COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C0M(93) 268final 
Brussels, 25 June 1993 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
ERASMUS PROGRAMME 
(European Community Action Scheme for the Mobility of University 
Students) 
1992 
ANNUAL REPORT 
fr3 
MM 
SUMMARY 
-r 
SUMMARY 
1- The year 1992 was characterized by extensive discussions organized by all 
Member States and the EFTA countries following the Memorandum of the 
Commission on higher education in the European Community. The need for a 
European Dimension in higher education and the importance of inter-university 
cooperation and student mobility have been stressed by all institutions and 
authorities and Erasmus has been cited as a model vehicle. Recommendations for 
the future are at present being examined by the Commission with a view to the 
preparation of the next phase of the Erasmus Programme. 
2. The momentum of the Erasmus Programme has continued in the academic year 
1992/1993, the sixth year of its operation. Many of the inter-university networks 
created in previous years are now benefiting from the new system of pluriannual 
funding started in 1991/1992, bringing much needed stability to the structure. The 
demand for new programmes has also remained very high and it was felt essential, 
given the catalytic character of Erasmus, to allow more institutions and more 
regions to benefit from the Programme. As a result, although the overall number of 
networks has remained virtually stable, there has been a notable expansion to new 
partners and an impressive development of new activities within existing networks. 
Moreover, the academic year 1992/1993 has been the first year of the extension of 
Erasmus to the EFTA countries, and their level of participation has been quite 
remarkable considering the very short time available to them for preparation. Thus 
Erasmus continues to fulfil its function as a key agent in the internationalization of 
European higher education institutions. The academic year 1992/1993, with its 
greatly enhanced numbers of higher education institutions, students and staff 
participating, represents a further substantial step towards achieving the policy 
objectives of the Programme, in both quantitative and qualitative terms. 
3. In quantitative terms, applications for support of Inter-university Cooperation 
Programmes (ICPs) in 1992/1993 showed a slight decrease at 2 436 compared 
with 2 594 in 1991/1992. However, the volume of activity within the ICPs increased 
very substantially (16.5% more institutional participations than in the previous year). 
Of the 1 924 ICPs selected for support, 1 780 (93%) included a student mobility 
programme, 360 a teaching staff mobility programme, 172 a programme for the 
joint development of curricula and 139 an intensive programme (programmes can 
include several types of activity). The distribution of participation across all Member 
States continued to improve. The EFTA countries showed an encouraging level of 
participation in their first year; EFTA institutions account for 5.6% of all 
participations in Erasmus ICP applications and 5.5% of all participations in 
approved programmes. The integration was made easier by the fact that 49% of 
requests for EFTA participations involved joining existing ICPs. The subject area 
distribution improved slightly compared with previous years, with a lower level of 
representation in the fields of Languages, Engineering, Business/Management and 
Law and increased numbers in Education, Communication and Framework 
or 
Agreements. In overall terms, it may be said that in 1992 further significant progress 
was made towards achieving the objective of ensuring a balanced development 
of the European University^ et work across the Community. 
4. Student mobility within the Erasmus Programme has again increased 
considerably. The number of student grants requested by EC institutions in 
applications for 1992/1993 programmes rose by 16.3% by comparison with last 
year. The number of students eligible to receive an Erasmus student grant in 
1992/1993 within the 1 780 selected ICPs incorporating student mobility (over 
80 000) was 36% higher than in the previous year (59 157). The average duration of 
study periods abroad as reflected in approved ICP applications remains stable at 7 
months. 
Based on provisional data available from the NGAAs (National Grant Awarding 
Authorities) at the beginning of 1993, it can be assumed that there will be a shortfall 
of about 35% by comparison with the estimated numbers of mobile students in 
approved applications. This shortfall is due to two main factors, namely over-
optimistic assumptions by ICP coordinators when submitting applications and the 
extent to which funds complementary to Erasmus are available at national or 
regional level. Member States with strong student support schemes have more 
students taking part than Member States were student support schemes are weak 
or wholly absent. These latter opt for restriction of student numbers and are 
essentially funded from Community funds. Taking these factors into account, 
51 000 students should actually be mobile within the framework of Erasmus in 
1992/1993. 
5. Despite slightly reduced application figures, probably reflecting the harsh selection 
rates operated in previous years, the Commission decided to respond to the 
Council's wish and increased the number of selected programmes for teaching 
staff mobility from 309 in 1991/1992 to 360 in 1992/1993, thus extending the 
benefits of European cooperation to those students not able to take part in 
exchanges. Up to 5 173 teachers are due to participate. 
6. 1992/1993 was the fourth operational year within the six-year pilot phase of the 
European Community Course Credit Transfer System (ECTS), now involving 
145 higher education institutions in five subject areas (Business Administration, 
History, Medicine, Chemistry and Mechanical Engineering). The central objective of 
the pilot scheme is to develop credit transfer as an effective currency of academic 
recognition by providing institutions admitting students who have already studied in 
other eligible states with a straightforward and reliable means of assessing such 
students' previous performance, thus enabling an appropriate point of entry into a 
new degree course structure to be determined for each individual. 
1 700 students are due to participate in the 1992/1993 academic year, as 
compared to 950 in the previous year. The procedures for allocating credit points to 
-TC: 
the various courses offered by the participating institutions have been considerably 
improved on the basis of previous experience. 
The preparation of the ECTS mid-term evaluation report and the fifth ECTS plenary 
meeting held in October 1992 in Toulouse marked the start of the debate on the 
wider application of the ECTS mechanism for credit transfer, in anticipation of the 
end of the pilot project. 
Action 4 of the Erasmus Programme (complementary measures) continued to 
provide support for associations or consortia of higher education institutions, 
and for the preparation of publications designed to enhance awareness of study 
and teaching opportunities in the different Member States or to draw attention to 
important developments and innovative models for cooperation in higher education 
throughout the European Community. Of the 116 applications received, 44 were 
selected for financial support, many of the associations receiving support having 
been created as a result of the Programme. They are a fertile ground for debate 
and initiatives in the field of inter-university cooperation, and provide at small cost 
an important contribution to creating the climate within which ICPs and student 
mobility can develop. 
Information activities continued in 1992. Particularly indicative of the impact of the 
Programme is the increased success of Erasmus publications and other 
information products - such as the Erasmus Newsletter and the Directory of 
Programmes. The Programme is frequently and favourably covered by the 
specialist and general media. 
Considerable emphasis was given to the evaluation and monitoring of the 
Programme in 1992. 
The external evaluation report undertaken by the consultancy firm Price 
Waterhouse was finalized at the end of 1992. This report examines the 
administrative structures and procedures of the Programme as well as its overall 
impact on higher education in the EC and makes recommendations for Phase III of 
Erasmus. 
In response to a request from the Council, an interim evaluation report on ECTS 
was undertaken in 1992 by the consultancy firm Coopers and Lybrand. The report 
examines the functioning of ECTS in its pilot phase and its compatibility with other 
credit transfer systems in Europe. It also makes some suggestions for the wider 
application of the ECTS scheme. 
In addition to regular monitoring actions designed to obtain continuous and 
complete feedback on the implementation of Erasmus, special emphasis was 
placed this year on analytical studies carried out internally, and on direct contact 
with the Programme's participants, enabling the Commission to attain a 
comprehensive overview of the Programme prior to the preparation of its proposals 
-HZ 
for Phase III of Erasmus. Thus, for example, a first overview of the participation 
rates achieved by each region of the EC and the EFTA countries was prepared, 
in order to provide an incentive to the various national authorities regarding further 
analysis and possible action at this level. 
Teaching staff mobility is increasingly perceived as an important channel for the 
introduction of a European Dimension into the training of the many students who 
are not able to benefit from Erasmus or from other exchange programmes, and for 
this reason an extensive survey was conducted on this subject. The survey threw 
into relief the variety of obstacles encountered by teaching staff in their 
participation according to their Member State and field of study, but also 
demonstrated quite clearly the key role which teaching staff mobility can play in 
developing an awareness of other systems and practices, challenging established 
routines and promoting the qualitative improvement of teaching. 
Following the completion of a survey on the participation of the non-university 
sector in the Programme, the Commission intends to devise an action plan 
adapted to the specific needs of this sector in order to ensure, as far as possible, 
that students registered at non-university institutions and their teachers have good 
access to Erasmus. The Commission's activities in this area will take place in 
cooperation with the appropriate authorities in the Member States. 
10. At national level, measures continued to be taken by nearly all Member States to 
complement Erasmus grants, either in the shape of national or regional schemes 
related to Erasmus or to support study abroad more generally. 
Erasmus has encouraged Member States to take appropriate measures to 
boost inter-university cooperation or to dismantle the legal or regulatory 
obstacles still standing in its way. Thus considerable amounts of money have been 
allocated to national schemes aiming to facilitate the internationalization of the 
higher education sector (notably in Denmark, Italy and the Netherlands). 
11. As the wide consultations conducted by the Commission reveal, the synergy 
created around the Programme has led to better integration of European 
cooperation into the strategic planning of higher education institutions at central 
level, although not surprisingly the degree of involvement still varies quite 
considerably from one institution and one country to another. The Commission is 
considering modifying contractual arrangements with institutions so that they 
are better able to maximise their use of Erasmus funds by allocating a substantial 
part of them to actions conducted at institutional rather than departmental level, 
such as language training. 
12. Improvement of the quality of the education and training provided by institutions of 
higher education is becoming perceptible. Through the combined actions of the 
Programme, those concerned with educational matters within the Community are 
. increasingly aware of the systems operating in other Member States, enabling 
major benefits to be derived in terms of cross-fertilization between different 
teaching methods and curricula. 
Finally, Erasmus has contributed very significantly to the concept of a People's 
Europe by providing a concrete and successful example of what this concept can 
mean. One of the most remarkable achievements of Erasmus is the strength of its 
positive image not only within the higher education sector but also among the 
public at large. 
~3zn 
ERASMUS PROGRAMME 
1992 
ANNUAL REPORT 
czV 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
I INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL CONTEXT 5 
» 
II REPORT ON ERASMUS ACTIVITIES IN 1992 7 
11.1. Implementation of the Erasmus Programme Actions 8 
Action 1 : European University Network : 
Support for Inter-university Cooperation Programmes (ICP) 
and for Study and Teaching Visits (STV) 8 
Action 2: Erasmus Student mobility grants 15 
Action 3 : Measures to promote mobility through the 
academic recognition of diplomas and periods of study 18 
Action 4 : Complementary measures to promote mobility in the Community 21 
11.2 Information activities 23 
11.3 Organizational and consultative infrastructure 26 
11.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 28 
III FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND INTERACTION WITH 
OTHER COMMUNITY PROGRAMMES OR INITIATIVES IN 
THE HIGHER EDUCATION FIELD 31 
111.1 EFTA countries 31 
111.2 Planning of Higher Education for the 1990's 32 
111.3 Interaction with other Community Programmes 33 
IV CONCLUDING REMARKS 35 
Annexes : Tables 
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL CONTEXT 
1. The present report relates specifically to the implementation of the Erasmus 
Programme in the academic year 1992/1993, its sixth year of operation, while at 
the same time reviewing the general development of the Programme during the 
calendar year 1992. It has been prepared in accordance with Article 6 of the 
Council Decision of 15 June 1987 (87/327/EEC) establishing the Erasmus 
Programme, as amended by the Council Decision of 14 December 1989 
(89/663/EEC). The academic year 1992/1993 is the third of the five years which 
comprise Phase II of the Programme. Apart from the revision of the parameters 
governing the distribution of the Action 2 budget between the Member States, the 
main modification under Phase II was the introduction of a pluriannual funding 
perspective for Inter-university Cooperation Programmes (ICPs), the positive 
effects of which can now be observed in the patterns of participation. 
2. In the academic year 1992/1993 the Erasmus Programme has again been 
characterized by a remarkable increase in the demand for grants on the part of 
higher education institutions and students. Although there was a slight decrease in 
the number of applications for ICPs, there was a substantial development of the 
activities carried out within the ICPs, as indicated by a 16.5% increase in the 
number of institutional participations contained in applications. At the same time, 
the demand for student grants from the Member States of the EC rose by 16.3% 
compared with the previous year. The budget for the Programme also increased 
from 70 Mio ECU to 96.5 Mio ECU (of which 83 Mio ECU came from Community 
funds and 13.4 Mio ECU was contributed by the EFTA countries for their first year 
of participation in the Programme). This amount, although substantial, is not 
sufficient to cover the real costs of student mobility and inter-university 
cooperation, as witnessed by the fact that the total sum requested by higher 
education institutions in ICP applications to cover their operational costs alone 
amounts to 103.8 Mio ECU. Given this situation, it is by no means surprising that 
the need for complementarity was very much to the fore in a number of discussions 
which were held during the year on Programme policy. Complementary funding is 
not only been seen as a way to relieve immediate financial pressure, but also as a 
means of preparing for the future by securing greater and more definitive 
commitment to inter-university cooperation from the Member States and the 
institutions. 
Because of the unavoidable delay between the implementation of the Programme 
actions and the availability of final figures, the statistics used in preparing this report 
can only reflect estimated numbers of ICPs and eligible students at the time of 
selection. However, on the basis of data available from the NGAAs (National Grant 
Awarding Authorities) for previous years, one can predict with a reasonable degree 
of accuracy how many students will actually be mobile. The most recent figures 
available show a take-up rate of about 65% on the estimated number of eligible 
students and a small number of non-functioning ICPs. Anticipating comparable 
yt- 1. 6.4 .5. 
Erasmus Programme • Annual Report 1992 
figures for 1992/1993, it may be said that in overall terms the 1992/1993 academic 
year, with its greatly enhanced numbers of participating students, staff and higher 
education institutions, reprelents a further substantial step towards achieving the 
policy objectives of the Programme, and at the same time towards achieving one of 
the overall objectives of the Community's education programmes - namely that the 
proportion of students undertaking part of their studies in another Member State be 
increased to 10%. 
3. The opening of the Erasmus Programme to the EFTA countries, decided by the 
Council on 28 October 1991, came into effect for the academic year 1992/1993. 
This has allowed EFTA institutions to undertake cooperative activities with 
institutions in the European Community. Despite the very short time available 
between the ratification of the EC/EFTA agreements and the deadline for 
applications, institutions of higher education of the EFTA countries have reacted 
promptly and made a very encouraging start in their participation. The intensive 
information campaign jointly organized by the Commission and the EFTA 
authorities was seen to bear fruit. The choice made by many EFTA institutions to 
join existing ICPs rather than trying to create new ones confirmed the strength and 
attractiveness of the existing Erasmus network. 
4. 1992 also witnessed important developments within the ECTS (European 
Community Course Credit Transfer System) pilot scheme, now extended to 
embrace 145 EC and EFTA institutions. The mid-term evaluation of the scheme, 
which was conducted in 1992, should help answer the key question of how to 
prepare for its wider application as the end of the pilot phase approaches. 
5. In a wider perspective, the publication in 1991 of the Commission's Memorandum 
on Higher Education in the European Community aroused great interest throughout 
the Community and beyond. The broad debate which took place during most of 
1992 at Member State level brought forward many issues and opinions relevant to 
the future development of Erasmus and other Commission programmes in the field 
of higher education. 
6. The present report will discuss in detail the development of the Programme during 
the year in question. In doing so, it will concentrate primarily on the specific actions 
undertaken to implement the Programme, as provided for in the Council Decision. 
At the same time, however, it will make reference to the ongoing monitoring and 
evaluation of Erasmus, to which the Commission continues to attach the utmost 
importance. 
7. In order to provide a consistent point of comparison with other years, all statistics 
on grants to Inter-university Cooperation Programmes (ICPs) for the academic year 
1992/1993 refer to applications approved in April/May 1992, at the culmination of 
the main assessment round. However, it was also possible to make a small number 
of supplementary grant awards in December 1992, due mainly to the availability of 
-6-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
grant monies re-committed from previous years. Reference to these awards is 
made at the appropriate points in the present report. 
REPORT ON ERASMUS ACTIVITIES IN 1992 
8. In 1992 action was concentrated on the continuing implementation of Erasmus. 
Programme operations for the academic year 1992/1993, within the framework of 
the four "actions" of the Erasmus Programme as described in the annex to the 
Council Decision, ie: 
Action 1: development of the Inter-university Cooperation 
Programmes constituting the European University 
Network (ICPs) and of the Study and Teaching Visits 
(STV); 
Action 2: management of the Erasmus student grant scheme; 
Action 3: measures to promote mobility through the academic 
recognition of diplomas and periods of study, including 
the implementation of the fourth year of the pilot phase of 
the European Community Course Credit Transfer System 
(ECTS); 
Action 4: complementary measures to promote student mobility in 
the Community. 
The Commission also sought to increase the effectiveness of the Programme by: 
the continuation of efforts undertaken to inform the academic community, 
national authorities and the public at large about the Programme; 
the consolidation of the organizational and consultative infrastructure of the 
Programme; 
monitoring and evaluation activities designed to ensure the continuous 
improvement of the Programme's design and impact and to pave the way for 
the Commission's proposals for Phase III of Erasmus, due to be presented to 
the Council in 1993. 
Activities in each of the areas mentioned above are summarized in the paragraphs 
which follow. 
-7-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
11.1 Implementation of the Erasmus Programme Actions 
Action 1 r 
European University Network: Support for Inter-university 
Cooperation Programmes (ICPs) and for Study and Teaching Visits 
9. In order to increase student mobility, institutions of higher education in different 
Member States are encouraged to establish Inter-university Cooperation 
Programmes (ICPs) comprising one or more of the following: 
student mobility programmes (SM); 
teaching staff mobility programmes (TS); 
joint development of new curricula (CD); 
intensive programmes (IP). 
Student mobility programmes of substantial duration which satisfy the criterion of 
full recognition of a period of training abroad regardless of field and level of study 
(up to and including the doctorate or equivalent) are eligible for financial support to 
cover the costs of the development and operation of the programme, expenditure 
relating to the preparation and translation of documents and teaching material, 
information provided for students prior to departure, linguistic preparation prior to 
departure and after arrival, expenditure for making information about the 
programme more widely available and other expenditure directly related to the 
programme, such as evaluation by institutions of their own Erasmus activities. 
Staff mobility programmes providing an opportunity for higher education teaching 
staff to teach in a partner institution in order to make a substantial contribution to 
the latter's regular teaching programme are eligible for support to cover the costs 
of the development and operation of the programme, the mobility costs of teaching 
staff, and (in certain circumstances) the costs of replacing teaching staff absent for 
three months or longer. 
Joint development of new curricula: higher education institutions seeking to work 
out jointly a substantial new curriculum or curriculum component, with a view to its 
implementation in all the institutions taking part, are eligible for support. Preference 
is given to projects which clearly contribute to academic recognition or make 
innovative use of multi-media techniques or distance teaching, as well as to those 
aimed at building the European Dimension into the content of courses. Support is 
provided to offset the travel and subsistence costs of teaching or administrative 
staff involved in meetings necessary to the organization and content of courses and 
those of producing, translating and circulating the necessary documents. 
Intensive programmes: higher education institutions jointly organizing short 
intensive full-time teaching programmes bringing together students and teaching 
staff from several countries of the European Community are eligible for support. 
-8-
Erasmus Programme • Annual Report 1992 
Preference is given to programmes which are genuinely "multinational" in terms of 
participation, which focus on a specific theme not normally available at any one of 
the participating institutions alone, and which contribute to the dissemination of 
knowledge in rapidly evolving or new areas. Support may be used to cover travel 
and subsistence costs for planning meetings, expenses incurred in producing, 
translating and circulating information and teaching material, and travel and 
subsistence for teaching staff and students who have to go from one Member State 
to another to attend the course. 
Funding is also available for Study Visits, in order to facilitate the planning of new 
ICPs or the expansion of existing ones, or to enable the staff of higher education 
institutions to become better informed about the systems in existence in other 
countries eligible for Erasmus participation. 
ICP applications for 1992/1993 
10. The most important difference between the pattern of ICP applications for 1992/93 
and that for previous years was the involvement for the first time of the higher 
education institutions of the EFTA countries, which together coordinated 4.8% of all 
applications received, and accounted (either as coordinators or as partners) for 
5.6% of all Erasmus participations. 
Although, as will be seen from Table I (in Annex), numbers of Erasmus ICP 
applications have recently remained relatively stable, these applications reveal 
significant increases in the volume and scope of cooperation activities. The number 
of institutional participations rose by 1 814 (16.5%) between 1991/1992 and 
1992/1993 (See Table II - in Annex), while the number of institutions involved in 
one or more applications rose by 23% over the same period. These figures include 
many institutions which did not have access to inter-institutional cooperation prior 
to the existence of Erasmus, especially those belonging to the non-university 
sector. They also include 715 EFTA participations, among which 128 of the 712 
eligible ERA institutions are represented. (Many EFTA participations in 
applications concerned existing ICPs - in line with the advice, given by the 
Commission at information meetings, to take advantage of the experience already 
accumulated by Community institutions in the operation of the Programme.) 
No dramatic shifts occurred in the participation of the Member States of the 
European Community in ICP applications by comparison with the previous year. All 
Member States participated in increased numbers of applications, with the average 
increase for the Community being 10%. The most significant increases occurred in 
the cases of Denmark (17%) and Greece (16%). 
Turning to proposed student mobility activities, the numbers of students and 
student months proposed in applications both increased by 22% in relation to 
1991/1992 figures (by 11.6% if EFTA involvement is excluded). Applications from 
-9-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
individual Erasmus students moving outside the framework of ICPs ("free movers") 
are not included in this figure. 
The total number of ICP applications from EC Member States in 1992/1993 was 
2 319 compared with 2 594 in 1991/1992 (a decrease of 10.6%). The breakdown by 
strand was as shown in Table III (in Annex). 
In terms of ICP application numbers per academic discipline, there was a marked 
decrease in the field of Languages and Literature, due partly to the increased 
possibilities for funding under the Lingua Programme. Applications in 
Business/Management, Law and Engineering have also decreased in number, 
while increased numbers may be noted in Education, Communication and in the 
"framework agreement" category (see Table IV - in Annex). The Commission will 
continue to monitor particularly carefully the participation rate of all subjects which 
are under-represented by comparison with the percentage of the overall student 
population studying them, and will take appropriate measures to encourage their 
greater participation in the Programme (see paragraph 27 for measures in the 
field of teacher training). 
ICPs selected for 1992/1993 
11. Applications received were referred to three Academic Advisory Groups, which play 
an important part in the arrangements for quality control in the selection process 
(see paragraph 30). The Groups' views were carefully noted by the Commission, 
which decided to distribute the support available among 1 924 ICPs (see Table V -
in Annex), 1 780 of which included a student mobility programme (93%), 360 a 
teaching staff mobility programme, 172 a programme for the joint development of 
curricula and 139 an intensive programme. In December 1992, 40 additional grants 
were awarded to fund new programmes from the reserve list. In general terms, the 
view of the Academic Advisory Groups was that the overall quality of proposals 
received was continuing to improve, particularly in the case of student mobility 
programmes. The ICPs selected represent a broad spectrum of high-quality 
cooperation programmes between institutions in all Member States in a very wide 
range of academic disciplines. 
In accordance with the Council Decision of 14 December 1989 adopting the 
second phase of the Erasmus Programme, the academic year 1991/1992 marked 
the beginning of the pluriannual funding perspective for ICPs. This means that, 
subject to satisfactory reports, the Commission is in principle committed to three 
years of funding for most ICPs supported in that year. These programmes benefited 
from simplified renewal procedures in respect of the year 1992/1993, and account 
for 70% of all ICPs selected for funding, while the remaining 30% are new 
programmes - almost all of which are being funded for three years starting in 
1992/1993. The new system of pluriannual funding is reflected in the high overall 
approval rate of 79% for applications submitted in the 1992/1993 selection round. 
-10-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
(The approval rate for new programmes was 55%, while that for renewals was 
99%.) 
Programmes including EFTA institutions - which were heavily student mobility-
related - collectively achieved the same approval rate as those including only EC 
partners. Among EFTA countries, Sweden and Finland - which already had 
considerable experience of international cooperation in higher education - enjoyed 
notable success. 
The Commission was conscious of the need to afford some degree of 
encouragement to new programmes within the selection procedure for 1992/1993, 
given the advent of the pluriannual funding perspective. New programmes thus 
received somewhat higher grants than those already funded in 1991/1992. 
Rates of approval by type of activity were as shown in Table VI (in Annex). 
The Commission approved 59% of new SM programmes, in addition to renewing 
almost all existing programmes. At the same time, the number of programmes 
approved in the other three fields of activity was increased, although in the case of 
teaching staff mobility there was a reduction in the average grant per programme, 
on the basis that complementary funding was relatively widely available. 
Successful applicants for ICPs were awarded 27% of the amounts they requested 
in their applications (this figure having remained stable by comparison with 
1991/1992). There was some variation by type of activity, the amounts awarded by 
comparison with the amounts requested being 26% for student mobility 
programmes; 24% for teaching staff mobility programmes; 45% for curriculum 
development and 35% for intensive programmes. The average grant per ICP 
increased by 5% to 10 915 ECU in 1992/1993. However, as the number of partners 
per ICP application also increased (from 5 to 5.6), the unit grant per participating 
institution decreased compared with last year to 1 911 ECU (-9%). 
Although it is difficult to calculate precisely the complementary funding provided at 
institutional level to enable planned activities to be carried out, there is no doubt 
that it is quite substantial, in terms both of staff time and of direct expenditure. 
The table on institutional partnership in accepted 1992/1993 ICPs (see Table VII -
in Annex) shows a clear distribution pattern between the different Member States. 
Together, the three most active of the "large countries" (the United Kingdom, 
France and Germany) represent 49% of all partners in accepted ICPs, while "small 
countries" (Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Portugal) range between 2.5% and 4% of 
the participation. The remaining Community countries (Italy, Spain, the Netherlands 
and Belgium) have an institutional participation which varies from 5% to 11%, while 
none of the corresponding percentages for EFTA countries exceeds 2%. 
-11 -
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
The number of higher education institutions participating in Erasmus is a significant 
performance indicator for the Programme as a whole. Table VIII (in Annex) shows 
the progression from year tdyear in each Member State. The 526 institutions taking 
part in 1988/1989 represented 15% of all institutions which were eligible at that 
time; in 1992/1993, the corresponding percentage is 29%. Bearing in mind that in 
some countries, notably France, a very substantial proportion of the institutions 
listed as eligible in fact carry out the bulk of their activities within the secondary 
school sector (and are therefore most unlikely ever to become active in Erasmus), 
the figures substantiate the claim often made by members of higher education 
institutions that thanks to the Programme a new dimension has been added to the 
educational landscape. 
The distribution of subject areas after selection (see Table IX - in Annex) reflects 
the care taken by the Commission in promoting adequate balance between them. 
Thus, for example, the standard required for a programme to be selected was 
slightly higher for ICPs in the fields of Business/Management and Engineering than 
in Agriculture, Education and Medical Sciences, which the Commission was 
particularly anxious to encourage. 
12. Student Mobility (SM): There was no marked change in the distribution of student 
flows by destination. Over 16% of all students in accepted ICPs in 1992/1993 
intend to study abroad in the five smallest Member States besides Luxembourg 
(Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal) compared to 15% in 1991/1992. 
Germany (hosting 14% of all Erasmus students), France (20%) and the United 
Kingdom (22%) continue to be by far the most requested destinations. The National 
Grant Awarding Authorities (NGAAs) were requested to develop grant strategies to 
encourage student flows to under-represented host countries, by way of 
complementing selection and information measures already undertaken to ensure 
a more balanced participation of all eligible states in student mobility and Inter-
university Cooperation Programmes. The higher education institutions themselves 
have also contributed to improving the situation, in particular by developing 
provisions for the teaching of less widely spoken EC languages according to the 
needs of the Erasmus students. The Programme has encouraged institutions to pay 
more attention to the problems of orientation, reception and accommodation of 
Erasmus students, which will benefit all students. Overall the distribution pattern 
now compares quite closely to the average of the student population and the 
population in the age group 18-25, and the quality of the arrangements for the 
exchange of students has markedly improved. The total number of students 
estimated in all approved ICP applications for 1992/1993 is over 80 000. (Table X -
in Annex - shows student numbers in ICPs selected for 1992/93 by home and 
host country.) 
13. Teaching staff mobility (TS): In 1992/1993 the selection rate for Teaching Staff 
mobility programmes within the ICPs was 35% (an increase of 5% over 1991 /1992). 
This type of exchange can help to make the benefits of European cooperation 
(such as courses in another Community language, exposure to different methods 
-12-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
of teaching, access to specialised knowledge) available not only to those students 
who are able to take part in exchanges but also to the majority of the student 
population. Monitoring of the existing programmes has also shown that TS can 
have interesting spin-off effects. On the basis of mutual cross-fertilization between 
different teaching methods and administrative structures it can pave the way to 
further inter-institutional cooperation or joint research projects. It is also an 
excellent basis for the joint development of curricula. The Commission has decided 
to raise the number of accepted TS programmes from 309 in 1991/1992 to 360 in 
1992/1993 - an increase of 16.5%. Altogether, 5 173 teachers are due to take part 
(an increase of 53.1 % over 1991 /1992). 
14. Joint development of curricula (CD): A special effort was made to promote CD 
programmes, which have considerable potential for assisting the transfer of 
expertise between institutions and thus the qualitative improvement of higher 
education as called for in the objectives set out in the Council Decision. CD 
programmes also offer innovative solutions to academic recognition problems by 
encouraging the institutions to create partially or entirely new courses with built in 
recognition procedures, often based on modular patterns. Many new "European" 
degrees (ie degrees which are fully recognized in several Member States) have 
been created as a result of CD programmes. These degrees often imply 
compulsory mobility for the students and are considered by their coordinators as 
pilot programmes which would lend themselves to large-scale implementation 
following successful testing. In 1992/1993 172 CDs have been supported - an 
increase of 41 % compared to 1991 /1992. 
15. Intensive Programmes (IP): For 1992/1993, the Commission decided for the first 
time to increase the number of intensive programmes funded. The 139 selected IPs 
represent an approval rate of 26% and an increase of 36%, by comparison with 
1991/1992, in the number of programmes approved. The Academic Advisory 
Groups which met in March 1992 all endorsed the benefits of bringing together 
students and teachers from different countries for short periods - particularly in 
fields in which long-term mobility was in the early stages of planning (such that an 
intensive programme might pave the way for further developments) or was 
fundamentally difficult to arrange. Among other advantages recognized in relation 
to IPs were the opportunities which they offered to mature students and others for 
whom mobility was not normally possible. IPs have been found to be particularly 
helpful in subjects involving fieldwork or other practical activities, or where the 
resources of institutions in a number of countries can be pooled, in order to 
address new developments in a subject or to compare different national 
approaches to academic issues. 
Study Visits 
(Details of applications for study visit grants and of grants awarded, by eligible 
state and by subject area, appear in Annex: Table X\) 
-13-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
16. Four selection rounds were held during the calendar year 1992, allowing applicants 
to submit applications at any time, with an expectation of a quick decision. The 
total number of applications7received was 1 762, of which 1 145 (involving 2 000 or 
more individuals) were accepted. The total funding requested exceeded 5 Mio 
ECU, although the grants approved amounted to less than half this figure at 
2 197 000 ECU, including 400 000 ECU for a special campaign in respect of the five 
new German Lander (FNL). The application figures for 1992 represent an increase 
of 36% by comparison with the previous year, which in part reflects the FNL 
campaign and the entry of the EFTA countries into the Erasmus programme. 
The demand remained substantial throughout the year and the quality of the 
applications was high. The acceptance rate remained stable at around 65% in 1991 
and 1992. 
The objective of the majority of the visits approved (about two-thirds) was, as 
previously, the preparation or extension of ICPs: it is estimated that about 25% of 
the study visits funded for this purpose actually lead to approved ICPs in 
subsequent years. Just under a third of the 1992 grants were for "information visits" 
although it is clear that either of the two types of visit may lead to rather different 
results than originally planned. More generally, staff links generated by study visits 
have contributed significantly to a far better understanding of the problems and 
qualities of the higher education sectors in Member States. 
As in preceding years, particular attention was paid to applications involving 
Member States which are as yet underrepresented in the European University 
Network. Thus the four countries of the South of the Community (Greece, Spain, 
Italy and Portugal) received nearly 40% of all visit grants approved, a figure very 
much above their current proportion of involvement in ICPs. 
in terms of academic disciplines, visits were particularly encouraged in the fields of 
study deemed to be underrepresented in ICPs, although this aspect is becoming 
ever less marked as the overall subject balance of Erasmus improves. Within the 
visits scheme itself, the rate of applications by subject area has now been stable for 
three years and there is a very even spread of accepted applications across all 
disciplines. 
1992 saw the continuation of a special campaign to encourage visits between 
institutions in the five new Lander and the rest of the EC. A separate budget was 
made available and grants totalling 400 000 ECU awarded for 242 visits. These 
visits covered virtually the whole of the EC. The applications (341 in all) were in line 
with projections and the quality continued to improve steadily over the year, 
bringing them on a par with the EC average. 
1992 was also the first year in which representatives from institutions in the EFTA 
countries could carry out study visits, and the 161 applications received (of which 
99 were accepted) represented 9% of the overall 1992 figure, the most active 
-14-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
countries being Finland and Sweden. The majority of applications were for 
preparatory visits - either to launch an ICP or to join an existing network. 
Action 2: 
Erasmus Student Mobility Grants 
17. Of the 1 924 ICPs approved for the academic year 1992/1993, 93% incorporate 
student mobility, and grants to individual students have taken up 65% of the overall 
budget for the Erasmus Programme. Grants up to a theoretical maximum level of 
5 000 ECU per student per year may be awarded to students who carry out a 
recognized part of their studies in another eligible state. The inclusion of the EFTA 
countries in the Programme from 1992/1993 onwards has greatly extended the 
range of opportunities available to students. However, EFTA nationals can only be 
funded under Erasmus for periods of study in Community institutions, and cannot 
benefit from a grant to study in another EFTA country. 
The total demand for Erasmus student mobility grants as evidenced by application 
forms for the year 1992/1993 increased by 22% by comparison with 1991/1992, 
although these figures include the participation of EFTA for the first time: EFTA 
students only account for an increase of 5.3%. Among Member States the increase 
in demand (16.3%) was especially marked in Denmark and Portugal. 
On the basis of the 1 780 approved ICPs involving student mobility there was a 36% 
increase (to over 80 000) in the number of students eligible for a student mobility 
grant, of which EFTA accounted for 5.7%. This is considerably greater than the 
increase in the number of participations in approved ICPs with student mobility 
(17%) and reflects the fact that much of the growth in Erasmus is now concentrated 
in the internal expansion of activities within existing networks. The average duration 
of the study abroad period (1992/1993 estimates based on approved ICPs) 
remains stable at seven months. 
The average Erasmus student grant actually awarded by the NGAAs in 1989/1990 
was 200 ECU, and this dropped slightly, to 192 ECU per month, in 1990/1991 (the 
latest figure available). The steady increase in demand and in the numbers of 
eligible students continues to outstrip supply and indicates that there is still 
considerable potential for growth, given adequate funding. 
18. The funds available for Action 2 for 1992/1993 were divided between the eligible 
states in accordance with the amended provisions introduced by the Council 
Decision of 14 December 1989 (see Table XII - in Annex). Five percent of the 
budget was set aside for allocation at the discretion of the Commission, with a view 
to improving the overall balance between student flows. Each eligible state then 
received a lump sum of 200 000 ECU and the remainder of the Action 2 budget was 
allocated on the basis of the number of young people aged between 18 and 25 
(inclusive) in each eligible state and the number of students enrolled in institutions 
-15-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
of higher education, adjusted by the average cost of travel between countries and 
cost of living differentials. Special provisions apply for Iceland and Liechtenstein. 
The reserve fund of 5% was used to raise the notional monthly student mobility 
grant for Greece, Ireland and Portugal to 150 ECU, while the rest was distributed to 
the countries with the lowest level of grant, namely Belgium, Denmark, the 
Netherlands and the United Kingdom, in order to raise the notional monthly grant in 
these four countries to 87 ECU. No EFTA country benefited from the 5% reserve 
fund. A budget of 60 000 ECU (taken from the reserve fund and constituting 0.1 % of 
the total Action 2 budget) was allocated directly by the Commission to the 
European University Institute in Fiesole and the Fondation Universitaire 
Luxembourgeoise in Arlon to cover the mobility grants of their students. 
A budget of 2 880 000 ECU was allocated for students moving within the Inner 
Circle of ECTS, on the notional basis of 20 000 ECU per participating institution or 
consortium, to be distributed to NGAAs as a net addition to their main budgets. 
This significant increase in the level of Community funding for the mobility of ECTS 
students is justified by two main factors, namely the enlargement of the Inner Circle 
from 84 to 145 institutions and the Commission's policy of encouraging 
participating institutions to experiment with student mobility between all possible 
combinations of eligible states during the remainder of the ECTS pilot phase. 
19. The main change in Erasmus student flow patterns taking place in 1992/1993 
arises from the extension of the Programme to the EFTA countries. The number of 
students from EFTA countries proposed in approved ICP applications (over 3 000) 
is 4.2% of the total number of Erasmus students in all approved student flows (over 
80 000). The continuing steady increase in participation levels of the more 
"peripheral" countries is also to be noted. 
20. Significant improvements have been achieved in recent years in the quality and 
quantity of statistical and other information available concerning student mobility. A 
statistical profile of student cohorts in the Erasmus Programme is prepared 
annually using the reports of the NGAAs. Based on the latest statistics available, an 
overall shortfall of about 35% against total estimated eligible mobility can be 
predicted. This shortfall is a reflection of several factors. In the first place there is 
little doubt that ICP application estimates tend to be based on relatively optimistic 
funding and operational assumptions; secondly certain NGAAs, especially those in 
countries where national student support funding is very limited, deliberately 
reduce the number of Erasmus student mobility grants allocated in order to 
increase the value of the unit grant to those students who do travel. Finally certain 
students genuinely "drop out", for either personal or academic reasons. 
On the basis of shortfall patterns already established in 1989/1990 and 1990/1991 
one can predict that around 65% of all eligible students actually travel with Erasmus 
support. Therefore the number of Erasmus students in 1991/1992 and 1992/1993 
will be in the region of 37 000 and 51 000 respectively, giving a year on year 
-16-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
increase in actual mobility over the period 1990/1991 to 1992/1993 of 35 to 40%. 
Significant improvements in the quality of student mobility statistics should enable 
projections of far greater precision to be made in future. 
21. The principle of complementarity between Community support and the contribution 
of the Member States towards attaining the objectives of Erasmus has always been 
considered essential to the future development of the Programme, and 
consequently found expression in the preamble to the revised Council Decision of 
December 1989. The need for such complementarity has since become more 
evident because of the widening gap between demand for Erasmus student 
mobility grants and the available budget. The "top-up" nature of Erasmus grants, 
which are intended only to help cover the additional costs of mobility, makes such 
support at student grant level particularly important. National schemes specifically 
intended to complement Erasmus student grant funding now exist in Belgium 
(Dutch-speaking Community), Germany, Spain, France, Italy and Portugal and 
regional grant schemes are also increasingly in evidence. In some Community 
countries - including Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which do 
not operate complementary funding schemes specifically in relation to EC 
Programmes - funding from within the regular national student support system may 
be supplemented from public funds for study abroad. (Luxembourg is something of 
a special case in that its national grants system is primarily directed towards study 
abroad, given the absence of a comprehensive higher education system in the 
Grand Duchy itself; in Greece and Ireland no complementary funding is available at 
present.) 
22. All eligible states have a National Grant Awarding Authority (NGAA) (see also 
paragraph 31) designated as the central agency at national level responsible, in 
accordance with the arrangements chosen by the authorities of each eligible state, 
for the award of Erasmus grants to students of higher education institutions in that 
state wishing to spend a recognized period of study in another eligible state, 
whether within the framework of an ICP or as a "free mover". Although NGAAs may 
allocate grants directly to grantholders, the most common pattern is for indirect 
awards via the sending institution. In 1991/1992 grants to ECTS students were 
channelled via the NGAA system, and the same procedure is being adopted for 
1992/1993. With the exception of Denmark, Greece, Italy and Portugal, Member 
States either do not allocate free mover grants, or do so in very small numbers. 
Given the comparatively small volume of proposed EFTA student flows within ICPs 
during this first year of participation, it is expected that the NGAAs designated in 
these countries will allocate a substantial number of free mover grants to stimulate 
student mobility. 
-17-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
Action 3: 
Measures to promote mobility through the academic recognition of 
diplomas and periods of study 
European Community Course Credit Transfer System (ECTS) 
23. Action 3.1 of Erasmus provides for the establishment of an experimental and 
voluntary European Community Course Credit Transfer System (ECTS) to enable 
students to receive credits for periods of study carried out and qualifications 
obtained at institutions of higher education in other eligible states. 
The chief objective of this pilot scheme is to develop credit transfer as an effective 
instrument for academic recognition. It aims to achieve this by providing institutions 
admitting students who have already studied in other eligible states with a 
straightforward and reliable means of assessing such students' previous 
performance, thus enabling an appropriate point of entry into a new degree course 
structure to be determined for each individual. This should in principle be possible 
regardless of whether or not an integrated exchange programme exists in the area 
concerned. 
Under the scheme, students who have studied at an ECTS partner institution 
abroad may return to graduate at their home institution, where they will be given full 
credit for their achievements while studying abroad, or stay on to graduate at the 
host institution (subject to the approval of that institution), or go on to study at 
another institution in a third country within the same subject area group. 
The ECTS System was launched for a six-year pilot phase in 1989/1990. The five 
subject areas involved are Business Administration, History, Medicine, Chemistry 
and Mechanical Engineering, and in the coordination and animation of each 
subject area group the Commission is assisted by an academic working in the field 
concerned, who is designated Subject Area Coordinator. 
At the outset, the ECTS pilot scheme embraced 81 individual higher education 
institutions and 3 consortia, making 84 institutions in all. In the course of 1991 two 
institutions from the five new Lander were added, and in autumn 1991 ECTS was 
further extended across the EC by the selection of 36 more institutions (within the 
original subject areas), for participation with effect from January 1992. In addition, 
23 institutions from the EFTA countries joined ECTS in 1992. (As in the case of 
established ECTS institutions, the selection was made on the basis that a balance 
was to be maintained between countries and between types of higher education 
institution, and that no institution should participate in more than one subject 
group.) In consequence of these successive extensions, the total number of higher 
education institutions constituting the ECTS Inner Circle is now 145. 
In 1992, each ECTS institution received a grant from the Commission to fund the 
additional activities necessary to implement ECTS, including the preparation of an 
information package for students; this grant amounted to 10 000 ECU for the 
-18-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
original institutions and the two FNL institutions which joined in 1991/1992 and 
15 000 ECU for the newly-admitted EC and EFTA institutions. In addition, and with 
the object of stimulating new flows and interactions within ECTS, the number of full 
student grants allocated to each institution was increased from five to ten for the 
academic year 1992/1993. The level of these grants (which now amount to the 
equivalent of 100 student months per institution) is determined by the NGAA of the 
eligible state in which the home institution is located. 
In the spring of 1992, all subject area groups held meetings to discuss in detail 
reports on the second year of operation of ECTS (1990/1991) and to select 
students for the academic year 1992/1993. 1 700 students were selected for a 
study period in an ECTS institution in another eligible state (as against 928 students 
in 1991/1992 (see Table XIII - in Annex), 810 students in 1990/1991 and 553 
students in 1989/1990). The largest number of students is enrolled in Business 
Administration courses, followed in descending order by Medicine, Mechanical 
Engineering, Chemistry and History. Language continues to be the most influential 
criterion for selection on the part of the students - France and the United Kingdom 
remaining the most attractive countries. However, the consistent efforts made 
within the ECTS pilot scheme to achieve more balanced student flows can be 
clearly observed. It is important to note that, in the pilot phase of ECTS, student 
mobility is not a goal as such but a means of testing the principles and mechanisms 
of the ECTS system. 
The third operational year (1991/1992) can be considered as a year of 
consolidation for ECTS, building on the experience of the previous years of 
operation. Most ECTS information packages produced by participating institutions 
provide useful information in an increasingly standardized way, and procedures for 
allocating credit points to the different kinds of courses offered have proved 
effective. The procedures for credit transfer, both prior to the departure of the 
students and upon their return, are now well-established: the student application 
form, after the approval of the student's proposed programme by both the home 
and the host institution, now becomes a learning contract, thereby guaranteeing 
credit transfer if and when the student succeeds in the courses indicated on the 
form. The ECTS grading scale, which was developed spontaneously within the 
Inner Circle in order to facilitate the translation of grades from one grading system 
to another, has been refined and will be widely used in 1992/1993. Most students 
managed to complete the package of courses which they had planned to carry out 
while abroad, and received the anticipated number of credits. ECTS coordinators 
demonstrated a high degree of commitment to the scheme and did their utmost to 
help ECTS students in the preparation and implementation of their study abroad 
programmes at partner institutions. 
The fifth ECTS plenary meeting took place in Toulouse from the 25 to 27 October 
1992, bringing together nearly all institutional and departmental coordinators from 
the 145 ECTS institutions. The first day of the conference was devoted to the future 
of ECTS. Debate focussed on the general principles that should guide a large-scale 
-19-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
extension process, alternative growth paths and the support facilities needed to 
promote the wider application of ECTS. Participants considered ECTS to be an 
easy system to implement and mature enough to be extended beyond the relatively 
restricted context within which the system was currently being tested. 
The Commission has entered into a consultancy contract with Coopers and 
Lybrand for a mid-term evaluation of the pilot phase of ECTS. The object of this 
evaluation is to assess the extent to which ECTS has achieved its aims in the pilot 
scheme so far, and also the extent to which it may be expected to continue to 
achieve them in the context of a wider application of ECTS. The evaluation report, 
which will also identify the implications of extending the application of ECTS, was 
finalized in February 1993. 
Attention should also be drawn to the Outer Circle of ECTS institutions which, 
though neither formally part of the pilot scheme nor grant-aided, are kept informed 
of the principles and procedures developed by the Inner Circle as a means of 
extending the benefit of the pilot experience as widely as possible. A number of 
higher education institutions within and outside the Outer Circle have been 
stimulated to develop credit transfer systems, often modelled on ECTS. In some 
instances, the same choice was made at national level. 
NARIC Network 
24. Action 3.2 of Erasmus, relating to the European Community Network of National 
Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARIC network), is aimed at ensuring 
optimum cooperation between the NARIC Centres, individual institutions of higher 
education and the national authorities on questions concerning academic 
recognition, and at integrating the NARIC network into the Erasmus Programme. 
The six EFTA NARiCs (from Austria, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and 
Switzerland) became fully integrated into the NARIC network in 1992, according to 
the agreements between the Community and the EFTA countries, which provided 
for full integration into all actions of the Erasmus Programme in 1992. 
The NARIC network helps to promote the mobility of students by providing 
authoritative advice and information concerning the academic recognition of 
diplomas and study periods abroad. Under Action 3.2 of Erasmus, grants totalling 
110 445 ECU were awarded to the NARICs in 1992 to enable staff members of the 
centres to undertake study visits to other eligible states or to produce publications 
on academic recognition matters. In 1992, the NARIC network compiled a 
comparative overview (to be published in 1993) of the main higher education 
diplomas in all Member States. 
The network operates in a climate of increased mobility in which higher education 
institutions are becoming increasingly capable of solving their academic 
recognition matters without external advice and in which new questions concerning 
-20-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
in particular mobility beyond the Community and the EFTA territory and the 
professional recognition of diplomas and periods of study are also emerging. 
In view of this changing environment, the Commission has started to review the 
scope and operation of the NARIC network. Several actions have been undertaken. 
The parallel networks of the Council of Europe (National Equivalence Information 
Centres, NEIC) and UNESCO/CEPES (National Information Bodies, NIB), which 
cover a far wider geographical area, were invited to a joint meeting in Lisbon on 25 
and 26 May 1992. A programme of joint activities was discussed, aimed at avoiding 
overlap and creating synergies between the three networks. 
The Lisbon meeting was also used as an occasion for a first joint meeting with the 
parallel network of "contact points" for the Council Directive (21 December 1988) on 
a general system for the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on 
completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration 
(89/48/EEC). Most NARICs have been appointed as "contact points" for this "first 
general directive". It was therefore agreed to cooperate closely in the interests of 
the mobile students and future workforce. 
The NARICs could equally play an important role in providing the envisaged 
European database on higher education with authoritative information on academic 
and professional recognition matters. This would enable a broad audience of 
students, teachers, institutions and employers to gain direct access to relevant 
information concerning academic and professional recognition. 
A further reflection on Community actions in the field of academic recognition was 
announced at the NARIC meeting in Brussels on 18 December 1992. The 
Commission is preparing for June 1993 a Communication on academic recognition 
activities, which will present the achievements to date and outline the tasks that lie 
ahead. The Communication will build on the experience gathered by the NARICs as 
well as the results of cooperation with the Council of Europe and UNESCO. 
Action 4 : 
Complementary measures to promote mobility in the Community 
25. Action 4 serves the Erasmus Programme primarily through support to associations 
or consortia of higher education institutions, academic or administrative staff and 
students working on a European basis to make initiatives in specific mobility-related 
fields better known throughout the European Community. A financial contribution 
of up to a maximum of 20 000 ECU may be awarded to facilitate the introduction or 
reinforcement of the European Dimension within the activities of an association 
working at national or regional level, to coordinate the activities of different national 
associations at European levei, or to create a new association at European level. 
Support is also provided for certain publications (such as study guides, directories 
or descriptive or analytical material on higher education systems) designed to 
-21 -
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
enhance awareness of study and teaching opportunities in the different eligible 
states or to draw attentionjo important developments and innovative models for 
cooperation in higher education throughout the European Community. Action 4 
grants are also utilized for disseminating information on solutions to problems 
highlighted by the increase in student mobility, such as accommodation, academic 
recognition or student services at institutional level. The level of support for these 
projects is determined by the Commission on a cost-sharing basis, in the light of 
information provided by the applicant. Action 4 grants are not normally provided for 
the ongoing support of projects or for the infrastructure costs of associations, but 
rather to facilitate specific projects or to provide pump-priming for longer-term 
activities. 
Finally, special initiatives can be launched by the Commission, if necessary in 
association with various institutions, in order to reinforce the participation of certain 
disciplines or regions in the Erasmus Programme or to test new forms of 
cooperation. 
26. There have been three selection rounds in 1992. A total of 116 applications for 
financial support were received. Of 111 projects eligible for support, 74 were 
submitted by student and staff associations and 37 concerned mobility-related 
publications. 44 grants were awarded under Erasmus Action 4 - 26 for developing 
association activities and 18 for publications related to cooperation in higher 
education. The total amount awarded was 319 845 ECU (234 520 ECU for 
association activities and 85 325 ECU for publication projects). Altogether, there 
are 517 separate involvements of institutions and organizations, with a remarkably 
even distribution across the Member States and encouraging and balanced 
participation by the EFTA countries. 
Financial support under Action 4 focusses in particular on subject areas currently 
under-represented in Inter-university Cooperation Programmes, such as Art and 
Design, Music, Teacher Training and the Medical and Paramedical Sciences. A 
substantial proportion of accepted projects therefore falls within these areas, 
although all disciplines have at some point been represented in Action 4, and most 
are represented every year. 
A key objective of Action 4 is to support student and staff mobility by facilitating the 
dissemination of information on higher education systems. With this in mind, grants 
were awarded in 1992 to support publications and databases containing detailed 
information on conditions of study and on course structures and contents in the 
fields of Physics, Photography, Agriculture, Tourism and Political Economy. 
Association activities remain at the core of Action 4; support is either given to 
encourage the launching of new associations - as in the case of a major network of 
faculties, schools and institutes of Pharmacy - or to foster improved cooperation 
through specific projects, such as a database of resources for English Studies in 
Europe set up by the European Society for the Study of English (ESSE). In addition, 
-22-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
emphasis was again given to projects submitted by student associations seeking to 
further their work in the interests of mobile students and to give relevant training to 
their members. Further support was also granted to two projects focussing on the 
mobility of handicapped students. 
Also worthy of special mention is the Action 4 support given to the European 
Conference on the living conditions of Higher Education students in EC Member 
States and EFTA countries, which took place in Bonn from 8 to 11 September 1992. 
The conference, which was jointly organized by the Deutsches Studentenwerk eV 
(DSW) and the Centre National des Oeuvres Universitaires et Scolaires (CNOUS), 
focussed on the social conditions of students in higher education, including the 
organization of the social infrastructure in the countries concerned, national 
financing systems for student support, and accommodation problems. The 
proceedings of the conference will be published in the first half of 1993. 
Special initiatives 
27. The revised arrangements for Action 4 introduced for the first time in 1991/1992 in 
accordance with the Council Decision of December 1989 provide for special 
initiatives to stimulate Erasmus activities in previously underrepresented areas. In 
order to facilitate the introduction of a European Dimension in the field of teacher 
training, five projects funded from the 1991 Action 4 budget were implemented in 
1992, constituting the first special initiative of this kind. The projects combined 
curriculum development work with exchanges of teaching staff and students to 
experiment with models of inter-institutional cooperation other than those at 
present offered by the Programme. The participating institutions are members of 
RIF (Réseau d'Institutions de Formation) - a European network of teacher training 
institutions. These projects, together with a conference bringing together ICP 
coordinators from the teacher training area to exchange information and set up a 
cooperation framework for the future (Nicoped), and a comparative study of 
curricula in the field, will be carefully evaluated with the object of finding practical 
ways of encouraging participation by teacher training institutions in the Erasmus 
Programme. 
11.2 Information Activities 
28. Throughout 1992, information services to the academic community, relevant 
national agencies and authorities, the media and the general public on the ongoing 
further development of the Erasmus Programme and the opportunities which it 
offers continued to be a major priority. These involved producing and distributing 
the various basic information products considered necessary for publicizing 
Erasmus to potential applicants, receiving and counselling individual visitors, 
improving the presentation of the Programme at fairs or conferences and dealing 
with requests for information from the academic and political world and the press. 
There are many indications that the measures aimed at increasing the general level 
-23-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
of awareness concerning the Programme, both within the educational world and 
among the public at large, are having the desired effect. 
At central level, nearly 4 000 written general information requests were processed 
during the year, not counting the requests made directly at national level to the 
Erasmus National Grant Awarding Authorities. The trend in information requests is 
towards more specific and detailed enquiries. This suggests that higher education 
staff and students are receiving more basic information through the various 
channels at Member State level, such as the National Grant Awarding Authorities, 
the international offices which have become ever more numerous in institutions 
(often under the impulse of the Commission's education programmes), the media 
and various professional or student associations towards which Erasmus 
information actions have been directed in 1992. The increase in personal contacts 
between the Commission and the networks of higher education institutions - either 
through visits to Brussels (420 in 1992, as against 270 in 1991), or through external 
missions - appears successful in enabling the Erasmus Programme to maintain a 
human face as it increases in size. 
Particularly notable developments in services, in response to the pattern of 
information requests received and to the evolution of the Programme itself, are as 
follows: 
the mailing of information material, aimed at students and others, to all 
eligible institutions of higher education several times per year or further to 
specific requests 
The computerized general mailing list created for the information 
requirements of the Programme has undergone a major revision 
and now contains over 11 000 entries. (Of these, 1 500 are in the 
"Media" section, in the development of which significant progress 
has been made) 
the extensive promotion, using the mailing list, of the Erasmus Newsletter 
(which now appears three times annually in English and French versions) 
This has led to an increase of 620 (to a total of 2 600) in the 
number of paying subscribers, in addition to the 2 700 copies 
distributed free of charge to ICP coordinators, NGAAs and officials 
of European institutions. A reader survey conducted in 1992 shows 
that most readers are satisfied with the present format and 
periodicity of the Newsletter. However, further efforts will be 
devoted to improving readability by the presentation of certain 
types of information in visual form. 
-24-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
the successful marketing of the 1991/1992 edition of the Erasmus Directory of 
Programmes, which contains descriptions of all ICPs supported 
5 000 copies were distributed in total (as against 4000 in 1991), 
and the publication was rapidly out of print. The 1992/1993 edition 
will contain, for the first time, data on EFTA participation and 
indications of special facilities for the handicapped available in 
individual institutions. 
the development of media relations 
This led to a massive increase in the press coverage of Erasmus 
(602 newspaper articles on Erasmus in the EC and 454 in the EFTA 
countries having been recorded in 1992 (see Table XIV - in Annex 
- showing press coverage by country), and a substantial number 
of television and radio programmes focussing on Erasmus during 
the year (many of which have included programme coordinators 
and NGAA representatives as participants). 
the selective participation in 169 of the 316 events which the Commission was 
invited to attend 
These included, for example, meetings of academics working in 
specific subject areas, student associations and representatives of 
the professions from different Member States. 
the increase in participation in international student fairs 
The Commission took part in 14 international or local fairs in 1992 
either directly (Vienna, Brussels, Barcelona, Geneva, Granada, 
Berlin, Milan, Lisbon) or indirectly by using local or NGAA 
resources (Milan, Dublin, Paris, Madrid). A press conference was 
organized at the stand on every suitable occasion. The fairs in 
Vienna and Geneva were the first EFTA fairs to be attended by the 
Commission. 
Particularly important was the programme of publications on Erasmus. This 
included notably: 
Erasmus Directory of Programmes 1992/1993 (see above); 
the Directory of Higher Education Institutions in the European Community, on 
which supplementary work was carried out to incorporate the institutions of 
the five new Lander of the Federal Republic of Germany and of the EFTA 
countries (awaiting publication); 
the Erasmus Newsletter (see above) ; 
-25-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
Guidelines for Applicants 1993/1994 - a document (in nine language versions) 
which is sent to all eligible institutions, containing application forms and 
detailed information on the procedures for submitting them, together with 
appropriate background information; 
a new edition (in 9 language versions) of the Erasmus Guide to Good Practice, 
which explains to potential or existing Erasmus partners how to participate 
effectively in the Programme (awaiting publication); 
alphabetical lists of ICPs by country town and subject area, prepared for use 
in responding to a frequently-received type of information request; 
a wall chart illustrating Erasmus participation by region; 
a new general information brochure; 
a new edition of the student information leaflet; 
a new edition of the brochure concerning National Academic Recognition 
Information Centres (NARICs) in the Community and the EFTA countries; 
Another noteworthy information activity has been the development of the Erasmus 
Documentation Centre using a computerized document indexing and retrieval 
system. 
II.3 Organizational and consultative infrastructure 
Erasmus Advisory Committee 
29. The Commission is assisted by the Erasmus Advisory Committee (EAC) in the 
implementation of the Programme, through consultation on the general approach 
to the measures provided for by the Programme and on the overall balance of the 
Actions and exchanges between Member States. 
The EAC met twice in 1992. The main purpose of the meeting held on 30 March in 
Brussels was to advise the Commission on the selection of ICPs and the grant 
allocation for the year 1992/1993. On 21 and 22 September the Committee met in 
Barcelona at the kind invitation of the Universitat de Barcelona. The main subject of 
the debate was the orientation to be given to the programme for its third phase of 
implementation. On each occasion the Committee was given an oral report by the 
organization in charge of the external evaluation of the Programme, Price 
Waterhouse. 
-26-
Academic Advisory Groups Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
30. In carrying out its selection of ICPs the Commission is assisted by three Academic 
Advisory Groups, each covering a broad range of disciplines and made up of 
representatives of the academic world appointed by the Commission. The role of 
these groups is to provide the latter with an informal expert opinion in relation to the 
ICPs proposed for selection and more generally on the involvement of the various 
subject groupings in Erasmus. The three Groups met in March 1992. The 
preparatory procedures for the Group meetings continued to be streamlined and 
improved compared with previous years. 1992 saw the inclusion of a significant 
number of new members of the Groups as part of a regular and systematic process 
of renewal and also the participation, for the first time, of members from the EFTA 
countries. 
National Grant Awarding Authorities 
31. The National Grant Awarding Authorities (NGAAs) are the bodies responsible for 
the administration of Erasmus student grants within the Member States and the 
EFTA countries. 
NGAA representatives met for a plenary meeting in Brussels on 8 and 9 April 1992, 
which concentrated on the outcome of the 1992/1993 ICP selection, the comments 
in the report of the Court of Auditors on grant allocation procedures, the need for 
harmonization of Erasmus and Lingua (Action II) student grants, the new procedure 
for the allocation of ECTS grants and the NGAA computerization project. All NGAAs 
were invited to send an observer to participate in the meeting of the Erasmus 
Advisory Committee in Barcelona on 21 and 22 September 1992. During the year a 
number of informal visits between the NGAAs and the Erasmus Bureau also took 
place. 
In the EFTA countries, NGAAs have now taken up their full responsibilities for the 
allocation of student mobility grants, the combined value of which amounts to 9.8% 
of the total Erasmus budget for 1992/1993. They have already invested a great deal 
of effort in information activities and assistance to the institutions in their countries. 
Most of the EFTA NGAA units form part of larger sections responsible for European 
programmes situated in Ministries of Education or linked to rectors' conferences or 
boards of universities. The Icelandic and Austrian NGAAs have adopted a 
procedure of individual student grant contracts, while the others prefer to operate 
on the basis of institutional contracts. 
To improve the management of the student mobility grant budget, the Commission 
has entered into a consultancy contract with Fretwell-Downing for a 
computerization project to study ways of making the current management system 
more effective and to propose technical measures to be taken by the Erasmus 
Bureau and the NGAAs. The project will outline the implications for all parties 
concerned in terms of overall costings and investment of staff time. The project 
-27-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
combines visits to a cross-section of six NGAAs (France, Germany, Greece, 
Ireland, Italy and the United .Kingdom) with a questionnaire to all other NGAAs and 
a more detailed analysis of the position in three institutions per country visited. The 
final report will be discussed with the NGAAs at their meeting in the spring of 1993. 
NGAAs handle a wide range of enquiries at local level and many have been 
involved, either as organizer or as participant, in information meetings. These 
include national or regional meetings with ICP coordinators and meetings with 
prospective ICP applicants. 
Erasmus Bureau 
32. The Commission continues to be assisted in the operational implementation of the 
Programme by the Erasmus Bureau, a non-profitmaking autonomous body of the 
European Cultural Foundation with which appropriate contractual arrangements 
have been made. 
11.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 
33. Considerable emphasis has rightly been placed from the outset on ensuring a 
thorough and ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the Erasmus Programme. The 
various evaluation activities form part of a coherent overall evaluation design 
developed during Phase I of the Programme for the purpose of keeping under 
constant review the extent to which the Programme is meeting its objectives and 
the factors which are affecting its capacity to do so. In this overall context, the 
distinction is made between monitoring of the Programme which is or could be 
carried out by the agencies involved in implementing the Programme, and 
evaluation work in the stricter sense, which is carried out by external bodies. 
34. In monitoring the Programme the Commission is assisted by the 
Wissenschaftliches Zentrum fur Berufs- und Hochschulforschung (Centre for 
Research on Higher Education and Work) at Gesamthochschule Kassel, which in 
1990 was awarded a contract covering the period from 15 December 1990 to 30 
June 1995 inclusive. The general work plan established for the continuous 
monitoring of the programme provides for the gathering of statistical data on a 
yearly basis and the analysis of reports on activities provided by grant beneficiaries. 
Thus work has been completed in 1992 on the overall statistical profile of 
1990/1991 student grantholders (Student mobility within Erasmus 1990/1991: a 
statistical profile). Also finalised or nearing completion are the two annual surveys 
of ECTS students {Experiences of ECTS students 1989/1990 and Experiences of 
ECTS students 1990/1991) and the analysis of the ICP coordinators' reports for 
1989/1990 (Erasmus student mobility programmes in the view of their 
coordinators). 
-28-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
In addition, other monitoring activities are aimed at obtaining direct feedback from 
certain categories of Programme participants. Thus the impact of the Erasmus 
activities can be assessed in some depth. Three key documents nearing 
completion are: 
the biennial survey of ICP students: more than 3 200 students who took part in 
Erasmus ICPs in 1990/1991 replied to a detailed questionnaire covering all 
academic, cultural and practical aspects of their period of study abroad 
(Experiences of Erasmus students 1990/1991); 
a survey of more than 400 academics who took part in Teaching Staff Mobility 
programmes in 1990/1991 (Erasmus teaching staff mobility: the 1990/1991 
teachers' view); 
the first "tracer" survey on the experiences of the 1988/1989 Erasmus students 
two years after their return. (Erasmus students 1988/1989 two years after their 
return). 
These studies will shortly be published and distributed as appropriate. 
In 1992 work also started on a survey of the experiences of staff in higher education 
institutions who were in charge of the management of individual ICPs in 1991/1992 
(whether as coordinators or as partners), the statistical profile of mobile students in 
1991/1992, and the annual survey of ECTS students in 1991/1992. 
Finally, the Kassel team was asked to prepare a general statistical package 
summarizing in a convenient format the main data about the Erasmus programme 
since its inception. 
35. In 1991 a call for tender was launched by the Commission for the overall evaluation 
of the Programme. Following the publication of the call for tender in the Official 
Journal of the Communities on 1 March 1991, the contractor chosen was the 
consultancy firm Price Waterhouse. 
The first phase of the evaluation, focussing on the management structure of the 
programme at all levels, was completed in the course of 1992 and the resulting 
report was brought to the attention of the Erasmus Advisory Committee. The 
second phase conclusions, concerning the general impact of the Programme and 
the recommendations for its future implementation, were presented to the 
Commission by the contractor at the end of the year. 
Both phases involved extensive consultation in the field both with academics and 
with other agents directly involved in the implementation of the Programme. The 
final version will be completed on schedule by the end of January 1993, in order to 
be presented to the Council prior to its debates on Phase III of the Programme, 
together with the report by Coopers and Lybrand on their mid-term evaluation of 
ECTS (see paragraph 23). 
-29-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
36. In addition to the work of Gesamthochschule Kassel mentioned above, a study was 
commissioned to examine™ detail the specific obstacles faced by institutions 
belonging to the non-university sector of higher education in their participation in 
the Programme. This was entrusted to the recently-created European Association 
of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE). On the basis of the results, an 
action plan will be devised by the Commission and EURASHE jointly, to promote 
participation by this sector. 
37. Other monitoring and evaluation activities carried out during the year included the 
following: 
analysis of the annual reports sent in by Erasmus grantholders, leading to the 
annual analytical reports prepared by the Erasmus Bureau for the 
Commission; 
preparation by the Erasmus Bureau of a statistical overview of the participation 
in Erasmus of each region of the European Community and EFTA countries, 
accompanied by a preliminary analysis of the patterns of participation and the 
factors influencing it; 
The Erasmus Advisory Committee had a first exchange of views on 
this material at its meeting held in Barcelona in September 1992, 
following which the Commission forwarded a number of 
suggestions to the Member States for further analysis. 
an overview and brief analysis of the participation in Erasmus and Lingua 
(Action II) for each of the 18 subject areas used for the classification of ICPs; 
two meetings organized in association with the EAIE (European Association 
for International Education) on the occasion of its annual conference, in order 
to consult the persons responsible, at institutional level, for the administration 
of Erasmus and for the provision of language training to Erasmus students; 
interviews with the coordinators and partners of a few selected ICPs on the 
occasion of their general meetings; 
participation in numerous seminars and meetings dealing with problems linked 
to the implementation of the Programme in the various Member States and 
more generally to the development of international cooperation in higher 
education - for example regular contacts with the Liaison Committee of 
National Conferences of Rectors, general ICP coordinators' meetings in 
France, Germany and Spain, the Joint Conference of the EAIE (European 
Association for International Education) and CIEE (Council for International 
Educational Exchange) etc; 
30-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
specific evaluation measures relating to ECTS, which are described elsewhere 
in the present report. 
Ill FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND INTERACTION WITH 
OTHER COMMUNITY PROGRAMMES OR INITIATIVES 
IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION FIELD 
Ill-"l EFTA countries 
38. Following the successful conclusion of the negotiations on the extension of 
Erasmus to the EFTA countries, and in view of the encouraging number of 
applications made by EFTA institutions for their first year of participation in the 
Programme (see paragraph 10) the information campaign planned to ease their 
integration into the programme was continued. 
On 27 January an information conference attended by 200 rectors of ERA 
institutions or their representatives was organized in Brussels. Later in the year, 
national information days took place in all ERA countries with the exception of 
Sweden. Commission representatives were actively involved in each case. In 
addition, a tour of five Austrian universities was made in September (during which 
contact was also made with representatives of other Austrian institutions) and the 
Erasmus Programme was represented at the Vienna student fair (an event which 
attracted about 90 000 visitors). 
The bilateral agreements between the European Community and the ERA 
countries provided for the creation of a Joint Committee between each ERA 
country and the Commission. Following a preliminary information session on 28 
January 1992, at which rules of procedure were agreed, the first formal meeting of 
the Committees was held on 31 March (immediately following that of the Erasmus 
Advisory Committee) to discuss the selection of ICPs for 1992/1993. On 13 July the 
Committees were convened again to discuss a series of papers prepared by the 
Commission regarding regional participation in the Programme. Each delegation 
was invited to send an observer to the Erasmus Advisory Committee meeting 
dedicated to the discussion of Phase III of Erasmus in Barcelona on 21 and 22 
September. 
National Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARICs) and National Grant 
Awarding Authorities (NGAAs) were established in ERA countries, as planned at 
the time of the agreements concerning ERA participation in Erasmus as a whole 
(see paragraphs 24 and 31). 
As provided for in the agreements, the ERA countries contributed to the Erasmus 
budget for the first time in 1992. The proportionality factors governing the 
contributions were determined, in each case, by the ratio of the gross domestic 
-31 -
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
product of the ERA country concerned to the sum of the gross domestic products 
of that country and of the Community. 
III.2 Planning of Higher Education for the 1990's 
39. Most of the year was devoted to wide-ranging discussions, the first of their kind at 
the European level, on the Memorandum on Higher Education in the European 
Community (COM(91)349 final), adopted by the Commission in November 1991. 
The Memorandum, of which 25 000 copies were distributed, aroused great interest 
throughout the Community. Over 80 meetings were held involving some 8 000 
participants - teachers, administrators and students, government officials and 
representatives of industry and the social partners. One of these conferences, held 
in Parma in October on Access to Higher Education in Europe, was organized 
jointly with the Council of Europe. 
The Memorandum was widely welcomed, both as a valuable and constructive 
contribution to the planning of higher education policy in the Member States and as 
a good example of the kind of Community-wide consultation called for in the 
Birmingham Declaration of 16 October 1992. In addition to national responses a 
large number of comments and reactions was received from organizations and 
institutions. A small group of experts was set up in November to begin the in-depth 
analysis of this very rich, varied, and sometimes critical, material and to prepare 
both a synthesis report and analyses of the comments made on some of the main 
themes raised in the Memorandum. This will enable the Commission to take into 
account the results of the debate in the preparation of the next phases of existing 
Community programmes - notably of Erasmus, Lingua and Comett (proposals for 
all of which will be presented in 1993 or 1994) - and in the planning of future 
activities. At the same time these reports will provide Member States with useful 
information for the development of their higher education systems. 
While the full analysis of the reactions will be finalized in the course of 1993, a 
number of major concerns have already been expressed. There has been a 
widespread affirmation of the key role which higher education must play in the 
economic, social and political development of the Community, although the 
Memorandum itself has been criticized in some quarters for adopting an 
excessively utilitarian approach and for neglecting the social and cultural value of 
higher education in preparing young people for life in an evolving European 
Community. There has also been a call for greater coordination between 
Community education and research programmes and for greater transparency and 
consultation with the academic community in the setting of priorities and 
objectives. Views concerning the proposed increase in access and participation 
rates in higher education, and the possible setting of EC targets, reflect the 
differences in national access policies and the different levels of participation 
already achieved in the Member States. The Commission is seen as having an 
important role in the provision of information and policy analysis on higher 
-32-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
education in the Community and in promoting the development of a European 
Dimension in higher education. 
In this context, the Council and the Ministers of Education, meeting within the 
Council on 27 November 1992, adopted conclusions on the development of the 
European Dimension in higher education (one of the main themes of the 
Memorandum), designed to promote in particular a major increase in teacher 
mobility, links between institutions and the development of common curricula. 
40. In response to the Commission's Memorandum on Open and Distance Learning 
(COM(91)388 Final: 12 November 1991), the Council and Ministers of Education, 
meeting within the Council on 27 November 1992, adopted conclusions on criteria 
for activities in the field. This provides a useful framework for considering how to 
exploit the benefits of open and distance learning (ODL) within Erasmus to 
complement the analysis of current use of ODL techniques in the Programme. In 
1992, the few higher education Institutions using ODL in Erasmus interpreted its 
scope widely, across all aspects of Action 1. This has enabled a range of 
possibilities to be identified as potential models, and project monitoring, together 
with further assessment of current information, will contribute to proposals to 
stimulate the use of ODL in Erasmus Phase III. 
41. Following the Resolution of the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council 
on 25 November 1991, the Commission launched a call for expressions of interest 
from bodies and consortia to undertake the creation of a European Database on 
Higher Education. This database will be of direct relevance to Erasmus, since it will 
provide information'C'on line" or "off line") to students, higher education institutions 
and organizations with similar interests, on the range of courses and qualifications 
as well as their "providers" throughout Europe. Erasmus will almost certainly be a 
major source of information for such a database. 
42. Similarly, the Commission has also invited expressions of interest from those 
wishing to set up a higher education Bulletin Board System. While the 
specifications of this facility are not yet finalized, it appears likely that many 
members of the European University Network will find it useful to subscribe to the 
services offered (which are expected to include electronic mail, a public bulletin 
board, conferencing, file transfer, fax and databases). 
III.3 Interaction with other European Community programmes 
43. The future development of Erasmus must be viewed within the wider framework of 
Community initiatives in the field of education and training aimed at exploiting the 
potential of the Internal Market. With this in mind, every effort is made to ensure 
proper coordination between Erasmus and other Community programmes in 
relevant areas of activity. 
-33-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
44. Action II of the Lingua Programme, which promotes the teaching and learning of 
foreign languages, covers inter-university cooperation and the exchange of higher 
education students and staffrThe administration of Action II of Lingua is carried out 
in accordance with the same procedures as those used for the Erasmus 
Programme, and joint arrangements for the management of Erasmus and Action II 
of Lingua have therefore been implemented. 1992 was the third year of operation of 
the Lingua Programme to promote the teaching and learning of Community 
languages (the languages covered being the nine working languages of the 
Community plus Irish and Letzeburgesch). 
Despite the intention, expressed in the Council Decision setting up the Lingua 
Programme, that student grant allocations under Lingua (Action II) should be 
broadly in line with Erasmus, the Commission has noted that there can sometimes 
be very considerable differences between Erasmus and Lingua (Action II) student 
grant levels to students from the same Member State. This is largely because, 
within individual Member States, the ratio of student demand to available funds is 
different in respect of each of the two Programmes, but also to some extent 
because of the different formulae for the allocation of student grant budgets to 
Member States provided for by the Council Decisions on Erasmus and Lingua 
respectively. Because these wide variations in grant levels between the 
programmes and within Lingua (Action II) give real cause for concern the 
Commission, in collaboration with the Member States and with the support of both 
the Lingua Committee and the Erasmus Advisory Committee, is examining ways in 
which student grant levels under both programmes can be brought into line in a 
way which respects both the spirit of the Council Decision and the interests of the 
Member States. 
Another cause for concern is the fact that the ERA countries are not at present 
able to participate in Lingua - a situation which often leads to requests from 
coordinators for the transfer of ICP programmes from Lingua to Erasmus. 
The support to be given for the language preparation of students other than foreign 
language students is a cooperation element which is in need of reinforcement. So 
far the Lingua Programme has not been instrumental in addressing the linguistic 
problems which are holding back increased student mobility in this more general 
context. 
45. The Commission continues to monitor closely the interaction between Tempus and 
Erasmus, not merely for the purpose of avoiding duplication of funding but also 
with the more positive aim of achieving maximum synergy between the two 
initiatives. Tempus forms part of the overall PHARE initiative relating to assistance 
in restructuring the economies and societies of the Central and Eastern European 
countries concerned. Though not constituting a formal extension of existing 
Community programmes such as Erasmus, Lingua or Comett, the design of 
Tempus was influenced strongly by these more longstanding Community initiatives, 
and many applications submitted under the terms of Tempus draw on the 
-34-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
experience of cooperative activities gained through the operation of Erasmus ICPs. 
EC universities linked within Erasmus networks have also been involved in the 
further development of university stystems in Central and Eastern Europe. 
46. Similar considerations apply with regard to the Comett Programme for cooperation 
between institutions of higher education and industry in the field of training related 
to new technology. The mobility activities of both programmes Involve students in 
higher education. For Erasmus, the entreprise placement is one form of exchange 
among others, whereas it is one of the very cornerstones of the Comett 
Programme. Erasmus is also much wider in scope and is not limited to 
technologies and their applications. Further cooperation and coordination of 
activities under both programmes is envisaged. 
47. The ambitious new Commission programme Human Capital and Mobility is aimed 
very directly at the creation of a truly European scientific community through the 
increase, in quality and quantity, of the human resource base for research and 
development. Its actions, mainly of interest to young researchers at postdoctoral 
level, are complementary to many activities supported by Erasmus up to doctoral 
level, and this complementarity is sustained by specific liaison between the two 
programmes. 
48. The Jean Monnet Action, through its support for the establishment of European 
"chairs", "permanent courses" and "modules", has been able to encourage the 
European Dimension within the higher education sector in an innovative manner. 
IV. CONCLUDING REMARKS 
49. In the education field as in many others, 1992 has been a year of open and wide-
ranging debate, focussed in this case on the Commission's Memorandum on 
Higher Education in the European Community. 
As a proven catalyst for a wide range of developments, Erasmus has played a key 
role in this debate and is likely to remain an essential instrument of innovation In the 
years to come. 
In quantitative terms, the Erasmus Programme has once again developed 
considerably during the year under review. Altogether, by the end of 1992/1993, 
over 150 000 students from all kinds of socio-economic background will have 
completed part of their course in another EC Member State or an ERA country 
since 1987. About 10 000 teachers will also have benefited from Erasmus support 
for visits abroad within the framework of ICPs since 1990 (the first year for which 
statistics are available), and in addition many teaching assignments are carried out 
with Study Visit funding. 
-35-
Erasmus Programme • Annual Report 1992 
Such a large volume of wide-ranging activity inevitably raises complex and 
important issues, and these have done much to stimulate current debate on the 
future of European higher education. 
50. Thanks to Erasmus, access to study abroad, which was previously available only to 
a small, and usually financially advantaged, élite has now been enormously 
enlarged. The Commission's policy requiring NGAAs to give special consideration 
to the needs of financially and physically disadvantaged students and the 
complementary funding which the majority of Member States now make available 
for Erasmus students both serve to reinforce this development. Further reflection 
will have to take place to identify ways of ensuring that opportunities for studying 
abroad become more firmly embedded in national systems, in preparation for the 
time when Erasmus will ultimately be subsumed within the growing range of 
initiatives now emerging at national, regional and institutional level in connection 
with the Programme. 
51. The most significant concept to have emerged out of the sum of experience 
accumulated within Erasmus and other programmes is that of the European 
Dimension. Confirming the approach adopted by the Commission over the last two 
years in its implementation of the Programme, the Council and the Ministers of 
Education meeting within the Council on 27 November 1992 reaffirmed that the 
European Dimension - which is recognized as a key element in the training of 
tomorrow's European citizens - is not to be achieved solely by means of student 
mobility but also through the promotion of teaching staff mobility, the joint 
development of curricula and the implementation of credit transfer. 
Clearly, Erasmus remains an essential means by which these activities can be 
tested and developed. One challenge for the years ahead lies in the successful 
completion of the pilot phase of the ECTS project, which should pave the way for a 
more widely-implemented system of credit transfer resting on the now well-
established principles of trust and confidence between participating institutions. 
The Commission will also need to examine in more detail the qualitative aspects of 
the Teaching Staff Mobility and Joint Curriculum Development Actions initiated 
within Erasmus so that they can be reinforced and become better suited to 
promoting the European Dimension in a way which will benefit all students. Open 
and Distance Learning, the enormous potential of which is coming to be ever more 
clearly perceived, is another key area for future developments in this direction; 
Erasmus will have to interact in this field with other initiatives taken at Commission 
or Member State level. 
The implementation of the internal market from 1993 also creates legitimate 
demands from employers and workers alike for greater transparency in the 
qualification systems of the Member States and for the building of bridges between 
them. Over 200 student exchange programmes in Erasmus currently lead to joint 
professional qualifications in at least two Member States; more students than ever 
-36-
Erasmus Programme - Annual Report 1992 
can now trade their skills in a growing number of employment sectors within the 
EC. Together with ECTS, such developments foreshadow an internal market for 
qualifications in which, whilst preserving their national specificity, all systems will be 
mutually open and offer young graduates truly European career opportunities, thus 
boosting Europe's competitiveness for the next century. 
52. Looking beyond the EC, Erasmus has been a significant model for higher 
education exchanges with Central and Eastern Europe, the United States of 
America, the Mediterranean region and Latin America. Besides important 
developments in the Tempus programme, 1992 saw further work on the plans for 
an EC/United States exchange project and the initiation by the Commission of both 
the Medcampus project for cooperation with North African countries and the 
scheme which aims to establish similar links with Latin America. In other parts of 
the world, such as North America - within the framework of the North America Free 
Trade Zone - and the Pacific area (the UMAP (University Mobility in Asia/the Pacific 
project), further schemes are being planned. A vast field of potential activity is now 
open to those European higher education institutions seeking to contribute to the 
development of Europe's wider cultural links and willing to make their collective 
expertise available in a global context. 
53. Thus, Erasmus has again been confirmed in its role as a banner for Europe. Close 
monitoring of media coverage proves that intensive publicity, not to mention the 
impact and positive reputation of Erasmus among the many thousands of young 
people towards whom it is targeted, have done much to enhance the general 
public's awareness and perception of the Programme and, by the same token, to 
project a positive image of the Community at a fractional cost of the total EC 
budget. 
-37-

ANNEXES 
3% 

Table I 
ERASMUS ICP applications by eligible state of 
co-ordinating institution 
Eligible State 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
G 
1 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
Total EC 
A 
CH 
FL 
IS 
N 
S 
SF 
Total EC + EFTA 1991/92 
No. 
229 
338 
72 
247 
442 
83 
280 
54 
1 
221 
60 
567 
2594 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
* % 
8.8 
13.0 
2.8 
9.5 
17.0 
3.2 
10.8 
2.1 
0.0 
8.5 
2.3 
21.9 
100 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-1992/93 . lllflll 
Mp. 
208 
309 
60 
215 
382 
71 
245 
41 
1 
203 
57 
527 
2319 
54 
13 
0 
0 
8 
30 
12 
2 436 % 
8.5 
12.7 
2.5 
8.8 
15.7 
2.9 
10.1 
1.7 
0.0 
8.3 
2.3 
21.6 
95.2 
2.2 
0.5 
0.0 
0.0 
0.3 
1.2 
0.5 
100 • %EC^^ 
9.0 
13.3 
2.6 
9.3 
16.5 
3.1 
10.6 
1.8 
0.0 
8.8 
2.5 
22.7 
" -tfl||j| 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ITTliT 
3S. 
Table II 
ERASMUS ICP applications by eligible state and 
number of participations 
iiliiiiiiitat^ 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
G 
1 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
EUR 
Total EC 
A 
CH 
FL 
IS 
N 
S 
SF 
Total EC + EFTA 1991/92 
No. . 
714 
1 632 
319 
1 267 
1982 
368 
1 178 
328 
9 
740 
434 
2 052 
0 
1*023 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-% 
6.5 
14.8 
2.9 
11.5 
18.0 
3.3 
10.7 
3.0 
0.1 
6.7 
3.9 
18.6 
0.0 
too 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-1992/93 
No. 
757 
1 794 
372 
1 378 
2 125 
426 
1 310 
368 
6 
826 
482 
2 269 
9 
12 122 
172 
105 
2 
1 
85 
242 
108 
12 837 % 
5.9 
14.0 
2.9 
10.7 
16.6 
3.3 
10.2 
2.9 
0.0 
6.4 
3.8 
17.7 
0.1 
94,4 
1.3 
0.8 
0.0 
0.0 
0.7 
1.9 
0.8 
100 % EC only; 
6.2 
14.8 
3.1 
11.4 
17.5 
3.5 
10.8 
3.0 
0.0 
6.8 
4.0 
18.7 
0.1 
10B . 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
* 
^ 
Table 
ICP applications received 1991/1992 and 1992/93 
Type ôf Activity 
Student Mobility (SM) 
Staff Mobility (TS) 
Curriculum Devel. (CD) 
Intensive Programmes (IP) 1991/02 1992/93 
Number 
2289 
1024 
435 
569 %* 
88 
39.5 
17 
22 Number 
2174 
1027 
429 
533 %* 
89 
42 
18 
22 îrt(^a|efl!l! 
Number' 
-115 
+3 
-6 
-36 -5 
0 
-1 
-6 
* % of ICP applications incorporating this strand 
Note: Applications frequently refer to more than one type of activity 
f\ 
Table IV 
ERASMUS ICP applications by subject area 
WÈÊË 
Agriculture 
Architecture 
Fine Arts/Music 
Business 
Education 
Engineering 
Geography/Geology 
Humanities 
Languages 
Law 
Mathematics 
Medical Sciences/Psych. 
Natural Sciences 
Social Sciences 
Communication/Information 
Miscellaneous 
Framework Agreements 
mail 1 1991/92 
No. 
67 
95 
104 
299 
87 
377 
84 
144 
352 
153 
118 
152 
206 
271 
23 
31 
31 
2594 * % 
2.6 
3.7 
4.0 
11.5 
3.4 
14.5 
3.2 
5.6 
13.6 
5.9 
4.5 
5.9 
7.9 
10.4 
0.9 
1.2 
1.2 
too •HHH 
iiliiiliill 
67 
88 
100 
261 
122 
347 
77 
143 
258 
137 
108 
157 
217 
259 
26 
31 
38 
243* ilil|lpli|lp| 
2.8 
3.6 
4.1 
10.7 
5.0 
14.2 
3.2 
5.9 
10.6 
5.6 
4.4 
6.4 
8.9 
10.6 
1.1 
1.3 
1.6 •••• 
*ft 
Table V 
Approved ERASMUS ICPs by eligible state of 
co-ordinating institution 
Bl^^Œill 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
G 
1 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
i^^l^^^lUH 
A 
CH 
FL 
IS 
N 
S 
SF 
^l^illEFTA • 1991/92 
NO. 
158 
218 
42 
150 
269 
49 
173 
32 
1 
143 
40 
370 
lilHiB 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
* % 
9.6 
13.3 
2.6 
9.1 
16.4 
3.0 
10.5 
1.9 
0.1 
8.7 
2.4 
22.5 
lililiilili 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
«.. :JÊKÊ 
176 
241 
48 
166 
312 
49 
180 
36 
1 
153 
44 
439 
MPMR 
32 
8 
0 
0 
6 
24 
9 
Ï924 ^H 
9.1 
12.5 
2.5 
8.6 
16.2 
2.5 
9.4 
1.9 
0.1 
8.0 
2.3 
22.8 
llll^BB^ 
1-7 
0.4 
0.0 
0.0 
0.3 
1.2 
0.5 
100 ^B^Btt 
9.5 
13.1 
2.6 
9.0 
16.9 
2.7 
9.8 
2.0 
0.1 
8.3 
2.4 
23.8 
BBBI 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
#3 
Table VI 
Rates of approval for ICPs according to type of activity, 1991/92 and 1992/93 (in %) 
i • i 111 i i •" sassssss i .-H , i ' i ,.;,,•• ' '," ,•••:. 
Type Of activity 1991/92 ' 1992/93 
Student Mobility (SM) 66 82 
Staff Mobility (TS) 30 35 
Curriculum Development (CD) 28 40 
Intensive Programmes (IP) 18 26 
All ICPs 63 79 
v</ 
Table VII 
Approved ERASMUS ICPs by eligible state and number of participations 
v'iï^KiS^^^ 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
G 
1 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
EUR 
^I^^B^^H 
A 
CH 
FL 
IS 
N 
S 
SF 
Totaf £C + EFTA 
'—I li HI. -±1- J_L1_'_L... .i t$91/92 
I ** 
527 
1245 
245 
928 
1445 
275 
855 
250 
6 
552 
328 
1479 
0 
I >tar 
-
-
-
-
-
-
* % 
6.5 
15.3 
3.0 
11.4 
17.8 
3.4 
10.5 
3.1 
0.1 
6.8 
4.0 
18.2 
0.0 
100 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
*. 1992/23 
NO. 
642 
1561 
321 
1 180 
1 841 
360 
1081 
322 
6 
691 
423 
1950 
6 
: 10394 
137 
85 
2 
1 
71 
214 
95 
10 989 % 
5.8 
14.2 
2.9 
10.7 
16.8 
3.3 
9.8 
2.9 
0.1 
6.3 
3.8 
17.7 
0.1 
94J* 
1.2 
0.8 
0.0 
0.0 
0.6 
1.9 
0.9 
100 $ÇO0rtl|| 
6.2 
15.0 
3.1 
11.4 
17.7 
3.5 
10.4 
3.1 
0.1 
6.7 
4.1 
18.8 
0.1 
100 §j 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
+ • 
w 
Table VIII 
Higher education institutions eligible for ERASMUS 
Note: Eligibility is determined by individual Member States (the figures given for 1992/93 are correct 
as at January 1993). 
¥é IllilSi •HHH 
Wt&£^$$$&$k 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
G 
1 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
EUR 
BillSB ||jielin$tautions ' 
1111111 * • 
417 
358 
254 
74 
1963 
63 
114 
65 
4 
358 
189 
482 
2 
^^SUll: '"' LI i , •J.8..,LJ.J.lL..:l 
i$w/*$ 
26 
83 
16 
37 
150 
12 
43 
12 
2 
24 
15 
106 
lllpHlH ^lliliB: 
49 
126 
32 
42 
247 
23 
59 
19 
2 
51 
28 
148 
WËËÊÈ liMill 
69 
132 
44 
42 
268 
22 
59 
20 
3 
53 
35 
157 
IIHB1 liiliB 
76 
176 
42 
47 
300 
24 
65 
22 
2 
72 
41 
172 
IBRI MNHi 
100 
186 
56 
55 
369 
26 
72 
31 
2 
88 
67 
197 
2 
INUR 
Table IX 
Approved ERASMUS ICPs by subject area 
II^^Hiilï 
Agriculture 
Architecture 
Fine Arts/Music 
Business 
Education 
Engineering 
Geography/Geology 
Humanities 
Languages 
Law 
Mathematics 
Medical Sciences/Psych. 
Natural Sciences 
Social Sciences 
Communication/Information 
Miscellaneous 
Framework Agreements 
iY^i-atHtii'i^ii^rffîffl-il-OM'iMiin •• mmnm in t*9l/$2 
No. 
47 
57 
63 
153 
49 
243 
53 
104 
231 
105 
69 
107 
140 
167 
15 
16 
26 
1*4$ % 
2.9 
3.5 
3.8 
9.3 
3.0 
14.8 
3.2 
6.3 
14.0 
6.4 
4.2 
6.5 
8.5 
10.2 
0.9 
1.0 
1.6 
too ^•••••1 
56 
65 
78 
197 
79 
283 
63 
115 
214 
113 
88 
124 
166 
202 
23 
24 
34 
1924 2.9 
3.4 
4.1 
10.2 
4.1 
14.7 
3.3 
6.0 
11.1 
5.9 
4.6 
6.4 
8.6 
10.5 
1.2 
12 
1.8 
*;-:::.;.:xvffî:y^ 
<7 
ERASMUS 
Approved student numbers 1992/93 : home country vs host country Table X 
Host B DK I IRL LUX NL UK EUR TotalEC CH PL IS SF Total EFTA TOTAL 
Home 
B 
0 
DK 
Ë 
F 
!° i 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
EUR 0 
555 
113 
602 
646 
160 
494 
143 
0 
644 
217 
1*43 
2 652 
0 
340 
998 
2825 
300 
916 
425 
1 
921 
221 
2967 
2 85 
223 
0 
201 
273 
41 
135 
66 
0 
182 
77 
490 
0 565 
1169 
204 
0 
2153 
113 
1045 
170 
0 
553 
330 
1848 
0 785 
3078 
303 
2134 
0 
446 
1407 
478 
5 
772 
470 
5298 
8 139 
238 
24 
118 
337 
0 
167 
54 
1 
132 
44 
352 
0 432 
897 
122 
1110 
1179 
180 
0 
128 
0 
424 
219 
1184 
0 166 
470 
79 
245 
527 
56 
169 
0 
0 
148 
55 
312 
0 671 
838 
179 
569 
639 
158 
449 
133 
0 
0 
133 
1350 
1 171 
199 
49 
307 
362 
43 
185 
42 
0 
116 
0 
290 
0 847 
3576 
561 
2124 
5664 
499 
1452 
330 
0 
1524 
426 
0 
3 4520 
11245 
1974 
8408 
14613 
2017 
6421 
1969 
7 
5418 
2193 
14837 
16 22 
126 
15 
100 
144 
19 
102 
19 
0 
43 
19 
141 
0 40 
99 
7 
29 
54 
7 
41 
2 
0 
41 
11 
45 
0 31 
75 
26 
20 
51 
3 
26 
14 
0 
52 
2 
75 
0 60 
206 
48 
92 
239 
21 
100 
25 
0 
186 
44 
266 
0 12 
69 
27 
12 
35 
3 
10 
11 
0 
35 
4 
74 
0 165 
580 
123 
253 
525 
53 
279 
71 
0 
359 
80 
601 
0 4685 
11825 
2097 
8661 
15138 
2070 
6700 
2040 
7 
5777 
2273 
15438 
16 
Total EC 4339 10568 1773 8150 15184 1606 5875 2227 5120 1764 17006 22 73638 750 376 375 1287 292 3089 76727 
A 
CH 
FL 
IS 
N 
S 
SF 27 
42 
0 
0 
32 
78 
34 135 
66 
3 
6 
80 
230 
87 20 
3 
0 
0 
34 
50 
26 109 
26 
0 
0 
21 
104 
10 159 
65 
2 
0 
64 
235 
29 14 
1 
0 
0 
4 
23 
7 90 
36 
0 
0 
26 
91 
23 20 
2 
0 
0 
14 
42 
16 55 
42 
0 
2 
56 
197 
42 15 
10 
0 
0 
2 
37 
3 178 
54 
0 
0 
67 
330 
97 822 
347 
5 
400 
1417 
374 822 
347 
5 
8 
400 
1417 
374 
Total EFTA 213 607 133 270 554 49 268 94 394 67 726 3373 3373 
TOTAL 4552 11175 1906 8420 15738 ; 1655 6141 2321 5514 1831 17732 22 77011 750 376 375 1287 292 3089 80100 
HOMEHOSTXLS 
Table XI (a) 
ERASMUS study visit applications in 1992 by eligible state 
Eligible 
State 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F 
G 
I 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
Total EC 
A 
CH 
FL 
IS 
N 
S 
SF 
Total 
EC + EFTA Eligible applications 
No. 
93 
217 
44 
181 
165 
221 
125 
31 
0 
130 
'* 62 
332 
160t 
'•"" " *'£" * ' ' 
22 
22 
0 
10 
28 
36 
43 
1762 % 
5.28 
12.32 
2.50 
10.27 
9.36 
12.54 
7.09 
1.76 
0.00 
7.38 
3.52 
18.84 
90.86 
1.25 
1.25 
0.00 
0.57 
1.59 
2.04 
2.44 
too Approved applications 
No. 
70 
131 
31 
123 
112 
158 
85 
24 
0 
82 
45 
186 
1047 
11 
12 
0 
5 
19 
25 
27 
t 140 % 
6.11 
11.43 
2.71 
10.73 
9.77 
13.79 
7.42 
2.09 
0.00 
7.16 
3.93 
16.23 
91.37 
0.96 
1.05 
0.00 
0.44 
1.66 
2.18 
2.36 
100 
'/? 
Table XI (b) 
ERASMUS study visit applications in 1992 by subject area 
Subject Area 
Agriculture 
Architecture 
Fine Arts/Music 
Business 
Education 
Engineering 
Geography/Geology 
Humanities 
Languages 
Law 
Mathematics 
Medical Sciences/Psych. 
Natural Sciences 
Social Sciences 
Communication/Information 
Miscellaneous 
Framework Agreements 
Study Visits by Administrators 
Total Eligible applications Approved applications 
No. 
50 
68 
128 
154 
159 
194 
58 
87 
162 
60 
95 
149 
95 
149 
39 
26 
19 
70 
1762 % " No, %• 
3 
4 
7 
9 
9 
11 
3 
5 
9 
3 
5 
8 
5 
8 
2 
1 
1 
4 
100 36 
46 
81 
83 
110 
122 
48 
58 
111 
35 
60 
92 
73 
90 
28 
16 
13 
44 
1 146 3 
4 
7 
7 
10 
11 
4 
5 
10 
3 
5 
8 
6 
8 
2 
1 
1 
4 
too 
-b^ 
Table XII 
ERASMUS 1992/93 
Allocation of student grant budget 
B 
D 
DK 
E 
F* 
G 
I 
IRL 
LUX 
NL 
P 
UK 
EUR 
Total EC 
A 
CH 
FL 
IS 
N 
S 
SF 
Total EFTA 
Total 
EC + EFTA ERASMUS Action 2 Budget 
(excluding ECTS) 
ECU % 
2 281 600 3.8 
10 594 400 17.7 
1 171 800 2.0 
6 621600 11.0 
8 308 400 13.8 
2 080 000 3.5 
8 520 900 14.2 
1 107 000 1.8 
225 800 0.4 
2 883 700 4.8 
2 297 200 3.8 
8 154 400 13.6 
***60 000 0.1 
54308 800 90.5 
1310 800 2.2 
927 000 1.5 
10 000 0.0 
200 000 0.3 
981 400 1.6 
1 319 400 2.2 
944 600 1.6 
5 693 200 9.5 
60 000 000 100 ECTS 
ECU % 
140 000 4.9 
300 000 10.4 
140 000 4.9 
300 000 10.4 
300 000 10.4 
140 000 4.9 
300 000 10.4 
140 000 4.9 
20 000 0.7 
140 000 4.9 
140 000 4.9 
**340 000 11.8 
*20 000 0.7 
2 420000 84.0 
100 000 3.5 
60 000 2.1 
0 0.0 
20 000 0.7 
80 000 2.8 
100 000 3.5 
100 000 3.5 
460 000 16.0 
2 880 000 100 Total ERASMUS 
Actton 2 Budget 
ECU % : 
2 421 600 3.9 
10 894 400 17.3 
1311800 2.1 
6 921600 11.0 
8 608 400 13.7 
2 220 000 3.5 
8 820 900 14.0 
1 247 000 2.0 
245 800 0.4 
3 023 700 4.8 
2 437 200 3.9 
8 494 400 13.5 
80 000 0.1 
56726800 90.2 
1410 800 2.2 
987 000 1.6 
10 000 0.0 
220 000 0.3 
1 061 400 1.7 
1419 400 2.3 
1044 600 1.7 
6 T53 200 3,0 
62 880000 100 
the EPBS ECTS consortium in France will receive 20 000 ECU direct (see EUR line) 
the NGAA in the UK has been allocated an extra 20 000 ECU to cover grants to the CNAA ECTS consortia 
this figure covers directly Action II allocations to Arlon and Fiesole 
.r/ 
Table XIII 
ECTS student flows by subject area 1991/92 
1991*1992 MECHANICAL 
ENGINEERING 
COUNTRY OUT IN 
B 6 4 
D 25 17 
DK 5 1 
E 60 13 
F 19 22 
G 6 2 
IRL 4 4 
1 9 22 
L 2 0 
NL 6 3 
P 6 2 
UK 17 75 
TOTAL 165 1ÔS MEDICINE 
OUT IN 
24 27 
103 21 
3 9 
33 27 
9 75 
17 13 
7 14 
18 11 
0 0 
16 11 
10 8 
21 45 
261 261 CHEMISTRY 
OUT IN 
0 7 
15 21 
11 0 
28 12 
30 14 
8 2 
8 8 
10 7 
0 0 
6 9 
4 1 
16 55 
136 136 HtSTORY 
OUT IN 
7 1 
18 14 
5 1 
17 17 
16 20 
5 5 
3 7 
12 21 
0 0 
10 2 
3 3 
12 17 
108 108 BUSINESS 
ADMINISTRATION 
OUT IN 
12 17 
29 24 
6 4 
62 41 
54 50 
24 1 
11 22 
11 23 
0 0 
17 0 
6 2 
26 74 
268 258 TOTAL 
OUT % IN % 
49 5.28 56 6.03 
190 20.5 97 10.5 
30 3.23 15 1.62 
200 21.6 110 11.9 
128 13.8 181 19.5 
60 6.47 23 2.48 
33 3.56 55 5.93 
60 6.47 84 9.05 
2 0.22 0 0 
55 5.93 25 2.69 
29 3.13 16 1.72 
92 9.91 266 28.7 
928 100 028 100 
Table XIV 
Press coverage of ERASMUS in 1992 
S~3 
Table XV 
FUNDS COMMITTED FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR 1992/93 (in ECU) 
ACTION 1 
A. Inter-University Cooperation Programmes 21157 000 
a. Student Mobility 15 702 500 
b. Teaching Staff Mobility 2 622 000 
c. Curriculum Development 1 208 000 
d. Intensive Programmes 1 624 500 
B. Study Visits 1 800 000 22 957 000 
ACTION 2 
A. Student grants 
B. ECTS student grants 60 000 100 
2 880 000 62 880 100 
ACTION 3 
A. ECTS institutional grants 
B. NARIC network grants 1 930 000 
110 045 2 040 045 
ACTION 4 
A. Associations & Publications 
B. Information & Evaluation 
C. Programme Administration & Monitoring 9 316 668 
319 845 
2 730 478 
6 266 345 
TOTAL 97 193 813 
W 
ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(93) 268 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 16 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-298-EN-C 
ISBN 92-77-56666-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
Lr2985 Luxembourg