Memorandum submitted by the Institute
of Physics
HEADLINE ISSUES
— It is impossible to have a sensible
debate on the impact of the Bologna Process without the Government
or its agencies taking ownership of the key issues and showing
leadership at both a national and European level.
— There is a real risk of our
Masters, ie standalone (ie MSc) or integrated (eg MPhys/MSci),
not being recognised throughout Europe as second cycle qualifications.
Whereas, the Bachelors is a general qualification, the integrated
Masters is the minimum for professional practice in the UK. Hence,
it would be a disaster if it was only considered as a first cycle
qualification throughout Europe.
— Currently, with no pressure
to change, most university departments would defend the integrated
Masters. They would, however, embrace the standard 3+2+3 Bologna
model, provided the second cycle was properly funded. If we do
keep the integrated Masters, we have to do it properly and not
side-step the issue by attempting to make it compliant with the
Bologna Process.
IMPLICATIONS OF
THE BOLOGNA
PROCESS FOR
THE UK HIGHER
EDUCATION SECTOR:
ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES
The Bologna Process
The four-year integrated Masters in physics,
the MPhys/MSci, is an enhanced undergraduate degree which is offered
alongside the traditional three-year Bachelors (ie BSc) in many
UK university physics departments. The length of time taken to
undertake this enhanced degree followed by PhD study is 4+3 years.
In some cases a graduate student may also study a traditional
MSc degree, which is 12 months in length. These courses in physics
produce high-quality mathematically-competent graduates who are
eagerly sought by employers. The MPhys/MSci, in particular, is
the requisite qualification for professional practice that leads
to highly skilled researchers needed by industry and academe.
One of the key Bologna objectives is the adoption
of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate
(ie Bachelors) and graduate (ie Masters). This objective is the
one that requires the greatest change and which is most controversial.
This represents a break with the tradition in most European countries
that first degrees are at least five years long. Effectively,
the objective has led to the implementation in physical science
and engineering of a 3+2+3 standard higher education (HE) model
across Europe.
This reform poses potential problems for the
international recognition of UK Masters level degrees since this
level is reached after four years (ie 4 or 3+1) in England, Wales
and Northern Ireland (EWNI) rather than the five years (ie 3+2)
expected in most other European countries. [17]This
particularly affects science and engineering degrees because of
their international nature and because the Masters level is regarded
as the minimum for professional practice throughout the European
Higher Education Area (EHEA). In Europe there is a significant
risk that our graduates (at Masters level) may be considered to
be at a level significantly lower than the EHEA norm which will
have a potentially deleterious effect on their prospects for professional
employment or for progression to Doctorate programmes in other
countries.
Furthermore, the EHEA qualifications framework
does not refer to these integrated Masters level programmes which
now only exist in the UK, Norway (NTU Trondheim) and in the French
Grandes Ecoles. However, the communiqué from the Bologna
Seminar on Masters Degrees (Helsinki 2003) contained a stipulation
that they could continue in certain circumstances. [18]The
actual problem arises because of the way in which the Bologna
degree structure has been implemented rather than the particular
stipulations in the Bologna Declaration on the duration of degrees.
It is important that these courses meet international standards,
and compliance may mean that these courses undergo some amendments.
However, it is imperative that generic interpretations of the
requirements for compliance develop in a manner that does not
lead to adverse subject-specific consequences.
Another key concern relates to the funding of
the second cycle. Funding for students taking Masters level qualifications
is already a problem, especially for taught postgraduate courses
(ie 12-month MSc degrees) as there is usually no funding available.
This demands urgent consideration at the UK government level.
The effect on the UK position
From the UK's perspective, the Bachelors/Masters
structure already exists so we are not so strongly affected by
the 3+2+3 proposal so long as our MSc degrees continue to be recognised
in the rest of Europe, despite being only 12 months long. This
is, however, unlikely to be the case. An extension of the second
cycle by one year is unlikely to be welcomed by the majority of
students in view of the financial implications of an extra year's
tuition fees and living costs. Neither is it clear whether universities
would be funded by the funding councils for the extra student
numbers.
Another problem arises when we consider the
effect on the four-year integrated Masters degrees since a requirement
to structure studies on the basis of two cycles implies that we
reconstruct these degrees as separate Bachelors and MSc degrees—a
solution which is unpalatable and will lead to serious drawbacks.
This solution implies a loss of coherence and efficiency in the
formation of Masters level graduates. It also is likely to lead
to a significant fall in the number of Masters level graduates
because of the lack of financial support (eg student loans) for
the fourth year, except for those MSc courses designated for advanced
course studentships by the research councils. The proposal would
also increase the confusion between the current MPhys/MSci and
the MSc. In addition, it would probably lead to a decrease in
the number of students going on to PhD courses since the new European
pattern requires a Masters to be awarded before starting a PhD
programme. Having a proper debate on these issues is very difficult
given the current funding regime.
UK physics degrees within the Bologna Process
The Bachelors degree in physics should have
no problem in being recognised and appreciated in the new post-Bologna
framework. It develops physics competences better than most new
three-year Bachelors being developed in the rest of Europe. It
will also enable students to get closer to the frontiers of the
subject and will certainly be "relevant for the European
Labour Market", if not for high-level physics related employment.
Its weakness could be that it may not provide as good a theoretical
foundation for advanced MSc courses as might be found elsewhere
in Europe.
However, there are some concerns about the 12-month
long, specialised postgraduate MSc degrees in physics or related
areas. They should be seen to meet the 90 European Credit Transfer
System (ECTS) credit criterion, but there will be severe doubts
whether the rest of Europe will accept this because the ECTS guidelines
state the maximum number of credits for a 12-month period is 75.
This may require pressure from the UK government in the Bologna
Follow Up Group. MSc courses that are not genuinely at Masters
level (eg "conversion" courses) may find difficulty
in gaining recognition as a second cycle qualification.
The situation for the four-year integrated Masters
degrees is still unclear. They have the advantages of integration
and coherence over separate Bachelors and MSc degrees and are
also more efficient because the gap between the end of the Bachelors
and the start of the Masters, particularly if there is a change
of institution, is wasteful. However, steps should be taken to
ensure that there are at least 60 ECTS credits at genuine Masters
level and also that some Masters level work starts before the
fourth year. More may be needed. However, the 3+2 model is a possibility
for a number of physics departments, but only if the second cycle
is fully funded. This is the crux of the problem where we need
leadership from the Government. A decision needs to be made as
to whether we wish to keep the integrated Masters—if so,
then we need to fight for its recognition.
Other approaches
The UK can continue to ignore the Bologna Declaration
and carry on as if nothing is happening. This is a risky strategy
as it would invite isolation and could seriously disadvantage
the employment opportunities of our graduates. Europe is important
for our graduates for several reasons not least because they have
the right to live and work in any EU country and they will be
in competition for employment with graduates from elsewhere in
Europe. Another approach is to engage in debate with our European
partners and to try to ensure that the Bologna Declaration is
applied or interpreted in ways that are amenable to us.
In 2003, the Institute organised a joint town
meeting with the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) to discuss alternative
models to the proposed 3+2+3 in the Bologna Declaration. The main
conclusion from the meeting was that both learned societies will
continue to support the inclusion of their respective four-year
integrated Masters degrees, ie MPhys and MChem as second cycle
qualifications, and campaign for the acceptance of the 4+3 model.
The main outcome of the discussion on the various
models was as follows:
— The 3+3 model is in major conflict
both with the Bologna Process and practice in the rest of Europe.
There are already some universities that do not allow Bachelors
graduates to progress to PhD programmes. Plus, there are issues
of research council funding that need to be considered. If universities
continue offering the 3+3 model, this will seriously undermine
the recognition and acceptance of the PhD as a third cycle qualification.
— The 4+3 model could be allowed
but the final year of the first degree should be lengthened and
accepted as 90 ECTS credits. There is a real danger of it being
just being regarded as 75 ECTS credits, with associated funding
implications. However, lengthening the final year will have implications
for both students and universities.
— A better option might be the
3+1+3 model in which the "1" is a 12-month MSc degree,
but there are questions about the funding of the second cycle
which need to be addressed, and also the uncertainty over European
and other overseas students fitting into this model.
— The 3+2+3 model is the standard
system in Europe post-Bologna and would be the best solution to
achieve harmonisation with the rest of Europe, but will require
a substantial change to the current funding model (for the second
cycle) if it is to be implemented. This model does permit more
flexibility in terms of access. In addition, any gaps in a student's
knowledge of the subject can be addressed in the second cycle.
A further consideration which affects the third
cycle is the increasing length of UK PhD programmes. PPARC are
now funding some PhD students for up to four years, and EPSRC
for three and a half years with the flexibility within a university
to use funds to provide four years of support. This could mean
that a programme of study involving an MPhys/MSci followed by
a four-year PhD results in a 4+4 system, or it possibly could
be 3+1+4 if the first cycle is a three-year Bachelors degree.
Some thought needs to be given to allowing a flexible approach
to the organisation and length of Doctoral programmes.
THE POSSIBLE
IMPLEMENTATION OF
A EUROPEAN
CREDIT TRANSFER
SYSTEM (ECTS) AND
A FOCUS
ON LEARNING
OUTCOMES AND
COMPETENCIES
The core Bologna objectives are all linked.
Thus, the overarching aim of mobility of graduates and students
is helped by "a system of readable and comparable degrees",
which in turn is helped by a two-cycle system, by a credit system
and by co-operation in quality assurance. There is a particularly
important link between the use of ECTS credits and the notion
of comparable degrees. ECTS credits are defined so that an academic
year contains 60 ECTS credits. It is deceptively easy to make
the jump from "comparable degrees" to "equal numbers
of ECTS credits". But it is also naive, especially when applied
across the range of very different educational approaches and
routes found across Europe. ECTS credits are measures of student
workload but many factors determine the level reached by a degree
programme, not just the amount of work done by the student.
The norm for the student workload corresponding
to one ECTS credit is 25-30 hours per week corresponding to 1,500-1,800
hours per year. The typical UK student workload is significantly
less than this (and this is fairly well known in the rest of Europe)
so that our ECTS credits are regarded as light measures. This
exacerbates the credit range problems listed in this section.
Moreover, there are significant differences
across Europe in teaching methods and also differences in starting
points and preparation. The crucial criteria for comparing degrees
should be "learning outcomes" achieved, not time spent.
The problem is that learning outcomes are difficult to specify
clearly and are usually qualitative. Adding up ECTS credits is
easy and their numerical nature gives a false sense of precision.
The use of ECTS credits appears to be better than simply counting
years but in practice it differs only in the fact that it is able
to handle the over-run problem by allowing students more time
to accumulate sufficient credits.
So, the 3+2+3 system becomes 180+120+180 ECTS
credits. Assigning credits for PhD programmes is dubious in the
extreme, and should not be implemented. But for the Bachelors
and Masters stages, specification in terms of ECTS credits is
probably unavoidable as a great deal of momentum for its use has
been acquired and there is no doubt that it is useful. Sufficient
flexibility in its application so that important differences can
be taken into account is needed.
The limits for first cycle degrees have been
set at 180-240 ECTS credits, so we must require each graduate
to have "passed" at least 180 ECTS. In practice this
means no failed units are allowed.
For the second cycle or Masters stage, the range
is 90-120 ECTS credits with a minimum of 60 at second cycle level.
So the UK MSc could be compatible with the Bologna Process allowed
range since it can be argued that they should be assigned 90 ECTS
as they represent about 50% more work than a normal undergraduate
academic year. However, it remains out of line in terms of European
wide expectations for physical science and engineering (ie 75
ECTS credits).
The four-year integrated Masters courses still
have a problem with the ECTS count. The two problems which affect
the MPhys/MSci etc. are firstly, that they are only four years/240
ECTS long and therefore are 30 ECTS short of the framework stipulations
for Masters level but are within the range for first cycle degrees;
and secondly, the expectations of students, universities and employers
throughout Europe are that students with a second cycle degree
will also have a first cycle degree. However, any step to increase
the final year of the MPhys/MSci by 30 ECTS will have implications
for both students (ie finance) and universities (ie staff having
to teach over the summer, at the expense of their research).
Thus, our MPhys/MSci graduates risk having their
degrees regarded as being first cycle and not real Masters degrees,
and this is completely unacceptable.
THE BROADER
IMPACT OF
BOLOGNA ACROSS
EUROPE: A MORE
STANDARDISED EUROPE
AND THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR
THE UK'S
POSITION IN
THE GLOBAL
MARKET FOR
HE (BOLOGNA AND
THE SECOND
PHASE OF
THE PRIME
MINISTER'S
INITIATIVE FOR
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION
(PMI 2)
The UK hope is that the process of modernising
Europe's universities (greater autonomy, better governance, tuition
fees, more competition etc) will lead other European countries
to copy the UK system and so reduce the length of time to reach
Masters level to four years. But many universities in the rest
of Europe are reluctant to accept that the UK reaches Masters
level after four years as that puts pressure on them to reduce
the length of their programmes, which they do not want to do.
This pressure mainly manifests as a requirement for students to
be able to finish their university studies with a Bachelors degree
which leads to employment.
A shift to the UK system could be done for economic
reasons (to reduce costs for students and governments) and will
be based on a judgement that in the rest of Europe there is at
present an overly academic emphasis, much redundant content and
insufficient attention to the needs of employers. There is some
truth in this but it is overstated. A change of paradigm to a
student-centred educational approach based on learning outcomes
is assumed to lead to this reform. However, although this shift
to a learning outcomes approach and greater attention to the needs
of employers is well underway in the rest of Europe (led by the
Tuning Project) there is no sign of it leading to a reduction
from five to four years for Masters level. [19]Indeed
the Tuning Project has been the main origin of the 90 ECTS lower
limit on second cycle degrees and the norm of 120 ECTS. However,
the Bologna Process is leading to an appreciation of the employability
of first cycle graduates and may lead to fewer students staying
on for Masters degrees, but all our partner nations are assuming
(and most are finding in practice) that the vast majority of their
first cycle graduates will stay on for a second cycle.
The other hope is that the forces of competition
will give us a market advantage since our shorter courses will
be more attractive to students and are of high quality. Thus,
the UK has an opportunity to increase its enrolment of students
on MSc degrees. We also have an advantage in having great experience
of operating MSc degree programmes, particularly in adjusting
them to the graduate employment and student market. In this respect,
we are closer to the US and we could act as a bridge between the
US and Europe. This advantage should not be overplayed, however,
as there are rapidly growing numbers of students from Asia (particularly
China and India) taking MSc degrees taught in English in other
European countries. The numbers probably already comfortably exceed
those in UK universities. But this advantage is only true if they
are fully recognised and accepted in the rest of Europe as at
least of equal value on the labour market and are not regarded
as inferior in level.
OPPORTUNITIES TO
ENHANCE THE
MOBILITY OF
STUDENTS FROM
THE UK
The main issue is one of language, ie most UK
students are not multi-lingual. Hence, not enough UK students
go to study in Europe, something from which they could gain financially.
There are also problems of degree recognition, ie in terms of
assessing the year abroad, learning outcomes and the qualifications
framework. Paradoxically, the Bologna Process will probably inhibit
"horizontal mobility", in which students spend a period
from three months a year at a university in another European country
and transfer credit back to their home university degree, since
it would be harder to fit this into a 3+2 structure.
The Bologna Process mainly aims to promote mobility
between cycles, so that a UK student might do a Masters degree
in say, the Netherlands in English, and vice-versa. This is so-called
"vertical mobility" and should definitely increase under
Bologna to our advantage, but only in the sense of more students
coming to the UK and if our degrees are in line with the rest
of Europe. However, there are serious fees issues here in the
UK context.
Furthermore, a similar concern relating to postdoctoral
research assistants (PDRAs) was expressed by an international
panel of physicists who recently undertook a review of the quality
of the UK's research efforts, [20]and
offered comments on mobility stating that:
"EU networks offer unique opportunities
for UK PDRAs. To the Panel's surprise, it found that many students
and PDRAs were hesitant to apply for positions at EU universities
because of a perceived language barrier. UK participation in international
projects (eg CERN) is important because these institutions are
at the cutting edge scientifically. The Panel found clear evidence
that the large influx of non-UK PDRAs had been very beneficial
for the competitiveness of physics and astronomy research in UK
universities."
AWARENESS AND
ENGAGEMENT IN
THE BOLOGNA
PROCESS WITHIN
HEIS
The Institute, in collaboration with the RSC
has raised the issue amongst the physical sciences academic community,
with the publication of reports, and organised meetings etc. However,
in spite of this HEIs overall are not taking the implications
of the Bologna Process seriously enough, as there has been no
ownership, leadership or funding, thus, there is no impetus for
them to be sufficiently engaged.
The Institute notes the laudable efforts of
the Europe Unit that is funded by Universities UK and the funding
councils, [21]to
raise awareness of the issues, but would like to see them tackle
more of the awkward, core issues that have been raised in this
submission, in addition to providing background information on
the Bologna Process.
UK universities need guidance on what is acceptable
and desirable in the post-Bologna era. Are any changes needed
in our degree programmes? Do they need to be enhanced in any way?
If so, what are the time and credit ranges which are acceptable
for MSc and MPhys/MSci degrees? Would the Government support such
changes financially?
What is needed is some leadership. The Government
needs to grasp the nettle of the issues of concern, and not continue
to be so blasé about the implications of the Declaration,
continually stating that the UK is not legally bound to adopt
the Declaration, therefore no consideration needs to be given
to any possible modifications in the light of the Bologna Process.
It may be true, but it is the fact that other European nations
will bind to the Declaration that will have ramifications for
UK graduates and postgraduates. The Government needs to consult
more with those in universities actively involved in European
developments in the Bologna Process, particularly those in science,
engineering and mathematics departments. In addition, the views
of employers also need to be sought.
THE IMPLICATIONS
OF A
THREE-PHASE
STRUCTURE OF
HIGHER EDUCATION
AWARDS FOR
ONE-YEAR
MASTERS AND
SHORT UNDERGRADUATE
COURSES (HNCS,
HNDS, AND
FOUNDATION DEGREES)
How is a unilateral move by the UK to shorten
undergraduate courses consistent or compliant with the Bologna
Process?
THE AGENDA
FOR DISCUSSION
AT THE
2007 MEETING IN
LONDON—CLARIFYING
THE UK POSITION
This meeting provides an ideal opportunity for
the Government to ensure that the UK is seen to be taking a lead
in shaping European HE policy. This certainly has not been the
case, as evidenced by the omission of the implications of the
Bologna Declaration in the 2003 HE White Paper. [22]
Based on all of the above evidence, it is imperative
for the UK to have a well recognised second cycle qualification
system, whether that is the four-year integrated Masters or a
properly funded 3+2 system. There can be no doubt that the MPhys/MSci
is an excellent, well respected qualification, but that is not
up for debate. The issue is whether it will be accepted as a second
cycle qualification throughout Europe—having it recognised
as first cycle would be a disaster. This is where the Government
needs to show some leadership, by taking ownership of the issue
and making an informed decision as to whether we keep the integrated
Masters in its current form, make it compatible with the rest
of Europe, or embrace the 3+2 model with appropriate funding for
the second cycle. Universities themselves cannot unilaterally
initiate a move to a two-year second cycle system, because of
the funding implications. In addition, consideration in this model
will have to be given to universities not to charge top-up fees
for the second cycle, as many students would not be prepared to
incur the increased debt associated with a fifth year.
To make the integrated Masters degrees compatible
with the rest of Europe they would need to be lengthened by about
30 ECTS or about half an academic year and also they should be
configured so that both a Bachelors and a Masters should be delivered
with students having the option of leaving with a Bachelors degree
after three years. However, such changes in duration would bring
severe problems for students (in terms of funding) and universities.
For instance, requiring academic staff to teach over the summer
would have a devastating effect on the research output of HEIs
as the summer is the period when staff involved in collaborations
with other institutes can have a period of concentrated research.
It is also the period of the major international conferences.
In addition, the long established three-year
Bachelors route to PhD level is explicitly prohibited by the Declaration.
Unless the Government effectively raises awareness of the issues,
many UK universities will continue to adopt the 3+3 model, which
will seriously undermine the recognition and acceptance of the
PhD as a third cycle qualification in Europe. It would help if
the research councils would recognise this and stipulate a Masters
level qualification as requirement for PhD student funding.
December 2006
17 The Scottish situation is not addressed in this
submission because of the differences in their educational system
to that of EWNI. Back
18
http://www.aic.lv/ace/ace_disk/Bologna/Bol_semin/Helsinki/index.htm Back
19
http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/ Back
20
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Projects/International-Review/index.html Back
21
http://www.europeunit.ac.uk/home/ Back
22
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/hegateway/uploads/White%20Pape.pdf Back
| 
