Memorandum submitted by the University
of Bristol
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The University of Bristol established a Bologna
Working Group in 2004 to consider the implications of the Bologna
Process. The Group identified the following main risks and opportunities
for the University: the adoption of the Diploma Transcript, the
status of one-year Masters and four-year integrated Masters programmes;
the inclusion of the doctoral level within the Bologna framework;
the promotion of mobility. In general the Bologna Process represents
a significant opportunity for enhancing the experience and employability
of our students. However, we are concerned about the lack of a
clear national position on certain key issues, above all on the
qualifications framework.
SUBMISSION
1. In 2004 the University of Bristol established
a Bologna Working Group, reporting to University Education Committee,
with the general remit of considering the implications of the
Bologna Process for the University of Bristol, of advising Education
Committee and senior management on these issues, and of ensuring
that staff and students were adequately informed about the Process.
The Group produced an initial report, attached as Appendix A,[16]
and has produced regular updates subsequently. In addition to
reviewing relevant publications, the Chair and other members of
the group have sought to keep abreast of developments by attending
meetings of the European Universities Association, as well as
seminars organised by the UUK Europe Unit and other such events.
2. The following points, deriving from objectives
in the original Bologna Declaration and subsequent communiqués,
have been identified as the main risks and opportunities in the
Bologna Process for the University:
2.1 Adoption of a system of easily readable
and comparable degrees, also through the introduction of the Diploma
Supplement (1) This point was identified as having the potential
to create greater opportunities for our students in the European
labour market, as well as fitting in with our policy of providing
graduates with more information on their achievements. It was
originally identified as a significant risk in so far as a major
effort would be required to meet the implementation deadline;
however, in the event we were able to introduce the Diploma Supplement
for students who graduated in 2006.
2.2 Adoption of a system essentially based
on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate (2) This was identified
as the most serious risk, primarily because there appeared to
be uncertainty about the status of UK Masters degrees, both stand-alone,
one-year Masters and integrated four-year Masters, within the
emerging Bologna Framework. There was the potential for the loss
of students, above all from overseas, if our degrees were perceived
as less testing, relevant or attractive than those available on
the Continent and/or if they were not recognised as equivalent
to European Masters-level qualifications. On the other hand, if
our degrees were to be accepted as fully equivalent this might
represent an opportunity, in so far as we can offer a high-quality
Masters-level qualification through one year of full-time study
rather than through studying for two academic years, as is more
common on the Continent.
2.2.1 The decision of the Bergen Conference
to adopt graduate attributes and abilities (a "learning outcomes"
based approach) rather than length of study period as the basic
criterion for determining the level of a qualification was therefore
extremely welcome. We are confident that our programmes do indeed
produce students with the qualities and abilities expected at
Masters level. Nevertheless, there remain considerable uncertainties,
especially about the status and reputation of four-year integrated
Masters programmes. We have taken steps to ensure that the final
year of such programmes consists entirely of Masters-level units
which are assessed at Masters level, and have reviewed material
associated with these programmes to ensure that potential students
and other interested parties are fully informed about the nature
and quality of these programmes. However, our view is that this
is not an issue that can be properly resolved through the actions
of individual universities (see 3.1 below).
2.3 Inclusion of the Doctoral level as the
third cycle (10) This objective has as yet received only limited
attention within discussions of the Bologna Process; the obvious
risk is that European norms may be agreed which are incompatible
with our current practices and which may threaten the quality,
integrity and/or reputation of our doctoral degrees. We take heart
from the statement in the Bergen Communiqué, reaffirmed
at the recent EUA "Doctoral programmes in Europe" seminar
in Nice, that "overregulation of doctoral programmes must
be avoided", but nevertheless remain aware that perceptions
of what constitutes overregulation may vary from country to country
and between government and higher education institutions. We very
much welcome the statements in section 2.3 of the summary outcomes
of the recent Nice seminar, especially the references to "flexibility
in admissions to doctoral programmes" and that access to
the third cycle should not be restricted to entry via a Masters
qualification.
2.3.1 In addition, we are concerned to preserve
the freedom of individual countries to determine the status of
doctoral candidates. Whereas in continental Europe, institutions
are encouraged to ensure that their practices are similar in respect
of both doctoral candidates and early stage research staff (cf
the European Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for
the Recruitment of Researchers), in the UK doctoral candidates
retain their status as students, giving them a number of advantages,
for example, exemption from income tax and national insurance
contributions.
2.3.2 At present, signing up to the European
Charter for Researchers and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment
of Researchers is voluntary, and the EC has assured institutions
this situation will not change. However, at the Nice seminar it
was made clear that we could not rule out the possibility of the
EC taking account of formal adoption of these documents when considering
institutional bids for resources (although linking this with a
"label" now seems not to be under consideration). This
will only be a problem for the UK if the EC does not recognise
that alignment with section 1 of the QAA Code of Practice: postgraduate
research programmes and with UK employment law provides equivalence
for UK institutions.
2.4 Promotion of mobility (4) and of the
European dimension in higher education (6) Both these objectives
represent significant opportunities for enhancing the attractiveness
of our programmes (whether through the creation of joint programmes
or through increased opportunities for students to study abroad
as part of their degree), and we work to ensure that faculties
are kept informed of developments in this area. While we aim to
ensure that there are no barriers to student and staff mobility,
there are some significant impediments that are largely beyond
our control. First, the costs of travelling and living abroad
for a short period of time (additional funding for the Socrates/Erasmus
programme appears to be intended to increase the number of exchanges
rather than the funding available to support each exchange). Second,
the limited linguistic ability of some students who might otherwise
wish to take up this opportunity, is such that we cannot bring
them to a level where they would be capable of studying in a foreign
language without an unacceptable impact on the subject-specific
content of their degree programme.
2.5 We have considered the possibility of
adopting the ECTS system to improve the "translatability"
of our qualifications (3), but concluded that the system was excessively
crude, both in terms of its definition of "credits"
and in its failure to distinguish between levels of credit, in
comparison to our existing credit framework. We have decided instead
to record on undergraduate student transcripts that 10 credits
under our system are approximately equivalent to five ECTS credits.
As the translation at taught postgraduate level is even more inexact,
we are not attempting to link ECTS with our own credits for these
programmes.
2.6 The promotion of European co-operation
in quality assurance (5) was originally identified as a potential
risk, with concern that we might in due course be presented with
a European QA system that was excessively bureaucratic and unsuited
to British HE. Subsequent discussions, helpfully facilitated by
ENQA, suggest that this is a remote possibility.
2.7 Other objectives, for example the emphasis
on Lifelong Learning (7) and the involvement of students in decision-making
(8), simply correspond to our existing activities.
3. The above points are likely to be relevant
to all UK HEIs. However, they also raise wider issues about how
the UK as a whole, both government and the higher education sector,
has responded and should in future respond to the Bologna Process.
In contrast to most European countries, where the Bologna Process
was imposed on universities through legislation and in many cases
without adequate consultation with HE practitioners, the autonomy
of UK universities means that their response to European imperatives
can be properly tailored to the nature and requirements of their
research and teaching activities, greatly increasing the likelihood
of embedding it succesfully and economically. For this to happen
properly, however, it is vital that those issues which need to
be resolved at national level are handled in a way that fully
meets the needs of universities and is based on full consultation
with them.
3.1 This issue can be best illustrated by
the question of the status of four-year integrated Masters degrees,
discussed in 2.2 above. The decision of the Ministerial Summit
at Bergen in 2005 that each country should develop a national
framework of qualifications compatible with the overarching framework
for qualifications in the EHEA looked as if it should resolve
the problem, since such a framework—which would clearly
have to be developed under academic leadership in close consultation
with universities and other key stakeholders—would surely
include a clear statement about the status of these programmes.
However, we have not as yet heard that any body is taking responsibility
for developing such a framework, on which work is supposed to
have commenced by 2007, and we are not aware that the Government
has taken any steps to meet its commitment from Bergen.
3.2 In the meantime, we are in a position
of uncertainty over the likely future status of integrated Masters
programmes. The credibility of these programmes as genuine Masters-level
qualifications is surely a national issue, not something confined
to individual institutions. However, the only guidance available,
in a briefing note produced by the UUK Europe Unit, offered a
range of quite different possible responses which individual universities
"might consider", with no indication of the status of
this advice or of whether there had been proper consultation with
universities or the relevant accreditation bodies. In the absence
of clear and credible leadership on this issue, there is a significant
risk that the UK might adopt a piecemeal, institution-specific
response to the problem of ensuring that these qualifications
are accepted across the continent. We are aware that some institutions
have indeed begun discussing the adoption of policies, such as
extending the final year of study or seeking to introduce vacation
work placements, which we would regard as problematic; were they
to do this (which of course as autonomous institutions they are
fully entitled to do) it could undermine the credibility of all
UK integrated Masters programmes which did not adopt this model.
3.3 We feel that there is a need for a proper
consultation, with representatives both of universities and of
the various professional bodies which accredit and oversee these
programmes, to develop a clear and coherent national position
on the nature, credit requirements and organisation of integrated
Masters programmes, to which institutions could then refer in
developing their own responses in accordance with local circumstances.
3.4 It is equally important that UK Higher
Education should be able to present a clear and united front in
discussions of other issues, such as the future organisation of
doctoral study. If the UUK Europe Unit is to continue to be the
body which takes the lead in representing the UK position, there
needs to be much clearer and more effective mechanisms for consultation
and feedback, to ensure that it can properly represent our practices
and the rationale behind them, as well as our concerns and aspirations,
in Bologna-related discussions.
3.5 In the meantime, we will continue to
send representatives to European Universities Association conferences
and other relevant events, to ensure that we remain informed about
current developments in European Higher Education and are able
to contribute to discussions and debates.
December 2006
16 Not printed. Back
|
