February 2009 Hogeschool van Arnhem en Nijmegen Drs. Ron Bormans President HAN Board Studiekeuze123

February 2009 HAN in numbers Students, totally * full time * part time * dual 780 * masters 140 * private 410 Staff, totally (2.118 fte) * teachers1.800 (1.312 fte) * support (806 fte) Budget 2008 € 218 million * Privat turnover € 40 million

February 2009 International ranking: not to be ignored Use of international rankings is being pushed (in Europe, certainly in the Netherlands) Validity is debatable, but ranks do provide some indication Cannot be ignored, given current prevalence Those at the top of the list embrace their status Even in the sceptical and critical climate of the Netherlands

February 2009 International ranking: limited reach Fail to reflect diversity of higher education Strong emphasis on research (esp. in the science fields) and institutes with a long research tradition Sidelines cultural differences (incl. in assessment) Sidelines institutes that emphasise teaching Sidelines institutes that emphasise region Sidelines institutes that emphasise valorisation Sidelines institutes that emphasise creation

February 2009 Matching instead of ranking Connect specific students with a specific supply Recognise student variety / reap the positive effect on academic success Recognise variety among institutions (and types) Fully acknowledge the importance of the labour market Recognise its relevance in the choice process Recognise diversity in university contexts (physical and otherwise)

February 2009 Ranking: clustering matching result Ranking within clusters of similar study programmes In terms of institutional profile In terms of emphasis on teaching vs. research In terms of emphasis on regional / national / global Seek links with European attempt at classification

February 2009 Would this equate to isolating from / shutting out the rest of the world? Risk is present: the more we spotlight uniqueness, the more difficult it is to achieve an unequivocal basis for comparison Aiming for a single global ranking system is unrealistic Create plural projects focusing on the Netherlands and Europe

February 2009 Put Dutch education options on display for international public Seek to tie into international demand Put the Netherlands on the map

February 2009 How do international students choose? Field of study comes first (Metropolitan) city is important Information for and from students Preconditional elements Formal status / international quality indication / reputation Promotion of Holland in a competitive world Source:

February 2009 Position of Studychoice Transparency of higher education in the Netherlands Develop a reliable database Do justice to differences between both students and institutions Improve the choice process for both Dutch and foreign students Provide reliable study choice data Seek out transnational harmonisation

February 2009 Studychoice approach Compile a national overview of what is available for foreign students Aim to coordinate with European system / integral and targeting cross-border mobility / while retaining respect for national and institutional diversity Develop preconditions to facilitate aims by participating in networks

February 2009 CHE initially judged to have excellent potential Fit within Dutch matching ideology Recognition of variety Therefore could also encompass universities of applied science Pilots failed in some respects low response ranking revealed (cultural?) bias student assessment lacked robustness Momentum is gone

February 2009 The next step? Optimise Dutch and international student choice From the Dutch angle: personal matching and promotion of Holland Give due consideration to Europe: position ourselves in relation to Asia and Anglo-Saxon markets Therefore: renewed investment in European systems based on matching and variety Tie into classification Concentrate on partners and/or create conditions to facilitate data exchange Europe must define a clear position