U.S. Higher Education Adapts to the Bologna Process

1
European Higher Education Area Building on our
rich and diverse European cultural heritage, we
are developing an EHEA based on institutional
autonomy, academic freedom, equal opportunities
and democratic principles that will facilitate
mobility, increase employability and strengthen
Europes attractiveness and competitiveness. Min
isters responsible for Higher Education in the
countries participating in the Bologna Process,
London Communique, May 2007 Taken from Toward
the European Higher Education Area Bologna
Process, prepared by the Austrian Federal
Ministry try of Science and Research
2
U.S. Higher Education Adapts to the Bologna
Process

• 2009 AEIA Conference
• Atlanta, Georgia
• February 22-25, 2009

3
Session Presenters

• Linda Tobash, Institute of International
  Education
• New York, NY
• Leonard van der Hout, Hogeschool van Amsterdam
  University of Applied Science
• Amsterdam, The Netherlands
• With significant contributions from
• Robert Stableski, Senior Adviser for Planning and
  Services, NAFSA Association of International
  Educators, Washington, D.C.
• Kirk Simmons, Executive Director, International
  Affairs, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

4
Session Overview

• Goal
• Provide an overview of the Bologna Process and
  the evolution of the European Higher Education
  Area (EHEA) reforms over the past 10 years as
  well as examine U.S. higher educations growing
  understanding of these reforms and reactions.

5
Session Agenda

• Brief overview of the Bologna Process, its
  evolving nature, its successes and ongoing
  challenges
• Critical EHEA goals and priorities moving forward
• Role EHEA countries play in U.S. higher education
• Update on thinking and trends in the U.S. with
  regard to EHEA reforms

6
Overview of the Bologna Process

• Original Goals
• European answer to globalization
• Create a European higher education and research
  area
• Develop instruments to promote transparency and
  quality assurance
• Focus on learner outcomes and competencies
• Increase mobility
• Promote Europe as a study destination
• Stimulate the European dimension in higher
  education

7
Successes

• Two cycle degree system
• Tools which promote transparency
• Tuning Project discussions
• Stocktakig reports
• Increasing, if at times uneven, mobility within
  Europe
• Increasing attractiveness of Europe as a study
  destination for international students

8
Challenges

• Local level implementation
• curricular reform
• Accessibility
• Quality assurance and recognition
• Europe not harmonized
• Collaboration with labor markets

9
Key Priorities Moving Forward

• Social dimensions
• Life-long learning
• European coordination
• International cooperation
• Attractiveness
• students
• excellent knowledge workers

10
Role EHEA Countries Play in U.S.
Internationalization and Study Abroad
11
Impact on U.S. Higher Education

• EHEA encompasses 46 countries in the European
  Higher Education Area (EHEA)

• In 2007-08
• Nearly 69,500 degree-seeking EHEA students in the
  U.S.
• 51 at the graduate level
• Turkey, Germany, U.K., and France among the top
  20 sending countries
• --Adapted from NAFSA 2008 Regional Bologna
  Process Briefing presentation and

12
Impact on U.S. Higher Education

• In 2007-08
• Nearly 31,500 EHEA scholars in the U.S. teaching
  or doing research
• Comprised nearly 30 of all international
  scholars in U.S.
• 5 of the top ten sending countries were in EHEA

13
Study Abroad Destinations, 2006/07

• Europe remains the leading host region for U.S.
  students studying abroad, with 57 of the total.

14
U.S. Reactions and Responses
15
Initial Responses

• Limited U.S. audience
• Wait and see attitude
• Imperfect understanding
• Bologna as a product rather than a process
• Viewed Europe as adopting a U.S. model of
  tertiary education

16
Changing Knowledge Base

• Additional constituents join discussion
• Uneven knowledge levels
• Increase in fundamental information
• Growing understanding that Bologna is an
  organic, complex process with moving targets
• Understand that variations will exist
• Greater understanding of differences
• Learner-centered and outcomes-based assessment
• Qualification frameworks

17
Catalyst For Change

• Bologna has stimulated much debate within the
  U.S. pertaining to length of undergraduate
  degrees
• Need to develop in the U.S. short-term study
  opportunities for first cycle, bachelors level,
  European students
• Opportunity for proactive partnering at the
  graduate level

18
Recognition of Competitive Factors

• Model for other national systems
• China a keen observer
• South America moving toward Bologna model
• Australia ministry white paper in 2006
• The Bologna Process and Australia Next Steps

19
Recognition of European Attractiveness as a Study
Destination

• Innovative, multilateral academic exchange
• Attractive research components
• Shorter time to degree
• Cost
• Growth in number of programs offered in English
• Promotion of educational and employment mobility
  within Europe

20
Competition or Cooperation
?
?
Or Both
21
Cooperation

• Shared desire to work cooperatively with other
  institutions internationally
• Increased efforts for collaborative programming
• Increase in dual and joint degrees
• Global policy discussions
• CGS and government of Alberta, Canada hosted a
  Global Summit on Graduate Education with a
  follow-up meeting in Italy in 2008
• Global Policy Discussion

22
European Response andQuestions
23
APPENDIX Reception of Bologna-compliant Degrees
24
Evolving

• Traditional focus on degree equivalency
  frequently determined by
• length of undergraduate program
• Combination of secondary and post-secondary study
• Discussion moving from degree equivalency and
  degree comparability to degree compatibility
  and preparation

25
Council of Graduate School Findings on Current
Practices 2005 and 2006

• 2005
• Acceptance of 4 year degree only 29
• Provisional acceptance of 3 year degree 9
• Evaluation of course work for equivalency using a
  variety of measures 40
• Determination of competency to succeed in U.S.
  graduate program - 22

• 2006
• Acceptance of 4 year degree only 18
• Provisional acceptance of 3 year degree 4
• Evaluation of course work for equivalency using a
  variety of measures 49
• Determination of competency to succeed in U.S.
  graduate program 29

Taken from CGS International Graduate Admission
Survey II and III
26
IIEs Fall 2008 Snapshot of Doctoral-granting
Institutions

• YES
• 26 equivalent
• 35 determination varies by department
• 26 other
• 13 not equivalent

• Have an official policy regarding 3-year Bologna
  compliant degrees
• 53.4 yes
• 46.6 no

• No
• 39 may still be considered for regular admission
• 28 conditional
• 18 other
• 15 not considered

Taken from Fall 2008 IIEs Placement Services
Survey of Doctoral-granting institutions
27
Top three factors weighed most heavily by
academic departments
other
standardized test scores, e.g. GRE or GMAT
English language ability
educational system in home country
preparation for study in specific field or
specialization
prior experience with students to faculty from an
institution
quality of institution(s) previously attended
length of undergraduate degree
Taken from Fall 2008 IIEs Placement Services
Survey of Doctoral-granting institutions
28
What generally happens to applicants presenting
three-year Bologna-compliant degrees?
Taken from Fall 2008 IIEs Placement Services
Survey of Doctoral-granting Institutions