Memorandum submitted by Dr Nigel Poole,
Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College London
I was pleased to have the opportunity to attend
the Select Committee meeting on the Bologna Process last week.
I am writing, therefore to make some observations on the discussion,
summarising what I consider were the key points, and drawing attention
to other significant matters.
In the first instance, Lord May's opening comments
from a research focus did not seem entirely apposite, nor representative
of the challenges facing the bulk of the UK HE sector. Attention
was unfortunately diverted from a constructive approach required
to encourage the Bologna Process in an appropriate direction.
The key messages from the exchanges between witnesses and the
Committee seemed to me to be the following:
— It is essential for the UK to
be engaged in the Bologna Process, which is significant not only
to the 45 signatories but also to other regions of the world,
who are monitoring the Process—there is a global context
and a wide sphere of international relations surrounding Bologna.
— The semi-autonomous nature of
the UK university sector puts the policy-making process on a different
footing from the State-led decision making in most other signatory
countries. It is essential to maintain ownership of the Bologna
Process within the education sector and be cautious about the
involvement of the European Commission.
— Bureaucratisation is a threat.
— A positive negotiating stance
by the UK is critical to achieve the necessary outcomes.
— The evolving framework should
be principles—rather than rules-based, and this will be
enhanced by the shift in focus from credits for inputs (hours
of study) to learning outcomes.
— It is important to maintain
flexibility about the third cycle (PhD training).
— It is important to beware uniformity,
and efforts should be made to create a European higher education
area where flexibility, diversity and delivery are important.
I would want to add further comments of my own,
that do not necessarily represent those of my institution, but
have evolved out of the need to come to terms with the Process.
In the first instance, I reiterate that it is important not to
be complacent about the evolution of the Bologna Process, nor
about the potential impact on the UK HE sector, nor about the
level of awareness of HE institutions. In my view, a sceptical
approach won't create a good negotiating position in May:
— While it is fine to stress learning
outcomes rather than inputs, many signatory countries have bought
into the process by adopting the framework and the rules in a
literal way, including the ECTS credit unit system. Some UK HEIs
are also adopting, some have adopted the ECTS system. It is hard
to see the emphasis on learning outcomes supplanting entirely
inputs and credit in the framework. UK needs a clever approach
in communicating key messages to fellow signatories.
— The one year and integrated
Masters are very important activities for the UK universities
(as you know), and generally can provide an excellent educational
experience. In my view they are faced with a threat that was not
really dealt with at the meeting. There is more to argue here,
more for the UK to defend/advance at the May meeting, in the context
of the widespread use of ECTS:
— it is unclear still whether
more than 75 ECTS can be earned in a calendar year. If a standard
of 90 ECTS is adopted for the second cycle, the number of hours
of study "required" is a minimum of 2,250. While it
is just about plausible to argue that the average student is expected
to spend 46 weeks during a 12 month period studying for a Masters
degree in the UK, it is not quite plausible to argue that the
average student is expected to spend 48.9 hours per week on average
in study per week. So the sums do not add up. On this my view
diverges from that of my institution and its written submission,
so I speak only for myself. Data to support this contention on
study hours can probably be found, inter alia, in the UNITE
Student Experience Report, of which I have only seen press reports;
— the sector may be resistant
to extending the MSc study period beyond the 12 month (calendar
year) period. Nevertheless, marginal changes might create a stronger
basis for arguing the validity of a "short" UK 90 ECTS
Master;
— the sector could adopt a
more flexible approach to the study period by extending the MSc
study period by a month or two, to establish a 90 ECTS MSc, without
compromising unduly on critical factors (eg finance) affecting
uptake by students—what could be a 13-15 month 90 ECTS MSc,
rather than 12 months;
— it is also important to
consider the level of research content in the 90 ECTS Master;
and
— To fail to address these
specific issues of the one year/90 ECTS Masters degree weakens
the overall UK negotiating position.
— A particular concern of mine
is that other signatories are adopting the framework of three
cycles and ECTS such that entry to third cycle (PhD) studies requires
120 ECTS at second cycle level. A few longer UK Masters courses
can plausibly claim to be worth 120 ECTS. The 90 ECTS UK Master
may still be unattractive to students from other countries for
this reason as well as other reasons.
— Only some, not all, UK HEIs
will be able to rely on strong reputational effects to establish
credible claims of quality if (particularly second cycle) programmes
are not apparently Bologna-compliant.
— Also, there are other aspects
to Bologna, such as the Diploma supplement, that need to be considered.
I am not an expert, and there are others in
the sector who are much better prepared than I on the Bologna
Process, so my views do not carry any special authority. Nevertheless,
Fiona Mactaggart was right, that there is no room for complacency.
And as Ella Ritchie said, the devil is in the detail.
January 2007
|
