House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Written Evidence

Memorandum submitted by the Engineering Professors' Council (EPC)

THE ROLE OF UNIVERSITIES OVER THE 5-10 YEARS

What do students want from Universities?

(1) Engineering is a profession that is increasingly being practised in a global context. Students therefore want degrees that are internationally recognised and provide the skills and knowledge necessary to enable them to compete in a very competitive international labour market. EPC welcomes the companion Inquiry by the Education and Skills Committee into the issues raised by the Bologna process and hopes that the Committee will act to minimise the possibility of UK degrees being perceived as in anyway not inferior to their international competitors.

(2) Engineering is also a rapidly developing profession involving solving contemporary problems, conceiving and making new products and artifacts that depend for their efficacy on advanced science. Students need exposure to the latest thinking as part of their taught programmes and this of necessity requires a continuing link between research and teaching in a modern university. They also need access to state of the art equipment, software and laboratories. These cannot be provided through the research activity alone and must therefore be independently and properly funded by HEFCE. EPC believes that historical approaches to the costing of engineering teaching, based, for example, on TRAC methodology, have been fundamentally flawed and have thus produced misleading answers. The EPC welcomes the recent announcement by HEFCE of enhanced funding for most science and some other departments but cannot understand why the majority of engineering departments have been excluded from similar considerations. It also regrets that this funding appears to have been allocated for a limited time only. There is an inherent difference in the costs of teaching engineering when compared with arts and social sciences and there is no reason to believe that this difference will diminish with time.

(3) Students want certainty that the technical content of the degree programmes on offer is relevant to their career aspirations and that the content is being delivered well by staff who are themselves competent engineers. This requires an appropriate and attractive pay and career structure for academics. Students require trust in the assessment system to provide a fair reflection of their ability and the work that they put into their studies. UK HE Engineering Departments are fortunate in having EC (UK) provide an infrastructure in which professional bodies can provide accreditation to ensure these characteristics.

(4) Students want an environment in which they can mature, both intellectually and in other ways. Universities should nurture an experience which is broad, intellectual in intent and challenging in content. Quality assurance procedures which intensify assessment and promote a culture of "box ticking" do not necessarily help to achieve this.

(5) International students have essentially the same requirements as UK students, particularly in respect of international comparability. That said, the major component of the costs of overseas student study in the UK is living expenses and so international students particularly wish for degrees of the shortest possible duration.

What do employers want from Graduates?

(6) Employers will generally argue that they want to recruit high quality staff, capable of working on their own initiative on practical engineering problems as soon as possible. In EPC's experience, the major negative weakness displayed by UK graduates is a lack of experience in using state of the art equipment. This results from the inadequate funding accorded to Engineering Departments over the last two decades. Industry also encourages Universities to promote more opportunities for Students to develop "life skills" and most departments have responded by providing opportunities for developing group working, report writing and presentation skills as part of their teaching and learning activities.

(7) Other skills employers suggest are missing include creativity in design and entrepreneurial skills. EPC believes that the joy of engineering design is very poorly communicated to potential entrants to the profession and is interested in ways to correct this. EPC members are heavily committed to the teaching of design and to encouraging creativity as part of the growing number of design courses. Entrepreneurial skills are more difficult to teach and require a practical experiential approach. Professional body accreditation demands that students be given an appreciation of the industrial context of their work, but converting that into practical business skills is a specialist activity best taken forward in conjunction with an organisation which is itself business active.

(8) Industrialists have, in the past, expressed a desire to understand what it is that a graduate has learned at University. This request was the basis for the early work of the EPC in preparing a common framework for learning outcomes from an engineering degree. This work was later developed by the Engineering Council EC (UK), most professional bodies and within the Bologna discussions and, in its modified form, has now achieved international acceptance. EPC's work in this area continues with further consideration now being given to assessment of learning outcomes.

(9) Learning outcomes are particularly important in the context of international comparability and Bologna. A recent study by the Royal Academy of Engineering[71] has shown that globally active engineering employers are satisfied with the quality of UK graduates and do not prefer the graduates from more overtly compliant European degree programmes.

What should government and Society more broadly want from HE?

(10) It is suggested that there should not be a significant difference between the requirements of Government and those of Society. The consultation paper directs attention towards a number of answers to this very broad question. EPC would agree that all of these are desirable and pass no further comment upon them at this stage.

(11) A factor missing from much policy thinking in this regard is the concept of the HE sector providing the Nation's intellectual capital reserves. This capital is drawn upon in a myriad of different ways that historically were often referred to as "scholarship". They included, by way of selected examples, the maintenance of standards for intellectual rigour and independence, the provision of expert witnessing services, consultancy and advice for industry, contributions to government activities including direct advice to Government Departments, service in various committees or non-Governmental organisations and response to Inquiries such as this. These aspects of academic life remain important to the smooth operation of the Nation's business but are not overtly valued, or often even recognised, by the Policy framework.

UNIVERSITY FUNDING

1. Is the current funding system fit for purpose? Is the purpose clear?

We are concerned about the current funding model for engineering teaching—historic underfunding of research has been recognised via JIF, SRIF and now fEC, but teaching infrastructure has been equally neglected and there has been no equivalent funding stream. EPC is commissioning research on teaching costs and we would like to present these to the committee when the data are available.

If the Government believes that it is in the national interest to support strategically important subjects such as engineering, then it is imperative that they do not wait until there is a desperate shortage of graduates and/or departments are in danger of failing or closing.

2. What are the principles on which university funding should be based?

University funding for undergraduate teaching should be based on the Robbins principle that all who are capable of benefiting should have the opportunity of higher education. This is appropriate both for the development of the individual and the economic needs of the country. When the principle was first proposed, it is probable that the number who could benefit exceeded the requirements of the economy; as the requirements for a highly skilled workforce have increased, this is no longer the case so it is important to fund the maximum number who can benefit from higher education. National economic needs dictate that encouragement is required for students to enter science and engineering courses. This means that these courses must be resourced appropriately (see #1) so that they can be made attractive; bursaries, fee reductions etc are also required.

Postgraduate education and research in universities is a vital part of the economy and full economic costing (fEC) is a significant step in the direction of ensuring that it is properly funded. Though it must be said that industry is not embracing fEC with any enthusiasm. The nation needs top quality research so it is more important to ensure that this is fully funded than to attempt to spread research funds thinly across the sector with the result that funding is inadequate everywhere. The RAE has the potential to provide a mechanism for achieving this goal, but it is questionable whether the current system (or its proposed replacement) will achieve the desired selectivity.

3. Should the £3,000 cap on student fees be lifted after 2009 and what might be the consequences for universities and for students including part-time students?

Either the costs identified in #1 should be fully funded by government or the cap on fees should be lifted to allow universities to meet their costs, otherwise the quality of education will decline. If the cap is removed it is essential that a bursary system is introduced so that entry to more expensive courses is based on ability to benefit from the course rather than ability to pay.

4. What should the Government be funding in HE and by what means?

The Government should be funding undergraduate and postgraduate teaching and research. The ideal is for all funding to come centrally from HEFC and the research councils but if this is politically unrealistic it is better for students to make a contribution to costs via fees than for the sector to be underfunded, resulting in declining standards.

5. Should central funding be used as a lever to achieve Government policy aims? Is the balance between core or block funding and policy directed funding correct at present?

As the main paymaster it is appropriate for the government to use central funding to achieve policy aims; one example is the need to attract students into shortage subjects as discussed in #2. However, it is very important that universities have predictable funding to allow long term planning so the rate of change of funding must be limited.

6. Should research funding be based on selection of "quality"? How should "quality" be defined and assessed? How might this drive behaviour across the sector?

If the UK is to remain internationally competitive, then we must ensure that we fund research of the highest quality at a level to ensure sustainability. However, the assessment of quality needs to be based on true international benchmarks; the process of "peer review" in a climate of intense competition has tended to become "competitor review".

The problem with metrics-based assessment of quality is that it may tend to create perverse incentives and drive behaviour towards meeting the best performance indicators instead of a true reflection of internationally-competitive quality. Also, there is a danger that metrics-based assessment may lead to "salami slicing" if activities were funded in proportion to the measured performance. (see also #2 above). EPC has consistently opposed a purely metrics based system preferring to measure actual output standards.

7. How can leading research universities reach internationally competitive levels of funding? Should limited central Government funding be directed elsewhere?

To reach internationally competitive levels of funding, there is a need for a change of culture in the UK. As mentioned above, the internally competitive climate needs to be replaced by a strategic one. With limited central-government funding in a given subject area, it should not be divided between several activities, none of which will be internationally competitive.

Research in UK universities depends on central-government funding and this funding needs to be applied more strategically. All the evidence seems to show that, in the UK, industry is not the route to fund research.

8. How well do universities manage their finances, and what improvements, if any, need to be made?

Universities, when allowed to, manage their finances well. However, there have been too many funding council "initiatives" in recent years which have made universities operate in accordance with government whims and fashions in order to gain an element of their funding. Also, too large a proportion of the funding is tied to bids for student numbers—that and the inequities of the banding systems (laboratory-based subjects are significantly disadvantaged) has affected the ability of some institutions to manage their budgets.

9. Are some parts of the sector too reliant on income from overseas students?

Partly because of #8 above, some parts of the sector have been dependent on overseas students to maintain a critical mass. The economics of science and engineering requires a minimum level of funding to support the basic infrastructure and laboratory facilities. The UK funding model does not easily allow for that and therefore many institutions have had to rely on international students to maintain numbers above a minimum size for survival. Also, much of the postgraduate research activity depends on students from overseas.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE HE SECTOR

Is the current structure of the HE sector appropriate and sustainable for the future?

The student staff ratio in engineering subjects within universities is creating considerable problems particularly for extended laboratory exercises. The fact that the infrastructure has been sustained from research (QR) funding has lead to considerable deterioration although this is being helpfully addressed through SRIF funding.

The structure of universities has changed with the increasing emphasis on market led businesses. This is entirely appropriate to ensure that universities are financially viable. However, if universities are to lead in producing the higher level skills for the UK economy then there has to be some intervention/direction. For example, it is financially more effective to recruit undergraduates on courses that attract a lower band since more students can be recruited thus increasing the income to the university. This implies that vocational programmes could suffer yet it is those programmes that are producing the higher level skills needed by the UK economy. This is evident from the Leitch report.

Therefore if universities must be financially sustainable they must be part of a sustainable community. The current semi autonomous structure mitigates against that.

How well do structures and funding arrangements fit with "diversity of mission?"

The encouragement of students from disadvantaged backgrounds has to be applauded. However there is a requirement for additional support for these students which have not been matched by appropriate funding. The quality of students is more important than a 50% participation rate.

Extending diversity of mission to cover teaching, research and outreach implies that universities are knowledge generators and disseminators. The link between generation and dissemination is a key to success. Therefore a balance between these three activities must be maintained. Intervention policies and market led principles can threaten that important diverse approach unless a holistic sustainable approach is taken.

Is the current structure and funding affecting growth of HE in FE and part-time study?

Care should be exercised not to dilute the value of qualifications by decoupling FE and part-time study from mainstream university accredited courses. If degrees were to be awarded by FE colleges only, it is likely that they would be regarded as inferior to full time university degrees.

A key component of a student education is the social interaction with people from different cultures, backgrounds and experience. This creates an exciting, innovative and dynamic culture that enhances students" learning. Thus part time student opportunity is important to develop life long learning and allow students to finance their studies but the success of full time learning should not be threatened.

How important are HE in FE and flexible learning to the future of HE? Would this part of the sector grow faster under different structure and funding arrangements?

The shape of HE is intrinsically interwoven with the funding regimes. For example if the UK degrees are to become Bologna compliant, further government funding is essential in order to meet the shortfall that will arise due to either extended courses or the further inclusion of students in summer vacation teaching.

Interaction between FE and HE varies across the UK. Ideally there should be a structured approach through building bridges allowing an integrated approach to education from schools though FE to HE and beyond.

Can, and should, the Government be attempting to shape the structure of the sector? Is the Government's role one of planning, steering or allowing the market to operate?

For engineering courses link with industry is essential. The Government needs to do more than talk about this issue. Encouragement is not enough. Work based learning is being proposed as an answer to a variety of problems. However unless appropriate funding is given for both industrial placements and appropriate assessment of qualifications then this form of further learning will not be appropriate.

The evidence is that allowing the market to operate is leading to closure of science and engineering departments. Yet the country according to the Government needs these higher level technical skills if it is going to be one of the leading economies. This implies that the Government should be planning and steering but in consultation with industry and the universities.

Is there a clear intention behind the balance of post-graduate and under-graduate international students being sought? Is this an area where the market should be managed? Can it be managed?

At the moment international students are subsidising home students. This is simply unsustainable. While the Government under the Prime Minister's initiative wants to see a vast influx of overseas students it should be pointed out very clearly that simply bringing in overseas students is not going to be enough to maintain a viable university sector. It is simply not the right way forward for home students to be subsidised by an influx of overseas students.

This is an area that cannot be managed. There is increasing competition from overseas universities offering courses in English and providing fees. Overseas students will be attract to the UK if the courses we provide are world leading. This implies a different approach from the current one, which is based on income generation.

THE BOLOGNA PROCESS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Engineering Professors' Council (EPC) welcomes this inquiry by the Select Committee.

2. The Bologna Process and its implications for UK higher education are of great importance, and have so far received very little attention in the UK.

3. The EPC overall position on the Bologna Process is that UK engineers work in a global market and therefore have to have an education that is internationally recognised and be Bologna compliant.

4. Within the UK higher education engineering community the overriding issue is whether or not the MEng degree will be universally accepted as Bologna compliant. This is intimately connected to the precise definition of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS).

5. The EPC hopes that the Committee's inquiry will illuminate the issues involved, clarify the policy decisions which need to be taken, and add a spur to the progress which is urgently required.

Introduction

6. The Engineering Professors' Council (EPC) welcomes this inquiry by the Select Committee. The Bologna Process and its implications for UK higher education are of great importance, and have so far received very little attention in the UK. The EPC hopes that the Committee's inquiry will illuminate the issues and clarify the policy decisions which need to be taken.

7. The Engineering Professors' Council is a professional association for senior academics involved in the higher education of engineering graduates in the UK. The EPC is a subscription organisation, and currently virtually all departments of engineering in UK HEI's are members. The EPC is organised on sectoral lines, and this ensures that the views expressed by EPC are representative of the whole of HE in the UK in engineering. The EPC's mission is to promote excellence in the higher education of graduate engineers. Importantly members of the EPC are engaged in the delivery of the educational base for chartered engineers through programmes accredited by the professional institutions .

8. The EPC became involved in the Bologna Process 5 years ago when it was obvious from our contacts in Europe that many Universities in various Nation States were beginning wide ranging reforms in response to the Bologna Process. Over this time period EPC has been in constant contact with the UUK Europe Unit, the Engineering Council, the ETB, the European Universities Association (EUA), and the various Engineering Institutions representing the sectors of the profession of engineering in the UK.

9. The EPC recently organised a Policy Forum as part of which the issues raised by the Education and Skills Committee were discussed by the delegates. The EPC overall position on the Bologna Process is that UK engineers work in a global market and therefore have to have an education that is internationally recognised and be Bologna compliant. Also engineering programmes in the UK universities will not be attractive to overseas students unless they are Bologna compliant.

10. Within the UK HE engineering community the overriding issue is whether or not the MEng degree will be universally accepted as Bologna compliant. This is intimately connected to the precise definition of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS).

The specific issues raised by the committee are addressed below:

Implications of the Bologna Process for the UK Higher Education sector: advantages and disadvantages

11. The background to the Bologna Process is that there was considerable concern in the 1990s at governmental level in the EU that Italy, Germany, France and many New Accession States have economically unsustainable, grossly inefficient higher education systems. Also, that the European higher education system was not making a sufficient contribution to the wealth creation process in the EU, and that the EU higher education system was hidebound and resistant to change.

12. Bologna started as an academic process, but this has now been largely subsumed into "In the lead by 2010", which follows from the Lisbon[72] and Barcelona[73] Declarations "to increase the average research investment level from 1.9% of GDP today to 3% of GDP by 2010". This linkage cannot be over emphasised. The EU's motivation is economic competitiveness, not pedagogy. Politically, within the EU there are the "twin pillars" of:

13. The broad thrust of the Bologna Process to create a transparent European higher education system is to be welcomed. It is now accepted as the template by 45 nation states, and is being "observed" by China, Latin America, Australia and Asian countries. The whole issue of the Bologna Process is under active discussion in the US, which is also concerned about the future shape of its HE system. Therefore, Bologna is fast becoming a world wide standard and as such is of immense future importance for the international credibility of UK higher education qualifications, and hence the mobility of UK graduates.

14. The Bologna Process consists of a first cycle "mobility" degree of 180 credits of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS), a second cycle degree of 90-120 ECTS with an absolute minimum of 60 ECTS, and a third cycle of as yet unspecified content. If 60 ECTS credits correspond to a typical undergraduate year of 30 weeks then within the above definitions referring to the Bologna Process as a "3+2+3" system is misleading. This is only correct if the second cycle is interpreted as an undergraduate year of 30 weeks duration; more will be said on this later.

15. The Bologna Process does not pose any difficulties for the vast majority of UK undergraduate degrees linked with postgraduate research degrees of two year's duration. The difficulties arise in "Integrated Masters degrees" awarded in science and engineering, which are of four years duration, and so do not fit readily into the Bologna framework. Similar difficulties are also evident in Medicine and Architecture.

16. The Integrated MEng degree is of four undergraduate years duration ie 4 x 30 weeks study, which corresponds to 240 ECTS, and is the absolute minimum for a Bologna involving the first two cycles. Therein lies the major stumbling block, because many in Europe and Asia consider this to be "lightweight" or "minimalist", which is not a position UK HEI's wish to be in as it has global overtones in terms of the perceived quality of UK engineering degrees. This has knock-on effects in terms of the outward mobility of our engineering graduates, and the inward mobility of overseas students wishing to study in the UK.

17. Additional difficulties are involved in the progression route through Bologna, in that entry to the first cycle is on national qualifications and so does not pose any problems. Entry to the second cycle is dependent on completion of a Bologna first cycle degree (again not a problem), but entry to the third cycle is dependent on completion of a Bologna second cycle degree. If the MEng is not recognised as Bologna compliant those graduates will face difficulties obtaining direct entry to overseas PhD programmes; there is anecdotal evidence that this is already happening.

18. Within engineering the position is further complicated by professional accreditation. In the UK the profession of engineering is regulated by the Engineering Council which prescribes the qualifications necessary to become a Chartered or Incorporated Engineer (CEng or IEng) in a document called UK-SPEC.[76] UK-SPEC is Bologna compliant in that it specifies the exemplars for progression to a CEng as an approved Masters degree or an Integrated MEng. Therefore an MEng degree is satisfactory for progression to an CEng, but may not be considered a fully Bologna compliant second cycle degree for further study overseas.

19. The professional mobility of UK engineering graduates is currently safeguarded by a series of international agreements such as the Washington Accord[77] and the Sydney Accord,[78] and so any changes to the status quo could well give difficulties in that area. Any admission of inequality of MEng degrees could have serious repercussions for international accreditation agreements. It could also have knock-on effects in FEANI (European Federation of National Engineering Associations).[79]

20. The implementation of the Bologna Process is being monitored by the "Trends group" of the EUA. The BERGEN Trends IV "stocktaking" exercise concluded that: "some fields of study remain outside the two-cycle system in a number of countries: in particular, medicine and related fields, engineering, architecture and law ... while the model of a four-year "Integrated Masters" also exists in the UK. It is difficult to see how this model in its present form could be integrated as a second cycle qualification to the overarching European higher education qualifications framework".

21. The UK was also dealt a further blow when CESAER[80] and SEFI[81] concluded that: "The 3+2 model has become a standard reference in engineering. This should not exclude other possible paths towards the second-level degree, such as an integrated 5-year curriculum or a 4+2 or a 4+1 model".

22. In addition to the difficulties with the MEng most taught MSc courses in the UK are of one year duration, BUT this one year encompasses typically 45 weeks of study, which depending on the definition of one ECTS could be 75 or 90 ECTSs. Many Universities are interpreting this period as 75 ECTSs according to the ECTS User Guide. This confusion is currently causing major problems for planning in the HE sector and needs to be dealt with as a matter of considerable urgency (see Agenda for the 2007 Meeting below). Therefore a UK "one year" Masters Degree is may be Bologna compliant on an ECTS basis, but is again seen as lightweight on a time served basis. It is therefore essential that Bologna is referred to in terms of ECTS linked to Learning Outcomes (LO's) and NOT time served.

23. As we appear to be in some difficulties with regard to the issue of whether the integrated Master degrees, MEng etc. are Bologna compliant or not, a "defence document" was produced by Universities UK, in collaboration with the Engineering Council UK (ECUK), and the EPC. The MEng at present is clearly not a 3+2 Bologna compliant degree because it is a first degree. A partial solution would be to award both a BEng followed by an MEng degree, which would then give a two cycle degree route and go some way to obviating the difficulties with Bologna.

24. A further strategy being explored in some higher education institutions in the UK is that of enhancing the MEng by adding in extra credits. For example, an extra 30 credits in the shape of a credit-bearing industrial placement. This gives 90 credits and so is Bologna compliant.

25. Therefore overall the EPC position on the Bologna Process is that UK engineering graduates should be globally mobile, and UK degrees in engineering should be internationally recognised and be Bologna compliant. There is concern that the MEng is not an international brand, and if this requires additional study, described in terms of ECTS, for full Bologna compliance the EPC position is that these changes should be implemented with the appropriate additional resources to enable that change to be effected by 2010.

The agenda for discussion at the 2007 meeting in London—clarifying the UK position

26. A recent EU Directive, Delivering on the Modernisation Agenda for Universities: Education, research and innovation, lists the following changes required in order to better align educational outcomes with the needs of the "Knowledge Society":[82]

— A major effort should be made to achieve the core Bologna reforms by 2010.

— An EU Directive on the recognition of professional qualifications has made it simpler and quicker to have qualifications for professional practice recognised across national borders.

27. From the issues raised in the preceding paragraphs EPC considers that the agenda for the 2007 meeting should concentrate on:

— Clarifying the ECTS as a measure of academic activity:

a. Is 60 ECTS equivalent to an undergraduate year of 30 weeks study?

b. Is a postgraduate year of 45 weeks duration equivalent to 75 or 90 ECTS?

— Clarifying the status of the professional Masters Degrees (the MEng, MPhys and MChem), so that the way forward is clear and planning can commence.

— Enhance the move towards the universal adoption of learning outcomes, which would assist employers and universities to understand the standards graduates achieve, time served does not.

— Ensuring that the European quality assurance system does not result in an overarching European body resulting in excessive bureaucracy and over regulation

Answers to these questions need addressing with the utmost urgency because planning and development in the UK towards Bologna is at present severely impeded (2010 is very close in academic planning terms), and most HE Institutions are adopting a "wait and see" approach.

The implications of a three-phase structure of higher education awards for to one-year Masters and short undergraduate courses (HNCs, HNDs, and Foundation Degrees)

28. Within the UK the HNCs, HNDs and Foundation Degrees are an absolutely essential part of the educational base and the widening participation agenda both as qualifications in their own right, and also as entry qualifications to Bologna recognised degree programmes. As entry to Bologna compliant degrees is based on national qualifications, it is not considered that these qualifications pose any problems in the context of Bologna as they can be included in the entry routes to 1st cycle degree provided they are given the appropriate ECTS credit rating.

Awareness and engagement in the Bologna Process within HEIs

29. As will be clear from the above there are a number of difficulties for the UK HE engineering sector in implementing Bologna. The Europe Unit of UUK[83] has been working tirelessly to find a way forward for the UK in this morass, and ECUK has also been constantly engaged behind the scenes. However, few Vice Chancellor's have as yet become involved.

30. The UK now holds the chair of the Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG)[84] for the next period, so increased efforts by Vice-Chancellors, UUK and the DfES is needed in order to achieve some meaningful progress over the next period, and so that the UK higher education sector can plan appropriately.

31. From a survey of EPC members it is apparent that there is a general awareness of Bologna in UK HE institutions, but the level of awareness varies from just a general awareness to some universities who are actually moving forward in implementing Bologna. However, the vast majority are doing nothing and simply waiting to receive a firm steer.

Opportunities to enhance the mobility of students from the UK

32. For graduates in general Bologna should present an unparalleled opportunity for increased mobility, both outward from and inward to the UK, because notionally all the systems with be homogeneous. For engineering, many UK engineers already work overseas, and there is an increasing trend for this to occur. Therefore, it is essential that UK degrees in engineering should be internationally recognised ie Bologna compliant.

33. Currently many overseas students do not consider the relevance of the MEng because their country does not recognise the qualification. Therefore, enhancing the MEng degree to be Bologna compliant should also increase the number of overseas students seeking that qualification.

The possible implementation of a European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and a focus on learning outcomes and competencies

34. Currently one of the biggest problems in actually implementing Bologna within the UK is that the exact value of an ECTS is as yet not specified. As was said earlier if it is interpreted such that one undergraduate year of 30 weeks corresponds to 60 ECTS, then a postgraduate year of 46 weeks could correspond to 90 ECTS, and "one year" MSc's then become Bologna compliant. This definition would therefore satisfy the vast majority of UK HE qualifications. However, the ECTS User Guide[85] states that a one year course only corresponds to 75 ECTS—this requires urgent clarification.

35. To enhance an MEng to be Bologna compliant requires a further 30 ECTS, which can be provided by increasing the duration of MEng projects or by Work Based Learning (WBL). Work Based Learning will become a much greater component of UK higher education in future, particularly if the Leitch[86] and Langland[87] proposals are implemented.

36. The Engineering Professors' Council commenced work on Learning Outcomes (LO's) in 1997 and produced five seminal reports between 2000 and 2002[88]. Since that time we have consistently championed and further developed this approach, which has culminated in the QAA Output Standards, and the specification of Learning Outcomes in UK-SPEC. This system is now in universal use within UK higher education, and forms the basis of the accreditation of UK engineering degrees by the Engineering Council.

37. The Bologna signatories are now moving progressively to a learning outcomes approach, which when linked to levels through the Dublin Descriptors[89] (levels of attainment after the first, second and third cycles), forms a complete system for the definition of outputs. This will again be a major rationalisation of the methods of defining outputs from degree systems on an international basis.

38. The EPC considers that a learning outcomes approach to the specification of competences is vital in assessing outputs from learning programmes in general, and the specification of engineering competences in particular. Furthermore, the definition of a Bologna compliant degree programme should be couched in terms of first or second cycle based on appropriately defined ECTSs, and the output specified in terms of learning outcomes and competences and not on the basis of time served.

Quality Assurance systems in HE (teaching and research): the compatibility of UK proposals and Bologna

39. At the Bologna Process ministerial summit in Bergen in 2005, Ministers adopted a report setting out European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA. The Standards and Guidelines were produced by the European Association for Quality Assurance (ENQA) in cooperation with the European University Association (EUA), the European Association for Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) and the National Union of Students in Europe (ESIB)—the so-called "E4 Group"[90].

40. EPC welcomes the approach adopted by the E4 Group that it would be inappropriate to develop detailed procedures for quality assurance at European level as originally requested by Ministers in Berlin in 2003. The Standards and Guidelines therefore leave signatory countries to determine their own quality assurance arrangements.

41. EPC believes that the European Standards and Guidelines are, on the whole, compatible with UK quality assurance arrangements and have the potential to support the development of a quality culture and mutual trust in European HE. The QAA is working to incorporate them into the UK's existing institutional review processes.

42. EPC hopes that the Standards and Guidelines will not create an additional layer of evaluation or bureaucratic burden for UK HEI's. Also if the European Register for quality assurance agencies is implemented it will be vital that it does not become another regulatory tool or ranking instrument.

Degree classification reform in light of Bologna

43. Delegates at the recent EPC Policy Forum in London were virtually unanimous in supporting the view of the Burgess Group[91] that the present system of honours classification used in the UK is no longer fit for purpose, and needs reform.

44. In keeping with its view of the importance of international transparency, EPC considers that the nature of reform should consider the possible benefits of a degree award that is understood internationally—for example a Grade Point Average (GPA) system. Such an approach is used by some UK universities and most of the rest of the world. It is internationally recognised and understood, it has a transcript, and gives an overall summative single number that can be used as a guide to the quality of the degree.

45. Reforming our degree classification system to support the Bologna Process, is seen as a major complementary advance which could further the international recognition of UK degrees, and enhance the attractiveness of UK higher education in the overseas student market.

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 Ministers Initiative for International Education (PMI 2)).

46. With the whole of European higher education becoming homogenised through the Bologna Process, and possibly the world, then the perceived benefits of a UK higher education qualification is likely to be eroded, as many systems will converge towards the UK system ( for example there is an increasing number of universities in Europe offering second cycle degrees taught in English). Overseas students will then be faced with many more HEI's offering degrees which are indistinguishable from ours, and so the competition faced by the UK will become very much greater.

47. With international competition becoming fiercer, and based on largely undifferentiated products in terms of the higher educational process, then the emphasis will be on the perceived quality of the degree offerings. The Trendence survey[92] (a survey of students in Bologna signatory countries) has shown that over 50% of students in those countries are intending to move directly from the first to the second cycle Bologna degrees. One of the primary influences on the choice of country in which to study is the perceived quality of the degrees on offer. Therefore, the perceived quality of UK degrees is of paramount importance to achieve the ambitious targets set out in PMI2, and the degrees offered in the UK must be fully Bologna compliant, as HEI's do not want to be seen to be awarding "minimalist" degrees.

48. Finally, as is widely recognised, the UK higher education system is chronically under funded in comparison to our major international competitors by around 30-50%, depending on the source chosen. In a recent press statement the UK Chancellor acknowledged this, but appears to see the way forward as de-regulating fees. This will have a major effect on the international competitiveness of UK higher education, and could adversely impinge on the targets set in PMI2.

49. EPC considers that all political parties should recognise that if the UK wishes to be a key competitor in the knowledge economies of the 21st century, a properly funded engineering higher education system, with a professional cadre that is internationally recognised and competitive is central to such aspirations.

December 2006

71 Educating Engineers for the 21st century: and Industry View, Royal Academy of Engineering, March 2006. Back

72 www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/lisbon.pdf Back

73 www.euromedrights.net/english/barcelona-process/barcelona declaration.html Back

74 ec.europa.eu/research/area.html Back

75 ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/higher/higher en.html Back

76 www.engc.org.uk/ Back

77 www.washingtonaccord.org/ Back

78 www.engineersaustralia.org.au/member-services/international/international-activities/sydney-accord.cfm Back

79 www.feani.org/ Back

80 www.cesaer.org/ Back

81 www.sefi.be/ Back