1. Current State of the Institutional Quality Assurance Management at the University of Split by Professor Ivan Slapnicar Vicedean FESB, University of Split Dubrovnik, October 11, 2003

2. Croatia GovernmentParliament Ntnl. Council for Higher Education Ministry of Science & Technology Universities (Osijek, Rijeka, Split, Zagreb) Faculties Rectors’ Conference Scientific Expert Boards Evaluation and accreditation of Study Programmes and Institutions Promotions of Professors Advice

3. University of Split  Founded 1974, faculties in 1960-ties  15,000 students, 1,200 employees, 650 faculty and teaching staff  Additionally 5,600 students in 2-year vocational programmes  13 faculties and 2 departments  No Strategic Plan yet, no QA Agency  All programmes accredited

4. Teaching indicator Teachers and Students ProfessorsTeaching Staff Total Teachers StudentsStudents / Teachers Split34330564812,00018.5 Zagreb2,0231,0373,06051,00016.6 U. Helsinki2,3833,4695,85237,0006.3 TU Helsinki23227057014,00024.5

5. Scientific Indicator Current Contents Data Base from 1993 to 2003 University of Split (Split.in)787 University of Zagreb (Zagreb.in)8,926 University of Helsinki and Technical University of Helsinki (Helsinki.in) 35,277

6. Analysed Faculties  FESB, http://www.fesb.hr, 1,503 students http://www.fesb.hr  EF, http://www.efst.hr, 2,283 students http://www.efst.hr  MF, http://www.mefst.hr, 334 students http://www.mefst.hr  NAT, http://www.pmfst.hr, 652 students http://www.pmfst.hr These account for 40% university students in Split.

7. Management structure (FESB)  Dean and 3 Vicedeans  6 departments (Heads)  Chairs  Collegium = Dean + Vicedeans + Heads (weekly meetings)  Faculty Council = 52 Professors and 5 students (monthly meetings)

8. Student Evaluations  University: provisions in the Statute, questionnaire defined.  FESB each semester 40% of the students general results on the web average marks: 3.8 (FESB), 4.03 Professors, 4.10 TAs own set of questions

9. Student Evaluations  EF last year, no statistical analysis intentions to continue – development of more suitable set of questions  MF after each session 90%-100% of students average marks 3.5-4.0 clear actions to be taken (Chairs)

10. Student Evaluations  NAT recently started 50% of the students involved planned each semester University questionnaire average marks good actions to be taken by Heads

11. Information Systems  FESB: own high quality system with all statistical data – developed over 20 years  Ministry: offers ISVU system – not yet widely adopted  NAT: none

12. Quality Improvement  Vary within the university  Mid-term exams: FESB and others  Up-to-date equipment including Teleconferencing  Publishing textbooks (FESB), similar incentives EF  Introducing ECTS in new studies

13. Improvement of Teaching Practices  No University Education Center  Use of equipment left to teachers (80% at EF)  CARNet offers some courses  MF: specialised teacher courses  EF: sends younger staff to MS or PhD abroad (TEMPUS)

14. Following Graduates  FESB – informal contacts  EF – strong Alumni Association  MF – close contacts with the hospital  NAT – close contacts with schools

15. Participation of students  Insufficient  Tends to improve

16. Recommendations  Strategic Plan  Quality assurance agency or board  Incentives to improve teaching  University-wide Information System  University-wide student evaluations + statistics  Evaluations of faculties and programmes public  SWAT analysis + act upon it  Higher international standards for faculty promotions

17. Chicken or egg? Or: are improvements possible in current (economic) situation?  Croatia vs. Germany  Split vs. Zagreb