Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
MS JESSICA
OLLEY, PROFESSOR
DRUMMOND BONE
AND PROFESSOR
LORD MAY
OF OXFORD
10 JANUARY 2007
Q40 Stephen Williams: The written
evidence that has been presented to us suggests that with the
Erasmus programme at least the mobility of UK students going into
Europe has actually declined. Is Bologna actually failing in its
primary objective of increasing mobility of students and academics?
Professor Bone: It has certainly
not been successful yet, I think it would be fair to say. Some
of that is down to UK universities, some of it is down to a language
problem, as we have already said, some of it is perhaps down to
UK universities not being energetic enough in pursuing an international
strategy which in their head they think is a good idea but they
have not actually operationalised on the ground. I think too,
for all the reasons that we have heard earlier on, that there
is a fear—in some sense a justifiable fear—that if
you move from an efficient UK university you may well find yourself
in a highly inefficient continental university. So the modernisation
process that we have been talking about I think will have to run
for a few years before our students have got confidence to move.
I think we all know about what can happen with arrangements in
Italy which are not properly monitored. I think bilateral arrangements,
as we have already heard, are still the way to go. Bilateral arrangements
take a lot of energy; they take a lot of commitment; and there
is not that sort of general level of confidence yet in the Bologna
Process, which will take time.
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
Turning it round the other way, if I may, movement into Britain
from the rest of Europe, I see, from my own experience and my
own research group and from undergraduates I know, I think works
admirably well here. We do a good job, there are plenty of them
and they benefit and then they can go back and help spread it.
Q41 Stephen Williams: Is that because
the UK higher education sector has concentrated on getting international
students, whether they are from the EU or the rest of the world,
into this country with great success—the second largest
market after the US students—but what we have not concentrated
on so much is making sure that our students and academics spend
time abroad, whether it is Europe, or China, or Australia, wherever?
Is that a fair point to make?
Ms Olley: I think that would be
a fair comment. If I may add to what Professor Bone and Lord May
have said on the mobility programmes, I think there is an issue
about the structure of the existing mobility programmes and the
nature of students in the UK. It is not always appropriate for
UK students to take part in a year-long period of study abroad.
That is not always appropriate for a part-time student, for example,
who may have a family. There are some issues about the structure
of the programme and how appropriate they are for today's student
cohort.
Q42 Stephen Williams: So it is the
structure programme rather that the Bologna Process that is the
problem?
Ms Olley: I would not go that
far, but I think the structure of the programmes is part of the
picture.
Professor Bone: I would, through
you, Chairman, accept the criticism that perhaps UK institutions
have to try a bit harder in getting students overseas.
Q43 Stephen Williams: One last question
on this particular section directly to Lord May about research
and on Bologna. A lot of what we have talked about is about students,
undergraduate study. Should Bologna concentrate more on the third
cycle of research so that post-doctorate people transfer around
Europe or, indeed, to Japan, China and elsewhere?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I think at the research level it has been a happier story. I gave
you the earlier statistic. If you go back to framework, much of
the money for driving some of these initiatives comes out of the
framework programmes. During the five years when I was Chief Scientist
our position was to resist expenditure on framework, any form
of framework expenditure, unless it was something that was addressing
a need. So that things in development, rather than basic research,
like the Airbus or vaccines, where you have to need a European
scale to complete with the United States, we were enthusiastic
about and the things we were unambiguously enthusiastic about
were the human capital mobility programmes at the post-doctorate
level—the Marie Curie things. As I said to you, that has
been a remarkable success in bringing people together and there
really is a one Europe in that already, although, understandably,
it is not a homogeneous flow, it is a flow from students from
the less scientifically developed places to the more scientifically
developed places, and that is as it should be. There were conflicting
motives, in my opinion, in wanting to form the ERC and some of
them confusing it with another vital need, which is to use the
structural funds to build scientific capacity in the accession
countries and some of the scientifically less developed countries
in Europe, but that is a task for structural funds. It is even
more important than building roads. Some people had the original
conception of the ERC that it would be a substitute for structural
funds in helping build capacity. With the result of deliberate
and energetic engagement in that, deliberately co-operative with
others in countries in Europe who have shared that view, we have
succeeded in creating a European Research Council which I think
is going to be what it must be, based on peer review and excellence,
but it has not been easy. We have done several of the good first
steps, with 22 members, so it is not one for each country. We
have a wonderful chairman in Fodos Kafadis who has spent most
of his life in America. He is Greek and is now in retirement from
running the European Molecular Biology Organisation, EMBO, and
is at Imperial College. He is an immensely wise, patient and good
person who has steered this collection of 22 people, some of whom
from the more northern countries are people who have for many
years moved at the highest levels on these kinds of stages and
some from other countries who are good people who are still a
little bit concerned that money be in fair shares and so on. I
have hopes. It has crossed three or four tricky hurdles successfully
that I will not bore you with in creating something that looks
as if it is going to be really independent and is going to give
a post post-doc, ad personam to bright young people.
Q44 Chairman: Why have not European
universities got better at research? You just said that six of
the top European universities were in the UK. Why are they not
improving?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
They are all improving but so is everybody. This is a red queen
problem. You have to run fast to stay in the same place. It is
interesting. Someone just did a survey of Oxford and Cambridge
compared to Harvard on geometric indices across all fields and
showed that over the last decade they have significantly improved.
Of the other 10, there is none in France, one in Germany, Holland
and Sweden. They are northern places but in research I have an
up-beat view of these kinds of initiatives.
Chairman: I am sure we will get you back
when we look at the Research Assessment Exercise which we are
going to do shortly.
Q45 Jeff Ennis: We have mentioned
already the next ministerial conference that is going to be held
in London in May of this year. Can you outline the key points
of the UK HE sector position paper which has to be produced for
the conference? What will you be looking for?
Professor Bone: One of the key
things that we are interested in is to underline that question
of the ownership by the sector. We need to emphasise the fact
that we must not slip into a bureaucratic position. When we are
trying to envisage what happens after 2010, that is absolutely
key. There will be issues about the third level provision as well
and it is absolutely key that we get that right and keep that
flexible, which I am sure is what Lord May wants as well. That
is also crucial. Also, there are issues that we would like to
stress about looking at the external dimension. How do we relate
to the wider world outside of the EU and the 45? There is considerable
interest in the Bologna Process, but how do we do that? How do
we manage the kind of thing that Gordon Marsden was suggesting?
Ms Olley: That covers many of
the issues. Continued flexibility in the process is linked to
the importance of autonomy. We hope that the process will remain
principles based rather than rules based. Bologna can complement
Lisbon and support many of the reforms that the Commission is
recommending within that but we wish the two processes to remain
separate in their decision making. There is an important point
about credit and the European Credit Transfer System. We have
not touched on that. This is linked to the learning outcomes point.
The European Credit Transfer System that is currently in use across
many European countries is very much focused on workload, on hours
of study, and the UK has great reservations about that. The Commission
has indicated informally that it is going to review the ECTS in
2007 so we would like to press the Commission on that in London.
Q46 Chairman: Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland have signed up to it.
Ms Olley: They have credit systems
which are compatible with the ECTS. They have not adopted it wholesale.
Q47 Jeff Ennis: Many of the points
that the witnesses have referred to are already incorporated to
some extent in what is known as the 10 Bologna Process action
points. The original six were agreed at Bologna in 1999. Three
were added at the Prague ministerial summit in 2001 and the last
one to do with doctoral studies was added after the Berlin summit
in 2003. Do you anticipate any further action lines being added
to the 10 principles that have already been agreed or can the
10 that have already been agreed now encompass all the points
that we need to make?
Professor Bone: Our position in
principle is that we would like the process to settle down as
it is without adding extra action points.
Ms Olley: Absolutely. A time for
consolidation is going to be key.
Q48 Jeff Ennis: In some of the evidence
we have had the Royal Academy of Engineering believes that the
UK should press for the adoption of learning outcomes alone as
the ultimate long term basis for a European HE qualifications
framework. Is that too simplistic or should that definitely be
our grand objective?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I thought the document from the Royal Academy of Engineering—and
I declare an interest as both being an undergraduate engineer
and a Fellow of the Academy—was just excellent and I agreed
with it point by point.
Q49 Chairman: Can you do an honours
degree in two years, in your opinion?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I have lived my life in three countries for roughly equal times
in Australia, 20 years in the States and 16 years here. They are
superficially different and even in Australia the different states
are different. New South Wales is very like Scotland.
Q50 Chairman: The Committee has just
come back from a visit to Australia.
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
I was an undergraduate. I started as an engineer and I ended with
a science degree. It was a three plus one for an honours year
at which point, in those days because it was always better in
the old days—we can all agree that—I was well ahead
of most Americans who had graduated with a PhD with exam components.
By the time I was 23 I was a lecturer at Harvard. I just like
the fact that I got that quick start. It gave me time to do more
different things with my life. I do not think these questions
of whether you can do something are meaningful. It is a question
of who are the teachers, who are the students and how is the curriculum
organised and the trade-off between stuffing stuff in and getting
stuff out. Higher education is about learning how to learn. It
is not about stuffing things in a bottle.
Q51 Chairman: You would like the
flexibility to do a fast degree if it was appropriate?
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
Yes.
Q52 Chairman: In the London meeting
later this year you will stand up, Professor Bone, with your colleagues
against moves to—
Professor Bone: I guessed that
was coming.
Q53 Chairman: I have a vested interest.
I am governor of the London School of Economics. One of our great
incomes is from one year masters. Are we going to defend one year
masters? Are we going to defend the possibility of fast tracking
two years honours degrees? Are we going to defend the three year
case?
Professor Bone: We are going to
defend flexibility and learning outcomes as the absolutely key
and only sensible way to measure the efficacy of higher education.
It becomes much more difficult when you choose something which
has not been traditional. You have to be very sure that you can
defend the position. Defending two year honours degrees will require
a lot of proof, a lot of evidence, a lot of convincing other people
but if we have the proof and the evidence—
Q54 Mr Marsden: What about one year's
as well?
Professor Bone: One year masters
I do not see as a problem.
Q55 Chairman: You are with Lord May?
You are an outcomes man?
Professor Bone: I am.
Q56 Chairman: Are you, Ms Olley?
Ms Olley: Absolutely. I concur
with Professor Bone on how we present this at London. We need
to be very careful about how we play this in the European context.
I agree that talking about flexibility in delivery is key.
Q57 Mr Pelling: I am still not entirely
sure why the Government is involved in this process at all.
Professor Bone: In some ways,
the sector still feels itself to be in control. You are talking
about the ministerial context. Perhaps you should ask Government
that question rather than us. I think it is helpful for the Government
and the sector to work together but I think the sector should
remain pushing and pulling.
Professor Lord May of Oxford:
It had to be a minister who signed Bologna. It was Tessa Blackstone,
so there was no choice.
Q58 Mr Pelling: The HE sector itself
has said that its involvement is patchy at best. How do you think
the level of debate and consultation about Bologna can be encouraged?
Ms Olley: There has been an issue
about the Government's engagement with Bologna, particularly in
the past but, to be fair to our DfES colleagues, we are hosting
the next ministerial summit. We do currently hold the secretariat
of the process and, as acting manager of the Europe unit, I have
noticed an increase in the Government's engagement. We have much
greater contact now. There has definitely been a shift there.
Q59 Mr Pelling: the DfES have said
that as a UK Government it is their intention to make that event
that you are talking about as forward looking as possible and
set the whole competence in the context of the challenge of internationalisation
of higher education. Do you think you can make that competence
forward looking in that way? With so many different countries
involved, how successfully do you think it is possible for the
UK Government and the DfES to direct that discussion in that direction?
Ms Olley: I am optimistic. The
UK's voice is a strong one within the process. We are seen as
an example of good practice in many areas, mainly because we have
implemented many of the reforms already.
| 
