 I think there is like two big strengths. One could be called an issue of positioning and the other one an issue of orientation. So in terms of positioning, this is very much an economic argument saying that international student mobility is important because of human capital development, because of finding your niche, developing your skills to compete in a global labor market and at the same time that same argument can also be used for the institutions that universities are also competing internationally for the most talented students to draw the best heads as it were to come to the universities in order to gain a competitive edge and all of this of course has to do with globalization, with the global knowledge economy, which is borderless basically and which sees itself as kind of moving freely in the globe. So from that point of view, for many universities investing in international student mobility is viewed as just that, a profitable investment, which is kind of the reverse of what's the case in Denmark, right? In Denmark students receive a stipend and in the UK for example, students have to pay quite high fees in order to study at UK and UK universities. The other approach, not the positioning approach, but more the orientation approach, is kind of a critical, a humanist, a more classical concept related to the German idea of bildung, which means education is basically a human right. It has to do with developing your capacities with having, with being exposed to other cultures and learning about the world being in interaction with other people and with other approaches to knowledge. And so in that regard, universities are seen as places of connectivity where critiques and or were critical and imagination is developed and this is taking place in unfamiliar settings. So it's an interactive kind of a position and this orientation view is often seen in opposition to the instrumentalist view, but maybe it does not necessarily have to be so. I will at this point maybe not talk about the proposition by Low and others about the capabilities approach, but just let me say that this is an attempt to merge kind of what the latest trends in university development are and relate that back to the original idea of the university. And let me maybe at this point stress that because sometimes when we talk about mobility we might lose sight of what is the core mission of the universities and you might know that there is a huge debate about this and especially in the German speaking world and France to the unconditional university debate started by Jacques Derrida and others is continuing and these scholars emphasize the core of the university is not research and teaching in the sense that we view it now because there are many other institutions who do research and there are other institutions that do teaching the core of the university is to provide a public space for open debates where kind of new knowledge is explored when new answers are sought in a free exchange between student and professors. Now, this is a very idealistic view, no question about it but it still is important I think to ask how can we integrate that into our ideas of mobility which are very often, you know, very brief, very small-scaled, especially when we talk about the microwave.