CHAPTER 3: The eu's contribution of the
modernisation of higher education |
Europe 2020 Strategy
25. The Commission considers that universities
have a key role to play in achieving "smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth" as part of the Europe 2020 Strategy
and their preference for a substantial budget increase
for education, research and innovation under the next MFF supports
this aim. They observe
that investment in higher education in the EU is 1.3 per cent
of GDP on average, compared with 1.5 per cent in Japan and 2.7
per cent in the US.
While the evidence we received contained mixed views about how
investment could be boosted,
it is clear that European universities are currently operating
within a very difficult financial climate. Governments and institutions
have responded in a variety of ways, with some substantially reducing
budgets in this area and others increasing expenditure as part
of national growth strategies. The Commission believes that the
level of investment will have important implications for Europe's
ability to remain competitive in a rapidly developing global market
for higher education against increased competition from developed
and emerging economies such as China and India, especially in
light of its projected demographic decline. Some of our witnesses
agreed with this position, with the UK Higher Education International
Unit emphasising the contribution that collaboration across the
EU had already made in this respect.
26. European universities are currently operating
within a very difficult financial climate. This need not mean
that the modernisation agenda cannot succeed but it is important
for the Commission to be realistic about what can be achieved.
The continued availability of funding for European universities
from EU programmes is also important in this context.
27. Europe 2020 includes the target that, by
2020, at least 40 per cent of 30-34 year olds should have a higher
education qualification. In 2009 the EU average was 32.3 per cent,
which was up from 22.4 per cent in 2000. In the same year, the
United Kingdom was already just above the target at 41.5 per cent.
The Communication estimates that, by 2020, 35 per cent of all
jobs in the EU will require high-level qualifications but that
only 26 per cent of the current workforce has those qualifications.
The Russell Group considered that increased emphasis on postgraduate
qualifications would play an important role in plugging this gap.
A few of our witnesses urged the Commission to undertake research
into employers' expectations in terms of higher education provision,
employability, key skills, and the impact of mobility and work
placement experience on graduates' preparation for employment.
28. We reiterate our support for the objectives
of the Europe 2020 Strategy to achieve "smart, sustainable
and inclusive growth". We believe that the EU can add value
in this area, and can support the EU's economic recovery.
29. Given the increasing need for higher-level
skills, higher education has a key role to play. To this end,
we believe that the Commission should investigate the collection
of further data linking higher education provision to employability
in order to achieve a better match between university programmes
and labour market demand, while recognising the more general benefits
of studying for a degree for students and employers alike.
The Knowledge Triangle
30. While considering that the role of European
universities is integral to achieving greater EU growth, the Commission
believes that their potential is underexploited and can only be
realised if they embrace their role in what Europe 2020 describes
as "Knowledge Triangles" between higher education, research
and innovation. This concept forms part of the Innovation Union
flagship initiative, which emphasises, among other things, the
importance of Member States' investing more in research and development
and strengthening the capacity of universities to engage in start-ups
31. The Innovation Union also highlights the
role that organisations such as the European Institute of Innovation
and Technology (EIT)
and its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs) can play in
fostering closer collaboration between universities and business.
Under the next MFF, the Commission has also proposed expanding
the number of KICs from three to nine.
Many of our witnesses were enthusiastic about these organisations
including, in particular, the importance of encouraging links
with SMEs. We were
impressed to see evidence of this in practice when we visited
the University of East London's Docklands Campus.
More information about the EIT and the KICs is provided in Box
European Institute of Innovation and Technology
(EIT) and Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs)
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology
(EIT) was established in 2008 to promote the competitiveness of
Member States by bringing together universities, research centres
and businesses with a view to tackling major societal challenges
in an innovative way. It uses a financial contribution from the
EU budget to mobilise funds from the public and private sectors
and also showcases engagements between education, research and
business through its Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs).
The EIT provides 25 per cent of each KIC's running costs with
KICs contributing the remaining 75 per cent. The EIT has a small
secretariat in Budapest but is otherwise composed of its network
of institutions across Europe. The three current KICs, which began
in January 2010, focus on sustainable energy, climate change and
the information and communication society. By way of example,
the climate change KIC
is undertaking work on climate change mitigation and job growth
potential of low carbon production systems, focusing on bio-renewables
and on integrated energy production and consumption.
The Commission intends to roll out six new KICs during
2014-2020 in two phases. The first KICs, to be established in
2014, will have the following themes: innovation for healthy living
and active ageing (improving the quality of life and well-being
of citizens of all ages); food4future (sustainable food supply
chain, from farm to fork) and raw materials (sustainable exploration,
extraction, processing, recycling and substitution of raw materials).
The next wave of KICs, to be established in 2018, will focus on:
added value manufacturing (developing more competitive, sustainable
and environmentally-friendly manufacturing processes); smart secure
societies (addressing Europe's security gaps through the development
and deployment of innovative ICT solutions); and urban mobility
(delivering a greener, more inclusive, safer and smarter urban
mobility system). The Commission intends to allocate 31.7 billion
to the new KICs under Horizon 2020, with an increased allocation
of 2.8 billion to the EIT (up from 309 million since its launch
in 2008) under the next MFF.
32. The Government is supportive of the EIT's
objectives but also made reference to the problems experienced
with the establishment of the first three KICs. They seemed satisfied
with the Commission's proposed changes to the operation of the
EIT and KICs that are designed to address similar problems developing
with the next wave of KICs. In this vein they support the gradual
roll-out of the new KICs in order to allow proper evaluation to
take place before each successive KIC is launched. However, they
would also like more tangible evidence of the added value that
the EIT and KICs are providing, including continued evidence of
how the latter are linking the research base to innovation and
developing business-university collaboration, before they will
be convinced that a substantial funding increase is necessary.
33. The Knowledge Triangle could also be assisted,
according to the Innovation Union initiative, by the development
of European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs).
These, it was proposed, should be launched to accelerate research,
development and market deployment of innovations to tackle major
societal challenges, pool expertise and boost the competitiveness
of EU industry. While the EIT and its KICs have been established
as a long term project to develop innovation, the EIPs should
have a less rigid structure, responding more quickly to immediate
market needs and lasting only as long as necessary. To date, one
EIP has been established as a pilot, Active and Healthy Ageing,
while four others are in preparation, including one on Agricultural
Productivity and Sustainability.
In our July 2011 report on Innovation in EU Agriculture, we supported
this initiative, having taken compelling evidence on the value
of EU networking in terms of developing relevant research and
deploying it to the market. We emphasised that EIPs should be
founded on effective, action-based co-operation.
34. We believe that the EU can play an important
role in fostering greater collaboration between universities and
businesses. Various EU initiatives have yet to prove their worth
but have a great deal of potential. These include the European
Institute for Innovation and Technology, its Knowledge and Innovation
Communities and other initiatives, including the European Innovation
35. In the domestic context, we note that the
Government commissioned a review by Professor Sir Tim Wilson into
how universities collaborate with business to ensure greater employability
and how their role in research and innovation can be maximised.
While the report, which was published on 28 February 2012, makes
a number of welcome recommendations in these areas, it takes little
account of the EU dimension.
The report makes passing reference to EU funding but does not
acknowledge the Europe 2020 Strategy or the potential of the EIT,
its KICs or the EIPs, in this area.
36. We are disappointed that the Wilson Review
did not take adequate account of the role that the EU can play
in fostering greater collaboration between universities and businesses
in the domestic context. We urge the Government to acknowledge
the role that the European Institute for Innovation and Technology,
its Knowledge and Innovation Communities and the European Innovation
Partnerships can play when taking forward the Review's recommendations.
37. As part of the current MFF for the period
2007 to 2013 a number of funding programmes exist that are relevant
for higher education. These are the Lifelong Learning Programme,
which includes the well-known Erasmus programme, which supports
student placements in other European countries; the Tempus programme,
which began in 1990 and promotes educational cooperation between
EU universities and external institutions in third countries neighbouring
the EU; and the Erasmus Mundus programme, which began in 2003
and aims to attract the best international students to the EU
through scholarships, as well as facilitating academic cooperation
between European universities and external institutions through
joint postgraduate and doctoral programmes. European universities,
particularly in the United Kingdom, also benefit from funding
allocations under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research
and Technological Development.
38. According to its proposals for the next MFF
for the period 2014 to 2020, the Commission intends to target
its funding in European higher education through three funding
mechanisms: Erasmus for All, Horizon 2020 and Cohesion Policy
Commission has proposed a 70 per cent budget increase for Erasmus
for All compared with the current MFF, with a total allocation
of 19 billion during the next MFF. They justify this increase
on the basis that it will stimulate greater mobility, higher skills
matched to the labour market, more jobs, greater innovation in
the education sector and growth in line with the Europe 2020 Strategy's
a substantial 40 per cent budget increase is also proposed for
Horizon 2020. Regarding
Cohesion funding, the Commission proposes that 25 per cent of
this (84 billion) will be allocated to the European Social Fund
under the next MFF, and they anticipate that over 40 billion of
this amount is likely to be made available for education and training.
39. Many of our witnesses supported the Commission's
proposed funding increases in these areas.
Others supported the potential of Cohesion Policy funds to improve
participation in higher education by students from less wealthy
from the European Regional Development Fund have, in the past,
also been invested in university infrastructure projects, including
the University of East London's Docklands Campus.
However, the Minister and the UK Higher Education International
Unit considered that these funds would have more significance
for the newer Member States.
In our April 2011 report on the next Multiannual Financial Framework,
we recommended an increase in spending on research and innovation,
with funds transferred from the Common Agricultural Policy.
40. We support the allocation of a bigger
proportion of the budget under the next Multiannual Financial
Framework to research, education and innovation, subject to reductions
being made in other areas of the budget such as the Common Agricultural
Policy, and overall restraint being achieved. Closer alignment
with the Structural Funds should also be further developed. We
consider that the targeting of resources in this way will result
in long-term economic benefits for the EU.
European Research Area (ERA)
41. Some degree of spending on research and development
(R&D) is considered necessary in all Member States in order
to stimulate innovation and economic growth. The Europe 2020 Strategy
calls on Member States to spend the equivalent of 3 per cent of
their annual GDP on R&D in order to keep pace with the United
States (2.6 per cent) and Japan (3.4 per cent). The EU average
is below 2 per cent, mainly due to lower levels of private investment.
The figure in the United Kingdom was 1.84 per cent in 2009.
42. The Commission intends to enhance Europe's
research infrastructure and increase academic mobility through
the development of the European Research Area (ERA) to achieve
a "genuine single market for knowledge, research and innovation"
by 2014 and to promote the EU as a study and research destination
for top international talent. Over time the ERA and the Bologna
Process, which began as separate initiatives, have become intertwined
with the Berlin Ministerial Conference explicitly linking the
two in 2003. The
Communication states that the ERA has already helped to foster
economies of scale with cross-border research projects and investment,
while increasing exchanges and cooperation between institutions.
The EUA emphasised that the grand challenges in research, such
as health and energy matters, could be better addressed by cross-border
partnerships than by national institutions acting alone, and that
this could be facilitated by the right types of funding at the
European level. The
Minister was enthusiastic about the prospect of greater ties between
UK universities and their Continental counterparts on joint research
projects. Other witnesses
talked of how other EU projects such as the Marie Curie Actions,
which have supported the training, mobility and skills development
of more than 50,000 young researchers since its launch in 1996,
and the "bureaucracy-free" European Research Council
(ERC), which provides grant funding for frontier research, have
helped to foster a genuine European research community.
43. The EUA told us that there were many obstacles
to the further development of the ERA and the mobility of young
researchers across Europe and internationally. These included
differing national career structures, status issues, social security
and the feasibility of creating supplementary pension schemes.
However, the EUA also noted that these were difficult issues to
address and that the Commission was reluctant to bring forward
proposals in this area.
In this vein, the UK Higher Education International Unit called
for the creation of a "one-stop shop for researchers"
similar to the German Academic Exchange Service.
The Communication states that the Commission is intending to facilitate
greater researcher mobility through a European Framework for Research
Careers including helping researchers to identify job offers and
employers to find suitable candidates through the EURAXESS Jobs
Portal. In its recent
White Paper on Pensions, the Commission also commits itself to
pursuing the development of a pan-European pension fund for researchers.
44. The Communication also calls on Member States
and universities to improve the mobility of learners, teachers
and researchers, in terms of better access, employment conditions
and progression opportunities. This includes full implementing
the Directives on students and researchers
and facilitating the issuing of Schengen Area visas to students
and researchers for shorter periods.
The UK Higher Education International Unit urged the Government
to be vigilant that any proposals brought forward by the Commission
in these areas were workable in the domestic context, particularly
the proposed changes to the Directives. However, neither of these
Directives applies to the United Kingdom and it is not part of
the Schengen Area. Furthermore, the Government supports the principle
of the ERA subject to it respecting the autonomy of Member States
to implement their own national policies.
Some of our witnesses expressed concerns about the impact of the
Government's policy on visa controls on the mobility of those
academics resident in countries outside the EU, potentially making
the United Kingdom a less attractive destination for non-EU researchers
to the detriment of the EU as a whole.
The Minister did not share these concerns.
45. We believe that the development of a European
Research Area can achieve real benefits for the United Kingdom
and EU. However, much progress remains to be made in increasing
the mobility of researchers, including career structures and pension
rights. We urge the Government to give particular attention to
this area, and to become fully engaged in any relevant proposals
brought forward by the Commission, notwithstanding their non-participation
in EU immigration measures.
46. Horizon 2020 will supersede the current Seventh
Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development
(FP7) and also incorporate funding currently provided through
the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and
the EIT. The proposal
will also seek greater alignment with other funds available under
the EU's Cohesion Policy and Erasmus for All, as well as simplifying
the application process. The Commission has proposed a total budget
of 80 billion for Horizon 2020 for the period 2014 to 2020.
Compared with the total allocations to the separate programmes
under the current MFF (approximately 57 billion) this represents
a 40 per cent increase, including a 77 per cent funding increase
(to 13.2 billion) for the ERC and a 21 per cent funding
increase (to 5.75 billion) for Marie Curie Actions. It will
also fund the further development of the ERA.
47. Our earlier report on the next MFF concluded
that the EU added value in the area of research and innovation,
which could support the EU's economic recovery after the financial
crisis, and therefore recommended that the level of funding allocated
to the next framework programme should be increased relative to
FP7 and the EU budget as a whole.
It also made a number of related recommendations that we are
pleased to note have all been satisfied by the current form of
the Horizon 2020 proposal.
48. Universities in the United Kingdom have been
very successful at securing these funds and have received the
second largest allocation under FP7 to date. However, we understand
that British industry has been less successful in this regard.
Perhaps for this reason the Government seem enthusiastic about
the Horizon 2020 proposal and, with regard to the Commission's
proposed budget increase, the Minister stated that the Government
would like this area to receive a "higher proportion of a
smaller total budget but considered the Commission's preferred
increase to be unrealistic."
49. We reiterate our recommendation that the
Government should support the allocation of a greater proportion
of funds to Horizon 2020 under the next Multiannual Financial
Framework. We also call on the Government to develop a dedicated
strategy to encourage and facilitate industry's access to these
50. Current rankingsincluding the Times
Higher Education World University Rankings and Shanghai Jiaotong
University's Academic Ranking of World Universitiesmainly
focus on research-intensive universities and only include a small
proportion of European universities. The Commission therefore
believes that a wider range of indicators and information should
be made available to increase transparency and allow more informed
choices to be made, as well as supporting policy-makers' higher
education reforms. In response, the Commission intends to launch
U-Multirank in 2013, which will allow users to profile universities
using a number of performance indicators rather than just research
51. Most of our witnesses were not convinced
by the merits of yet another league table, with the British Council
description of rankings as both a "blessing and a curse"
capturing this dichotomy well.
The Russell Group told us that "ranking universities is fraught
with difficulties and we have many concerns about the accuracy
of any ranking. It is very difficult to capture fully in numerical
terms the performance of universities and their contribution to
knowledge, to the world economy and to society. Making meaningful
comparisons of universities both within, and across, national
borders is a tough and complex challenge, not least because of
issues relating to the robustness and comparability of data".
The EUA were critical of existing ranking systems as favouring
very large research intensive institutions
and while they praised the proposal's attempt to move away from
research outputs to look at other indicators, they considered
that this would be hard to achieve in practice, particularly due
to the lack of data in some universities and Member States and
the difficulties in collecting data more generally, including
the additional burdens that this may place on universities.
52. Many of our other witnesses raised a series
of concerns: about the proposal's lack of clarity as to whether
it would be a ranking or transparency tool;
that the league tables market was already too crowded, with each
ranking deploying its own methodologies;
that it would confuse applicants and be incapable of responding
to rapidly changing circumstances in institutional profiles;
that it could become a "blunt instrument" which would
"not allow different strengths across diverse institutions
to be recognised and utilised" and end up being used as the
basis for future funding decisions;
on the grounds of quality, accuracy and lack of data;
and that EU funds could be better spent on other EU priorities.
53. Notwithstanding these concerns, if the Commission's
stated intention of increasing transparency and providing more
flexibility for students to make an informed choice based on different
criteria proved to be possible, then many of our witnesses were
prepared to support its introduction as potentially adding value.
The UK Bologna Experts were of the same view but considered that
U-Multirank's success was "highly dependent on the extent
of institutional engagement, coverage, and accuracy of data used
to compile the rankings" and that it was "vital that
the instrument recognises the diverse character of European HEIs
in so far as direct comparisons can be iniquitous and misleading".
54. The Higher Education Funding Council for
England (HEFCE) acknowledged the Commission's efforts to overcome
some of the limitations of traditional league tables and to render
it more objective but advised "caution in providing any form
of official sanction to any one form of ranking tool given that
universal ranking systems have a history of lacking real comparability
The NUS also welcomed the Commission's efforts but still had doubts
about how it would work in practice, believing instead that improving
the public information made available to students could be achieved
by alternative means "without the need to introduce (yet
another) potentially subjective and confusing rankings system".
The Government considered that "it might be useful"
if it genuinely provided a transparent source of information for
students wanting to study abroad but were not convinced that it
would add value if it simply resulted in an additional European
ranking system alongside the existing international ranking systems.
However, the Minister struck a less positive tone when he told
us that it could be viewed as "an attempt by the EU Commission
to fix a set of rankings in which [European universities] do better
than [they] appear to do in the conventional rankings".
55. We were interested to note that THES have
recently revised their global rankings in 2010 in order to apply
a different methodology and include a wider range of performance
indicators (up from 6 to 13).
They told us that their approach seeks to achieve more objectivity
by capturing the full range of a global university's activitiesresearch,
teaching, knowledge transfer and internationalisationand
allows users to rank institutions (including 178 in Europe) against
five separate criteria: teaching (the learning environment rather
than quality); international outlook (staff, students and research);
industry income (innovation); research (volume income and reputation);
and citations (research influence). In order to inform the revision
of their rankings, their data supplier, Thomson Reuters, conducted
a global survey which found that many users distrusted the methodology
of the existing world rankings.
While THES considered that rankings were "relatively crude"
and could never be properly objective, they nevertheless considered
that if used appropriately they could still provide a useful role
in providing information.
56. We also believe that the provision of
clear information and guidance to students is important in order
to assist them in making an informed choice of university. However,
we also appreciate how difficult it can be to evaluate a wider
range of university performance indicators in an objective manner,
noting the limitations inherent in many of the existing ranking
57. Therefore, it is important that the Commission
is clear about the purpose of U-Multirank, what information will
be provided and what methodology will be used. If the perceived
deficiencies in most other ranking systems are overcome in relation
to this proposal then we could be convinced of the benefits of
its introduction. However, until these deficiencies can be overcome,
we consider that the Commission should prioritise other activities.
In the meantime, rankings such as the Times Higher Education World
University Rankings may have a valuable contribution to make.
58. The Commission intends to publish a Communication
on the internationalisation of higher education in early 2013,
which they hope will support the establishment and development
of internationalisation strategies by European universities.
Internationalisation cannot be precisely defined but is commonly
understood to mean rendering a university's courses, curriculum,
students, research output and institutional links, more international
in nature. Many universities in the United Kingdom already enjoy
substantial, wider international links and the EUA considered
that this might sometimes be at the expense of fostering European
witnesses endorsed the internationalising benefits of existing
EU programmes such as Erasmus Mundus and Tempus.
The British Council considered these programmes to be of paramount
importance, saying "if internationalisation of European higher
education is to be achieved, EU programmes must actively promote
and enable both institutional links and staff and student mobility
to countries outside Europe".
The Scottish Government were also enthusiastic about the EU's
potential role in terms of funding, which they hoped would complement
Scotland's mobility and partnership schemes with countries such
as China and India, which they considered to be key partner countries
for the Scottish higher education sector.
59. Some witnesses expressed support for the
Commission's proposed development of an EU internationalisation
strategy but others were not convinced that this was a priority.
The EUA's view was that a "common European strategy would
also lead to a better visibility of European higher education,
study and funding programmes, thus benefitting all Member States
and offering orientation in particular for those countries currently
developing or revising their internationalisation strategies".
The Government were sceptical and stated that they wanted to ensure
that any strategy did not duplicate what was already happening
through the Bologna Process.
They also wanted to avoid resources being put into any worldwide
publicity campaign promoting EU universities to prospective international
students, if this went beyond the provision of generic information.
They considered that it was up to individual Member States to
market their own higher education systems and universities and
noted that universities in the United Kingdom had already been
very successful at doing this.
The Russell Group echoed this view and hoped that any strategy
would add value rather than impeding the international activities
and partnerships of the already highly internationalised UK universities.
The UK Higher Education International Unit called for more information
about the proposal and questioned the usefulness and effectiveness
of having an international strategy at the EU level, suggesting
that the funds could be better spent on assisting individual universities
in developing their own internationalisation concepts and profiles.
60. The higher education sector is global
in character. Given the Commission's supporting role in higher
education policy and the importance of internationalisation to
the sector, we see value in the production of a strategy in this
area. However, any such strategy must identify, with full justification,
those areas where the EU can add value to avoid duplicating the
work already being carried out by universities and Member States.
Areas where the EU could potentially add value include supporting
mobility schemes and encouraging cooperation between European
44 COM (2010) 2020, Europe 2020: A strategy for
smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, March 2010. Two of
its flagship initiatives have relevance for higher education:
An Agenda for New Skills and Jobs, which recognises the
role of language skills in achieving a more dynamic labour market,
and Youth on the Move, which emphasises the
need for better language skills to allow greater mobility. Back
COM (2011) 567, p. 2 Back
COM (2011) 567, pp. 8-9 Back
UK Bologna Experts and British Academy Back
BIS, Julia Osborn, University Alliance, Q 2 and Q 113 Back
BIS. In Scotland the rate was 46.7 per cent in 2008. Back
COM (2011) 567, p. 2 Back
Russell Group Back
UK Bologna Experts, University of Salford and Q 43 Back
COM (2010) 546 Back
The European Union Committee produced a short report on the EIT
just before it was established: Proposal to establish the European
Institute of Technology (25th Report of Session 2006-07, HL
Paper 130) Back
COM (2011) 822, p.16 Back
British Council, BIS, QAA, University Alliance, UK Bologna Experts
and Q 114 Back
See the note of the site visit contained in Appendix 3. Back
EM 17932/11, 17933/11 & 17935/11, submitted by BIS
on 20 December 2011. Back
COM (2010) 546, pp 22-26 Back
COM (2011) 849, pp 8-9 Back
European Union Committee, 19th Report of Session 2010-12: Innovation
in EU Agriculture (HL Paper 171) Back
Professor Sir Tim Wilson DL, A Review of Business-University
European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund and Cohesion
17574/11, COM (2011) 787: ERASMUS FOR ALL: the EU Programme
for Education, Training, Youth and Sport, 23 November 2011 Back
Both of these proposals are considered in more detail later in
this report. Back
COM (2010) 546, p. 15 Back
1994 Group, Association of Colleges, British Council, Engineering
Professors' Council, NUS, Russell Group, Scottish Government,
University of Salford, University Alliance, UK Higher Education
International Unit, million+, Q 95 and Q 113 Back
NUS, Russell Group and Scottish Government. Back
See Appendix 3. Back
Q 21. Back
European Union Committee, 13th Report of Session 2010-12: EU
Financial Framework from 2014 (HL Paper 125) Back
The Bologna Process involves 47 countries, while the ERA consists
of the 27 EU Member States and 12 other associated countries from
Europe and beyond. Back
COM (2011) 567, p. 6 Back
Q 113 Back
Q 75 Back
EUA, Russell Group, Q 2, Q 105 and Q 120. The ERC was established
in 2007 under the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and
Technical Development (FP7). It forms part of, and applies to
the same countries as, the ERA. Back
Q 120 Back
QQ 12-14 Back
COM (2011) 567, p. 11 Back
COM (2012) 55 final, White Paper: An Agenda for Adequate, Safe
and Sustainable Pensions, 16 February 2012 Back
Council Directive 2004/114/EC on the conditions of admission of
third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange,
unremunerated training or voluntary service and Council Directive
2005/71/EC on a specific procedure for admitting third-country
nationals for the purposes of scientific research Back
COM (2011) 567, p. 7. The Schengen Area is defined in Appendix
Q 68, Q 105, UEL and British Academy Back
Q 81 Back
17932/11, COM (2011) 808: Horizon 2020 - The Framework Programme
for Research and Innovation, 30 November 2011 Back
European Union Committee, 13th Report of Session 2010-12: EU
Financial Framework from 2014 (HL Paper 125) Back
POST Note 359, EU Science & Technology Funding, June
Q 90 Back
COM (2011) 567, p. 10 Back
Q 47 Back
Russell Group Back
The EUA produced a report entitled Global University Rankings
and their Impact in 2011. Its main conclusions were that while
global rankings were now an established feature of the higher
education sector, they concentrated on only the top research universities;
the way in which rankings were compiled lacked transparency; truly
objective indicators did not exist; the benefits provided by rankings
did not necessarily outweigh the unintended consequences; proposals
for new ranking systems, such as U-Multirank, would experience
difficulties with data collection and that higher education policy
decisions should not be based solely on rankings data. Back
Q 121. Others had concerns about this-UK Higher Education International
Unit, BIS, Russell Group, Q 16 and Q 84-but the British Council
did not think this would be particularly burdensome, Q 47. Back
QAA and UK Higher Education International Unit Back
1994 Group, University Alliance, Professor Furlong, million+,
University of Kent, UK Higher Education International Unit, Q
16 and Q 106 Back
1994 Group Back
University Alliance. NUS and UK Higher Education International
Unit echoed these concerns. Back
Russell Group and Q 121 Back
Russell Group, BIS, Scottish Government and HEFCE Back
British Council, Dr. Anne Corbett, University of Salford, Association
of Colleges and Engineering Professors' Council Back
UK Bologna Experts Back
Q 84 Back
THES has published an annual World University Ranking since 2004.
The new World University Rankings were first published on 16
September 2010 and then again on 6 October 2011. It only
concentrates on 400 global research-driven universities, with
the option of searching only European universities. A detailed
overview was provided in their written evidence. The full methodology
and the explanation of each of the 13 separate performance indicators
used is available at: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2011-2012/analysis-rankings-methodology.html Back
Thomson Reuters, Global Opinion Survey: New Outlooks on Institutional
Profiles, February 2010 Back
Times Higher Education World University Rankings Back
COM (2011) 567, p. 14 Back
British Council, UK Bologna Experts, Scottish Government and Q
British Council Back
Scottish Government Back
The EU and British Council (Q 122 and Q 50) were in favour while
the QAA was opposed. Back
Q 86 Back
Russell Group Back
UK Higher Education International Unit Back