Memorandum submitted by the University
of Oxford
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper identifies a number of areas of its
existing educational provision which the University sees as likely
to be significantly affected by the Bologna Process. It welcomes
the fact that the Bologna principles have not been embodied in
legislation in the UK, recognising the autonomy of HE institutions,
but nevertheless draws particular attention to the areas where
change and development can only sensibly be made as part of a
concerted national policy, notably in relation to the funding
of three-year and four-year undergraduate courses. The paper is
submitted by the chairman of the University's Educational Policy
and Standards Committee, Professor Elizabeth Fallaize, Pro-Vice-Chancellor
(Education) in consultation with the Head of the Mathematical,
Physical and Life Sciences Division, Professor Keith Burnett FRS.
The Educational Policy and Standards Committee is responsible
for the University's Bologna strategy.
SUBMISSION
1. While welcoming the development of the
Bologna Process and wishing to make a positive contribution to
the issues embodied in the Bologna instruments, the University
has identified a number of areas where it has concerns about a
likely negative impact of the Bologna Process on its educational
provision.
2. Foremost amongst these is the future position
of the integrated master's courses which are taken as a first
degree by undergraduates in the Sciences and which lead, in Oxford,
to a range of master's qualifications (MChem, MEng, MPhys etc).
These are four-year qualifications, which integrate the work previously
offered for the bachelor's degree (H level in the QAA Qualifications
Framework) with work classified as master's standard (M level),
usually but not always taken in the fourth year. There is considerable
uncertainty within the sector as to whether successful completion
of these integrated master's courses will enable a graduate to
proceed to doctoral work under the Bologna Process without the
need for a further master's qualification.
3. At the same time, there has been a significant
push in recent years towards increasing the length of the PhD
programme in the Sciences in the UK, in response to national and
international reviews (eg, Roberts, Whitesides) with research
councils now routinely providing 3.5-4 years of funding. Thus
a two-cycle four plus four progression to a doctorate is becoming
recognised as ideal training for scientists, with a strong research-project
element in the last year of the integrated component, and strong
training element in the first part of the PhD. There is no clarity
about the likely relationship between these various developments.
4. National guidance at an earlier stage
concentrated on increasing the length of the final year of the
integrated master's course. It was suggested that a lengthened
course would be more likely to meet the necessary conditions and
provide the necessary credit rating (on the basis of the European
Credit Transfer System) for subsequent doctoral work, without
a further master's qualification. However we do not believe that
this is a satisfactory way to proceed in the long term. Unless
there is greater clarity about the standing of the integrated
master's course and what is required to allow it to serve as a
combined first and second cycle qualification under the Bologna
Process, there will be a significant planning blight on the development
of these major courses within the Sciences.
5. It is now being suggested in some quarters
that the way forward is to return to the original three-year bachelor's
degree and to allow those who wish to proceed to a further fourth-year
at master's level to do so via a free-standing MSc. or similar
qualification. This would signal a major change to undergraduate
education in the Sciences with extensive implications for funding
and for the level of achievement associated with a first degree.
A move to a 3+2+3 cycle would have serious funding implications
for students on the two-year masters training required under the
Bologna proposals as preparation for doctoral training. It is
not at all clear where the resources for this would come from
if the UK adopted this framework. Students fund the fourth year
of the Oxford four-year integrated masters programmes in the Sciences
through the student loan company.
6. If the UK moved to three-year undergraduate
programmes followed by two-year master's, the availability of
Research Council-funded studentships would need to be reviewed.
For example, in the Sciences the focus of EPSRC training funds
is on doctoral studentships, with some limited funding available
for MSc courses through the Collaborative Training grant scheme.
There is currently little funding available to support master's
students in the mathematical and physical sciences. However, if
the total funding in the system is not increased, then the implication
of funding two-year master's studentships is that the number of
doctoral studentships available will have to be reduced, with
serious implications for the UK's knowledge economy. Furthermore,
the loss of the fee income and associated HEFCE teaching grant
provided to university science departments in respect of fourth-year
undergraduate students would have very serious financial implications
for the UK's science departments, and for the sustainability of
the UK's science base in its universities, if it is not replaced
by the equivalent level of funding for two-year master's students.
The number of two-year master's students on courses equivalent
to the fourth year of integrated master's programmes is likely
to be far less.
7. Even if there is a driving force towards
a three-cycle 3 + 2 + 3 system across all disciplines, the future
of the 4 + 4 two-cycle system in the Sciences, based on its strengths,
must be considered. A key question is whether a total training/education
for eight years would be regarded as meeting the requirements
of the third level based on the total credit obtained irrespective
of whether the eight years is broken up into two or three cycles.
8. The University does not believe that
any approach adopted should be undertaken in a piece meal fashion,
dictated by the requirements of individual professional bodies.
It should be part of a coherent strategy which reviews the UK
structures and funding of the first two cycles under the Bologna
Process. It needs to be clear as to whether the existing structure
has to be developed in order to match expectations under Bologna.
It should look ahead not only to the relationship between UK qualifications
under the first and second cycles, but also at any new structure
and the relationship between the second and third cycles. It would
be extremely unhelpful, in the University's view, if significant
numbers of students from outside the UK found that taking either
the UK integrated master's (as a combined first and second cycle
qualification) or one of the UK's existing free-standing master's
qualifications (as a second cycle qualification) was insufficient
to allow them to continue to doctoral studies in any of the countries
which have signed the Bologna accord.
9. The University's primary concern is to
ensure that the exceptional quality of educational provision which
it makes at undergraduate and graduate level remains undiminished.
For this reason it is extremely concerned about the implications
of a system of recognition which relies on credits, like the European
Credit Transfer System, rather than learning outcomes. Like Cambridge,
we do not use a credit system and have major reservations about
its appropriateness for the character of learning which we seek
to promote. The emphasis on credits in this mechanistic fashion
does not sit easily with the University's approach to its course
provision, and the greater the acceptance accorded to the European
Credit Transfer System the greater its influence becomes on UK
patterns of provision. It is already clear that a student who
wished to incorporate a UK qualification in his or her work before
undertaking doctoral studies within many countries within the
Bologna Process, would need to be certain that the total pre-doctoral
credits achieved were sufficient to allow entry to a doctoral
programme. The question of credit in relation to the Bologna Process
and to UK qualifications which do not operate on a credit system
is of major significance. The University is currently studying
the latest proposals from the Burgess Group with this in mind.
10. The final area where the University
thinks that decisions need to be considered at national level
relates to the relationship between professional qualifications
in areas like Medicine and Law and their mutual recognition within
the Bologna agreement countries. Given that the Bologna Process
places such a high premium on mobility, the fact that the UK approach
to professional accreditation (with professional bodies often
sitting outside HE qualifications and accreditation systems) may
create recognition problems in the future is of real concern.
The Bologna promoters have drawn attention to some of the potential
difficulties in this area, and suggested the importance of careful
monitoring at institutional and national levels.
11. In relation to all the aspects of the
Bologna Process, the University attaches importance to a clear
national perspective on the matters of both immediate and longer-term
significance to UK higher education. The Bologna Process has a
growing influence not only within Europe but internationally.
It is therefore of real importance that individual institutions
and the UK as a whole understands the impact of that influence
on the UK higher education sector. All institutions recognise
this but it is particularly critical for those like Oxford whose
international focus must continue to be worldwide, and whose major
competitors are largely outside the Bologna framework. While welcoming
the development of the Bologna Process and its principles, the
University is bound to be cautious about any developments which
might limit its capacity to compete with the best international
universities worldwide. Without clear understanding at national
level, the strategic thinking of all institutions is bound to
be hindered, and international strategies which are key to the
pursuit of global excellence potentially undermined. The University
hopes that this can be recognised and underlined by the work of
the Committee.
December 2006
| 
