Examination of Witness (Questions 180-189)
BILL RAMMELL
MP
31 JANUARY 2007
Q180 Mr Chaytor: Can I explore a
little bit this debate between learning outcomes and time served
because you do not get a degree from the Sorbonne just by turning
up, do you? The time allocated is actually related to a body of
knowledge and the acquisition of skills. Is this not a bit of
a false dichotomy, setting in opposition the concept of learning
outcomes and the time involved in acquiring the degree?
Bill Rammell: I am not suggesting
that all you have to do is to turn up for lectures and seminars
and you automatically get a qualification at the end of it. However,
in establishing the Bologna Framework there was certainly a drive
to actually say that you could not have reached X level of competence
within a certain period of time, and the fact that we have ensured,
through the Bologna Framework, that we do have generic descriptors
of levels of outcome rather than time served I think is extremely
important. I also think it is extremely important to recognise
that the only time stipulation on the cycles is the minimum of
three years for a bachelor's qualification; there is no time specification
for either the master's or the doctoral cycle. I think sometimes
that gets confused within this debate in that there is a suggestion
that there is a stipulation for a two-year master's, and there
is not.
Q181 Mr Chaytor: In respect of the
concerns about the future of the one-year master's or the two-year
fast-track degrees or even the integral four-year master's that
we have, is it not absolutely in the interests of preserving that
aspect of our system that a credit transfer scheme is in place,
because that would enable the learning outcomes to be clearly
described to justify the continuation of the Bologna master's
or to justify the expansion of two-year fast-track degrees? Is
it not in the interests of Government policy that we get a credit
transfer system in place in English universities as quickly as
possible?
Bill Rammell: For all sorts of
reasons, I think it is in our interests that we do get a credit
transfer system in place—it has long been my view and it
has been the view of this Government—but, because we are
not centrally driving this, we have to persuade people. I know
there are significant debates about this, but I have not seen
evidence that actually Bologna will seriously harm, or harm at
all, the one-year master's or the integrated master's programmes.
As long as the quality is of the right standard I think we will
continue to flourish. I made the point earlier, the fact that
we have 18,000 European Union students undertaking one-year master's
programme, 60,000 non-EU students, students are voting with their
feet. There is a perception of quality in this country that we
need to ensure that nothing within the ECTS or elsewhere actually
undermines.
Q182 Mr Chaytor: Finally, what would
you hope to come out of the review of the ECTS, which starts this
year?
Bill Rammell: I think if you look
at it, at the moment they face in two directions in terms of time
served and learning outcomes. I think it needs to be much clearer
it is about learning outcomes. I hope that they will make clear
(and we will push for this very strongly) that they should not
specify, because they cannot specify, that you have to have a
credit transfer system, even though, as I have made clear, I think
it is desirable, and I certainly want them to deal with this issue
of the maximum number of credits being 75 for a one-year master's
programme. I do not think that is justifiable, and we need to
ensure that we rectify that.
Q183 Chairman: What about foundation
degrees? Is that going to be acceptable to our colleagues in Europe?
Bill Rammell: Yes, we spent a
lot of time at the Bergen Conference discussing this, not foundation
degrees explicitly but intermediate two-year higher education
qualifications, and it was probably the most detailed debate that
took place and there was a lot of toing and froing, but if you
look at the Bergen Communiqué it explicitly refers and
endorses the concept of the two-year intermediate higher education
qualification, which I think is a demonstration that we can do
within these arguments.
Q184 Chairman: Was Universities UK
at Bergen with you?
Bill Rammell: Yes.
Q185 Chairman: Is it not surprising
that you did not at that time discuss with them that you were
going to allow FE colleges to authenticate their own degrees,
the two-year degree? Universities UK say you never mentioned it
to them before it was announced.
Bill Rammell: I have been discussing
this issue up and down the country for a long time, both with
universities and further education institutions. There is a piece
of legislation going through the House at the moment that, in
my view, is very properly about ensuring that, given the skills
challenge we face, the system as a whole is as responsive and
as flexible as possible. Nothing we are doing, however, will undermine
the quality of higher education. We have published the framework
for this, which will be equally robust and will involve the QAA.
We have set out very clearly that we are listening to concerns
about whether institutions should be able to award on to others,
particularly overseas. We are receptive to arguments about a probationary
period.
Q186 Chairman: So Universities UK
would be misleading the Committee if they said that you never
consulted them?
Bill Rammell: Once we published
the Bill we have gone through a formal process of consultation.
Q187 Chairman: After you published
the Bill.
Bill Rammell: Yes, and informally.
Chair, this issue, as you will know, has been around for some
significant time and I certainly had discussions with both universities
and further education colleges about it. But on the principle
of is this a sensible change to make, I think emphatically it
is, as long as the quality threshold is justifiably high, and
it is and it will be.
Q188 Chairman: What about diplomas?
What are the universities saying about the acceptance of the new
diplomas?
Bill Rammell: I know that you
are going to discuss with Jim—
Q189 Chairman: But you are the university
man.
Bill Rammell: Absolutely, and
let me make clear I think we need to ensure that all universities
are engaged with the development of the diplomas—and by
all universities I mean all sectors—and one of the decisions
that we took recently was to appoint one of the Russell Group
Vice-Chancellors, Michael Arthur, from Leeds, as a champion for
this process because unless every university institution, including
those at the research intensive end of the spectrum, actually
embrace and, in a sense, own the diplomas, ultimately they will
not succeed.
Chairman: Minister, thank you very much.
You have had a full hour so you will not go away saying you did
not have enough time. It has been a good session and we have learnt
a lot. Thank you.
| 
