On the Way to Europe 2020: The Bologna Process in Need of a New Sex Appeal? Sarajevo, 11 May 2012 Ulrich Teichler International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel (INCHER-Kassel) University of Kassel, Germany

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 2 Rapid Sequence of Priority Themes in Higher Education Policy  Major examples: Expansion of higher education and economic growth, HE and equality, non- university higher education, practice-orientation, mobility and internationalisation, evaluation and quality improvement, the managerial university, global competition and “world-class university”, Bologna Process  At least nine major policy campaigns in five decades  Themes tend to be 5-7 years in the forefront of public attention, but the underlying issues persist

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 3 Higher Education Policy Campaigns in Europe Lead by Supra-National Policy Actors  Cooperation, mobility and recognition: Starting in the 1950s; led by Council of Europe, subsequently in cooperation with UNESCO  Modernization of the HE system: Starting in the 1960s, led by OECD  Student mobility: Getting momentum in the 1980, led by European Commission (DG Education etc.)  Cycle system of study programmes and degree; Starting in late 1990s, led by cooperating national ministers  Investment in research and economic success: Starting in 2000, led by European Commission (DG Science)

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 4 The Bologna Process – “Great Expectations and Mixed Performance”  Book on the European higher education reforms of the 1970s: L. Cerych and P. Sabatier. Great Expectations and Mixed Performance (1986).  This title might be an appropriate title for the assessment of most major HE reform policies  The only exception: The ERASMUS success story. Why?

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 5 The Bologna Process – an Account after More than a Decade  Enormously lively, though controversial debate  Enormously powerful impact in operational terms: Cycle-system of study programmes and degrees  Mixed results in terms of core aim: contribution to increase number of incoming students from other regions of the world; no evidence of contribution to growth of intra-European student mobility  Mixed feelings about the introduction of the bachelor: What does that mean in terms of curricula and in terms of employment and work of bachelor graduates?

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 6 Developments of Student Mobility (I)  Foreign students from outside Europe: 2.4 % (1999), 3.7 % (2007)  Foreign students from other European countries: 3.0 % (1999), 3.3 % (2007) (each: country means for 32 European countries) Source: U. Teichler, I. Ferencz & B. Wächter (Eds.) Mapping Mobility in European Higher Education. 2 vols. Bonn: DAAD 2011 ( _en.htm)

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 7 Developments of Student Mobility (II) Ratio of Students with Home Nationality Enrolled Abroad to Resident Students with Home Nationality (%) _________________________________________________________________________________ Ratio Change* Country 1998/ 2002/ 2006/ of absolute of ratio numbers ___________________________________________________________________________________ AT Austria CZ Czech Republic DE Germany (+39)** (+ 69) FR France HU Hungary IT Italy NL The Netherlands NO Norway PL Poland UK United Kingdom ______________________________________________________________________________ * Increase/decrease from 1998/99 to 2006/07 ** Change 2002/ /07 Source: Based on Mapping Mobility in Higher Education in Europe, 2011 (not yet published)

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 8 Developments of Student Mobility (III) Periods Abroad During the Course of Study of Graduates from Selected European Countries (%) ____________________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Country Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All ____________________________________________________________________________________ AT Study Various act CZ Study 6 18 Work 6 15 DE Study Various act FR Study Various act IT Study NL Study NO Study20 25 PL Study UK Study4 _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 9 Development of Employment and Work of Bachelors (I) Whereabouts of Bachelor Graduates from Selected European Countries (%) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Total Solely Employment Solely Total CountryEmploymentEmployment+ StudyStudyStudy _____________________________________________________________________________________________ AT University Fachhochschule CZ Czech Republic DE University Fachhochschule HU Hungary IT Italy NL HBO NO University UK Full-time study Part-time study _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 10 Development of Employment and Work of Bachelors (II) __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CZ Managerial/Prof. Position3160 Associate Prof. Position5234 FR Managerial/Prof. Position Associate Prof. Position HU Managerial/Prof. Position Associate Prof. Position NL Managerial/Prof. Position Associate Prof. Position NO Managerial/Prof. Position2775 Associate Prof. Position1113 UK Managerial/Prof. Position3673 Associate Prof. Position3018 __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Prof. = Professional / Univ. = University Other HEIs = Other Higher Education Institutions (e.g. Fachhochschulen, Grandes Écoles etc.) Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 11 Development of Employment and Work of Bachelors (III) Gross Income of Graduates from Selected European Countries (in Euro; arithmetic mean of employed graduates) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All ___________________________________________________________________________________________ AT Austria2,3582,7482,5322,6412,8882,705 (monthly) DE Germany 2,4482,8172,7183,0123,7433,3463,0703,0373,053 (monthly) FR France1,3681,5751,9042,3132,383 (net monthly) HU Hungary8,88411,9589,327 (annual) IT Italy1,1091,1091,0571,0571,1101,110 (net monthly) NL The Netherlands2,5892,0402,4392,4392,4761,938 NO Norway38,25945,22846,012 (annual) PL Poland (net hourly) ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Univ. = University; Other HEIs = Other Higher Education Institutions (e.g. Fachhochschulen, Grandes Écoles etc.) Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 12 Development of Employment and Work of Bachelors (IV) Strong Vertical Link between Level of Educational Attainment and Position among Graduates from Selected European Countries (% of employed graduates) ___________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other All Univ. Other All Univ. Other All HEIs HEIs HEIs ___________________________________________________________________________ AT Austria CZ Czech Republic8487 DE Germany FR France IT Italy8080 NL The Netherlands NO Norway3758 PL Poland60. ___________________________________________________________________________ Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 13 Development of Employment and Work of Bachelors (V) Strong Horizontal Link between Level of Educational Attainment and Position among Graduates from Selected European Countries (% of employed graduates) ___________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other All Univ. Other All Univ. Other All HEIs HEIs HEIs ________________________________________________________________________________ AT Austria CZ Czech Republic6567 DE Germany HU Hungary IT Italy4040 NL The Netherlands NO Norway6587 PL Poland ________________________________________________________________________________ Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2011.

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 14 New Policies for 2020 – Dominance of Quantitative Targets Somewhat related policies of EU and national ministers  40% Overall enrolment rate in tertiary education  Continuation of ERASMUS with larger numbers of mobile students  20% event of student mobility during the course of study

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 15 Critique of Future Policies  Long perpetuation of policy labels does not work; need for a new “sex appeal”  Average growth targets can only mobilize the middle ground (some have already achieved the targets; others have no chance of reaching the target)  Quantitative policies are not convincing if not linked to substantive aims (futile “virtue of substantive neutrality”)

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 16 The Future of Student Mobility  Mixed signal of continuation and extension of ERASMUS 1.On the one hand: Continued appreciation of mobility 2.On the other hand: notion that the mobilisation logic of ERASMUS has not worked (in contrast to the mobilisation programme TEMPUS which could be discontinued regarding many Central/Eastern European countries)  The value of mobility declines in the wake of the general internationalisation trend, if the qualitative character does not change  What could be the future substantive objectives of student mobility?

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 17 The Future of Bachelors (I)  The introduction of bachelor programmes and bachelor degrees was not convincingly explained in the Bologna Declaration (prime objective: Mobility)  The rationale of bachelor programmes and degrees also remained vague in the subsequent debates on “employability” and “qualification frameworks”  Hidden rationale: Expansion and increased attraction of short-cycle higher education in the wake of continued overall growth of enrolment rate?

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 18 Retrospect of OECD Scenario Published in the 1990s OECD. Redefining Tertiary Education (1997)  Enrolment rate will grow up to about 75% in economically advanced countries  The majority of graduates will not be employed any more in the management/profession sector of the occupation systems, but rather in middle-level positions  It is not assured anymore at such stages of massification that educational investments will yield respective return. What does this mean for motivating youth to learn?

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 19 The Future of Bachelors (II)  There is a need to have a minimum common understanding of the curricular thrusts of bachelor programmes beyond the general calls of the qualification framework and beyond the controversial employability debates.  Curricular visions for bachelor programmes have to be linked with visions of the future of graduate employment and work: Will further enrolment growth be linked with growing vertical stratification of graduates or by a flattening of the occupational hierarchy (“Wisdom of the Many”)?

Ulrich Teichler: On the Way to Bucharest 20 Conclusion  The Bologna policies have been characterized by a dominance of quantitative and structural objectives and a concurrent avoidance of clear value judgements (academic vs. economic values, elitist vs. egalitarian goals, etc.) (cf. Pavel Zgaga at the Bologna conference of higher education researchers in October 2011).  The only exception is mobility and internationalisation which is widely used as having a consensual support.  Can Bologna policies become “sexy” again or can they be substituted by successor policies without getting involved into value judgements which had been avoided in the past?