1. Successful practice in international joint degree programmes David Crosier European University Association (EUA) www.eua.be ETH Visions – Encounters with the Future Sharing Knowledge with Global Partners Zurich, 18 November 2005

2. …2… Questions guiding the Presentation What are the conditions for “successful practice” in joint programmes, and what needs to change in the European higher education environment to create them? What should insitutions be thinking about, and who in institutions should be thinking? What role should we envisage for joint programmes in Europe and globally? Material drawn from: EUA Project on joint master programmes (2003/4) EUA Project on evaluation methodology for joint programmes (2005)

3. …3… Joint Master Project ( 2003/4) background EUA Survey on Joint Degrees & Master Degrees 2002 (Rauhvargers and Tauch) revealed lack of knowledge & awareness of reality (eg how many programmes exist?); legal obstacles to award and recognise joint degrees EUA’s interest in Joint Master programmes:  To learn more about “European dimension” in action  To help improve inter-university cooperation  To reflect on development of “Master” degrees in Europe  By examining these issues, to help both existing and future programmes

4. …4… Project Actions Selection of 11 existing programmes  100+ HEIs in 21 countries  Diverse profiles: (relative) geographic spread, disciplinary variety Main themes:  Quality assurance and recognition  Student experience and mobility  Curriculum development and sustainability

5. …5… Project Actions II Research & analysis  Internal Network Meetings (self-evaluation)  Qualitative Research (with graduate students)  Inter-Network Meeting EUA Cluj Conference, October 2003 (first presentation of findings)

6. …6… Key Project Findings: Joint Programmes can bring added value to all involved = students, academics, institutions, Europe, when good reasons exist for such a programme (= objectives that could not be achieved without a joint programme) Creating conditions for positive experience requires considerable work & ongoing commitment – can’t be left to a few enthusiastic individuals Some changes in the external environment would greatly help (legal, financial, political etc), but need to avoid a panoply of different individual/institutional/national solutions

7. …7… Key issues: Definitions and structures of joint programmes Variety of network and programme structures = no single model, & no reason for single model Many difficulties arise from lack of common understanding of Master degree Because not enough common understanding of Bachelors degree… Different purpose(s) of master: self-standing vs. integrated; academic vs. professional Length: tendency of 60-75 ECTS (although this is changing since EM) Development driven by existing research partnerships, innovative approaches to curricula, and practical considerations of partner choice Challenges: maintain space for positive diversity, but improve understanding of structures for easy recognition

8. …8… Key issues: logistics Easy to overlook very basic, practical issues, eg Academic calendar Short-term accommodation Clear information – whose website etc? Common understanding of admission requirements & procedures Visa requirements for students – differences in time needed in different countries (from 2 days to 6 months) Time for curriculum planning and development across institutions Administrative time Language skills Family commitments of (mobile) staff Etc etc

9. …9… Key issues: Recognition Berlin “Ministers agree to engage at the national level to remove legal obstacles...to [awarding] joint degrees” Legal recognition obstacles continue to exist: multiple interim solutions adopted Most common: one national degree + joint certificate Also, double degrees, and reliance on labour market recognition Action at European level – Recommendation on recognition of joint degrees (addition to Lisbon Recognition Convention) adopted June 2004 But effective implementation lacking Recognition linked to eligibility for national funding

10. …10… Key issues: access, funding, and sustainability Programmes now cater for an élite group of students: need to think seriously about equal opportunities policy within & between countries, as higher & rising costs will increase disparities Institutions in widely differing socio-economic contexts (EU15/25 – Bologna 45) -> difficulties of equal partnership. How to avoid a two-tier Europe of joint degrees? Programmes exist within incompatible national funding frameworks – institutional funding / tuition fees / portability of grants & loans Institutional policy/strategy & anchoring: crucial dimension for long-term success

11. …11… Key Issues: Quality Assurance: Findings: Often weak anchoring of joint programmes within their institution Marginalisation in terms of support within faculties and access to resources, partly due to higher costs But good practice in responding to students and stakeholders Common current practice of external QA is to satisfy one national system (often UK): Not necessarily tailored to logic of joint programmes Imposing national cultural approach to « European » programme Does not help integrate programmes in core activities of institutions

12. …12… Starting points for EUA EMNEM Project: Incompatibility of national quality systems poses issues of how best to develop and improve quality Transnational challenges of joint programmes require consideration Objectives: Strengthening institutional anchoring Developing internal quality culture Enhancing European perspective Strengthening sustainability Ensuring accountability Containing costs

13. …13… Improving quality through working together Jointness is intrinsic to programmes - not an additional feature Culture of jointness is therefore a culture of cooperation Cooperation needs shared aims and objectives, shared academic values as well as a broad commitment and involvement Aim is therefore to build up an inter-institutional quality culture

14. …14… Agreement across institutions on quality and responsibility Partners need to have an agreement on concepts of quality and how to realise it There is a need to share principles, criteria and procedures as a result of a joint negotiation process This can, and perhaps should, be expressed in a contract between all partners

15. …15… Key issues: funding the European Dimension Joint Master programmes have particular financial needs money to develop and permanently innovate in curricula across several institutions money for student and staff mobility money for additional administrative and communication costs Costs of joint programmes are significantly higher, and funding has to be sustained over years, not subject to annual shifts in priorities

16. …16… What funding system do students want? Portable grants and loans: with some exceptions, this is currently not the case Fair system of student support across the institutions (not different conditions for each place of study) Clear information on finance and student support systems A common practice for fees across the programme (in this respect, Erasmus Mundus conditions are improving the situation in Europe)

17. …17… Long-term prospects What are the options to fund programmes? Europe - because hopefully European labour market benefits from such European programmes? National governments – as part of national strategy towards European development? Institutions - as part of their strategic development priorities? Students - required to fund additional costs through (higher) fees Legitimate question for funders: Is the potential added value of a joint programme worth the investment?

18. …18… Financial Management How could Joint Programme funding best be managed? Coordinators state that programme level funding would be the most effective - to ensure flexibility and efficiency, as well as solidarity between partners Yet funding generally isn’t in the hands of networks: European funding – for mobility, not programme costs National funding – for national priorities, not to a “European programme” Institutional funding – for institutional priorities, and rarely to other partner institutions

19. …19… How to resolve these dilemmas? Mainstream Joint Programmes: If they are a European/national/institutional priority, ensure that an adequate funding strategy is in place Develop appropriate funding models that allow those running the programmes the autonomy to manage their affairs – with suitable checks and balances for accountability Ensure that student support is undertaken on an equitable basis Recognise that the European Dimension requires specific attention, and even, in a European programme, has to be put first.....

20. …20… Awkward issues: joint programmes for Europe? But what happens to Europeans? Despite the attention on Joint Programmes, not too many students currently participate in them (no-one knows exactly how many) A paradox of Erasmus Mundus – mushrooming effect of European Master programmes created to attract non- European students... Range of new and innovative European programmes – but what happens to the Europeans? a tiny minority in “joint European” programmes, and the mass in mainstream programmes

21. …21… But reasons to be cheerful... Joint programmes are mushrooming and having an impact on institutional learning – practical experience of working with other institutions in other environments Facing problems together brings awareness of issues that need to be addressed to create a European Higher Education Area –> catalyst effect Whatever the future of particular programmes, other latent effects of working together are likely to be positive: strengthening research networks, inter- institutional cooperation & solidarity