As a former Modern Languages student, I was heartened by the UK’s decision to re-associate with Erasmus+ from January 2027. Beyond the symbolism, this is a practical reset: up to 100,000 UK participants could benefit in the first year in return for an annual contribution of £570m – around 30% cheaper than default terms for non-EU members.
Rejoining Erasmus+ restores reciprocity, partnerships and automatic credit recognition. These are features that many UK higher education institutions struggled to replicate under the Turing Scheme, which was introduced by the last government as a global alternative to Erasmus. For Modern Languages departments in particular, whose degree programs hinge on a ‘Year Abroad’ element, this could be a lifeline after years of declining student enrolments post-Brexit.
Yet, initial cheer around the news should not blind us to some of the harder questions I learned to ask about policy whilst working in government: What is the value for money for the scheme? Who benefits? And what are the trade-offs?
Bills and benefits
Of course, government ministers are celebrating the opportunities that the return to Erasmus+ brings, and they are also promising an early review to ensure a “fair balance” of inwards and outwards participant flows. Yet, £570m is still a significant sum of money in a fiscally tight environment. Coming so closely on the tails of an Autumn Budget that raised taxes to patch up welfare, British voters may well question whether this government is spending their hard-earned cash wisely and not investing in other national priorities like the NHS, policing and housing. To some, Erasmus+ may feel like a luxury while domestic pressures are mounting.
Europe and the world
The logistics of the scheme matter too. Turing opened doors for UK citizens wellbeyond Europe, but it is not yet clear what will happen to the scheme going forwards. Will Turing be retained to complement Erasmus? Will it focus solely on non-EU destinations? Or will Turing disappear altogether? If phased out, then what message does that send to the UK’s global partners outside Europe – and, indeed, to students who dream of studying in Asia, Africa, Australasia or the Americas?
Access and inclusion
My former counterpart in private office – fellow former policy adviser Ben Johnson – has already been branded a Christmas “grinch” for questioning the value for money of rejoining Erasmus+. But he makes a strong argument: historically, Erasmus mobility placements have been skewed toward students with the social and financial capital to take a year or a term abroad as part of existing higher education courses. By contrast, the Turing Scheme widened access to short-term mobility to school pupils, apprentices, further education students and youth workers. So, while the new Erasmus deal appears to retain this broader scope, its design and delivery must actively support disadvantaged learners – or we risk repeating old patterns and entrenching inequalities.
Commuters and carers
Times have changed since the UK was last part of Erasmus. Cost-of-living pressures mean that 31% of UK 18-year-olds plan to live at home while studying in 2025, up from 22% a decade ago. Among disadvantaged students, the proportion is even higher. For these students, the decision to embark on an overseas mobility placement is not just about securing the funding and formal agreement to study or work abroad. It can often cause a dilemma about lost wages from part-time employment, uncertainty over caring responsibilities and disruption to future job security. So, without added incentives for students – such as support for carers or guarantees from employers around returning to part-time work at the end of their placements – the new iteration of Erasmus+ risks becoming a premium for the already mobile.
Fees and finance
Finally, the uncomfortable question: what does Erasmus+ mean for UK university finances? As a university governor myself, I personally see its return as strengthening the case for keeping EU students on international fee rates outside Erasmus+ placements. This will protect short-term mobility opportunities while preserving fee income from full degree courses such as one-year Master’s or PhDs. In turbulent times, price preservation matters: the sector’s financial resilience is fragile, and wider concessions on EU fee status would reverberate acrossinstitutional budgets and financial planning calculations. More provocatively, if Erasmus+ ends up satisfying EU students’ appetite for UK study through short-term exchanges, then EU demand for postgraduate degrees could well fall off a cliff, further challenging the sector’s current financial modelling.
Past and present
On balance, though, Erasmus+ is a welcome Christmas gift for the UK’s higher education sector – especially for Modern Languages departments and for rebuilding ties with Europe. But initial plans show the scheme is no longer the preserve of universities – and neither should it be – so the sector needs to face facts that this is a gift to be shared, and shared fairly.
Further education and apprenticeships are now in the mix too, meaning higher education may not be as central to the scheme’s design as it was before. That is why we need to unwrap this gift from government with no illusions that inclusion must be fought for, fiscal tradeoffs confronted and institutional models adapted to the realities of modern-day students. Only if we do that can we look at Erasmus+ with much more than nostalgia about what it brought to our own student lives, and ensure it can be an engine of opportunity, cohesion and value for the next generation of UK students.
