The Bologna Process: Advancing Trans-Atlantic Collaborationin a Changing Higher Education Landscape
A joint symposium of NAFSA and EAIE
Symposium Summary
For two days, March 22-23, 2007, 16 European and 16 North American international educators met in Amsterdam to explore the current state and direction of the Bologna Process. Designed as a dialogue among colleagues, the symposium is part of NAFSA’s ongoing effort in 2007 to provide useful, practical information that policymakers on campuses can use to respond to the rapidly changing landscape in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
Rather than focusing on the details of the Bologna Process, the symposium focused on the state of Bologna and what to expect in the coming years, commonalities and differences in systems on both sides of the Atlantic, Bologna’s role in advancing international mobility, the tools to promote transparency, and the status of implementation. How would this changing landscape affect trans-Atlantic cooperation in international higher education?
This summary is written for those who already have a grasp of the basics of the Bologna Process, but want to know more of its context and what its relationship is to North American higher education and graduate education in particular. [To learn more about the elements of the Bologna Process before reading this summary, we recommend reviewing the information you can find at www.nafsa.org/bologna. A succinct overview is also available from the European Universities Association[1].]
The summary is presented in two parts:
§ Introduction & Overview, which provides an overview of some of the major themes and “messages” which came out of the two days, and
§ Session Notes, which were prepared by Diego Sammartino of the European Commission. We are grateful to Diego for allowing us to use his material, which has been edited slightly for this report.
As one of the participants at the Symposium wrote, “the relevance, variety and quality of the presentations and discussions made it a remarkable event.” We trust this report will capture, at least in part, the enthusiasm of the event itself.
Co-Hosts of the Symposium:
Diana Carlin, Dean of the Graduate School and International Programs, University of Kansas and Chair, NAFSA’s Bologna Task Force
Fiona Hunter, International Director, Universitá Carlo Cattaneo (LIUC)
and President, EAIE
Symposium Participants
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007 2
Bjørn Einar Aas
International Advisor
University of Bergen
Tim Birtwistle
Professor of Law & Policy of Higher Education, Jean Monnet Chair
Leeds Metropolitan University, School of Law
Diana B. Carlin
Dean of the Graduate School & Intl. Programs
University of Kansas
Antoinette Charon Wauters
Director International Relations
Université de Lausanne
Robert J. Coelen
Vice President International
Leiden University
Jeremy Cooper (Observer)
Deputy Managing Director
Hobsons UK
James P. Cross
Vice Provost for International Affairs
Clemson University
Hans de Wit
Dean
Windesheim Honours College
Everett Egginton
Dean, International and Border Programs
New Mexico State University
Sebastian Fohrbeck
Director
Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD)
James Frey (Observer)
Member of the EAIE Board of Directors
Rolf Hoffmann
Executive Director
The German-American Fulbright Commission
Fiona Hunter
International Director
Universitario Carlo Cattaneo LIUC
Marlene M. Johnson
Executive Director and CEO
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
Heather Kelly
Director of Student Services
School of Graduate Studies
University of Toronto
Maria Kelo
Senior Officer
Academic Cooperation Association
A. Douglas Kincaid
Vice Provost for International Studies
Florida International University
Eric Kronenwetter
Task Force Writer
David Larsen
Vice President
Arcadia University Center for Education Abroad
JoAnn McCarthy
Assistant Provost for International Affairs
Office of International Programs
University of Pennsylvania
Alex Olde Kalter
Director
European Association for International Education (EAIE)
Patricia J. Parker
Assistant Director Admissions
Iowa State University Admissions
John E. Reilly
Director
UK Socrates-Erasmus Council
John V. Richardson, Jr.
Associate Dean, Graduate Division
University of California at Los Angeles
Diego Sammaritano
Programme Manager
European Commission
Directorate General for Education and Culture
Prof Giancarlo Spinelli
Rector's Delegate for International Relations
Politecnico di Milano University
Robert L. Stableski
Deputy Executive Director
Professional Development Services
NAFSA: Association of Intl. Educators
Christian Tauch
Policy Officer
European Commission
Directorate General for Education & Culture
Linda Tobash
Director
Institute of International Education
Leonard van der Hout
Head International Office
Hogeschool van Amsterdam
Robert Watkins
Assistant Director of Admissions
Graduate and International Admissions
University of Texas-Austin
John J. Wood
Associate Vice Provost for International Education
University at Buffalo
The State University of New York
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007 2
Introduction & Overview
When 16 North American and 16 European international educators meet to discuss the Bologna Process, there is no lack of topics to explore. This symposium, by design, focused more on the implications of the Bologna Process, and less on the specifics of credential evaluation and admissions.[2] In this introduction and overview, we present some of the major themes that recurred throughout the discussion. The second part of this report, the Session Notes, provides an overview of specific topics presented and comments from the extensive discussions participants had at the end of each presentation. In addition, the two co-hosts, Diana Carlin and Fiona Hunter, provided daily wrap-up comments that captured much of the spirit of the day.
Bologna is a Process, not a Product
Despite the fact that we use the words “Bologna process,” the tendency among U.S.[3] international educators is to try to find the Bologna product. Participants soon realized a need to dispel some common myths of Bologna. For example, there is often an operating assumption that there is a “Bologna degree”; there are Bologna-compliant degrees, but not Bologna degrees. Three cycles culminate in bachelor, master and doctorate degrees—but one should not jump to the conclusion, despite the similarity in names, that they are the same as North American degrees.
Participants noted that there is often an assumption that the Bologna process will result in a single set of structures for first and second degrees; to the contrary, U.S. institutions can continue to expect to see 3+2, 4+1, 4+2 bachelor/master structures emerge. Predominant models reported by DAAD in 2005, for example were 3+1 in the UK and the Netherlands; 3+2 in Germany and France; and 4+2 in Spain. European participants made the point that there will not be “one European system”; rather, there will continue to be national systems within the larger framework of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
The closest thing to a Bologna “product” are the “tools of transparency,” designed to allow first those in the 45 countries in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)[4] to understand each others’ systems and specific courses of study. This developing toolkit includes the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and the diploma supplement (which describes the actual course of study and competencies achieved). As Europeans develop these for each other, North Americans will need to learn this new language of higher education in the EHEA. (See Session Summary 4 for further discussion of these tools.)
A Uniquely European Approach
It also becomes clear during a trans-Atlantic dialogue that we don’t all understand the broader context of the Bologna process in the same way. Fiona Hunter describes the situation: “The first image that comes to my mind is that when we speak of building the European Higher Education Area it is not a multi-story tower that we can see going up in front of us story by story so we can see exactly which stage we are at in the construction. Rather we are building an enormous European mosaic–there are many tiny pieces being assembled and the picture is emerging progressively, some parts already more visible than others, some gaps still appear. And there are many different players involved all responsible for fitting in some of the pieces. The Bologna Process brings about change at all levels and it is the sheer size, speed, breadth and depth of this reform that is so striking.”
Those very characteristics often confound U.S. international educators. The assumption that there will be a Bologna “system” that will be consistent and easy to follow is not accurate. Diana Carlin reported in her summary of the first day’s discussion, “Bologna is about complexity not conformity. European higher education is not monolithic among and within signatory countries. The same is true of the U.S. system as a result of decentralized universities. Thus, it is impossible to establish a set of guidelines or policies to propose that U.S. universities should use.”
Instead, European participants suggested, U.S. colleagues must, at least for now, rely on individual exchange partners to inform them about individual institution’s progress in adopting Bologna. Indeed European participants urged U.S. colleagues to impress on their counterparts the importance of adopting the tools to facilitate transparency and allow U.S. institutions to properly evaluate the new degrees.
It Will Take Time: The Gap between Legislation and Implementation
While the tools for transparency exist, they are not yet used uniformly. Even within countries, institutions are still experimenting with diploma supplements, adopting sometimes the prescribed format, and sometimes choosing to adapt the format to their needs—not the intention, but an example of the bottom-up approach Bologna is taking. As Fiona Hunter stated it, “While the legal structures for change are now in place in most countries, the messiness of policy making becomes evident as different countries and institutions interpret and implement the reforms in response to local needs and perceptions.”
Leonard van der Hout, one of the Dutch Bologna Promoters[5] noted that even within The Netherlands, which is on the forefront of adopting the Bologna Process, individual universities had adapted the diploma supplement to their own needs, deleting some sections, using various sections differently, and generally rendering the diploma supplement less useful. Through work with the Dutch Bologna Promoters, those inconsistencies are being addressed—even at this level, an ongoing education process is needed to properly implement the reforms.
Quality assurance is one of the elements of the Bologna process, and national systems (or, as one presenter informed us, multiple systems such as in Germany) are being created. Again, it is key to remember that Bologna is not an EU program; it is a program of the national states, supported by the European Commission but not directed by it. Legislation is national and implementation requires institutional adoption.
As one U.S. participant said, “Let me be a stereotypically American and ask, when will this be done!?” The response was varied among Europeans—but two things are clear: it will be “done” in different countries at different rates; and 2010, the date set out as the goal for implementation, means that no new students will enter old programs in 2010, not that all programs will be Bologna-compliant by that date. As one European said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, “it will be a generation before all the reforms already announced are fully in place.”
Compliance will take time, but Europeans emphasized that the curve of adoption is rising sharply, even exponentially, to where a critical mass will soon be reached. The Bologna Process is real, it is here, and it is happening. (See Sessions 1 and 4.)
Bologna is about New Opportunities
There is a tendency to focus on the challenges that the Bologna Process has brought to the field. As those at the symposium learned, the change is massive, uneven, and hard to inventory or quantify at this point. This creates challenges within Europe, but also for those outside of Europe who must translate the changes for their institutions and faculty.
One part of the symposium focused on the promise of Bologna. True, it is perhaps too early the measure any effect that the Bologna Process has had on mobility—though if the development over time mirror the Erasmus program, we will all see a significant increase. (See Session 3 for further information on this topic.)
From the point of view of the symposium participants, joint and dual degrees in particular should be stimulated. (See Session 2 for more discussion on this topic). Diana Carlin writes, “Bologna should be viewed as an opportunity for cooperation rather than competition. Atlantis/FIPSE is a good example of how both sides can benefit. The same is true with J-1 scholars to work in U.S. research labs or research programs for undergraduates in Europe.”
Some would even maintain that there is a gradual movement from general education to more professional degrees in the U.S., while in the EU the tendency is to complete specialist studies with more soft skills studies. (See Session 5.)
Europeans emphasized that U.S. participants can look to Europe for new program opportunities during this time of change, and should not focus solely on the developments in Asia for innovation. As Fiona Hunter pointed out in one of her summary comments, “While countries cooperate in setting the goals [for the Bologna Process], opportunities emerge for institutions to differentiate themselves and to position themselves in different markets.” As in any marketplace, the “buyers” need to be aware that the “sellers” are not all the same—on either side of the Atlantic.
Practical Messages for Our Colleagues
At the end of the symposium, working groups crafted “key messages” to their colleagues who did not experience the symposium. The lists are “first draft,” but express even in its raw form the gist of the conversation.
§ Bologna: it’s big…it’s here…it’s significant for you.
§ Bologna has implications on a global scale. It’s part of a worldwide trend. U.S. educators can learn much from the Bologna process.
§ For campus policy-makers, the competitive aspect of Europe in a “Bologna-mode” may catch our attention—but the need to quickly realize the opportunities is where institutions will benefit. Joint/dual degrees are easier and should be stimulated by Bologna and greater information may ease the creation of joint degrees.
§ For U.S. campus policy-makers, don’t look at a transcript in terms of years but look at the student’s overall preparation, including secondary education.
§ Showcase success stories of dual/joint degree programs, partnerships
§ Campus practitioners must be creative and seek to understand the new paradigms and affiliations.
o Take a look at U.S. and partner institutional mission when evaluating credentials.
o Use your comparable European partner institutions to assist you in your evaluation of other European institutions, as the intra-Europe information base is being built slowly.
o Don’t look at years, but content/prep for admissions.
o Obtain curriculum outlines (programs of study) with ECTS credits from a variety of partner schools and have faculty review.
o Translate ECTS credits to U.S. semester conversion is a consultative process--it is not exact and not consistent between schools/faculty etc.
§ In Europe, understand goals, needs, types of study abroad the U.S. wants—and vice versa.