Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
MS JESSICA
OLLEY, PROFESSOR
DRUMMOND BONE
AND PROFESSOR
LORD MAY
OF OXFORD
10 JANUARY 2007
Q1 Chairman: Can I welcome our witnesses
this morning, Lord May, Professor Drummond Bone and Jessica Olley:
we are very grateful for your time in coming before this Committee
to answer our questions on the Bologna Process. We do appreciate
the time that witnesses give to this Committee. I usually give
a very brief opportunity for our witnesses to comment on where
they think we are in the topic under discussion, so I will give
you that opportunity. In a sense I have been waiting for a long
time to meet all three of you, but Professor Drummond Bone particularly
because he is the only person I know to whom I can say: "Why
are there not more articles about John Clare in romanticism?",
and I knew my Committee would let me get away with that. Shall
we get started? Lord May, can I start with you. We are always
appreciative of members of the House of Lords being before the
Committee. As I said outside, it is the one group of witnesses
that can sometimes sidestep us a little giving evidence, so we
are very grateful you are here. Where are we in this Bologna Process?
Is it adding anything to UK higher education?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I think I should say a couple of things first. Very first, I am
labelled as being UK representative on the European Research Council,
and not the least of our early achievements in trying to make
that a sensible entity, which is not going to be easy, is to make
it clear that there are not national representatives, and one
of the first achievements is that the Scientific Council that
is shaping it only has 22 members, so it cannot have one from
every country. There are in fact two Brits; the other one is Wendy
Hall, who is senior vice-president of the engineers—a super
person. Second and perhaps more to the point, I am not really
all that knowledgeable about the Bologna Process as such as distinct
from the European research area questions. My involvement with
the European research area questions goes back to when I was Chief
Scientific Adviser in the late 1990s and continued through the
presidency of the Royal Society and, when (as one way of implementing
that) the notion of the European Research Council emerged, it
was an idea that, in its original form, did not find favour with
many of the better performing, more scientifically advanced of
the 25 countries, and the UK has worked particularly with the
Germans and Scandinavians to reshape and try to create a European
Research Council that shall be a premier league, as it were, and
serve some of the functions that a premier league serves of setting
standards and disseminating best practice. So, if you wish to
pursue the more research oriented bits of it, I would be—
Q2 Chairman: Most of our questions
will be more on the research side to you, but you are one of the
very few figures in the UK university world who has a strong connection
not only with Imperial but Oxford and Cambridge, and so we know
that you will have a view on Bologna. We are not going to push
you in terms of being the greatest expert on Bologna, but, as
someone who has that link from leading universities in our country,
is the Bologna Process going to help what goes on in those universities?
Is it going to help, hinder, either in teaching or research?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
Like so many of these things, I am very happy to give you my opinion
as long as we understand it is an opinion.
Q3 Chairman: Absolutely.
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I think the aspiration is absolutely admirable. I am a huge enthusiast
for the notion of creating a common European research area with
easy movement within it, and that is motivated both by philosophical
belief and beneficial practice. My own research group over the
15, 16 years I have been in the UK has typically been small (six
to 12 people), but at the peak they were from nine different countries,
and I have benefited hugely from bright, young people from within
Europe and particularly from the Marie Curie, Framework Six and
previous Framework programmes which got the best young people
and gave them post-doctoral fellowships to go where they wanted,
and that has been a huge such success. If I may say, one index
of its success is if you look at publications in science, medicine
and engineering in the old EU 15, I suppose, that had joint transnational
aphorial collaborations, they were 22% of all the publications
1993-97 and 29% 1997-2001, and so it was a 20% per annum increase
in collaborative activity that came from that, so I am a great
enthusiast. On the other hand, to put it perhaps unkindly, my
view is that Brussels does not always translate excellent admirable
aspiration into effective action but tends to cloud it by creating
bureaucracies. If I can read you a quote I have given the officials,
I am afraid I did not do it ahead of time, a two-page thing that
I wrote emerging from one of these meetings with the Germans and
others, I focused on the European Research Council but I did say
that what we need to do is strip away some of the aspirational
rhetoric that clouds discussions, the idea that we make statements
like we are going to surpass the US. The truth of the matter is
that there are countries in Europe—Switzerland, Sweden—who
on a per capita or GDP basis outperform the USA already in science,
medicine and engineering, and so do we. We tend to confuse sheer
size with excellence. There are countries in Europe that spend
more on basic science than the US. The US is in the bottom half
of the OECD spenders on basic science, but some of these countries
that spend a third as much again as the US perform very poorly;
so it is not just about money, it is about how you organise things;
and my worry about Bologna is it is entirely excellent that it
wants to make it easier for people to be accepted, to move from
one university to another, but it is not that difficult as it
is. If you take particularly Oxford and Cambridge, they take kids
from all over Europe, from all over the world, at every level—tertiary,
then masters, then PhDs, then post-doctorate. We exchange with
the US. Their college system is very different from ours, but
we have no problem doing it. Nonetheless, we could make it a bit
easier, but I worry that what will result will be something that
tries to have a common rate of progression, and there, again,
one of the advantages that we and much of the Anglo-based countries
enjoy is we get people to the cliff-facing research much quicker
than many, if not most, of the continental European countries.
We get them to the cliff face, furthermore, with curricula that
are more oriented to recognising what the cliff face is, and much
of the already exponentiating bureaucracy from Bologna is oriented
to wanting to have common definitions of the curricula (the rates
of progress, the units of three and one and stuff), which is neither
necessary nor sufficient to create a common European education
and research area. The idea is great, and we want to be working
for it and we want to be working with the people in Brussels,
but, as we have succeeded so far—there is no guarantee of
eventual success—crossing with difficulty hurdle after hurdle,
we need to take the idea, as we have with the European Research
Council, and work with like-minded colleagues and turn it into
something that is really a good idea. The European Research Council
as originally proposed was not.
Q4 Chairman: Thank you for that,
Lord May. Professor Bone, does your view differ from Lord May's?
Professor Bone: No, I have got
a lot of sympathy with what Lord May has just said. We feel generally
in the sector that Bologna is, indeed, a good idea, for all the
reasons, I think, that Lord May has said: the mobility. In the
context of a globalised world, I think mobility both for staff
and students, has got to be a good thing. I think the modernisation
of the European educational system in general is a good thing
as well because it leads to increased transparency, and that,
I think, is good for the way in which the UK can compete on a
level playing field with Europe. I think the danger is that it
gets overtaken by bureaucracy. A bit like the ERC, I think actually
the Bologna Process has so far fought that off. One of the great
successes of the Bologna Process so far is that, by and large,
it can be said to have driven sector-led and, although there has
been consequent legislation in a number of countries, it is consequent
on decisions actually taken by the sector, but there is a continual
danger, as it were, that the bureaucratisation that we have just
been hearing about does actually take over. One of the ironies
is that Europe, I think, is learning that the UK system of autonomous
universities, which are very flexible, is actually the way to
go and the danger is that they then try and get there through
a bureaucratic system, which is exactly the opposite of what they
should in fact be doing. I think that is a constant danger we
have to look out for. Fundamentally, I think if we continue to
manage Bologna properly (and I think, again, that is one of the
things that the UK can help do by its presence in the process)
it will be good for UK higher education in the long-term and it
will help us be competitive globally. We have got to make sure
that it does not end up driving UK policy. While we are actually
aware of the context, as it were, we must not let the cart get
in front of the horse.
Q5 Chairman: Professor Bone, both
of you have talked about Europe and the European Union and the
link. As far as I am concerned there are not 45 members of the
European Union, but there are 45 countries that have signed up
to Bologna. That is more than the 42 nations that take part in
the Eurovision Song Contest. What is this 45? What is the logic
of 45?
Professor Bone: I do not think
there is any particular logic to the number 45. I think one of
the interesting things is the number of countries that actually
want to get involved in the Bologna Process, and it is not just
those 45.
Q6 Chairman: But the European Union
being more effective and efficient and better at research and
so on, why do we need these people outside the European Union?
Why are we helping them to be more effective and efficient? I
thought it was the European Union that centred this whole project.
Professor Bone: The European Union
certainly started the whole project, that is absolutely true,
but I do not think we should get hung up on a particular bureaucratic
thing of the EU. The point I was going to make is that everybody
around the world is very interested in the Bologna Process insofar
as it actually improves mobility and could be seen to improve
efficiency in higher education. We have had enormous interest
from China, enormous interest from other Asian countries, from
Australia, from the United States, there is terrific interest
in what Bologna could do for higher education, and the fact is
that we do actually work now in a global context.
Q7 Chairman: Is not that a mission
creep? It starts off with one thing, you look at the relationship,
and a lot of the literature says there is a link between the Bologna
Process and the Lisbon Strategy, which says it wants to deliver
stronger lasting growth and create more and better jobs in a European
Union, but it does not say anything about countries outside the
Union.
Professor Bone: There are certainly
dangers. One of the troubles, again, I think, about the enlargement
to 45 is that the rate of modernisation and the extent of modernisation
across the 45 is going to be very different indeed. There is no
question about that. There is a huge range inside that 45, and
that does not make life easy and it does lead to a temptation
to impose a kind of regularity which could be at the lowest common
denominator rather than at the highest common denominator; so
I certainly think there are dangers there. In terms of what you
call the mission creep, there, I suppose, you are absolutely right.
If, strictly speaking, one is looking at economic advantage for
the EU, you would have to look very carefully at what advantage
could be brought by widening to the 45.
Q8 Chairman: Thank you for that.
Jessica Olley, you have been involved in this for a very long
time; you are a real European expert. What is your view of where
we are? It seems to me, reading the literature to prepare for
this session, that there has been a tension all the time between
what we do in the UK and what happens in most of mainland Europe.
One of those is about the difference between time served, hours
served or put into a degree course of any kind, and outcomes.
Ms Olley: Absolutely.
Q9 Chairman: That seems to have been
balanced and handled in a diplomatic way, but are not the strains
going to come through at some time?
Ms Olley: First of all, thank
you for inviting me to give evidence. I think, absolutely, that
remains a key issue—the learning outcomes approach verses
the duration or time served approach—particularly in the
context of recognition of some of the UK's qualifications, UK
Master's degrees, integrated Master's degrees. I think we have
made some progress. We now have a qualifications framework that
has been adopted within the Bologna Process that is based on learning
outcomes with generic level descriptors and typical credit ranges
but very much focused on learning outcomes, and so we have made
progress in that sense, and that qualifications framework is a
key reference point in assuring the recognition of UK qualifications.
Q10 Chairman: How do we know that
in the London meeting this year these 44 other nations might not
gang up on us and say, "Look, you cannot any longer have
a one-year Master's degree", for example?
Ms Olley: They may well do, but
they would be in an extremely weak position given that in Bergen
in 2005 there was a consensus among all the ministers, among the
stakeholders involved in the process, the European University
Association, the National Unions of students in Europe and, equally,
the Quality Assurance Agencies across the 45 participating countries.
They all reached a consensus on a qualifications framework based
on this learning outcomes approach, so there is a deep consensus
on that framework.
Q11 Chairman: Has it made any difference
to us? We more or less do what we did from the very beginning
of the Bologna Process. It is the rest of the 45 that have changed?
Ms Olley: Has the process in general
made a difference to the UK?
Q12 Chairman: What difference has
it made? We seem to be going our own sweet way. We have a one-year
Master's, accelerated two-year honours degrees, foundation degrees.
We are doing our own sweet thing, which we hope to carry on doing,
yet the rest of Europe have now three-year first degrees, two-year
Master's and three-year PhDs, as I understand it. That is the
common pattern, is it not?
Ms Olley: Yes, absolutely. There
is the three cycle structure, a minimum of three years for the
first cycle, and that is all that is specified.
Q13 Chairman: So why does a distinguished
professor like Drummond Bone and his colleagues want to spend
time on this?
Ms Olley: Because, as most of
the speakers have suggested, the Bologna Process is crucial for
consolidating the UK higher education sector's competitiveness,
both in the European context but also in the international context.
Then, on top of that, you have got all the advantages in terms
of easier mobility for both staff and students.
Q14 Chairman: But Lord May just told
us that there has been high mobility before Bologna. He had no
problem with a good student who had research potential going to
anywhere in Europe and bringing someone good from Italy or Germany
to study in our universities. What we are trying to get at here
is: what is the difference, what is the advantage?
Ms Olley: There has been mobility
but there remain very difficult challenges in terms of recognition
of qualifications in terms of collaboration, in developing collaborative
programmes. There have been difficulties for UK institutions working
with institutions in other parts of Europe, and the Bologna Process
provides some of the answers to those issues in providing neutral
reference points at European level that make it easier to compare
UK qualifications, easier for UK institutions to trust one another
and work together.
Q15 Chairman: But the strongest point
made by Lord May is that we have actually increased by 20% out
of collaboration across Europe in terms of research activity.
I can see that, but in distinct areas Professor Drummond, where
we seem to be getting somewhere (and you can understand the flow
of this thing) when it actually comes to some really crucial areas
like transferability of degrees it does not happen, does it?
Professor Bone: I think there
is still a long way to go, that is clear, but I think we need
to distinguish between the benefits to students while they are
at university, which is one thing, and the potential benefits
to them when they leave. One of the key things that I think we
are fighting for is recognition for our students' qualifications
in Europe, and one of the key wins we have had is to persuade
the rest of Europe that in fact output measures are the sensible
way to go. It is to do with persuading employers to recognise
UK degrees as well. They have got terribly used to the same kind
of bureaucratic processes that their own native universities got
used to—if you do not have such and such you are rubbish—and
we have got to persuade European employers, in persuading the
universities, that our way is best because that is what is best
for UK students.
Q16 Chairman: Professor Bone, are
you saying that well qualified people with UK degrees at the moment
find a barrier to job opportunities in Europe because our degrees
are considered second-rate to others?
Professor Bone: It depends on
where you are. I expect that people from Oxford and Cambridge
would not find that barrier, but there is quite significant anecdotal
evidence, and it is something that we actually want to firm up
a little. We would like to do a little bit of work to see what
the real evidence is, but there is evidence that, in fact, UK
degrees are not being recognised easily by European employers,
that they ask questions about these degrees.
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I give you an amusing anecdote of this kind, it is a little beside
the point. When I first came here about 16 years ago I was for
a few years President of the British Ecological Society. It was
the oldest ecology society, and it was at the time decided it
might be good to have a certifying system like the engineering
people have. I did not think it was a good idea, but I thought
it was not my place to quarrel with it, and, obviously, if we
are going to do it, the President ought to be one. Then we discovered
I could not get a certificate as an ecologist, despite my distinction
in the field, if I may say, because there were EU rules about
this, and one of the rules was that you had to have done the subject
as an undergraduate. Of course I was a physicist. I fear that
is the sort of thing that mars the good intentions. We have talked
about differences in the temporal structure and the definition
of courses. There are huge differences among universities, not
least the average person coming into a British university, in
all their diversity (which is the strength), and we ought to be
encouraging it further. The research assessment exercise problem
is it cuts against that—it is one of the advantage the States
has—but one of the other factors is that in this country
the average person entering will emerge with a degree. We have
a low drop out rate; we select the students. In a large number,
including major countries like France, if you want to go to university,
you go to university, and you handle that by having completion
rates that are well below 50%. You are dealing with this complex
array of things, and if you start putting in place rules about
the number of units and the number of years structure, they do
not take into account the really important differences.
Q17 Chairman: Lord May, is that a
case against Bologna or for it?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I am for the idea of making it easy to recognise the differences
among places and, against that background, remove such barriers
as there are—and it is not obvious to me there are many—to
movement among them. Oxford has no trouble. I have had no trouble
in the department, whether we are talking under graduate or graduate
students. We have people who put time into making judgments—and
it is the only way you can do it—on the day they are available,
which is tricky sometimes to get the best people. The colleges
do a good job. I think Britain demonstrably does a good job at
that. They do not do it by box-ticking or by looking at the date.
Q18 Chairman: Professor Bone, when
you say that there is anecdotal evidence about this, is not one
of the worries when you read all the literature that you would
have thought that the whole Bologna Process would surely have
been about, as Jessica Olley talked about, mobility. Actually
there are declining numbers of British students going to mainland
Europe and studying. Would not one of the problems be something
that we have looked at in this Committee in past years, that actually
it is the lack of experience in Europe and the lack of languages
other than English that inhibits job opportunities across Europe
rather than the quality or structure of the degree that they have
taken?
Professor Bone: Again, I think
there is no question that language is a factor. It certainly is
a factor in the shortfall and it is nearly double, the mismatch
in input and output, and so I think language clearly is a problem,
and it probably is a problem too in terms of acceptability, but
there are suggestions from some of the learned societies as well
that their members find it difficult, for the same kind of absurd
reasons that Lord May has just suggested, in actually getting
jobs and posts in Europe. If I can answer the question you put
to Lord May, to me that is an argument for us being engaged in
Bologna because it is through Bologna that we can actually persuade
Europe to see what we see as commonsense.
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I am not arguing against that. I believe, just as in the ERC,
we have got to be engaged.
Chairman: Let us move on then. Thank
you very much for those introductory responses. Fiona.
Q19 Fiona Mactaggart: What you have
said to us actually chimes with the written evidence that we have
received, which I could sum-up as Bologna is a wonderful idea
in theory but in practice we are in a panic about X, Y or Z, is
what I read from the evidence. I think that is what you are saying,
that in theory it is excellent and it is the only way of doing
this thing that we want to do but in practice it is not necessarily.
Am I right in believing that that is the kind of view across the
higher education sector or is there something more positive or
more negative?
Professor Bone: I think we are
maybe more positive than you suggest. I certainly would not like
the word "panic" to be used.
|
