Presentation on theme: "Student Mobility: Where Do We Come From, Where Are We, Where Are We Going to Inside the EHEA? Keynote Speech at the Bologna Conference Fostering Student."— Presentation transcript:
Student Mobility: Where Do We Come From, Where Are We, Where Are We Going to Inside the EHEA? Keynote Speech at the Bologna Conference Fostering Student Mobility: Next Steps? Involving Stakeholders for an Improved Mobility Inside the EHEA Brussels, 29-30 May 2008 Ulrich Teichler INCHER-KASSEL University of Kassel, 34109 Kassel Germany Tel. ++49-561-804 2415 Fax ++49-561-804 7415 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 2 The Bologna Declaration: Mobility – a Prime Aim, not a Prime Action The prime reform measure is a structural one: to establish a convergent system of stages of study programmes and degrees in European countries The prime aims are mobility-directed 1.to make higher education in European countries more attractive for students from other continents 2.to facilitate intra-European student mobility (even more ambitiously advocated in the Sorbonne Declaration) Some of the supportive measures advocated for the structural reforms aim to support student mobility 1.A credit system – most important for recognition of study achievements abroad of temporarily mobile students upon return (within Europe) 2.The Diploma Supplement – important for students spending the total study programme abroad
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 3 Mobility up to the Late 1990s: The Situation Prior to Bologna The total number of foreign students world-wide was about 200,000 in the mid-1950s, about 500,000 in 1970, 1.2 million in 1987 and moved towards 2 million in the late 1990s The share of foreign students among all tertiary education students remained more or less constant at 2%, but the proportion of foreign students among all students in Europe has more than doubled over the years: From less than 3% to more than 6% (estimates) Vertical mobility dominated all the time, i.e. towards countries with advanced economy and advanced level of quality in higher education, and mostly was degree mobility ERASMUS, inaugurated in 1987, supports temporary and horizontal mobility, i.e. more or less on equal terms. Increase from about 10,000 in 1988/89 to almost 100,000 ten years later
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 4 Factors Contributing to the Bologna Concept Experts agree: There was not any trend of structural convergence in Europe prior to the Sorbonne Declaration and the Bologna Declaration Bologna would not have happened without ERASMUS: The success story of ERASMUS fuelled the idea that intra- European mobility should expand beyond the potentials of ERASMUS and the countries involved in ERASMUS and that remaining barriers should be reduced. Bologna would not have happened either without growing attention to globalisation and trends of worldwide student mobility: Since the mid-1990s, concern spread that continental European countries would loose out as host for foreign students to Anglo-Saxon countries. Structural convergence: More important for attracting students from other parts of the world than for facilitating intra-European mobility?
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 5 Changes Conducive to Student Mobility in the Bologna Process Most observers are convinced that a multitude of changes occurring in the Bologna Process are supportive for student mobility Growing internationalisation policies and activities of governments and HEIs Gradual spread of credits Gradual spread of conferring Diploma Supplement Increased number of joint study programmes EU programme ERASMUS Mundus More emphasis on quality assurance and the establishment of accreditation systems Increasing number of programmes taught in English in non English-speaking countries Curricular changes (?) Increasing portability of national scholarships Increased emphasis on the social dimension of Bologna
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 6 Increasing Mobility as a Consequence of Bologna? On the Search for Evidence Deficient statistics The slow process of implementation and the protracted evidence of impact The push effect in study abroad of student from outside Europe Intra-European mobility: Some increase of mobility, but not consistently
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 7 Deficient statistics The official student statistics collected by UNESCO, OECD and EUROSTAT Mostly provide information only on foreign students and study abroad and only in a few cases (mostly in addition) on mobility for the purpose of study Do not make distinctions between degree mobility and temporary (credit) mobility Include only some of the temporarily mobile students Are incomplete with respect to tertiary non-higher education students and doctoral candidates Do not make distinctions between bachelor and master students
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 8 Different Proportions of Foreign/Mobile Students 2003 CH UK A D E a. Foreign mobile students14.113.010.68.51.7 b. Home country mobile students2.00.61.31.50.1 All mobile students (a, b)16.113.611.910.01.8 c. Foreign non-mobile students184.108.40.206.41.0 All foreign students (a, c)19.517.613.311.92.7 (Source: Kelo/Teichler/Wächter. EURODATA. 2006)
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 9 Remaining Concerns in the Bologna Process Six issues Serving the heterogeneity of foreign students? Divergent conditions and motives for HEIs in different European countries Short and highly structured study programmes: A new barrier? Curricular convergence: A trend or not? An attraction or a loss of attraction? A trend towards stratification of higher education? A new barrier? Declining exceptionality of mobility
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 10 Serving the Heterogeneity of Foreign Students Different needs of (a) degree mobile students from economically disadvantaged countries, (b) degree mobile students within Europe or between economically advanced countries, and (c) temporarily mobile students Some observers claim that students from economically disadvantaged countries are the forgotten majority of the Bologna Process Other observers point out that too little is done by HEIs to keep and increase the attractiveness of temporary student mobility within Western Europe
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 11 Divergent Conditions and Motives for HEIs Are there conditions unfavourable for increasing mobility for certain HEIs in certain countries? e.g. Lack of encouragement of British students to study abroad High costs for service and intense educational support of mobile students not covered by fees and governmental support Concerns about quality
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 12 Short and Highly Structured Study Programmes: A New Barrier? Bachelor and master programmes are shorter than previous long university programmes in many European countries Curricular reforms often moved towards most highly structured programmes with little space for detours in recognition: Declining readiness to recognize study achievements abroad A comparative survey (DAAD) undertaken in 2005 show that this concern is harboured by large minorities in a few countries and small minorities in other countries
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 13 Curricular Convergence? A Loss of Attraction? The Bologna Declaration calls for a preservation of curricular variety across Europe Experts view differs whether measures taken in the Bologna Process (qualifications frameworks, quality assurance measures, the employability debate etc.) and trends favour curricular convergence or keep variety In Europe, learning from contrasts was a major motive and a major factor causing beneficial impact of temporary student mobility: Is this endangered by curricular convergence?
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 14 Stratification of Higher Education? A New Barrier to Mobility? Many observers believe that the continuous expansion of tertiary education along globalisation, increasing competition between HEIs and the rat race for being among world-class universities leads to a steeper stratification of the higher education systems Many experts argue that the underlying philosophy of the Bologna Process is in favour of flat hierarchies within higher education systems, while the Lisbon Process favours steep stratification Problem of stratification: The zones of mutual trust become smaller; recognition of study abroad can be expected only among relatively small networks of institutions similar in quality. Thus, stratification reduces the options for students
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 15 Declining Exceptionality A comparison of various surveys on the professional value of temporary study abroad in Europe suggests a declining value over time in some aspects The authors interpretation: Declining exceptionality of study abroad – non-mobile students are increasingly exposed to internationalisation The authors recommendation: Student mobility should be more closely tied to curricular reforms aimed at enhancing the value of international experience
Ulrich Teichler: Student Mobility 16 The Future: The EHEA after 2010 A doubling of mobile students within a decade? Will this lead towards a more responsive HE? Divergent curricular efforts: instrumentalism? Not trusting a singly professor and paradigm anymore? Emphasis on international competences? Others? Related to it: will Europe adapt to globalisation as interpreted elsewhere, or strive for a specific character of HE in Europe (cf. the Ghent conference of 19-20 May 2008)? Student mobility grows, but internationalisation at home will grow more substantially? The more structural convergence progresses the more other features might be viewed as crucial barriers and areas of intervention? The history of student mobility in Europe since WWII is a trend in terms of figures, but a history of repeated changes of emphasis as regards the students involved, the aims, the supportive mechanisms, etc. Therefore, the future cannot be predicted through extrapolation.