origin”. The question applies to all respondents and uses a rating scale from 1 to 10,