|
Trends
in Learning Structures in
Higher Education (II) Follow-up Report by Guy HAUG and Christian TAUCH April 2001
The opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Board of Education, the Association of European Universities, the European Commission or the European Training Foundation.
Towards the European higher education area : survey of main reforms from Bologna to Prague Summary and conclusions Review of structures and trends in the countries not covered in 1999 in the Trends 1 report Trends 1 was mainly based on
a survey of structure and trends in higher education in the EU/EEA countries.
Trends 2 surveyed the other signatory countries of the Bologna Declaration.
This review:
- The Bologna Declaration is
on all agendas: all countries have established a unit or a forum to explain
and discuss its content and implications. It serves as a new source of
dialogue between Ministries and higher education institutions, and between
sub-sectors of higher education;
- Mobility: there is unanimous support to the promotion of the mobility of students as well as of graduates, both outbound and (less expectedly) inbound. Teacher mobility seems to still receive insufficient attention. The mobility agenda of the Declaration is strongly underpinned by EU tools (ECTS, SOCRATES, TEMPUS, directives on professional recognition, Mobility Action Plan) and by the Lisbon Convention as well as by the willingness to prepare for EU integration in the countries concerned. ECTS and the Diploma Supplement receive very strong support. - Employability: the Bologna Declaration has reinforced the debate and increased the awareness that employability is an issue all over Europe. There are new "professional Bachelors" in several countries, and new "professional Masters" in some. The change to a two-tier structure does not necessarily come with immediate in-depth renovation of the underlying curricula. The debate has now taken into account that there are various ways in which first degrees can be "relevant to the European labour market" and that all need not to be directly geared towards short term employment in a particular profession. In some countries university Bachelors are mainly seen as a preparation and a platform for the choice of postgraduate studies; this is less a problem where a strong college sector produces a significant number of holders of professionally oriented Bachelors. - Competitiveness/attractiveness: most countries now seem to understand "competitiveness" in a positive sense and to endorse the need for their higher education systems to be "attractive". The issue is seen as "important" or "crucial" in an unexpectedly high number of countries: several have specific comprehensive plans aimed at non-European students; accession countries want to enhance their attractiveness to EU students in order to balance their exchanges within SOCRATES. No country said competitiveness was irrelevant, but it is not yet on the agenda everywhere. Most countries show little concern about transnational education and foreign accreditation sought by their universities. Answers to transnational education are mainly of two types: to rule it out, or to subject it to national rules; neither is likely to resolve the issue. The Bologna Declaration is attracting interest outside Europe, in particular in Latin America: this confirms that understandable higher education structures would make Europe a more attractive study destination in other world regions.
- Easily readable and comparable degrees: three countries developed comprehensive and coherent qualifications frameworks which could be useful for similar exercises in others and therefore relevant for Europe as a whole. Regional higher education areas are being consolidated in the Baltic Republics and the Nordic countries. Far from imposing uniformity as was sometimes feared, Bologna has encouraged more diversity and more flexibility. In particular, there are now more binary systems, with more bridges between sub-systems and more "professional Bachelors/Masters": The surprising fears that the Bologna Declaration had the intention to transform all colleges into universities seems to be disappearing. On the contrary, the move towards integrated systems (one system with different institutions and various bridges between them) is confirmed in a number of countries. The Diploma Supplement is seen as a major instrument to facilitate readability and comparability. There are still very complex degree structures in many countries, e.g. systems which are in fact not binary but "trinary" (universities, colleges/polytechnics, short post-secondary courses) with different degree structures in different sectors and in different disciplines. The least compatible sector seems to be the non-university sector, which is growing but without sufficient convergence between countries. There are also still many examples of confusing names/nomenclature (e.g. undergraduate "Master" degrees or "academies" focussing on Bachelor education). The integration of lifelong learning as a regular part of higher education and of the qualification framework is a priority in only a relatively small number of countries. - Mainly organised in undergraduate/postgraduate phases: the movement of convergence towards a two-tier structure continues, through the implementation of reforms previously adopted, the consolidation of Bachelor/Master structures introduced during the last decade and the initiation of reforms in several new countries. There are examples of two-tier structures in ALL disciplines including engineering (few in medicine). There are however also many countries where the Bachelor/Master structure does not concern certain professional curricula, which remain organised in long, one-tier courses. The strongest trend is towards 3-year Bachelors, but there are many examples of Bachelors lasting 3 - 4 years. A limited move towards professional Bachelors is in progress. Several comprehensive plans combine the introduction of Bachelor/Master degrees, credits and accreditation ("the golden triangle of reforms"), mostly in countries that engaged early in the reform process. There is not a similar effort towards convergence at the postgraduate level: there is therefore a need for debate/progress concerning the various types of Master degrees. Admission to Master courses is usually not automatic, at least not for "outside" students. - Credit accumulation and transfer systems: there is a strong push towards ECTS-compatible credits based on national systems with easy translation into ECTS, or on the adoption of ECTS itself, either by obligation or more often following the strong recommendation of rectors' conferences and/or ministries. There is concern about the potential of divergence in the implementation of the system. The fears that the introduction of credits would deprive universities of the possibility to organise their curricula and oblige them to recognise all imported credits seem to be diminishing. - Quality assurance: there is a powerful movement towards more quality assurance (new agencies, ENQA network), but in very different ways: unclear relationship between "quality assurance" and "accreditation", applied to all or only part of the higher education system, focussing on programmes (sometimes along subject lines across a whole country) or on institutions, with different types of consequences. The development of "accreditation" is now more easily recognisable than in the Trends 1 report: many non EU/EEA countries have accreditation, and several others are considering the possibility or have firm plans for a new accreditation agency (separate from the quality assurance agency or combined with it). In some countries that wish to increase the international acceptance of their new degrees, accreditation is seen as a sine qua non . There is however still confusion about the benefits and the meaning of accreditation. The decentralised approach to quality assurance/accreditation (sometimes referred to as "meta accreditation") which is being experimented in one country may provide inspiration for European mechanisms based on mutual acceptance of quality assurance decisions, respecting national and subject differences and not overloading universities.
- The Trends II report covers
six non-signatory countries: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus,
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia. It does not cover other countries, although it is known that
there is interest in e.g. Turkey, Russia and some other CIS countries.
· In future priority
attention should be paid to :
- students in Europe have a need and a right to study for degrees that can effectively be used in Europe, not just in the country/region where they were earned; - a major responsibility of higher education institutions and governments in Europe is to ensure that they take all steps needed to be in a position to award this type of qualifications to their students.
Part I Background information to the present survey of change in higher education from Bologna to Prague
The present report should be understood as a complement and an update to the report Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education prepared for the Bologna Conference of June 1999 ("Trends 1"). Trends 1 was prepared by Guy HAUG and Jette KIRSTEIN, on behalf of the Association of European Universities (CRE) and the Confederation of EU Rectors' Conferences, with support from the European Commission. It was mainly based on a survey of the structure of higher education (institutions, degrees) in the 18 countries of the European Union and the European Economic Area and served as a main background report for the preparation of the Bologna Conference and Declaration. The report was published in 1999 by the Danish Rectors' Conference in the English and French language. It has been translated in full or in part in several other languages at the initiative of various organisations and persons. The full report, together with an executive summary, the text of the Bologna Declaration, country profiles, overview tables and comments can be found on the following websites: www.rks.dk/trends1.htm Since the present report prepared for the Salamanca and Prague Conferences of March/May 2001 builds on data and conclusions of the 1999 report prepared for Bologna, it has been considered useful to include here for reference the text of the Executive Summary of Trends 1. Executive summary of the Trends 1 report TRENDS AND ISSUES IN LEARNING
STRUCTURES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN EUROPE: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document is meant as a contribution to the follow up work to the Sorbonne Declaration of May 1998 which called for the harmonisation of the architecture of higher education qualification systems in Europe. Its main purposes are to map areas of convergence between these systems in Europe (mainly EU/EEA), to identify trends affecting them and to indicate ways towards greater convergence in the future. The survey of existing structures shows the extreme complexity and diversity of curricular and degree structures in European countries. The Sorbonne Declaration recommended that studies should be organised in an undergraduate and a graduate cycle, but did not provide an indication of their duration. The debate that followed focussed on the alleged existence (or emergence) of a European "model" with 3 main levels of qualifications requiring 3, 5 or 8 years of study. No significant convergence towards a 3-5-8 model was found. Whether traditional or newly introduced, Bachelor-type degrees require 3 to 4 years, and many European countries without Bachelors have first degrees in 4 years; there is however a high degree of convergence towards a duration of about 5 years for Master-level studies; but there is no 8-year standard duration for doctoral degrees. In addition, whereas the UK, the US and most countries in the world - except in continental Europe - apply two-tier (undergraduate-postgraduate) systems, the length of studies and the degree structures vary considerably within and between these countries, and duration tends to be expressed in academic credits rather than in years. Several important trends affecting the structure of degrees/qualifications in Europe could be identified. There is a strong and growing governmental push towards shorter studies, first aimed at reducing the real duration of studies to their official length (which is typically exceeded by 2 to 4 years in many countries), and more recently through the introduction of first degrees in countries with traditionally long curricula without an intermediate exit point. Recent reforms in Germany and Austria have introduced new Bachelors/Masters curricula on a voluntary basis alongside traditional diplomas, whereas in Italy and France existing curricula are being re-arranged in a first and postgraduate cycle. Elements of two-tier systems exist in many other European countries, and it seems that currently only a few countries in the EU/EEA do not have, or are not experimenting with two-tier curricula in at least part of their higher education system. In countries with a binary system, the line of divide between the university and non-university sectors (and their degree structure) is become increasingly blurred. Most countries have adopted, or are adopting various types of systems for the transfer, and to a lesser extent also the accumulation of academic credits; most are compatible with the ECTS system, which is gaining ground at many institutions. There is a marked trend towards more autonomy of universities, coupled with new initiatives for quality control and evaluation in many countries. In recent years, European higher education has been faced with mounting challenges from abroad. Transnational education delivered in English by foreign/overseas providers through branch campuses, franchising, or by electronic means has grown rapidly in many European countries; a whole new sector of higher education is emerging alongside traditional, national, state-regulated systems, but until now it has been largely ignored by governments as well as universities in Europe. Four main avenues of combined action which may foster the desired convergence and transparency in qualification structures in Europe are being suggested. * The gradual adoption of an ECTS-compatible credit accumulation system. This would enhance the flexibility of national/institutional systems (in particular in view of the development of lifelong learning), bring them more in line with each other and with world systems, and ease mobility both within and from outside the EU/EEA area. * The adoption of a common,
but flexible frame of reference for qualifications. A rigid, uniform model
(like the 3-5-8 model) is neither desirable nor feasible in Europe. In
line with the analysis of existing systems and reforms in progress, the
following broad frame could serve as a common reference, while at the
same time allowing for flexibility and differences in countries and subjects
(length of studies are expressed not in years, but as the number of academic
credits that must be successfully completed (one academic year corresponds
to 60 ECTS credits): The main conditions for meaningful first degrees of the Bachelor/Honours type are being set out. Key factors are the introduction of new curricula (instead of a sheer re-packaging of existing ones), a guaranteed level (gauged on the basis of knowledge and competencies acquired rather than time spent), real possibilities on the market labour, a clear separation from postgraduate studies, and formal accreditation. Short Master programmes (12 months) present specific opportunities for intra-European mobility and international competitiveness. * An enhanced European dimension
in quality assurance, evaluation and accreditation: * Empowering Europeans to use the new learning opportunities. Compatible credit systems, understandable degree structures, increased quality assurance and an more European labour market are structural improvements which would create a whole new range of learning opportunities for all; their impact would be even greater if they were combined with measures such as short Master degrees favouring new types of mobility, the further strengthening of the NARIC/ENIC network, counselling with a European dimension, and the elimination of remaining obstacles to student and teacher mobility. The combined impact of the suggested action lines would also make European higher education more understandable and attractive to students, scholars and employers from other continents; they would enhance European competitiveness and thus help to consolidate (or in the eyes of many, to re-establish) its role and influence in the world.
Purpose This report has two main purposes: - to extend to all signatory countries (and a few non-signatory ones) the data collected and analysed in Trends 1 with respect to the EU/EEA countries; this will be found in Part III below, which contains an analysis, country profiles and supporting overview tables for the 12 non-EU/EEA countries that signed the Bologna Declaration and for 6 non-signatory countries; - to update the analysis of the main structures and trends in all 35 countries, through a survey of change and reforms since the Bologna Declaration, with a view to provide background information to the Convention of European higher education institutions (Salamanca, 29-30 March 2001) and the meeting of Ministers of Education with the participation of representatives of the higher education community of Europe (Prague, 18-19 May 2001). This will be found in Part II below. Its main aim is not to review what exists or does not exist (e.g. which countries have or do not have a quality assurance agency), but to focus on change and reforms, in order to identify the major trends in the follow-up to the Bologna Declaration in the perspective of the setting up of the European higher education area by 2010.
The survey of reforms and changes from Bologna to Prague (Part II below) is mainly based on information gathered in the last two months of 2000 through questionnaires sent to all countries. The questionnaire used focussed on the organisation of the follow-up process, on the three main goals of the Declaration (mobility, employability, competitiveness) and on the five main action lines outlined in it. - In the 29 signatory countries the questionnaire was sent to the officially designated "contact persons" in the Ministry with copies to the rectors conferences. In a majority of these countries some or extensive co-ordination took place in order to reflect the view of both government and higher education. It was not considered essential to stress the diversity of views between the various stakeholders involved, but rather to gather information on main changes at the national level; - A slightly different version of the questionnaire was prepared and sent to the governmental and higher education authorities in the non-signatory countries; - A simpler and shorter version of the questionnaire was designed and sent to a limited number of governmental and non-governmental European organisations who had shown their interest in the process. The main purpose, and indeed the main benefit from this exercise was to help looking at certain issues from a non national or "European" angle. The authors wish to express their deep gratitude to all respondents who accepted to answer the questionnaires and sometimes also complementary questions by phone, fax or email. In spite of the length and complexity of the questionnaire the majority of respondents provided detailed, accurate and comprehensive information on all aspects. Other countries provided less detailed answers to some, or in a few cases to most questions. Two countries did not return the questionnaire. The "country reports" prepared by a number of signatory countries for (or shortly after) the meeting of the Follow-up Group in Lisbon in June 2000 were used as a complementary source of information. However the most detailed "country reports" tended to be those produced by the countries that also provided detailed answers to the questionnaire. One country, for which there was neither a country report nor answers to the questionnaire, could not be included in the survey and the report. Other references: in addition to questionnaires et country reports a series of other documents were used. A list of the main ones is provided at the end of Part II below.
Towards a European higher education area: survey of change and reforms from Bologna to Prague
The Bologna process is high on national and institutional agendas The Bologna process is on the higher education agenda of all signatory countries: each has either a unit, a working group, a forum or a debate dealing with the Declaration and its significance for governments and higher education institutions in the national context. The follow-up debate and process has been organised according to several different patterns. In a majority of the countries concerned, the Ministry of Education has taken on a leading role, in all cases in more or less close co-operation with other key actors. In the most frequently encountered pattern the main partner organisations are the national Rectors' Conference(s). Other partners are also found in some countries: a broad range of stakeholders (e.g. in the UK), student unions (e.g. in Sweden) or the national ENIC/NARIC unit, especially in Central/Eastern Europe. Several countries have set up a special (sometimes a formal) follow-up group, usually in the form of a working group bringing together ministerial officials and higher education representatives, as in e.g. three Nordic countries, Germany (where it includes the federal and Länder authorities) or Spain. A similar working group is planned in Portugal. In Austria, the Ministry has created a "progress chasing project" to monitor the implementation of the Declaration. In several countries without a mixed follow-up unit, the Rectors' Conferences have set up special committees or working groups to consider the Declaration. This is the case in e.g. France, Belgium (both the French Community and Flanders) as well as in Switzerland. In the latter countries the working groups are specific for the university and college/polytechnic sector. In Malta, the University of Malta, as the only university in the country, has taken on the role to monitor the process. In Switzerland universities have set up a "Steering Committee" with a "Bologna co-ordinator" and an Advisory Group with the mission to ensure a co-ordinated introduction of the changes resulting from the implementation of the Bologna Declaration.
It is not possible to draw up a full picture of the information and discussion events dealing mainly or partly with the Bologna Declaration since June 1999. The following paragraphs try to convey an impression of the scope of the debate, distinguishing between the European, national and institutional levels. At the European level, a series
of seminars dealing with the main objectives of the Bologna Declaration
was commissioned by the "Follow-up Group" put in place by Ministers
for the implementation of the Declaration. They received financial support
from the European Commission and focused on the following aspects: Apart from these "official" seminars, the Bologna Declaration was discussed in a series of meetings organised or supported by inter- governmental and non-governmental organisations. What follows is just a few examples to provide an idea of the breadth of the debate. A major positive change has been the recent creation of the European Network of Quality Agencies in higher education (ENQA) on the basis of a recommendation by the EU Council of Education Ministers. It was launched in February 2000 and all future work related to quality assurance aspects in the emerging European higher education area should be able to benefit from it. Current and anticipated developments related to the Bologna Declaration have quite naturally been a major topic on the agenda of ENQA meetings. The ENIC/NARIC network co-ordinated by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and CEPES/UNESCO has set up a working group and produced a statement on the implications of the Bologna Declaration on recognition issues. The creation of the European higher education area was also on the agenda of the 2000 annual conference of OECD's programme on institutional management (IMHE). The Bologna Declaration was an important topic at numerous workshops and conferences organised by European associations and networks in higher education, e.g. CRE (Association of European Universities), the Confederation of EU Rectors' Conferences, EURASHE (institutions of the college/polytechnic sector), ESIB (National Unions of Students in Europe), SEFI (European Society for Engineering Education), EAIE (European Association for International Education), ELIA (European League of Institutes of the Arts), ELFA (European Law Faculties Association) and many others. At the national level, many countries have reported that the Declaration was discussed not in one or two, but in many different meetings. In countries where the implementation process is already well under way, such as Italy, Germany or the Netherlands, there were specialised seminars dealing with particular issues emerging from the reforms in progress. Several countries had a national "Bologna information day" organised by the Ministry (e.g. in Austria and Greece), the Rectors' Conference (e.g. in Hungary and Switzerland), the quality assurance agency (in the UK), the NARIC/ENIC (in five countries in Central and Eastern Europe) or the national student unions (e.g. in Malta, Sweden, Norway). Such "Bologna days" are also planned in Portugal and in Ireland in April 2001. Germany invited representatives from all other signatory countries to its national Bologna Day in Berlin in October 2000. Other reports on information activities include the translation of the Bologna Declaration and the main background report ("Trends 1") into the national language and their dissemination to various actors (e.g. in Greece, Spain and several countries in Central and Eastern Europe), explanatory articles in university magazines (e.g. Iceland) or interviews/press conferences for major newspapers (reported by e.g. Malta and the UK). Some co-ordination meetings took place at the level of a region (e.g. the Baltic Higher Education Co-ordination Committee in April 2000) or across a common border (e.g. between Flanders and the Netherlands on quality assurance and accreditation). There were in many countries ministerial statements supporting the goals and principles of the Bologna Declaration or stressing its compatibility with the national higher education policy. Such statements were made in Parliament in e.g. Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland. In Germany they were issued by the federal authorities (BMBF) as well as by the Conference of State Ministers of Education (KMK). In a number of countries (e.g. Belgium and Spain) the Ministers have decided not to issue an official opinion before the rectors' conferences produce their own. Liechtenstein confirmed that it felt in line with the Declaration and could sign it any time. The debate did, of course, not start and develop at the same pace everywhere. In Finland it seems that the most intensive discussion took place before the country agreed to sign the Declaration and a more technical debate has taken place since. In other countries, the debate has reached public attention more recently, e.g. in Greece (where it came into focus mainly since December 2000) or in the French Community of Belgium (where the Minister emphasised that the process is one of long-term considerations and that premature action should be avoided). In Portugal, government as well as higher education institutions have expressed their deep interest in achieving the goals of the Bologna Declaration and in introducing the necessary reforms. The higher education sector itself organised numerous meetings and discussion forums, in addition to those held in conjunction with governmental authorities already mentioned in the previous paragraphs. Rectors' conferences were very active in this area in many countries, both in the university and in the college/polytechnic sector (e.g. in Belgium). Many rectors' conferences have issued statements expressing their basic support to the creation of a European higher education area, e.g. in Poland, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland (the "Twelve-point Statement"), the Netherlands, etc. Meetings and debates for members were also organised at the initiative of other national organisations like student unions (in e.g. Sweden and Austria) or the association of international officers (e.g. HEURO in the UK). Finally, it is important to mention that a large number of individual universities and other institutions organised internal seminars and information days for their own staff, students and partners (e.g. in Barcelona, Malmö, Gent, Lille, Bordeaux, Brussels, Brno, etc.) Interestingly, the development towards a more coherent, and hence more compatible European higher education system has already received attention from universities outside Europe. This shows that the completion of an understandable degree structure in Europe would make the continent more attractive to students, teachers and universities from the rest of the world, and provide a suitable alternative to study destinations in other continents. Contacts have been established on this basis with the Association of Universities of Asia and the Pacific (AUAP). Within the framework of the COLUMBUS programme two seminars on regional convergence in higher education between Europe and Latin America were organised in 2000. The Association of Commonwealth Universities is also showing an interest in the European convergence process.
The Bologna Declaration has been taken up in several national (governmental) reports on higher education. Examples can be found in Norway (where the MjØs Report of May 2000 on the Bachelor/Master structure took account of the Declaration and served as a basis for the White Paper on higher education), the Czech Republic (White Paper of December 2000 on government's education policy), Slovakia (Strategic Plan For Higher Education of August 2000), Latvia (Conception Plan for Higher Education Development), Estonia (Development Plan of Estonian Education) or in the Netherlands (where the Minister's Policy Memorandum draws on the report of the Rinnooy Kan Committee of July 2000). In other countries, the Declaration has been considered in the cyclical policy planning or reporting to Parliament, e.g. in Austria (Three-Year Report of 1999), Finland (governments' Five-Year Plan for Education for 1999-2004), Flanders (Policy Paper on Education/Training for 2000-2004) or Sweden (Minister's 2000 Report to Parliament). In Switzerland, the Rectors' Conference and the Science Council produced two action-oriented reports on the implementation and co-ordination of the process in the country. In some countries, action is mostly based on major higher education reports produced prior to the Bologna Declaration that are in various stages of their implementation phase: the Dearing and Garrick Reports in the UK, the Martinotti Report in Italy and the Steering Group Report on Higher Education in Ireland (all 1997) as well as the 1998 Attali report in France. The countries concerned all have mentioned that the implementation measures, while they would have happened in some way anyhow, have been influenced in their content and timing by the Bologna Declaration (e.g. for the finalisation of the two new Qualification Frameworks in the UK). In Spain, it is not yet clear to what extent the Bricall Report ("University 2000") is being drawn upon for the preparation of the planned reform of the 1983 Law on Higher Education.
The three core objectives of the Bologna Declaration for the European higher education area are free mobility, employability on the European labour market, and international competitiveness/attractiveness of European higher education. The survey reveals an amazingly strong consensus on these objectives. Unanimous support to promotion of mobility The aim of the Bologna Declaration to promote more and freer mobility is seen as relevant, important, very relevant, of greatest importance, or even as crucial or vital, by 25 of the 29 countries. In most countries the Bologna
Declaration is perceived as supporting an already existing priority given
to mobility, or "as an important step in a process that started some
years earlier" (Netherlands). Its main roles are described as: In line with this, many countries are of the opinion that the changes they have introduced or planned would have happened anyway, but that their scope, orientation and timing have been influenced or determined by the Bologna Declaration. Against this background of
unanimous support to mobility, it is interesting to observe that the reasons
underpinning this unanimity vary considerably. The main reasons mentioned
by the various countries are: Another interesting aspect is that many countries approve of mobility not only for outgoing students, but place new emphasis on incoming mobility and on the need to eliminate obstacles encountered in this area. The underlying reasons are related to the desire to fill labour shortages (e.g. in Ireland), to attract more foreign students (the UK, Malta, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden), especially young researchers needed to sustain high level research centres and programmes (Ireland, Germany, Finland). Only a few countries mentioned the importance of teaching staff mobility. According to the new Italian Law of 1999, teaching abroad should become a criterion for the selection and promotion of university teachers; similar provisions are planned in Belgium (French Community) and France. Austria plans to eliminate from its legislation on civil servants articles seen as incompatible with international mobility in higher education. Several countries, in particular those with a federal or very decentralised higher education system, stressed that free mobility in Europe would also enhance mobility between their constituent units (Germany, Spain, Switzerland) or their different types of higher education institutions (a few countries in Central Europe). This is not the place to draw
up an inventory of all the various measures taken or planned to encourage
or support mobility. The following observations are meant to draw attention
to certain specific or new directions in reforms: More structural measures were also mentioned as factors facilitating mobility: the adoption of a credit system, the streamlining of the degree structure, the Bachelor/Master articulation, the implementation of the Lisbon Summit on employment, etc. This signals the direction of efforts towards changing the conditions in the environment and thus creating more opportunities for students (as was emphasised in particular by the Netherlands). Another key observation made by many countries is that the aims of the Bologna Declaration in the area of mobility are strongly underpinned by parallel developments and existing instruments. The adoption of the acquis communautaire in education, the implementation of the Lisbon Convention on recognition and the implications of the Mobility Action Plan adopted by the EU in November 2000 are important factors of reform mentioned by many countries. The EU mobility programmes (mainly ERASMUS), the Diploma Supplement, the European credit transfer system (ECTS) and the EU Directives on professional recognition were mentioned as instruments for the implementation of the aims and principles of the Bologna Declaration. Two important conclusions can be drawn from this: - The Bologna Declaration is largely in line with national priorities and other European actions; it is reinforcing these other priorities and activities and is being reinforced by them. - The scope and level of mobility required in a well-functioning European higher education area depends on the fair, timely and efficient recognition of qualifications for academic and professional purposes; the necessary tools and instruments exist; the main challenge now is for higher education institutions and governments to make use of them (cf. report of the NARIC/ENIC working group on recognition issues in the Bologna process; this view has also been emphasised by the Swedish Ministry).
The Bologna Declaration has had a strong and positive effect on the debate about the relationship between higher education and professional life, in particular concerning the preparation of graduates for "employability". It has raised the profile of the issue and increased the awareness that it is a shared concern all over Europe. Just as its intention to increase mobility, the aim of the Bologna Declaration to promote the employability of graduates on the European labour market is seen as very important and relevant by the vast majority of signatory countries. In a similar way as for mobility, the Declaration is seen as underpinning national plans in promoting employability as a priority, for four different types of reasons. Several countries stressed that employability has been a long-standing guide or baseline in national higher education policy and see the Bologna Declaration as reinforcing it. In Sweden the collaboration of higher education institutions and professional and economic circles is seen as "generalised, natural and easy" and responsiveness to the needs of the surrounding society has been made the "third pillar" of higher education, on an equal footing with research and teaching. Similar attitudes exist in other Nordic countries. The Netherlands also see employability as a major issue for which there is broad support from government and social partners. France stressed that the shift towards "professionalisation" has been the backbone of national higher education policy for three decades and is strongly reflected in the 4-year contracts signed between the Ministry and each university. In countries where qualifications, including first degrees, have confirmed acceptance on the labour market (Ireland, the UK, Sweden, Malta, Iceland) the main emphasis seems not so much to be on employment in general (graduate unemployment is low), but rather on the adjustments to specific market needs, especially in view of growing skills and labour shortages (as reported in particular by Ireland and some Nordic countries). The introduction of the new 2-year "Foundation Degrees" in the UK is also mainly a response to a shortage of qualified graduates at this level. The emphasis in the Bologna Declaration on employability meets other, convergent calls for reform related to the process of preparation for entrance into the EU. This has been stressed by all accession countries in various ways. Some regretted the restrictions to access to the European labour market which still exist in both directions between the EU and accession countries. In several countries employability is seen as a particularly important national priority as a response to high graduate unemployment. This has been stressed in particular by Italy and Spain. Greece underlined that the necessary change in this direction would require a more intensive dialogue between government, higher education institutions, students and employers. In Italy, "one of the most innovative aspects of the new architecture of the whole higher education system introduced from 1999 is that it is also based on convergence with the labour market". Employability : a powerful source of change and reform From the three aims underpinning the Bologna Declaration, enhanced employability seems to be the strongest source of change and reform in higher education. This has also been significantly reinforced by the Lisbon Summit on Employment of March 2000, which has contributed to guiding national agendas in education and other areas. The impact of the Bologna Declaration can be found mainly in three areas. The most visible aspect is that the Declaration created a broad debate about employability after a first (Bachelor-type) degree, e.g. in Finland, Switzerland, Austria, Flanders, etc. A few countries recalled that education is not only for professional purposes (e.g. Spain), or reported concern from the university sector that first degrees should not be geared too narrowly to short-term needs on the labour market. In countries where Bachelor degrees were introduced about a decade ago (in particular Denmark, Finland, Czech and Slovak Republics) there is a renewed debate around the definition (or redefinition) of Bachelor degrees . The general move is clearly towards a stronger attention to employment prospects and the acquisition of core, or transversal, skills. The new qualification frameworks adopted in the UK and Ireland are strongly "outcome-based" and qualifications are mostly defined in terms of skills/competencies acquired by graduates. Denmark noted that both academic and professional Bachelor degrees needed to be "relevant" (although in not exactly the same way). Recent legislation in many countries made relevance to labour market a key factor for the authorisation (or "accreditation") of new programmes or made the collaboration with professional bodies compulsory in the development of new curricula, e.g. in Italy (where employability is seen as the major change required in the new system launched in 1999), Germany, Austria, Latvia, France, Flanders or in Switzerland's plans for a new quality assurance agency. This is often combined with the requirement that all curricula must provide core skills (Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Bulgaria) or with an encouragement to create shorter curricula (Estonia). Some countries have also undertaken specific efforts to promote first degree graduates on the labour market. In Germany, where the Conference of Ministers of Education (KMK) in March 1999 stressed market relevance as a key dimension in the new degree structure, this was reinforced by a similar emphasis in the German Employers' Association's "Cologne Declaration" (October 1999) on new higher education qualifications. Some countries reported concrete measures aimed at adjusting the statutes/laws regulating access to civil service (e.g. Austria, Italy, Germany) or to regulated professions (e.g. Slovakia) in order to create opportunities for holders of first degrees. The second impact of the Bologna Declaration's interest in employability is that it provided new impetus for the further development of the college/polytechnic sector and for its creation in a few more countries. In nearly all countries with a binary system the Declaration opened a renewed debate on the respective roles of various types of higher education institutions and on the profile of their degrees. This debate has been widespread in countries with a binary system, especially in those where a strong college/polytechnic sector provides a relatively high number of graduates with qualifications geared towards access to the labour market after 2, 3 or 4 years. In these countries the need for a shift towards "employability" in the university sector is clearly not felt in the same way as in those where higher education is mostly or exclusively found at universities. The new impetus for professional higher education has led to the creation or extension of a binary system in several countries, e.g. Finland, Malta, Estonia, Slovakia, and Italy. Italy has recently introduced in some regions a new sector for advanced professional education and training (FSI) with a view to creating an alternative to university education. The current introduction of Foundation Degrees at British universities, although not in direct response to the Bologna Declaration, also points in the direction of the diversification of higher education as a means towards broader access and easier employability. The creation of the licence professionelle at French universities and of professional bachelors in several countries are on the contrary largely a response to the Bologna Declaration. The debate about Master degrees at colleges/polytechnics (cf. section on the Bachelor/Master articulation) should also be seen in this connection. Finally, the Bologna Declaration has played an important role in drawing attention to the increasingly European dimension of the issue of employability. This was noted by e.g. France, Malta, Latvia, Iceland and Sweden. Sweden stressed that "for a small country, it is natural to develop employability for the national, European and international market in parallel with measures for mobility". In most countries the widening of the European dimension in higher education qualifications is seen mainly in conjunction with the development of EU programmes for co-operation and mobility. There is renewed attention given to the setting up of joint, integrated or double-degree courses in several countries, e.g. Germany and Italy (which have both created special funding possibilities for such courses), Estonia, France, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Iceland and Denmark. Greece regrets that only a few universities/faculties are engaged in this type of curricular development in the country. A dozen countries mention the development of courses with a "European" orientation taught in English and designed for national and foreign students alike (there are for example some 500 such courses in Sweden). The continuous development of European summer courses in a wide spectrum of disciplines and specialisation areas, run by a single institution or jointly by higher education networks (e.g. UNICA or ECIE), should also be noted in this regard. Several countries see the EU Directives on professional recognition as an important tool for the implementation of the Bologna Declaration's aims concerning employability in Europe. Accession countries are integrating in their curricula the standards set by the EU for various specific professions (e.g. nurses and midwifes in Poland, health professions and teachers in Romania, etc). These changes, while mainly related to the accession process and the acquis communautaire are mentioned as measures which would have happened anyway in these countries, but at the same time underpin the objectives of the Bologna Declaration.
While support for mobility was predictable and support for employability expected, the strong backing of the Bologna Declaration's aim to promote competitiveness (in the meaning of "attractiveness") was much less foreseeable. The answers collected for this study reflect a remarkable increase of awareness of what is at stake and the beginning of a mobilisation of energies and resources. In stressing the need for European higher education to compete for its place in the world, the Declaration has played a major role in this direction. The issue of competitiveness is seen as an important priority by an amazingly high number of countries. Very few countries do not see it as an area of concern. The Bologna Declaration has had three different effects on the issue of competitiveness. First, it brought the issue into focus, as was mentioned by e.g. Norway, Flanders, or even Switzerland (in spite of its 20-30 % foreign students, 40 % at postgraduate level). In Finland the work on a strategy to promote the country as a study destination "would not have started without the Bologna Declaration". Germany sees the internal restructuring of its higher education system and its international promotion as two equally important pillars of its comprehensive reform process. Quite understandably the push for competitiveness is less felt in countries (mainly in Southeast Europe) where higher education is still considerably oversubscribed. Second, the Bologna Declaration has drawn attention to signals that "went unnoticed for a long time" (France) pointing to declining overall attractiveness. This seems to apply to various aspects: the overall decrease in student numbers from non-EU/EEA countries has long been ignored in the countries concerned; the generalisation of the Bachelor/Master structure throughout the world except in continental Europe went unnoticed (as reported by Germany, but applicable elsewhere); and the belated acknowledgement that "foreign students have problems with the recognition of our long diplomas in their country" (e.g. by Germany and Italy). It should however also be pointed out that several issues are still not fully acknowledged. Ministries and higher education organisations in most countries show limited awareness and little concern about European universities seeking U.S. accreditation, the proposed inclusion of certain aspects of education into WTO negotiations or the development of various forms of transnational education. Only Greece and Portugal reported serious concern about the role of imported education. Answers to transnational education have been mainly of two types: to rule it out (as in Greece) or to subject it to national quality assurance or accreditation (e.g. Hungary, Lithuania or Austria). Neither is likely to resolve the issue. As was pointed out by Latvia, national regulations are not in a position to stop the development of unofficial transnational education, mainly because it does not seek, and maybe does not need to be integrated in the national frame. Third, the Bologna Declaration added a new dimension to the policy of internationalisation by "articulating national and European attractiveness" (France). There seems to be a growing awareness that for foreign students the choice is first between Europe and other continents, and only once Europe is seen as a real option does the student refine his/her choice. Austria sees the promotion of Europe as a whole as a study/research place as the "backbone of the Bologna Declaration". For Greece, the increased competitiveness of Europe is a means to improve the situation in each individual country. For the Netherlands, the need to be attractive and readable was a major reason for signing the Bologna Declaration in the first place. There are, of course, various reasons why the attention paid to attractiveness and competitiveness is growing throughout Europe. Three main motivations seem to play a role. For several countries, the main goal is to attract more foreign students, in particular non-Europeans. France and Germany expressed concern about diminishing attractiveness and Sweden wants to prevent a similar drift. Receiving more foreign students is mentioned as a national goal in the UK, Norway and Sweden (which have long "exported" many students and now want to "import" more), Austria, Germany, France, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands as well as in Malta, Hungary and Latvia. Many of these countries, as well as Switzerland, are in particular interested in attracting young researchers in order to maintain a world-class research environment. Another goal they have in common is to increase the international acceptance of their own degrees. Another major reason for policies aimed at increasing the attractiveness of national higher education is related to European integration. For countries in the accession process to the EU, their integration into the EU programmes has stimulated the need and willingness to be attractive to students from other European countries. Some countries stress that their graduates will seek study and employment in Europe and therefore the national system must be competitive (e.g. Estonia or Malta), several others emphasise that in the framework of the EU programmes they need to be attractive in order to have "real exchanges" and not only an outflow of students (all 3 Baltic countries, Slovenia, Romania, etc). As Bulgaria put it, "these efforts are mainly related to European integration, but they also meet the objectives of the Bologna Declaration". A third, slightly different reason can be found in some countries which see the Europeanisation of their higher education systems as a means to make them more competitive. This is strongly emphasised in Italy, where a "very high national priority" and the main aim of the broad reforms in progress are to increase the competitiveness of Italian universities. Other countries, e.g. Austria and Malta, also see Europeanisation as a factor to gain a competitive edge. With these various aims in mind, different types of measures have been introduced throughout Europe. Several countries have developed comprehensive strategies. These are typically based on co-operation between government (Ministry of Education and Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and higher education institutions and usually start as a response to a national report confirming the need for action in this area. In Sweden a State Committee proposed in February 2001 a five-year action plan ("Advantage Sweden") which was perceived as urgently needed. In Finland the Ministry set up a working group in the fall of 2000 to design a marketing strategy for Finnish higher education. In Germany the process was started at the end of 1999 with a report adopted jointly by the federal and states governments stressing the need to increase the international competitiveness of German higher education. This led one year later to a major federal marketing project to stimulate through DAAD and the Rectors' Conference the "export" of German higher education, with a budget of over DM one billion. In the UK the Prime Minister set a clear target in June 1999: to increase Britain's market share to 25 % of the world's mobile students. The British Council now operates a major five-year worldwide plan to establish the "EducationUK" brand name to help British universities in their marketing efforts. Measures applied include traditional ones, such as information (brochures, databases, student fairs) and the provision of language courses for incoming students (both for ERASMUS exchange students and for others). There is, however, a whole range of other developments which demonstrate the growing role and the re-orientation of policies for higher education competitiveness. Active marketing is rapidly gaining ground and is becoming an increasingly important task for many existing national agencies such as the British Council, DAAD, NUFFIC, etc. France has recently created a marketing body (Edufrance) and Switzerland is considering creating one. In many cases these agencies push for the transformation of existing study programmes and the creation of new ones responding to the needs of international students. In many countries (e.g. the Netherlands, Sweden, Germany and Hungary) universities are setting up a new generation of internationally oriented, mostly postgraduate programmes taught in English, either specifically for foreign students or for a mixed audience of local and international students. There seems to be a growing awareness that Europe could offer on the world market unique programmes drawing on the joint curricular work of institutions in more than one country. Some countries are establishing support centres in the targeted countries (e.g. Netherlands, Germany; the UK has already established such centres around the world). A profound, long-overdue change can be noticed in visa policies. After at least one decade of disastrous visa policies applied to foreign students, interns and teachers/researchers, a number of countries are now changing their approach. The UK, Ireland and Malta are the only countries referring to a well-established policy of making immigration procedures in this area as user-friendly as possible. Other countries seem to have discovered the need for a drastic change (France, Germany, the Netherlands). Several are now introducing more user-friendly procedures (Germany, France), the possibility for students to work part-time, to return home in the summer or to bring along their family (Austria, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Flanders). Some countries now recognise the need to improve non-educational services to foreign students, concerning e.g. accommodation (in Italy, Sweden, Austria and France) or "social and academic tutoring" (in Germany). Some countries also recommend a more generous approach to the recognition of foreign degrees (e.g. Sweden, or Germany's "Master Plus" scheme aimed at helping holders of a foreign Bachelor degree to find their way into German higher education). It is interesting to observe that while very few countries see tuition-free education as a key factor of attractiveness (exceptions are the Czech Republic regarding Slovak students and Belgium) equally few (the UK, the Netherlands, to a limited extent Malta, Latvia or Hungary) mention financial reasons as an important motive for international marketing. On the contrary the no-fee policy in the international context has been recently reconfirmed in Sweden (overall) and in Germany (for studies up to the first degree) and several countries have announced their intention to provide additional grants to incoming students, e.g. Germany, the UK, Austria, Sweden and the Netherlands. From these observations it should be clear that in most cases the efforts towards increased attractiveness and competitiveness of European higher education are driven mostly by non-financial motives, such as cultural influence, the internationalisation of the national higher education system, labour market and research policy needs, the safeguarding of the higher education sector through the inflow of talent, etc. Another important observation is that in all countries the national schemes put in place stress that it is the responsibility of higher education institutions themselves to be attractive to foreign applicants and to act to recruit them. At the same time, few plans seem to consider it important to provide incentives to institutions. In the UK a main aim of the national scheme is to develop the "entrepreneurial skills" at universities. Sweden and Germany provide some initial support for marketing initiatives. Flanders provides to its universities the same funding for non - EU students as for European students for up to 2 % of their total enrolments. In a few countries (e.g. Malta, Latvia, Iceland) some other financial incentives seem to exist. A number of countries have taken measures to foster the international acceptance of their degrees, mostly through traditional instruments (e.g. bilateral agreements or the dissemination of information through the NARIC network or the national Ministry of Education). In several countries the better international acceptance of their degrees is seen as a major reason for, and a main benefit of the 1997 Lisbon Convention. Some are increasing their support (e.g. through the Diploma Supplement or more specific backing) to foreign graduates who need to get their degree recognised or accepted in their home country. Other countries rely on more structural reforms to improve the international acceptance of their degrees, e.g. through ECTS credits or grading (Italy, Estonia), the adoption of a Bachelor/Master structure (Germany, Austria, Italy) or though the creation/strengthening of a trustworthy accreditation system (the Netherlands, Switzerland, Romania). The most comforting aspect, however, is that more and more European countries and universities seem to have become aware that their degrees are not automatically recognised at their real level in the outside world and that co-ordinated action is needed in this area (starting with a thorough survey of the actual situation).
This section deals with changes and reforms affecting the overall architecture of higher education systems, from the point of view of the readability and comparability of the degrees and qualifications offered. New qualification frameworks In the UK two new comprehensive qualification frameworks have been adopted recently: one for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (November 2000) and another one for Scotland (January 2001). They are mainly a development recommended in the Dearing and Garrick Reports of 1997 to enhance internal transparency, but the Bologna Declaration shaped the later stages and added impetus for clear definitions of levels, accurate qualification descriptors and a consistent nomenclature. Both frameworks are output-based; they differ in some respects (with Scotland putting more emphasis on credits and keeping its traditional dual system of Bachelors-Honours degrees), but they come together at the level of the Honours degree and have an identical structure for postgraduate degrees. In Ireland, where higher education is a binary system and lifelong learning a major priority, the Qualifications Act of July 1999 led to the development of a national qualifications framework which is now operational. It covers all qualifications except those from universities, with which it is however closely co-ordinated. The definitions and approach adopted in these three frameworks, including their attempt to eliminate all inconsistencies in the degree nomenclature, will no doubt contribute to the objective of a more easily understood degree system at European level. No other European country has developed a similar comprehensive framework of qualifications, but other efforts were undertaken. Finland, Bulgaria and Malta have specifically tried to streamline their degree systems. In France the introduction in 1999 of the Mastaire as a master-level degree common to universities and Grandes Ecoles is also a first step in this direction in a particularly complex degree system. Lithuania tried to put its national degree structure in line with UNESCO's ISCED scale, and several countries in Central and Eastern Europe are streamlining their lists of areas of specialisation in order to keep pace with transformations of their system (e.g. Slovenia, Bulgaria).
The move towards integrated systems of higher education (i.e. various types of different and complementary institutions and qualifications organised within a single, cohesive system) has been confirmed. Austria pointed out that the Bologna Declaration had increased the awareness that higher education has become a diversified system extending beyond universities. In the Czech Republic, where a move in this direction has been in progress, it may have served to clarify the issue. In Norway's integrated system (Network Norway) the two sub-sectors usually recognise each other's study programmes on a time-for-time basis. Sweden also has universities and colleges but sees its higher education as a "unitary" system accepted by the educational community as well as by the labour market. In several other countries recent developments point in the same direction, in particular through the adoption of identical or symmetric degrees structures. In Portugal the law of 1997 introduced the same degrees at colleges and universities. In Germany, the new Bachelor/Master degrees introduced as of 1998 are the same, irrespective of the institution which awards them (university or Fachhochschule), and they are subject to the same accreditation procedures. In response to the Bologna Declaration several countries introduced Bachelor (and in some cases also Master) degrees in their non-university sector instead of the traditional vocational diplomas. Professional Bachelors have been created since 1999 in Denmark, Malta, Lithuania, Slovakia, France, Slovenia and Latvia and the MjØs report proposed to establish a common degree system for professional and academic studies in Norway. The Bologna Declaration has clearly stimulated a new debate on "bridges" between the sub-systems of binary higher education systems and in some cases new possibilities have been introduced. The main aim of these changes seems to be - in perfect harmony with the lifelong learning objective - to avoid dead ends for students who did not make the right choice immediately and for those who change their plans. Agreements between colleges and universities setting out the transfer possibilities have been encouraged in the Netherlands and in both higher education systems of Belgium. Belgium's French Community adopted in 1999 new legislation aimed at unifying the transfer possibilities, some becoming guaranteed and others subject to clearly defined conditions. In the Netherlands, Germany, Hungary, Estonia, Slovenia and Bulgaria, the possibilities for college graduates to continue their studies towards a Master degree at a university have been expanding, either according to new rules or simply by changed practice. France's new professional licence is being developed mainly for graduates of two-year professional courses such as BTS and IUT. In all countries where college-type higher education has been introduced recently, "bridges" towards university studies were included in the new legislation, e.g. in the UK ("foundation degrees" can be converted into Bachelors after no more than 4 terms of further studies), Malta, Italy or Lithuania. There seems however to be a significant gap between the possibilities existing in the legislation and the actual practice, as reported by e.g. the Czech Republic, Finland and in particular Greece, where transfers remain very uncommon.
The Bologna Declaration called for the implementation of the Diploma Supplement and has indeed significantly contributed to its rapid dissemination. Most countries see the Bologna Declaration and the Diploma Supplement as complementary, the implementation of one pushing for the fuller implementation of the other. The review of measures already taken or planned with respect to the Diploma Supplement shows that it is seen as a key instrument for the achievement of systems of more readable and comparable degree systems. The measures planned by governments and by higher education organisations and institutions indicate that the Diploma Supplement should be very widely used in the very near future. At the EU level a project was launched in late 1998 to promote and implement the Diploma Supplement, and by March 2001 Diploma Supplement promoters have undertaken various information activities in EU and EEA countries, often in close co-operation with national authorities, in a joint effort to create widespread understanding of, and knowledge about the Diploma Supplement. The project has developed a template which will be available to higher education institutions in April 2001. The project has been based on the final version of the Diploma Supplement jointly developed by the Council of Europe, the European Commission and UNESCO/CEPES. In a few countries the introduction of the Diploma Supplement is or will be compulsory, e.g. in Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Romania, Slovenia and at Swiss Fachhochschulen. In some systems a compulsory or generalised national Diploma Supplement has been in use previously and the transition to the European version is in progress, e.g. in Hungary and Flanders. Many countries predict that the Diploma Supplement will be in common use by 2002 or 2003, not on the basis of a compulsory introduction but rather at the initiative of the higher education institutions themselves or as a response to a "recommendation" by the Ministry, the Rectors' Conference or both, e.g. all Nordic countries, French Community of Belgium (universities only), Estonia, Malta, Liechtenstein, Iceland and Germany). In the Czech Republic higher education institutions must issue a Diploma Supplement to students who request it. A similar obligation is planned in Slovakia. In a number of countries, the Diploma Supplement is still being tested, but its generalisation is expected (Spain, France, Poland, Portugal, Austria). In the French Community of Belgium (Hautes Ecoles), the UK, Lithuania and Bulgaria the introduction of the Diploma Supplement is under consideration. In several countries a national template for the Diploma Supplement is either already in use (Hungary, Finland, Germany, Czech Republic, Italy) or in preparation (e.g. in Sweden and Estonia). An English version will be added either for all students or at students' request (as in Slovenia). With a view to enhance the Diploma Supplement's role as a tool for employability, Italy plans to include additional information of interest for employers. Liechtenstein will use ECTS credits and grades in its Diploma Supplements. In several countries the method and the speed adopted for the introduction of the Diploma Supplement may differ between universities and colleges/polytechnics, either as a result of different policies (e.g. French Community of Belgium), various degrees of autonomy (e.g. in Switzerland) or because of differently structured databases (e.g. Norway). Finally it should be pointed out that the Diploma Supplement is of paramount importance in those countries where old and new degrees co-exist, as in Italy during the transition years and in Germany, where old and new degrees may coexist within the same institution and perhaps for years to come.
The move towards a more coherent system of degrees has been the most visible part of the process which should lead to the completion of the European higher education area by 2010. The gradual replacement of long first degrees by studies articulated in an undergraduate and a postgraduate phase has been accelerating since the signature of the Bologna Declaration. This section will review the main reforms in progress or in preparation and draw some key interim conclusions from the analysis of these changes. Sustained reforms towards a Bachelor/Master articulation This section will try to identify the main patterns followed by reform processes to introduce and extend the Bachelor/Master structure. Bachelors/Masters are traditional in the UK, Ireland and Malta and are well established in Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. In the Nordic countries a varying number of long one-tier "professional" degrees have been kept from the old system (in e.g. medicine, law, theology or technology) and the consolidation of the Bachelor/Master structure continues, in relation with the Bologna Declaration. In Norway the MjØs report proposes a common degree structure for universities and colleges with 3 or 3.5-year Bachelors and 2 or 1.5-year Masters (except for some long one-tier professional degrees). The proposal is supported by the Network Norway Council and a new law is in preparation. Sweden is debating its "undergraduate magister" degree which is not easy to reconcile with the Bologna pattern. Denmark is introducing professional Bachelors in the college sector and Bachelors in Life Science on the road towards Medical degrees, and is strengthening its efforts to establish Bachelors as the normal entrance level to a broader spectrum of careers. In all three Baltic countries Bachelors and Masters were introduced within a few years from independence and have in the meantime become widespread at universities, except in certain "professional" subject areas with long, one-tier curricula (mainly medical disciplines and some other such as law, agronomy, architecture, engineering, depending on the country). The consolidation of the new system continues, in particular through its extension to the college/polytechnic sector. In Latvia the legislation was changed in 2000 and a new degree structure will be in place from 2002; it will be symmetric for academic and professional studies at universities, and Bachelors/Masters will replace the old 3 to 6-year professional degrees after a transition period during which the two systems will run in parallel. A similar move is planned in Estonia, where the new plan is for 3-year Bachelors at colleges as well as at universities. In Lithuania the new law introducing a binary system will come into force from September 2001. In Germany and Italy the reforms introduced since 1998 - 1999 in relation to the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations have entered the phase of full-speed implementation. In Germany the new legislation adopted at federal and state level provides for the voluntary development of Bachelor and Master curricula (in parallel to traditional long ones or replacing them) but requires that they be based on modules and ECTS credits and accredited through the new, independent accreditation system. There are currently over 600 new Bachelor and Master courses offering different "profiles", covering all subject areas (except medicine and theology) and involving a large number of different universities and Fachhochschulen. The process enjoys strong support from the Ministry, the Rectors' Conference and the DAAD and is still gaining momentum: the pace of creation of new courses is fast, and the number of students enrolled grew by 40 % in the last academic year. Two entire universities (Bochum and Greifswald) and many faculties at other universities have decided to drop their traditional courses and to offer only Bachelors and Masters. The Rectors' Conference expects the new structure to develop and become standard throughout the country. At the same time Germany has adopted and is now implementing a comprehensive marketing plan to promote its higher education in the world. The other major reform scheme already in full implementation is that of Italy. On the basis of new legislation passed for the most at the end of 1999 the introduction of a new degree structure is compulsory at all universities and in all disciplines from the academic year 2001-2002 at the latest (some universities introduced it voluntarily one year earlier). The new 3-year Laurea (180 credits) and 5-year Laurea Specialistica (300 credits in total) will replace the "old" one-tier Laurea which will be phased out after a short transition period. A national credit system based on ECTS will be applied for all courses. Curricula need to be fully redeveloped, in connection with regional and professional partners, and must meet minimum requirements for each main component (transversal skills including a foreign language, specific subject skills, free choice courses, dissertation). These requirements have been fixed for each "subject class" (42 for the first degree, 104 for the second) with a view to guarantee the breadth and flexibility of curricula and avoid an overload of traditional lecture hours. The system foresees quality evaluation, but no formal periodic "accreditation" of the new programmes. Since the signature of the Bologna Declaration, other countries have in various ways addressed its recommendation concerning degree structures. France created the Licence professionnelle (requiring a total of 3 years of study) and the Mastaire (as a common denominator for diverse qualifications requiring 5 years of study at universities or Grandes Ecoles). Universities developed in close co-operation with professional circles over 600 proposals for Licence professionnelles, of which 170 were accepted to start in October 2000. In Austria recent legislation created the possibility for universities to introduce Bachelor and Master courses, but not as in Germany in parallel with existing long, one-tier programmes. After a slow start (only 2 Bachelor courses in 2000-2001) the development of new curricula seems to be gaining momentum: 6 more degrees will be offered from 2001-2002 and at least 8 others are in preparation. There is as yet no accreditation agency for these courses. In Flanders universities and the Rectors' Conference are preparing a move in the same direction, with 3-year Bachelors and mostly 1.5-year Master degrees based on accreditation. In Switzerland the two-tier structure has been adopted independently by some universities (in particular the University of St-Gallen, where 3-year Bachelors and 1 to 2-year Masters will start in 2001) and its introduction is planned on a step-by-step basis elsewhere, with due co-ordination at the national level in order to avoid too wide variations in the new degrees. The National University Council has obtained the possibility to pass directives for this purpose, and an accreditation agency and a credit system are envisaged. Liechtenstein's two higher education institutions have adopted the Bachelor/Master structure based on ECTS credits. In several countries where Bachelors were introduced during the last decade, the Bologna Declaration has provided renewed impetus to establish them more firmly as genuine degrees in their own capacity or to further generalise them. In the Netherlands the possibility to have a Bachelor-type kandidaats degree already existed but was not much used. A new law will change the system to enable the widespread introduction of 3-year Bachelors and 1-2 year Masters, together with a new system of accreditation as a sine qua non requirement. Graduates will be able to choose between the Dutch titles and international Bachelor/Master degrees and the funding system for institutions and students will be adjusted. Higher education institutions are already changing their curricula and rapid implementation is expected when the law comes in force from 2002/2003. In the Czech and Slovak Republics the possibility for universities to offer Bachelor degrees was introduced in 1990, but has not been widely used. In the Czech Republic some 75 % of students still study in long one-tier programmes and only 17 % are enrolled in Bachelor courses. Additional legislation is being considered to establish Bachelors as more independent degrees, standardise their duration, and make them more clearly a requirement for admission to Master studies. Similarly, in the Slovak Republic only few Bachelors were created under the 1990 law; the country is now preparing profound changes with a new reform aimed at establishing three clear levels (Bachelor, Master, Doctorate), with broadly based and versatile Bachelors serving both as a qualification giving access to the labour market and as a requirement for further studies (except in a small number of fields like medicine). In Finland Bachelors were abolished in 1980 and re-introduced in 1995 mainly as an intermediary step towards Master programmes. The government's 1999-2004 Plan for Higher Education Development includes proposals to bring the Finnish system in line with the Bologna Declaration. In Bulgaria an amendment to the 1995 Law on Higher Education changed and simplified the degree structure and redefined Bachelors more in line with the Bologna Declaration. Poland plans to move from its already existing 2-stage higher education system (Bachelor/Master) to a 3-stage one thanks to the integration of Doctoral studies (which were hitherto not considered as a part of higher education) as the third level. Portugal is considering the best way to reconcile its current 4-level degree structure with the Bologna Declaration and plans to adopt a subject-by-subject approach, in co-ordination between universities and politecnicos, towards a newly defined system of degrees, probably starting with engineering. In Hungary and Romania the
new higher education laws of the early 1990s created undergraduate "colleges"
within universities - in parallel to external colleges of professional
studies in Hungary. Where they exist these university colleges offer mainly
"professional" education up to the Bachelor level, while the
universities continue to run academic degrees as a separate one-tier track
leading straight to the Master level. In these systems there are formally
Bachelors and Masters, but not in a sequence as in the Bologna Declaration
- even though the "bridges" leading from a college Bachelor
to a university Master degree may be somewhat expanded in order to make
the whole system more flexible. A similar model exists in Spain, where
universities offer short and long Some countries in Central and Eastern Europe have two-tier systems consisting of long "undergraduate" studies (4-5 years in the non-medical areas) leading to the main degree (whether called Bachelor or not) and "postgraduate" studies of a duration of usually 2 years leading to various types of specialisation or "Master" degrees. Doctoral studies require an additional 2-4 years and are sometimes structured in 2 steps (Doctorate, Higher Doctorate or "Habilitation"). While this structure may be seen as in line with the principles of the Bologna Declaration because it is formally "two-tier", the long duration of studies and the notion of what is "undergraduate", "graduate" and "postgraduate" raise issues that would need to be considered.
Not less than 180, not more than 240 ECTS credits The reforms under scrutiny confirm a crucial feature which was already emphasised in the preparatory report for the Bologna Conference in 1999. All reforms endorse the underlying principle that Bachelor degrees in Europe require no less than 3 and no more than 4 years, or rather no less than 180 and no more than 240 ECTS credits. These limits are explicit in legislation or regulations in e.g. Germany, the Czech Republic, Poland, Finland, Hungary, Iceland and Latvia. Ireland has a tradition of 4-year Bachelors. In Denmark, Iceland, Sweden and Norway most Bachelor (or kandidaat) degrees take 3 years. In the UK (except Scotland) the standard duration of Bachelor (Honours) courses is usually 3 years for full-time students, but many sandwich courses require the equivalent of 4 years and there are some 4-year courses classified as "undergraduate" although they are called "Masters" (Sweden and France also have this type of degrees). Portugal seems to be considering 4-year first degrees in at least certain subjects. Scotland and Malta have two levels of first degrees, i.e. an "ordinary" Bachelor after 3 years and an advanced Bachelor or "Honours" degree after 4 years (this distinction has become obsolete in England, Wales and Northern Ireland). A main conclusion is that any system of readable and comparable degrees in Europe needs to take full account of this variance in the "normal" time required for the completion of a first, Bachelor-type degree. The seminar on undergraduate degrees held in Helsinki in February 2001 came to the conclusion that Bachelors in Europe should require no less than 180 and no more than 240 ECTS credits. In view of developments since June 1999 the suggestion made in the preparatory report for the Bologna Conference still holds that 4-year curricula with proven quality could lead to an "advanced" undergraduate qualification. The co-existence in Europe of these two types of Bachelors would be all the less problematic if there were particular patterns in specific subject or professional areas (e.g. if Bachelors at universities/faculties of technology all required the equivalent of 4 years worth of credits). A clear trend towards 3-year Bachelors There is however a clear trend in recent reforms towards 3-year Bachelors. This should of course be seen also in conjunction with the fact that the majority of existing degrees of this type are in 3 years. The new Italian Laurea, which will be generalised throughout the system, is in 3 years or rather 180 ECTS credits. In Germany 84 % of the Bachelor degrees created at Universities are of 3 years' duration and at Fachhochschulen 48% are of 3 years' and 30% of 3.5 years' duration. The first Austrian and Swiss Bachelors and the new French licence professionnelle are also of 3 years' duration. Estonia plans to reduce its current Bachelor degrees from 4-year to 3-year curricula. The Netherlands and Flanders are preparing for 3-year Bachelors at universities, and in Norway the MjØs report's proposal is for a 3 + 2 or 3.5 + 1.5 Bachelor-Master articulation in the whole system. In addition, where college/polytechnic diplomas have been changed into Bachelors, these are mostly 3-year degrees. Diverse types and profiles of Bachelor degrees As could be expected, the general trend towards a main articulation in undergraduate and postgraduate studies comes together with a diversification of the purpose and profile of the Bachelor degrees which are being introduced. The requirement in the Bologna Declaration that first degrees should be "relevant to the labour market", which first created fear that all Bachelors would be expected to be purely vocational and geared to specific short term needs of the labour market, has now been interpreted in a more open and positive way: there are various ways in which degrees can be "relevant", and this diversity is of essence to the whole process towards a European higher education area. In several countries the professionally oriented diplomas of the colleges/polytechnics have been adjusted to "professional Bachelors" and co-exist with more "academic" or "scientific" Bachelors offered by universities. This is e.g. the case in Denmark, which underlines that both types of qualifications are expected to be "relevant", but of course not in exactly the same way. In most reform processes a major requirement is that the development of the new curricula at universities must involve some kind of participation or involvement from professional circles before the new courses are authorised or accredited. The requirement is not that degrees should be just a preparation for a particular, well-defined profession, but rather that certain dimensions required for nearly all future professional activities ("transversal skills") should receive due attention. Several models have been developed for broadly based Bachelor degrees (e.g. the "Greifswald-Modell" in Germany or the "college" approach at the universities of Utrecht or Maastricht in the Netherlands). There is clear emphasis in reform processes that Bachelors should have a profile of their own and at least some degree of autonomy from a particular, predetermined Master specialisation. |