COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT on recent developments in European high educations systemsAccompanying the documentCOMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONSSupporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation of Europe's higher education systems
Date: 2011-09-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, diploma, education budget, education statistics, educational exchange, equivalence of diplomas, innovation, job access, population dynamics, university

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 20.9.2011 
SEC(2011) 1063 final 

COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT 

on recent developments in European high educations systems 

Accompanying the document 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Supporting growth and jobs – an agenda for the modernisation of Europe's higher 
education systems 

{COM(2011) 567 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

4.4. 

5. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 

The changing face of European higher education........................................................ 3 

European higher education: a diverse institutional landscape ..................................... 3 

Convergence in European higher education systems................................................... 5 

The contribution of higher education to smart, sustainable and inclusive growth....... 8 

Higher education's contribution to the EU growth agenda .......................................... 8 

Higher education and employment .............................................................................. 9 

Higher education, social returns and economic performance .................................... 14 

The changing demographics of higher education ...................................................... 16 

The massification of higher education ....................................................................... 16 

The social dimension of higher education: who are today's students? ...................... 21 

Entry routes to higher education ................................................................................ 26 

The impact of demographic aging.............................................................................. 28 

Responding to the skills challenge............................................................................. 30 

Europe's changing skills requirements ....................................................................... 30 

Key implications for higher education....................................................................... 32 

ICT in higher education ............................................................................................. 37 

The added value of learning mobility ........................................................................ 39 

Higher education institutions as drivers of innovation .............................................. 41 

5.1. 

Higher education institutions as centres of open innovation ..................................... 41 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Creating the governance and funding conditions for success .................................... 42 

Funding higher education........................................................................................... 42 

Governance of higher education ................................................................................ 48 

The internationalisation of higher education.............................................................. 50 

Internationalisation of the study body........................................................................ 50 

Expansion of higher education internationally .......................................................... 53 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Higher  education  plays  an  essential  role  in  Europe's  collective  well-being,  creating  new 
knowledge, transmitting it to students and fostering innovation. Within Europe, national and 
regional governments are responsible for education and training systems and individual higher 
education  institutions  have  considerable,  albeit  variable,  autonomy  in  organising  their  own 
activities. However, many challenges facing higher education are similar across the EU and 
there are clear advantages in working together. The role of the European Commission is thus 
to support the efforts of public authorities and institutions themselves to modernise Europe's 
higher education systems to respond to today's social and economic challenges. 

Against this backdrop, the Commission's Communication on Supporting growth and jobs – an 
agenda  for  the  modernisation  of  Europe's  higher  education  systems  presents  an  updated 
reform  agenda  for  higher  education  in  Europe  to  help  focus  European  support,  as  well  as 
action at national and institutional level.  

This  Staff  Working  Paper  provides  background  information  and  evidence  to  underpin  the 
messages of the Communication, covering the following issues: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

The key characteristics of higher education in today's Europe; 

Evidence on the economic and social contribution of higher education  

The changing student population; 

The evolving skills requirements to which higher education needs to respond; 

The ways higher education institutions contribute to innovation; 

Funding and governance of higher education – at system and institutional level 

The internationalisation of higher education. 

1. 

THE CHANGING FACE OF EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION 

1.1. 

European higher education: a diverse institutional landscape 

Europe's higher education landscape is made up of more than four thousand higher education 
institutions, all operating within the legal and administrative frameworks of their national or 
regional  higher  education  systems.  Considerable  diversity  remains  in  European  higher 
education,  between  systems,  which  retain  their  own  characteristics,  between  institutions, 
which vary in size, mission and profile and even, within institutions1. 

Institutional diversity is one of the key strengths of higher education in Europe. From large, 
research-intensive  universities,  to  small,  specialised  teaching  colleges,  different  institutional 
forms all have their role to play. Experience from across the world has shown that diversity in 

1 

Reichert, S (2009)  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
higher  education  systems  has  a  positive  impact  on  performance2.  In  comparison  to  more 
homogenous systems, diversified higher education systems are argued to: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Meet a wider range of student needs: a more diversified system is better able to offer 
access to higher education to students with different educational backgrounds, with a 
positive influence on overall levels of access and on social mobility; 

Respond better to labour market needs: institutional diversity makes it easier to meet 
the  requirements  of  a  changing  labour  market,  with  an  increasing  variety  of 
specialisations; 

Be more effective: diversity favours institutional specialisation, which allows higher 
education institutions to focus their attention and energy on what they do best;  

Be  more  innovative:  diversity  offers  greater  possibilities  for  exploring  new 
approaches,  without  the  need  for  all  institutions  to  implement  changes  at  the  same 
time, reducing risks and favouring mutual learning. 

Differences  between  higher  education  systems  are  also  important.  National  and  regional 
systems serve the needs of their own populations, societies and economies. There can be no 
"one  size  fits  all"  for  the  most  appropriate  mix  of  institutional  types  and  forms.  Those 
responsible for defining the legal and administrative frameworks for higher education across 
Europe face the challenge of creating the conditions for the most appropriate institutional mix 
for their specific requirements. But to do this, it is first important to understand the existing 
diversity that exists within and between individual systems.  

Whereas the US  has  long had  the Carnegie Classifications3 as a tool to help understand the 
American  higher  education  landscape  and  facilitate  the  task  of  taking  a  system-wide 
perspective,  no  such  consistent  overview  currently  exists  in  Europe,  where  the  diversity  of 
national systems makes such classification even more challenging. The EU-sponsored U-Map 
and U-Multirank projects have sought to address this gap in knowledge. 

Box 1-1: Improving understanding of higher education systems: U-Map and U-Multirank 

U-Map4 

Started  in  2005  and  finalised  in  2010,  the  U-Map  project  developed  a  classification  model  to 
categorise  the  rich  diversity  of  higher  education  institutions,  taking  inspiration  from  the  well-
established  Carnegie  Classification  used  in  the  US.  The  project  developed  a  categorisation  of  the 
different missions of higher education institutions, involving five dimensions: teaching and learning; 
research;  innovation  and  knowledge  transfer;  regional  engagement  and  internationalisation.  A  web-
based tool was used to allow higher education institutions to categorise themselves according to their 
activities  within  the  different  dimensions.  The  development  of  the  U-map  classification  model  is 
ongoing, with four European countries currently testing the approach. 

2 
3 
4 

See van Vught, F.A.et al. (2010)  
http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/  
See http://www.u-map.eu/  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
U-Multirank5 

Launched  in  May  2009,  the  U-Multirank  feasibility  study  builds  on  the  experience  of  the  U-Map 
project. The core objective of the work has been to develop and test a tool to provide comparable and 
accurate  information  on  higher  education  programmes  and  institutions,  going  beyond  the  research 
focus  found  in  most  existing  comparisons  and  rankings.  This  has  involved  defining  indicators  and 
collecting  data  directly  from  150  higher  education  institutions  within  and  outside  the  EU  on  their 
activities  and  performance  in  the  five  areas  used  in  the  U-Map  classification.  The  test  phase  has 
initially focused on the fields of engineering and business studies.  

The data tool developed has been designed to allow users to generate personalised rankings, making it 
possible  to  compare  institutions  using  a  wider  range  of  variables  than  used  in  existing  university 
rankings.  The  results  of  the  study,  presented  at  a  final  conference  on  9  June  2011,  show  that  this 
multidimensional  ranking  concept  is  workable  in  practice,  although  further  work  will  be  needed  to 
refine the indicators used in certain dimensions. As the Multirank concept relies on the new data and 
the  voluntary  participation  of  institutions,  gaining  the  buy-in  of  institutions  will  be  crucial.  The 
European Commission is now working on proposals to further develop the information tool. 

1.2. 

Convergence in European higher education systems 

Although  diversity  remains  a  dominant  characteristic  of  the  higher  education  landscape  in 
Europe,  intensive  cooperation  between  European  countries  over  the  last  decade  has  also 
brought about a significant degree of convergence. Efforts have been focused on creating the 
European  Higher  Education  and  Research  Areas,  in  which  national  higher  education  and 
research  systems  become  more  compatible  and  comparable,  thus  facilitating  increased 
interaction and mobility of students, graduates and staff across borders.  

The development of the European Higher Education Area 

With  the  1999  Bologna  Declaration,  the  governments  of  29  European  countries  agreed  to 
establish a coherent and attractive European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Since extended 
to 47 countries6, the core focus of the Bologna Process has been on structural reforms aimed 
at making European higher education systems more coherent and effective by establishing a 
set of common features:  

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

5 
6 

7 

8 

A three-cycle degree structure (with bachelor, master and doctoral qualifications);  

The  generalisation  of  the  European  Credit  Transfer  and  Accumulation  System 
(ECTS)7 and the Diploma Supplement (DS)8;  

National  Qualification  Frameworks  (NQF)  to  describe  clearly  the  different  cycles 
and  qualifications  in  national  education  systems,  based  on  learning  outcomes 

See http://www.u-multirank.eu/  
EU 27 + Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, Croatia, Liechtenstein, Turkey, Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina,  The  Holy  See,  Russia,  Serbia,  Macedonia,  Armenia,  Azerbaijan,  Georgia,  Moldova, 
Ukraine, Montenegro and Kazakhstan 
A  student-centred  credit  system  based  on  the  student  workload  required  to  achieve  specified  learning 
outcomes 
A  standardised  template  containing  a  description  of  the  nature,  level,  context,  content  and  status  of 
studies completed by an individual student 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
achieved,  thus  allowing  comparison  with  the  Qualifications  Framework  for  the 
European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA)9; 

(4) 

(5) 

Recognised national quality assurance systems, consistent with European Standards 
and  Guidelines  (ESG)  for  quality  assurance  adopted  in  2005  and  articulated  at 
European level10. 

Mutual recognition of qualifications and learning credits (supported by the elements 
above), in line with the Lisbon Recognition Convention11. 

In  addition  to  these  structural  reforms,  the  initial  scope  of  the  Bologna  Process  was  swiftly 
expanded  to  encompass  the  social  dimension12  of  higher  education  -  in  particular  widening 
access  to  under-represented  groups  -  and  measures  to  embed  higher  education  into  wider 
systems  of  lifelong  learning.  The  Bologna  Process  has  provided  the  EU’s  own  higher 
education modernisation agenda with additional momentum. The European Commission has 
supported  the  work  of  the  Bologna  Follow-up  Group  (BFUG)  and  funded  Bologna-related 
initiatives,  notably  under  the  centralised  actions  of  the  Erasmus  strand  of  the  Lifelong 
Learning Programme13. 

Implementation of the Bologna Process has been monitored closely by the main stakeholder 
groups14. While the different assessments of progress start from different perspectives, there is 
a broad consensus that Bologna has led to greater convergence in the architecture of national 
higher  education  systems  and  has  achieved  real  impact  in  higher  education  institutions  and 
systems across the EU.  

9 

10 
11 

12 

13 
14 

Which has subsequently been linked to the wider European Qualifications Framework (EQF), launched 
by the EU and covering all levels of education and training 
Notably through the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR); 
Council of Europe and UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher 
Education in the European Region, April 1997  
The  London  Communiqué  of  2007  defines  the  social  dimension  as  the  "societal  aspiration  that  the 
student body entering, participating in and completing higher education at all levels should reflect the 
diversity of our populations" 
See European Commission (2010a) 
See, for example, Rauhvargers, Deane and Pauwels (2009), ESU (2009), EUA (2010), Eurydice (2010) 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1-1: Bologna "Scorecards" degree structure, quality assurance, recognition, 2009 

Bologna Scorecard 2009: average scores in the three areas (max.= 15 score points)

15

Recognition
of 
qualifications

10

Quality 
assurance
systems

5

Degree 
system 

0

UK SCOT

DK IE NL SE

BE nl

NO PT FI

Source: Bologna Stocktaking Report 2009 

RO AT

UK EWNI

BE fr EE

LV IS

EU27 FR PL HR CZ LU BG ES HU LI

TR MK LT GR DE SI

CY IT MT SK

(UK SCOT: Scotland, UK EWNI: England, Wales and Northern Ireland) 

As shown in Figure 1-1, based on the stock-taking exercise undertaken for the 2009 meeting 
of  Bologna  ministers  in  Leuven  and  Louvain-la-Neuve,  nearly  all  EU  Member  States  have 
made  considerable  progress  in  the  core  Bologna  areas  of  degree  structure  reform, 
establishment  of  quality  systems  for  higher  education  and  recognition  of  learning  outcomes 
gained  abroad.  This  is  a  pattern  confirmed  by  the  European  University  Association’s  most 
recent  Trends  review,  which  found  95%  of  higher  education  institutions  in  Europe  had 
implemented  the  Bologna  degree  structure15.  However,  the  same  review  highlights  ongoing 
variation between Member States in the implementation of structural reforms at system level. 
In particular, the Bologna Process reforms have not been applied consistently to all types of 
higher  education  programmes,  with  courses  in  specific  professional  fields,  including 
medicine,  veterinary  science,  architecture  and  law,  have  more  frequently  retained  distinct 
degree structures. Moreover, as the Bologna Process focused on course structure, rather than 
the substance of what is taught, there has been limited convergence in the content education 
programmes  in  professional  fields.  This  creates  particular  challenges  for  authorities  at 
national level dealing with academic or professional recognition of diplomas obtained in other 
Member States. 

The evidence from the range of reviews of the Bologna Process indicates a number of areas 
where  further  progress  is  required  to  fully  achieve  the  objectives  of  the  European  Higher 
Education Area. In particular: 

• 

Further progress is needed to achieve the comparable and consistent implementation 
of ECTS and the Diploma Supplement, including in relation to the content of specific 
professional  fields,  such  as  medicine,  and  the  consistent  allocation  of  credits  to 

15 

EUA (2010) 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
student  workload  and 
implementation had been achieved in only 12 countries in the EHEA.  

learning  outcomes:  a  2010  study16  found 

that  full 

The  development  of  National  Qualifications  Frameworks  has  proved  to  be 
challenging, leading to an extension of the  deadline for implementation until 2012: 
the  existence  of  NQFs,  linked  to  the  overarching  Qualifications  Framework  for  the 
European  Higher  Education  Area17  and  the  European  Qualifications  Framework 
(EQF)18,  is  an  important  pre-requisite  for  smooth  recognition  of  learning  outcomes 
across borders; 

There  is  evidence  of  students  and  graduates  still  facing  considerable  difficulties  in 
achieving recognition for qualifications and credits gained abroad19; 

Quality  assurance  systems  frequently  focus  on  the  accreditation  of  specific 
programmes  based  on  minimum  quality  thresholds,  rather  than  actively  seeking  to 
stimulate  continuous  improvement  in  the  programmes  that  meet  the  minimum 
standards. Studies have highlighted an ongoing perception of variation in the quality 
of  higher  education  between  countries,  which  undermines  the  effective  functioning 
of the EHEA20;  

Progression  routes  into  higher  education  from  other  parts  of  the  education  system 
and well developed procedures for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) are absent 
or in need of improvement in many Member States21; 

Considerable  differences  exist  in  Member  States'  interpretation  of  the  social 
dimension  of  the  Bologna  Process  and  there  are  comparatively  few  examples  of 
significant policy reform in this area (see below22); 

While  the  place  of  higher  education  in  lifelong  learning  systems  is  recognised  as  a 
relevant  policy  issue  in  most  Member  States,  this  remains  a  peripheral  concern  in 
many countries23. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

2. 

THE  CONTRIBUTION  OF  HIGHER  EDUCATION  TO  SMART,  SUSTAINABLE  AND 
INCLUSIVE GROWTH 

2.1. 

Higher education's contribution to the EU growth agenda 

Although  the  interaction  between  higher  education  systems  and  the  wider  society  and 
economy is complex, it is clear that higher education institutions contribute to socio-economic 
development  in  two  principal  ways.  First,  they  contribute  to  human  capital  development  by 
allowing individuals to acquire and develop a wide range of knowledge and skills, which they 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 

CHEPS 2010a 
Agreed by European Ministers of Higher Education at their meeting in Bergen 2005 
Adopted for all strands of education and training by the EU Council and Parliament 
See, for example, ESU (2009) 
CHEPS 2010a 
Eurydice (2010) 
Also refer to Eurydice (2011) 
Eurydice (2010) 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
can subsequently draw upon as individuals (creating "individual returns" in terms of personal 
fulfilment  and  income)  and  for  the  good  of  society  and  economy  more  generally  (so-called 
"societal returns"). Second, as centres of knowledge creation, higher education institutions are 
able to contribute to innovation in the wider economy, notably through exchanging expertise, 
knowledge and research findings with other economic actors. 

These two main processes are closely inter-linked. For example, human capital development 
is  a  pre-requisite  for  excellent  basic  and  applied  research  and  effective  knowledge  transfer 
activities. At the same time, the quality and relevance of higher education institutions' human 
capital development activities - essentially their study programmes – is influenced by inputs 
from the world of research and from actors in the wider economy.  

As stressed in the Europe 2020 Strategy, the availability of highly skilled human capital and 
well-functioning innovation systems are crucial perquisites for Europe's future well-being.  

As  discussed  in  more  depth  in  Section  4,  a  significant  body  of  evidence  underlines  the 
importance of a skilled workforce in underpinning the type of knowledge-based economy that 
will  allow  the  EU  to  compete  effectively  with  other  world  regions.  Highly  skilled,  creative 
individuals with critical mindsets are needed to create the businesses of the future and more 
generally  to  help  business  and  the  public  sector  to  innovate.  Within  this  context,  higher 
education  staff  play  a  crucial  role  in  transmitting  knowledge  through  well-designed  and 
structured programmes of education and research. At the same time, programmes need to be 
based  on  scientific  excellence  and  can  benefit  from  insights  from  business  and  other 
organisations  external  to  higher  education.  As  discussed  in  more  detail  below,  higher 
education increases the employment and earnings potential of individuals, which, in turn, has 
positive impacts on social inclusion. 

Better exploitation of the expertise and knowledge found in higher education institutions can 
strengthen  innovation  potential  and,  thus,  economic  performance  at  regional,  national  and 
European level. Research and development work in higher education institutions also makes a 
decisive  contribution  to  Europe's  response  to  environmental  challenges  and  the  EU's  long-
term environmental sustainability. 

2.2. 

Higher education and employment 

Evidence from across the world illustrates the positive impact of higher education attainment 
on  employment  outcomes,  at  both  individual  and  societal  level.  European  higher  education 
graduates,  in  common  with  their  counterparts  in  other  developed  economies,  have 
significantly higher rates of employment than those with less advanced levels of qualification. 
Projections of skills requirements in the European economy in the coming decade (see Section 
4.1) highlight increasing demand for the skills types provided by both higher education and 
high-quality  vocational  education  and  training.  Education  and  training  systems  must  thus 
cater  to  the  needs  of  the  economy  as  a  whole.  Nevertheless,  the  positive  employment 
outcomes for higher education graduates illustrate the clear demand for such highly qualified 
individuals in the European economy.  

As  shown  in  Figure  2-1,  based  on  the  latest  quarterly  employment  figures,  the  employment 
rate  of  those  aged  20-64  with  tertiary  education  qualifications  is  higher  than  the  overall 
employment rate and the rate for individuals with only upper secondary qualifications in all 
EU  Member  States.  Furthermore,  the  EU  average  employment  rate  for  tertiary  graduates 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
stands  at  over  82%  and  is  above  75%  (the  Europe  2020  employment  target)  in  all  Member 
States. 

Figure 2-1: Employment rates by level of educational attainment - 20-64 years (2010 Q4)  

%
e
t
a
r

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
E

l

100.

90.

80.

70.

60.

50.

40.

30.

20.

10.

0.

MT HU IT RO ES

EL

IE BG PL SK LV LT BE EU FR EE

SI

PT LU CZ

FI UK AT DE DK CY NL SE

Low er Secondary

51

37 49.8 51.5 52.5 56.7 45 38.7 39.7 28.7 45.5 31.2 47.1 53.3 54.6 45.5 50.8 67.3 62 42.3 53.8 55.4 57.6 56.7 61.5 67.7 62.2 63.3

Upper Secondary 77.3 62.4 67.3 62.4 63.2 59.4 62.4 66.6 62.8 66.4 63.3 59.9 70.8 69.9 70.6 67.9 69 70.6 67.6 71.4 71 75.3 77.4 75.4 77.6 74.1 79.6 79.5

Tertiary

83.9 77.7 76.6 81.5 77.1 77.5 79.8 82.8 82.9 77.0 82.4 86 82.6 82.3 80.4 79.6 85.9 81.5 81.3 81.5 84.6 84.2 85.1 86.7 85.8 83.2 87.1 88

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey 

The  "employment  advantage"  of  tertiary  graduates  over  those  with  only  upper  secondary 
qualifications is highest in central and eastern European Member States24, along with Greece 
and  Ireland,  where  employment  rates  for  tertiary  education  graduates  remain  near  the  EU 
average, but rates for the less qualified population are comparatively low. Even in countries 
such as Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden where the labour market participation 
differences  between  qualification  groups  are  lowest,  employment  rates  among  tertiary 
graduates  still  exceed  those  among  upper  secondary  graduates  by  at  least  7.5  percentage 
points. 

The difference in labour force participation between those with high and lower qualification 
levels is especially marked in older age groups. Those with a tertiary level qualification are 
almost twice as likely to be economically active beyond the age of 55 as those who did not 
complete  upper  secondary  school:  over  65%  of  55-64  year  olds  with  higher  education  are 
employed,  compared  to  less  than  35%  of  the  same  age  group  without  upper  secondary 
qualifications.  These  patterns  to  some  extent  reflect  a  tendency  for  lower  qualified 
populations  to  work  in  more  physically  demanding  jobs,  in  which  is  it  more  difficult  to 
continue  working  to  the  age  of  65,  although  the  relative  decline  in  manual  occupations  is 
likely to have decreased this difference between qualification groups. 

24 

Employment rates for tertiary graduates are over 15 percentage points higher than rates among upper 
secondary graduates in LT, PL, LV, RO, SI, BU and HU. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 2-2: Employment rates by age group (2010 Q4) 

64.2

68.4

65.2

82.3

46.3

45.1

48.2

34.9

Age 15-64

Age 55-64

)

%

(

e
t
a
r

t
n
e
m
y
o

l

p
m
E

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Total

At most lower
secondary

At most upper
secondary

Tertiary

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey 

While the effects of the recent economic crisis on employment in the EU have been severe, 
the  impact  on  tertiary  education  graduates  has  been  less  dramatic  than  on  those  with  lower 
levels of qualification. At the end of 2010, the average unemployment rate among graduates 
in the EU was 5.4%, compared to an overall unemployment rate of 9.3%. Moreover, as shown 
in Figure 2-3, graduate unemployment remains significantly below that experienced by those 
with  lower  levels  of  qualification  in  all  Member  States.  This  said,  (tertiary)  graduate 
unemployment  is  around  or  above  6%  in  eight  Member  States  (Greece,  Estonia,  Lithuania, 
Ireland, Portugal and Slovakia) and is running at over 10% in two (Spain and Latvia).  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Figure 2-3: Annual unemployment rates by highest level of education attained 2010 

e
t
a
r

t
n
e
m
y
o
p
m
e
n
u

l

l
a
u
n
n
A

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

NL LU AT CY UK DK CZ DE RO SI SE FI BE IT

FR EU PL BG HU PT EL

IE SK EE LT LV ES

Low er Secondary 6.2 5.3 8.2 7.3 12 9.2 24

16 6.7 12.6 13.5 13.0 14.7 10.0 14.6 15.4 18.2 22.7 24.7 12.2 12.6 21.1 43 30.2 39.8 30.2 26.3

Upper Secondary

3.8

4

3.9 6.1

7

6.9 6.8 6.9

8

7.5 7.3 8.7 7.9 7.6 8.4 8.7 10.3 9.3 10.5 10.9 14.2 15.2 13.7 19.3 21.7 20.1 18.8

Tertiary

2.8 3.8 2.4 5.7 4.1 4.9 2.8 3.1 5.4 4.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 5.8 5.5 5.4

5

4.5 4.7 7.2 9.8 7.5 5.8 9.5 7.8 10.5 11.3

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey 

Comparing unemployment rates among the different qualification groups before and after the 
height of the economic crisis (average rates for the years 2008 and 2010 – See Figure 2-4), 
serves to confirm the general pattern that higher education graduates have been comparatively 
protected  from  unemployment.  However,  two  main  caveats  should  be  highlighted.  Firstly, 
although  unemployment  among  graduates  has  increased  far  less  dramatically  than  among 
lower qualified groups in most Member States, there have been increases in 26 EU countries 
and  the  rate  has  more  than  doubled  in  six  (the  three  Baltic  States,  Ireland,  Romania  and 
Denmark), with the attendant social consequences. Secondly, in a small number of Member 
States  graduate  unemployment  rates  have  bucked  the  general  trend,  with  either  increases 
higher  than  for  other  qualification  groups  (Romania  and  Cyprus)  or  lower  rates  of  decline 
(Germany and Luxembourg).  

A complex range of factors have affected changes in graduate unemployment rates. National 
economic  structures  and  the  extent  to  which  different  sectors  of  the  economy  have  been 
affected by the economic downturn have undoubtedly played an important role. For example, 
the financial services industry, which traditionally recruits a relatively higher proportion of its 
staff among higher education graduates, has been particularly hard hit by the economic crisis, 
with  consequent  impacts  on  employment  and  new  recruitment25.  In  some  cases,  graduate 
unemployment  may  be  explained  by  mismatches  between  the  number  of  graduates  in 
particular  disciplines  and  the  relevance  of  their  qualifications  and  skills  and  current  labour 
market requirements. More detailed analysis of labour market trends – including through tools 

25 

The  most  recent  job  vacancy  data  shows  an  increase  in  recruitment  in  the  finance  sector  –  see,  for 
example, European Commission (2011d) 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
such  as  the  new  European  Vacancy  Monitor26  –  as  well  as  future  skills  requirements  is 
required to fully understand the extent of such mismatches.  

Figure 2-4: Percentage point change in unemployment rates by educational attainment - 2008 to 2010 

i

e
g
n
a
h
c
t
n
o
p
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

LU DE AT BE IT NL RO FR FI UK SE CY PL EU CZ SI PT HU DK BG SK EL

IE ES LV EE LT

Low er Secondary -0.7 -0.6 1

2.7

2

2.5 -1

3.4

4

3.9 4.9 2.3 5.6 4.6 5.6

6

4.2 6.4 5.1 8.4 4.8 5.2 11.8 12 17 20.1 27.1

Upper Secondary

-1.9 -0.3 0.8 1.1 1.8 1.6 2.4 1.8 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.9 2.5 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.4 4.2 4.9 5.8 5.7 9.4 8.6 12.6 13.6 15.2

Tertiary

1.4 -0.2 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.2 2.7

1

1.2 1.3 1.1 2.7 1.2 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.2 1.9 2.6 2.2 2.2 3.5 4.1 4.9 6.3 6.5 4.8

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey 

Notwithstanding the more negative graduate employment trends observed recently in certain 
Member  States,  the  private  returns  for  higher  education  graduates  in  terms  of  earnings 
potential remain good. Table 2-1, showing the median net income in EU Member States for 
the population aged 18-64, with different levels of qualification. It highlights that those with 
higher educational attainment earn more in all Member States (despite very large variation in 
average  earnings  between  countries).  The  highest  income  premiums  for  tertiary  graduates, 
compared to those with only upper secondary qualifications are found in Central and Eastern 
Europe, Portugal and Greece and the lowest in the Nordic countries, Austria, the Netherlands 
and  Belgium.  These  aggregate  figures  naturally  hide  variations  in  the  earning  outcomes  of 
graduates  from  different  disciplines.  While  on  average  a  higher  education  qualification  is 
likely to allow an individual to achieve higher earnings than someone with a lower level of 
qualification, this is naturally not always the case. 

26 

See http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=955&langId=en  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2-1: Annual median equivalised net income for the population aged 18-64 by educational attainment 
(2009) 

Below upper 
secondary 
education 

Upper secondary 
education 

Tertiary education 

 Figures in Euro 

EU 27 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany  

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

12,700 

15,400 

1,900 

5,900 

21,000 

15,500 

4,500 

17,700 

9,700 

11,500 

17,600 

13,800 

13,100 

3,700 

3,500 

27,100 

4,000 

9,100 

17,400 

16,100 

4,000 

7,900 

1,600 

9,900 

4,500 

16,700 

17,100 

12,800 

14,800 

19,800 

3,100 

7,400 

25,400 

18,300 

6,000 

23,800 

11,900 

14,800 

20,200 

18,200 

17,700 

5,600 

4,700 

32,800 

4,900 

12,200 

20,500 

20,900 

5,100 

10,700 

2,500 

11,900 

5,700 

20,600 

21,500 

16,300 

21,500 

25,000 

4,100 

9,700 

30,600 

23,200 

8,100 

32,100 

17,600 

19,500 

25,900 

24,500 

23,600 

8,200 

7,400 

46,400 

6,800 

15,500 

26,200 

25,300 

8,100 

17,900 

4,400 

16,500 

7,500 

26,900 

25,100 

22,900 

United Kingdom 

Source: Eurostat, EU-SILC, 2009 (dataset: ilc_di08). 

Comparing  the  average  income  levels  of  graduates  with  those  of  individuals  who  did  not 
pursue  higher  education  is  a  key  component  in  assessing  the  private  returns  to  higher 
education.  However,  the  other  side  of  the  equation  –  the  private  costs  of  pursuing  higher 
education resulting from living expenses and, increasingly, tuition or registration fees – also 
plays  an  important  role  in  calculating  rates  of  return  and  affects  individual  decisions  on 
whether or not to continue studying27.  

There is a compelling body of evidence to show that the average private returns on pursuing 
higher  education  are  positive  and  substantial  across  the  developed  world28.  CEGES  (2007), 
calculated  private  rates  of  return  to  higher  education  of  between  4.3%  and  14.8%  in  a 
selection of EU countries and the US.  

2.3. 

Higher education, social returns and economic performance 

Importantly for those making public spending decisions, investment in higher education has 
also been shown to deliver positive returns for the wider society and economy, even though 

27 
28 

These costs are examined in more detail in Section 7 on higher education funding. 
See, for example CEGES (2007), OECD (2010a) 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
                                                 
accurate  estimation  of  the  scale  of  such  social  returns  is  far  more  complex  than  for 
individuals.  In  the  narrowest  sense,  social  rates  of  return  to  investment  in  the  teaching 
function  of  higher  education  focus  on  the  productivity  of  graduates  compared  to  those  with 
lower levels of qualification. Ideally, estimation of social returns should also include a wider 
set of external benefits that higher education graduates bring to society (social externalities). 
Research into the effect of investment in higher education on productivity has revealed a clear 
positive correlation and overall positive rates of "social return": in other words, investment in 
higher  education  is  "profitable",  once  the  costs  of  investment  and  social  opportunity  costs 
have  been  factored  in.  Further  progress  is  required  in  order  to  be  able  to  assess  the  wider 
social impacts of higher education, which are inherently more difficult to measure. 

The  positive  impact  of  higher  education  attainment  on  productivity  is  an  important 
explanatory  factor  in  the  relatively  strong  correlation  between  levels  of  higher  education 
attainment and overall economic output (GDP) per capita, as illustrated in Figure 2-5. 

Figure 2-5: Higher education attainment (30-34 year olds) and GDP per capita in 2010 

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

)
0
0
1
=
7
2
U
E

(
a
t
i
p
a
c
r
e
p
P
D
G
0
1
0
2

0

0

NO

CH

NL

BE

SE

IS UK

FR

ES

FI

CY

DK

IE

AT

DE

IT

MT

PT

CZ

SK

HR

HU

EL

SI

PL

EE

LT

TR

RO

LV

BG

10

20

30

40

50

60

HE attainment 30-34 year olds (2010)

Source: Eurostat (Data for EU-27 + Norway, Switzerland, Croatia and Turkey) 

While the relationship between educational attainment and GDP per capita is clear, two main 
groups of "outlier" states can be observed in Europe. Firstly, there are countries (notably Italy, 
Austria and Germany) where economic output per capita is comparatively high in relation to 
the level of higher education attainment. In Germany and Austria in particular, this is partly 
explained  by  the  existence  of  a  strong  high-level  vocational  educational  offer,  which  is  not 
categorised as tertiary education but provides comparatively high-level skills for the economy 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
(ISCED 429). A second group includes EU Member States where higher education attainment 
rates  are  comparatively  high  in  relation  to  current  levels  of  GDP  per  capita.  These  are  all 
Central  and  Eastern  European  Member  States  (notably  the  three  Baltic  States  and  Poland) 
which have seen a transition from centrally planned to market-based economies in the last two 
decades.  The  ongoing  process  of  economic  restructuring  means  the  economic  benefits  of  a 
highly qualified workforce are not yet fully reflected in output levels.  

3. 

THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

Having  examined  the  influence  of  higher  education  and  related  research  activities  on 
employment and economic performance at a "macro" level, it is useful to examine different 
aspects of Europe's higher education systems in more depth. This section focuses on human 
capital development and, more specifically Europe's population of students and graduates. 

3.1. 

The massification of higher education 

Between  2000  and  2009,  the  number  of  higher  education  students  in  the  EU  increased  by 
22.3%  to  reach  over  19.4  million.  This  trend  –  corresponding  to  an  average  annual  growth 
rate of 2.3% - occurred against the backdrop of a slowly decreasing population of 20-24 year 
olds  in  the  EU  (the  typical  student  age  cohort)  and  is  explained  by  significant  growth  in 
higher  education  participation  rates  in  the  EU  population  and  an  increase  in  the  number  of 
students from outside Europe studying in the EU30. 

Table 3-1: Tertiary students by country (2000-2009) 

Number of tertiary students  
(in 1000) 

Growth 
per year 

2000 

2008 

2009 

2000-09 

EU-27 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark  

Germany  

15921 

19040 

19473 

356 

261 

254 

189 

402 

264 

393 

231 

425 

274 

417 

235 

2055 

2245 

2439 

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus  

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta  

Netherlands  

54 

161 

422 

1829 

2015 

1770 

10 

91 

122 

2 

307 

6 

488 

68 

179 

638 

1781 

2165 

2014 

26 

128 

205 

: 

414 

9 

602 

68 

183 

: 

1801 

2173 

2012 

31 

125 

211 

: 

398 

10 

619 

2.3 

2.0 

0.5 

5.7 

2.4 

1.9 

2.7 

1.4 

: 

-0.2 

0.8 

1.4 

12.9 

3.6 

6.3 

: 

2.9 

5.6 

2.7 

29 
30 

Post secondary, non-tertiary education. 
In  2008,  almost  1  million  of  the  19  million  students  in  the  EU  (5.2%)  were  nationals  of  non-EU 
countries. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Number of tertiary students  
(in 1000) 

Growth 
per year 

2009 

2000-09 

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

2000 

261 

1580 

374 

453 

84 

136 

270 

347 

2008 

285 

2166 

377 

1057 

115 

229 

310 

407 

308 

2150 

373 

1098 

114 

235 

297 

423 

1.9 

3.5 

0.0 

10.3 

3.5 

6.3 

1.0 

2.2 

2.0 

United Kingdom 

2024 

2329 

2415 

Source: Eurostat, UOE 

As shown in Table 3-1, the highest rates of increase in student numbers have been seen in the 
newer  EU  Member  States  (EU-12),  which,  with  the  exception  of  Bulgaria,  have  all  seen 
growth rates in enrolment figures in excess of the EU-27 average. Romania and Cyprus have 
both  seen  annual  increases  in  student  numbers  of  over  10%,  reflecting  the  large-scale 
expansion  of  higher  education  provision  in  both  countries  from  2000  onwards.  In  contrast, 
countries in Northern, Western and Southern Europe – most of which already had higher rates 
of higher education participation – saw lower levels of growth. Spain was the only country to 
register a small decrease in student numbers over the same period. 

Despite the large-scale expansion of higher education in the last decade, the EU as a whole 
still lags behind many  of  its competitors in terms of the proportion of the active population 
with  a  tertiary  education  qualification.  As  shown  in  Figure  3-1,  despite  increases  in  recent 
years31, only 26% of the population aged between 25 and 64 in the EU has a tertiary education 
qualification,  compared  with  37%  of  the  equivalent  Australian  population,  over  40%  of  US 
and Japanese residents and 50% of those living in Canada. Although the best performing EU 
Member  States  have  higher  or  similar  levels  of  higher  education  attainment  to  the  US, 
attainment  levels  in  Central  and  Eastern  European  Member  States  (except  Estonia  and 
Lithuania),  Italy,  Malta  and  Greece  remain  below  25%  (less  than  half  the  2008  Canadian 
rate). 

31 

With the exception of Lithuania, which historically had very high levels of tertiary attainment. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3-1: Tertiary graduates as a share of the working age population (25-64)32 

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

n
o
i
t
a
c
u
d
e
r
e
h
g
h
h
t
i

i

l

w
s
d
o
r
a
e
y

4
6
-
5
2
%

15

13

14

10

5

0

35 35 35 36 36

34 34

37

38

33

32

31

29

27 27

26

23 23 24 24

19 20

17

17

15 15

MT RO IT PT CZ SK AT HU PL BG SI EL EU DE LV FR ES NL LT DK SE BE UK EE LU CY IE FI AU KO US JP CA

2010 (with %) 13 14 15 15 17 17 19 20 23 23 24 24 26 27 27 29 31 32 33 34 34 35 35 35 36 36 37 38

2009

13 13 15 15 16 16 19 20 21 23 23 23 25 26 26 29 30 33 31 34 33 33 33 36 35 34 36 37 37 39 41 44 50

Source: Eurostat (EU-27) OECD 2011b (US, Australia [AU], Korea [KO], Japan [JP], Canada [CA]) 

As  part  of  the  Europe  2020  Strategy,  EU  governments  have  agreed  an  attainment  target  for 
higher education among those aged 30-34 of 40% by 2020. This more specific age range was 
chosen  to  make  it  easier  to  chart  progress,  by  focusing  on  the  typical  age  cohort  for  recent 
graduates.  As  shown  in  Figure  3-2,  there  has  been  a  sharp  increase  in  higher  education 
attainment  rates  among  this  age  cohort  across  the  EU,  with  the  EU  average  for  the  Europe 
2020 benchmark rising from 22.4% in 2000 to 33.6% in 2010.  

32 

Tertiary educational attainment measured with reference to ISCED 5 and 6 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3-2: Tertiary educational attainment among those aged 30-34 (2000-2010)33 

Ireland 

Denmark 

Luxembourg 

Sweden 

Finland 

Cyprus 

Belgium 

Lit huania 

France

United Kingdom

Net herlands 

Spain 

Estonia 

Poland 

Slovenia 

EU 27

Lat via 

Germany 

Greece 

Bulgaria 

Hungary 

Austria 

Portugal 

Slovakia 

Czech Republic

It aly 

M alt a 

Romania 

Croat ia

Iceland

Turkey

(:)

Norway

27,5

21,2

32,1

31,8

31,1

40,3

35,2

49,9

47,0

46,1

45,8

45,7

45,1

44,4

42,6

43,8

43,5

43,0

27,4

29,0

26,5

29,2

30,8

12,5

18,5

18,6

22,4

35,3

34,8

33,6

32,3

19,5

14,8

15,9

29,8

28,4

27,7

25,7

25,4

25,7

23,5

23,5

22,1

41,4

40,6

40,0

0
2
0
2

k
r
a
m
h
c
n
e
B

2000

2010

11,3

10,6

13,7

11,6

7,4

8,9

20,4

19,8

18,6

18,1

22,6

16.2

15.5

32,6

40,9

37,3

47,3

( %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey 

13  Member  States  have  now  reached  or  exceeded  the  40%  attainment  level  and  on  current 
trends. As part of the National Reform Programmes prepared as part of the implementation of 
Europe  2020,  Member  States  have  established  national  targets  for  higher  education 
attainment, some of which go exceed the 40% level, as shown in Figure 3-3. 

33 

Tertiary educational attainment measured with reference to ISCED 5 and 6 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 3-3: Tertiary education attainment: 2010 levels and national targets 34 

60

60

l

s
d
o
r
a
e
y

4
3
-
0
3
%

i

t
n
e
m
n
a
t
t
a
n
o

i
t
a
c
u
d
e

r
e
h
g
i
H

50

50

47 47 46 46

46

46

43-45

42

45

44

40

40

47
44 44

44

41

43

40

45

41 41

40

40

40

40

42(*)

35

34

35

34-36

32

30

32

28

28

36

30

26

40

40

38(*)

24 24

23 22

32

33

27

27

20 20

19 18

16

50

40

30

20

10

0

IE NO DK LU SE FI CY FR BE LT UK ES NL IS EE PL SI EU LV DE EL BG HU PT AT HR SK CZ IT MT RO TR

2010 attainment level

Europe 2020 target

Europe 2020 national target

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey 

Nine  Member  States35  have  set  national  targets  at  levels  above  the  40%  EU  target;  seven36 
have set national targets at the level of the EU target, while nine Member States37 have targets 
below  40%.  The  Netherlands  and  the  UK  have  not  set  national  targets.  On  the  basis  of  the 
2010  figures,  six  Member  States  (DK,  EE,  FI,  LT,  LU,  SE)  have  already  reached  their 
national target and the EU as a whole is on course to meet the Europe 2020 target by 202038. 
Nevertheless, particular efforts will be required to increase higher education participation and 
graduation  levels  in  the  other  Member  States,  and  in  particular  the  11  countries  where 
attainment rates currently remain below 30% of the relevant age cohort.  

Although  in  the  context  of  Europe  2020  higher  education  is  defined  -  in  line  with  standard 
classifications  -  as  ISCED39  level  5  and  6,  some  Member  States  have  argued  that 
qualifications at ISCED level 4 – post-secondary, non-tertiary studies – should be viewed as 
equivalent  to  higher  education.  Both  Germany  and  Austria  have  included  ISCED  level  4 
graduates in their national targets for higher education attainment40.  

34 

35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 

Note that AT and DE define attainment by referring, respectively, to ISCED level 4a (AT) and ISCED 
level 4 (DE), which they consider equivalent to tertiary degrees (see below)  
BE, CY, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, PL, SE 
DK, LU, LT, EE, SI, PT, SK 
AT, BG, CZ, EL, HU, IT, LV, MT, RO 
See European Commission (2011c) 
International Standard Classification of Education 
Austria  has  set  a  higher  education  attainment  target  of  38%  by  2020,  including  ISCED  4a,  while 
Germany  has  established  a  target  of  42%  including  ISCED  4a  and  4b.  See  European  Commission 
(2011c) 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure  3-4  shows,  in  addition  to  the  higher  education  attainment  indicator  presented  above, 
the  proportion  of  30-34  year  olds  with  different  forms  of  post  secondary,  non  tertiary 
education  (ISCED  4)  qualifications  in  the  Member  States.  This  distinguishes  between 
attainment of qualifications classed as ISCED 4a or 4b, which typically give access to higher 
education studies (and can often count as credits towards a higher education qualification) and 
other types of post secondary, non tertiary qualification, which generally do not give access to 
higher  education.  Figure  3-4  illustrates  the  scale  of  the  particular  ISCED  4a  and  4b 
qualification  systems  in  Germany  and  Austria  (reflected  in  national  Europe  2020  targets41), 
but also highlights the prevalence of similar qualification types in the Baltic States, Sweden, 
Romania and Hungary. For a number of other Member States42 it is not possible to make a 
clear  distinction  between  types  of  ISCED  4  education.  Other  Member  States,  including 
Ireland, Poland and Greece have substantial ISCED 4 sectors, the qualifications from which 
do not generally give direct access to ISCED 5.  
Figure 3-4: Tertiary and "post secondary, non tertiary" attainment levels for 30-34 year olds in 201043 

l

s
d
o
r
a
e
y
4
3
-
0
3
%

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

RO IT CZ MT SK AT PT HU BG EL DE LV

ISCED 4 other

1.4 1.8 9.6

0.8

0.4 13.1

EU-
27

1.2

SI PL EE ES NL UK FR LT BE CY

FI SE LU DK IE

3.8

0.1 2.4

0.1

3.6 1.3 0.9

2.6

13.8

ISCED 4a + 4b 4.4

13.5

2.7

11.6 4.0 2.3

4.7

0.02 0.1

8.0

5.2

0.2

ISCED 5-6

18.1 19.8 20.4 21.5 22.1 23.5 23.5 25.7 27.7 28.4 29.8 32.3 33.6 34.8 35.3 40 40.6 41.4 43 43.5 43.8 44.4 45.1 45.7 45.8 46.1 47 49.9

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey 

3.2. 

The social dimension of higher education: who are today's students? 

Alongside  an  increased  focus  on  absolute  levels  of  higher  education  participation  and 
attainment  in  society,  the  last  decade  has  seen  far  greater  attention  paid  to  the  social 
composition  of  the  populations  entering  and  graduating  from  European  higher  education 
institutions.  In  the  context  of  the  Bologna Process  in  2007,  ministers  responsible  for  higher 
education  agreed  the  specific  objective  that  the  student  body  entering,  participating  in  and 
completing  higher  education  at  all  levels  "should  reflect  the  diversity  of  our  populations"44. 

41 
42 
43 

44 

ISCED 4a and 4b in Germany and ISCED 4a in Austria 
BE, CZ, FR, CY, LU, MT and PT 
Note that ISCED 4 data for MT, BG, ES, NL, UK, FR, CY, FI, LU and DK lack reliability due to the 
small sample size in these countries 
London Communiqué of 2007 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The underlying rationale for this commitment was broadly twofold. Firstly, there is what can 
be  termed  the  "social  justice  argument"45,  which  emphasises  the  need  to  ensure  equity  in 
access to higher education as part of fostering a balanced, socially cohesive society. Secondly, 
there is the more pragmatic "human capital argument", which stresses the need to maximise 
the  development  of  talent  as  a  means  to  meet  increasing  skills  demand  from  the  labour 
market. Both these arguments are fundamentally consistent with the EU's Europe 2020 goals 
of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

From  a  policy  perspective,  realising  the  goal  of  a  socially  representative  student  cohort 
requires  both  a  good  understanding  of  the  current  make-up  of  the  student  population  in 
Europe  and  well-tailored  action  to  increase  higher  education  participation  among  currently 
under-represented  groups.  Policy  across  the  EU  has  tended  to  focus  on  three  main  areas:  a) 
gender,  b)  socio-economically  disadvantaged  groups  (including  minority  ethnic  groups  and 
the disabled) and c) older age cohorts wishing to enter (or return to) higher education.  

The gender balance within the student population 

The  most  recent  data  on  the  student  population  in  EU  Member  States  confirms  the  well 
established  pattern  that  women  are  proportionally  more  likely  than  men  to  enter  higher 
education. Women account for more than half the student cohort at pre-doctoral level (ISCED 
5)  in  all  but  two  Member  States  (Cyprus  and  Luxembourg).  This  pattern  is  reflected  in  the 
higher  education  attainment  figures,  which  show  that  female  graduates  outnumber  male 
graduates  the  25-35  age  cohort  in  all  Member  States46  and  in  the  overall  working  age 
population (25-64) in 22 of the 27 Member States47.  

45 
46 

47 

Eurostudent (2011) 
The average higher education attainment rate in the EU-27 for those aged 30-34 is 37.2% for women 
and 30% for men. 
The  exceptions  (where  male  graduates  outnumber  female  graduates  in  the  population  25-64)  are  LU, 
DE, AT, NL and CZ. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 3-5: Proportion of female students at ISCED 5 and ISCED 6 in 2009 

n
e
m
o
w
%

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

CY LU EL DE NL PT AT FI

IE ES BE FR BG EU RO MT HU UK CZ IT PL SI DK LT SE SK EE LV

ISCED 5 46.8 48.3 50.3 51.4 51.9 53.3 53.7 54.1 54.2 54.2 55.1 55.5 55.7 55.8 56.5 56.7 56.9 57.3 57.4 57.8 58 58.1 58.6 59.3 60.7 61.1 62.1 63.7

ISCED 6 48.1 39.2 43.8

43.6 55.4 45.5 52.9 48.4 51.9 44 46.7 51.3

48.6 29.7 48.6 46.5 40.9 52.8 51.9 51.1 46.8 58.2 49.6 46.8 56.7 60

Source: Eurostat. Data for GR and LU are for 2008. No ISCED 6 data for DE  

The  overall  pattern  of  higher  education  participation  at  ISCED  5  level  shown  in  Figure  3-5 
conceals considerable differences in the gender balance within specific disciplines and study 
fields. Thus, on an EU level, women are over-represented to an even greater extent than in the 
general student population in both the humanities and law48, while men account for a majority 
of students in the fields of "science, maths and computing" and "engineering, manufacturing 
and construction"49. Furthermore, although women outnumber men in the pre-doctoral levels 
of higher education, the reverse is true for doctoral students in 16 of the 26 Member States for 
which relevant data are available. Given the importance of doctoral-level education as a pre-
requisite for research careers, this comparative under-representation of women in the highest 
levels of study has an impact on the numbers of women in university faculty and in research 
professions. 

The social background of students 

Increasing the numbers of students and graduates from "under-represented" social groups is a 
core objective of the "social dimension" of the Bologna Process and a well-established policy 
goal  in  many  EU  Member  States.  However,  different  national  population  profiles  and 
traditions  mean  that  national  definitions  of  under-represented  societal  groups  vary  from 
country  to  country,  which  complicates  cross-country  comparison  of  higher  education 
participation  rates  and  policy  responses.  Research  by  Eurydice50  highlights  the  diversity  of 
national student classification and monitoring systems. For example, while Austria, Germany 

48 
49 
50 

Respectively 68% and 58% female students in 2009 
Respectively 62% and 75% male students in 2009 
Eurydice (2011) 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
and  the  United  Kingdom  routinely  use  more  than  five  distinct  categories  for  monitoring 
student  participation,  France,  Luxembourg  and  Sweden  focus  only  on  students  from  low 
income backgrounds.  

Across  the  EU,  under-representation  in  higher  education  is  most  often  linked  to  socio-
economic  background  or  parents’  educational  attainment,  or  to  minority  status  or  disability. 
The latest report of  the  Eurostudent  project51,  based  on  surveys  of  students  in  a  majority  of 
EU  Member  States  and  other  European  countries52,  examines  a  number  of  measures  of  the 
social  background  of  students,  including  the  educational  and  occupational  profile  of  their 
parents.  

Figure 3-6: Educational profile of students' fathers 

Source: Eurostudent (2011), p.50 No data for England and Wales, SI, SE, LT  

The educational attainment of students’ parents is often viewed as a useful proxy indicator of 
students' socio-economic background53. Figure 3-6 plots the share of students whose fathers 
have a) higher education qualifications and b) at most lower secondary school qualifications 
against the equivalent shares for all men in the national populations aged 40-60. This shows 
that  individuals'  whose  fathers  have  higher  education  qualifications  are  proportionally  over-
represented in the student cohort in all countries surveyed. In the Netherlands, for example, 
50% of students surveyed have a father with a degree, whiles only 34% of Dutch men in the 
age group 40-60 have a similar level of qualification.  

At  the  same  time,  individuals  whose  fathers  have  a  low  level  of  qualification  are 
proportionally under-represented in higher education in most countries, although to differing 
degrees  and  with  some  exceptions.  Thus,  in  Finland,  the  Eurostudent  results  suggest 

51 
52 

53 

Eurostudent (2011) 
Does  not  cover  BE,  HU,  BU,  GR  and  Scotland  (Observers)  or  Cyprus  and  Northern  Ireland  (non 
Members) 
In particular because educational attainment levels are closely correlated to occupational status and, to a 
lesser  extent,  income  and  educational  attainment  levels  are  objective  and  easily  comparable  across 
countries. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
individuals with fathers with low levels of qualification are proportionally over-represented in 
higher  education,  while  in  the  Netherlands  and  Ireland  the  proportion  of  students  with  such 
fathers  is  almost  exactly  in  line  with  the  pattern  in  the  national  population  as  a  whole.  The 
higher education systems in these countries could thus be seen to be relatively inclusive and to 
have a high potential to influence social mobility. In contrast, while over 60% of the Italian 
and  35%  of  the  French  male  populations  aged  40-60  have  no  more  than  lower  secondary 
qualifications,  fewer  than  40%  of  Italian  students  and  under  20%  of  French  students  report 
having a father with this level of qualification. Such patterns suggest a greater level of inter-
generational reproduction in terms of educational attainment and a lower potential impact on 
social mobility.  

relative  under-representation  of  students 

from  disadvantaged  socio-economic 
The 
backgrounds in higher education is related to a complex set of factors of which lower levels of 
attainment  in  secondary  education  and  more  limited  educational  aspirations  are  the  most 
frequently cited. Lower levels of the educational system have an important influence on the 
likelihood  of  individuals  from  different  backgrounds  to  enter  higher  education.  Evidence 
shows54 that in systems that tend towards early educational streaming and selection, students 
from  lower  socio-economic  status  backgrounds  are  statistically  more  likely  to  'opt  for'  (or 
have no option but to opt for) a vocational training route, from where it is more difficult to 
continue to higher education. As a consequence, some countries (for example Finland, Ireland 
and Sweden) have sought to introduce more flexibility in progression routes, making it easier 
to  move  from  forms  of  education  and  training  that  do  not  traditionally  lead  to  higher 
education55. This is also an important element in attracting older learners to higher education 
(see below). 

A 2010 Eurydice survey showed that most EU Member States have expressed an intention in 
their  policies  to  promote  the  "social  dimension"  of  higher  education  in  line  with  the  broad 
objectives  of  the  Bologna  Process.  However,  very  few  appear  to  have  translated  this  into 
formal  commitments  to  raising  the  participation  of  under-represented  groups  to  the  point 
where the higher education population mirrors the overall societal distribution of such groups. 
Indeed, it is more common for countries to take measures to increase overall participation in 
higher education and to hope that in so doing the numbers of students from under-represented 
groups will also rise. Targets, where they do exist, tend to relate to increasing participation of 
individuals  with  lower  socio-economic  status  and/or  students  whose  parents  have  relatively 
low  educational  attainment  levels.  Eurydice  found  that  Belgium  (Flemish  Community) 
France,  Ireland  and  the  United  Kingdom  (Scotland)  have  implemented  measures  in  this 
respect. 

The age profile of higher education students 

The  twin  objectives  of  social  equity  and  increasing  the  overall  stock  of  human  capital  also 
underpin  measures  to  increase  higher  education  participation  among  older  age  groups,  who 
did not benefit from higher education as part of their initial educational pathway or who wish 
to  return  to  higher  education  to  upgrade  their  skills.  In  addition  to  encouraging  such  older 
learners to undertake mainstream higher education programmes, there is a related, but distinct, 

54 
55 

For example, OECD (2010a) Eurydice (2010) 
This  is  also  a  key  objective  of  the  Copenhagen  Process  in  the  field  of  Vocational  Educational  and 
Training,  which  aims  to  create  flexible  learning  pathways,  which  allow  permeability  between  the 
different parts of the education and training system. See Copenhagen Process 2010. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
trend  in  strategic  policy  and  at  institutional  level  to  develop  the  role  of  higher  education 
institutions as providers of shorter continuing education programmes to those already in the 
labour market.  

Figure  3-7  shows  the  age  profile  of  the  student  populations  in  mainstream  pre-doctoral 
programmes (ISCED 5a and 5b) in the EU Member States. This serves to illustrate two main 
patterns.  Firstly  –  and  less  directly  relevant  here  -  those  countries  where  students  typically 
enter (and complete) higher education at a comparatively young age56. Secondly, as reflected 
in the order of the countries in the figure, the proportion of older learners (those over 35) in 
the overall student population at undergraduate or masters level. In this context, Sweden and 
the UK stand out as particularly successful systems in attracting older learners, with over 20% 
of their ISCED 5 students over 35. The same age cohort makes up over 14% of the student 
populations  in  Denmark,  Latvia  and  Finland  and  accounts  for  over  10%  of  students  in  a 
further eight Member States. 

Figure 3-7: Age profile of higher education students (ISCED 5a and 5b) - 2009 

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

DK FI

SE CZ DE AT SK PL

LV

IT

SI HU LT EE BG EU RO ES PT NL UK CY MT BE FR

not accounted

4.9

8.0

8.1

2.8

40+

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

11.4 9.3 15.4 4.1 2.7

7

6

6.5 5.1

8

4

3.2 4.7 5.3

11.5 10.5 10.3 6.4 8.1 8.4 7.4

0

0

9

9.2

0

4.4 5.1 3.7 5.7 3.0 4.3

0

5.1 6.9 4.8 15.5 2.5 6.8 3.9

6.7 7.6 3.9 4.9 4.9 5.6 3.3 4.1 11.2 5

4.7 2.5 6.6 2.3 3.2 2.6

0

0

8.1 6.1 5.5 8.7 6.6 8.2 5.6 7.9 5.3 8.3 8.5

4

7.4 4.9

5

4.3 7.8

28.5 25.3 22.1 14.3 28.3 24.8 13.1 12.1 14.3 17.5 17.7 15.9 14.2 15.2 14.2 16.5 18.7 18.3 16.0 15.4 12 17.7 11.1 10.1 9.3

40.6 45.1 39.2 58.2 48.8 46.6 58.0 60.7 50.8 49.5 56.7 52.2 56.8 51.5 59.6 48.7 47.1 45.1 44.7 53.4 36.4 49.8 49.5 52.1 55

1.6 4.7 5.1

8

8.5 8.5 10.3 10.3 10.9 11.2 11.7 13.2 13.8 13.9 14.3 15.6 17.7 18.2 19.1 20

22 22.8 24.4 26.9 28

Source: Eurostat, UOE. No data for Ireland, Greece or Luxembourg 

3.3. 

Entry routes to higher education 

Across  the  EU,  the  most  widespread  pathway  to  higher  education  has  traditionally  been  to 
follow  a  general  or  academic  route  through  secondary  education  (ISCED  3A),  to  pass  final 
exams  at  upper  secondary  level  (and  in  some  cases  higher  education  entry  exams)  and  to 
move  directly  to  higher  education  after  high  school.  The  expansion  of  higher  education  in 

56 

In particular FR, BE, MT, CY, UK and NL, where over 20% of students in 2009 were 19 or younger. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
recent decades often introduced more vocationally oriented pathways to university, while the 
increasing  preoccupation  with  widening  access  and  ensuring  social  equity  has  ensured  the 
issue  of  "progression  routes"  remains  high  on  the  policy  agenda57.  There  is  a  growing 
recognition  that  secondary  education  systems  tend  to  reinforce  existing  socio-economic 
differences between pupils and work against equal access to higher education58. In recognition 
of the importance of up-skilling the labour force and to encourage lifelong learning, national 
and  EU  policy  has  sought  to  prevent  "dead-ends"  in  educational  systems,  which  prevent 
individuals from progressing to higher levels. 

As  illustrated  in  Figure  3-8  -  a  conceptual  framework  for  entry  routes  to  higher  education 
developed as part of the Eurostudent project – alongside the traditional route from academic 
upper  secondary  (ISCED  3A)  level  to  higher  education  (ISCED  5),  a  range  of  alternative 
routes  may  exist.  These  include  more  vocational  streams,  including  foundation  courses  or 
similar  programmes  at  post-secondary,  non-tertiary  level  (ISCED  4a  or  b)  as  well  as 
mechanisms  to  assess  and  validate  prior  learning  gained  in  other  settings,  including  work 
experience  and  education  and  training  options  that  do  not  traditionally  lead  to  higher 
education. 

Figure 3-8: Eurostudent framework for routes to higher education 

Source Eurostudent IV, p25 

The latest Eurostudent survey found that the vast majority of students in the EU enter higher 
education  through  the  traditional  route  described  above.  However,  in  the  Nordic  countries, 
Ireland and the United Kingdom, over 20% of the students surveyed reported having followed 
alternative  routes  to  higher  education,  from  vocational  courses  or  through  accreditation  of 
prior learning and experience59. The students in this group were more likely than average to 
come  from  low  educational  backgrounds,  to  be  older  and  to  have  delayed  entry  to  higher 
education.  This  suggests  the  use  of  alternative  progression  routes  can  support  the  goal  of 
widening access to higher education to under-represented target groups, including those from 
lower income backgrounds and older learners. 

57 
58 
59 

See also Eurydice (2011), Section 1.3 
See OECD 2010a 
Eurostudent (2011), pp.26-28 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The latest EUA Trends report60 , surveying 821 higher education institutions in Europe, found 
an  increasing  number  of  institutions  were  introducing  policies  on  widening  access,  but  also 
notes that national authorities and institutions need to do more (and be allowed to do more) to 
collect relevant data on the social background of students and their attainment. 

3.4. 

The impact of demographic aging 

The  European  population  is  getting  older.  Not  only  are  Europeans  living  longer  than  ever 
before,  but  with  falling  birth  rates,  the  number  of  young  people  in  the  European  Union  has 
declined steadily in the last two decades. In the EU between 1990 and 2009, the population 
aged 10-19 fell by 15.4% and the population aged 20-29 by 10%61. Although migration and 
increased  birth  rates  in  some  EU  countries  mean  the  population  decline  has  now  been 
reversed at EU level in the youngest age cohorts (the number of 0-4 olds in the EU increased 
by  3.7%  between  2000  and  2010),  many  EU  Member  States  –  particularly  in  Central  and 
Eastern Europe will continue to see their younger population shrink in the coming  decades. 
As  well  as  their  implications  for  economic  development  and  the  sustainability  of  social 
security  systems,  these  demographic  trends  naturally  have  an  impact  on  education  and 
training systems, including higher education. 

The increased higher education participation rates across the EU in the last decade discussed 
above have hitherto masked the impact of declining younger age cohorts on higher education 
institutions, as student numbers have continued to increase. However, current EU population 
projections show a significant decline in the typical age cohort for higher education students 
(20-24) over the next 40 years in a majority of Member States. As shown in Figure 3-9, while 
the student age cohort is projected to increase or remain broadly stable in the coming decades 
in  10  Member  States,  the  remaining  17  countries  will  see  the  20-24  age  group  shrink 
compared  to  2010  levels.  Declines  range  from  5%  in  Cyprus  to  over  50%  in  Romania  and 
Latvia, with the greatest demographic contraction seen in Central and Eastern Europe. 

60 
61 

EUA (2010) 
Eurostat calculations 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 3-9: Evolution in population aged 20-24 in the EU - 2020 and 2050 

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

-10.0

-20.0

-30.0

-40.0

-50.0

-60.0

-70.0

LU

IE

BE

DK

UK SE

FR

IT

FI

NL

CY

ES AT

EL

EU

PT

SI CZ

DE MT HU

LU

IE

BE DK UK

SE

FR

IT

FI

NL CY

ES AT

EL

EU PT

SI

CZ

DE MT HU SK

EE

BG PL

LT

RO LV

SK

EE

BG PL

LT

RO

LV

2020 15.0 -3.5 0.5

9.5 -6.0 -11.1 -4.4 0.5

-3.6 1.9 -13.4 -9.9 -2.8 -10.9 -12.6 -5.4 -23.3 -27.8 -15.2 -16.9 -17.9 -29.0 -42.9 -39.2 -30.9 -34.8 -35.9 -49.1

2050 28.1 19.7 12.8 8.3

6.5

5.9

-1.4 -1.5 -1.6 -2.7 -5.3 -7.2 -8.7 -12.7 -16.1 -19.4 -25.9 -26.9 -31.4 -32.8 -33.0 -42.3 -45.0 -47.4 -48.4 -49.5 -52.5 -57.4

Source: Eurostat 

From  a  socio-economic  development  perspective,  the  decline  in  the  student  age  cohort 
provides  an  increased  incentive  to  increase  higher  education  participation  and  attainment 
levels in the population as a whole. This is necessary not only to meet future predicted skills 
requirements (see next section), but also to maintain the supply of graduates at current levels.  

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
4. 

RESPONDING TO THE SKILLS CHALLENGE 

4.1. 

Europe's changing skills requirements 

The requirements of the European economy in terms of human capital are changing. As the 
EU recovers from the worst economic crisis for decades, the latest analysis points to a number 
of trends in Europe's economic structure with important implications for employment patterns 
and skills needs. 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

An  ongoing  decline  in  employment  in  primary  sectors  and  basic  manufacturing 
sectors,  with  increased  employment  in  services.  This  trend  has  been  accelerated  by 
increased  competition  from  Asia,  which  has  seen  many  manufacturing  and 
processing jobs move to the east during the last 10 years. 

A  focus  within  the  EU  on  "high-end",  knowledge-intensive  activities,  such  as 
research  and  development,  marketing  and  sales,  value  chain  management  and 
financial  services,  which  generate  high  added  value  –  and  require  highly  skilled 
labour. 

An  increasing  need  for  skills  related  to  the  development  and  implementation  of 
climate and environmentally friendly solutions, technology and services. 

Some degree of polarisation in employment types at sector level, particularly in areas 
such  as  distribution  and  transport,  with  increased  employment  in  both  high-skill 
posts  and  in  low-skilled  positions  which  cannot  easily  be  transferred  to  other 
locations in the world62. At the same time, there is likely to be an overall decline in 
demand  for  skilled  manual  workers,  as  improvements  in  productivity  reduce 
employment needs and competition intensifies from workers in this skill category in 
other world regions63. 

In  the  context  of  a  complex,  interdependent  global  economy,  Europe  is  thus  increasingly 
specialising in services and high value added production sectors. This shift will generate an 
increasing  number  of  knowledge  and  skills  intensive  jobs  for  managers,  professionals  and 
technicians. As a result, demand for highly-qualified people is projected to rise by almost 16 
million in the period up to 2020. The share of highly-qualified jobs in the labour market as a 
whole will thus increase from 29% in 2010 to about 35% in 2020. At the same time, the share 
of  jobs  employing  those  with  medium-level  qualifications  will  remain  broadly  stable  (at 
around 50%) and the share of jobs employing those with low qualifications will decrease from 
20% to less than 15%64. 

Studies of current and future skills requirements highlight the importance of both transversal 
core skills and subject or sector-specific skills for all individuals. "Transversal core skills" can 
be  conceived  of  as  a  set  of  knowledge,  skills  and  attitudes  that  allow  people  to  lead  a 
successful  life  in  a  modern  knowledge  society.  The  European  Key  Competences  Reference 

62 
63 
64 

See Oxford Research (2010) 
See European Commission (2010b) 
CEDEFOP (2010a) 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Framework65 defines eight core competences66 - including communication and ICT skills, an 
ability  to  learn,  and  initiative  and  entrepreneurship  -  which  all  individuals  should  seek  to 
develop.  

These core competences correspond closely to the skills employers consistently say they seek 
in  their  employees.  In  a  recent  Eurobarometer  survey67  (See  Figure  4-1),  employers  from 
across Europe ranked transversal competences such as team-working, communication skills, 
computer  skills  and  adaptability,  alongside  sector-specific  skills,  among  the  most  important 
attributes they look for in graduate recruits.  

Figure 4-1: Importance of skills for employers in recruiting graduates 

Source: Flash Eurobarometer 304, 2010 

As noted by the EU's Expert Group on New Skills for New Jobs68, today's knowledge society 
and economy call for individuals to develop "T-shaped" skills profiles, in which they combine 
transversal  core  skills  (the  horizontal  bar)  with  the  specific  skills  needed  for  particular 
occupations or jobs (the vertical bar). The Expert Group argues these competences should be 
acquired as soon as possible by everyone and developed throughout life. This model of skills 

65 
66 

67 
68 

European Commission (2006) 
1.  Communication  in  the  mother  tongue;  2.  Communication  in  foreign  languages;  3.  Mathematical 
competence  and  basic  competences  in  science  and  technology;  4.  Digital  competence;  5.  Learning  to 
learn;  6.  Social  and  civic  competences;  7.  Sense  of  initiative  and  entrepreneurship;  8.  Cultural 
awareness and expression. 
Eurobarometer (2010a) 
European Commission (2010b) 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
development holds for those seeking to develop the highest levels of skills and thus has direct 
implications for Europe's higher education systems69. 

4.2. 

Key implications for higher education 

The predicted growth in demand for high-level skills in the European economy means the EU 
needs more skilled graduates in absolute terms and for these graduates to have the right mix 
of skills to allow them to succeed in the changing economic environment. As a result of the 
continuing  growth  in  student  and  graduate  numbers  in  all  Member  States  highlighted  in 
Section 3, the EU appears to be on the right path in terms of producing the right quantity of 
graduates, even if widening access to higher education to under-represented groups remains a 
challenge. Judging the quality of the education received by higher education students in the 
EU and the relevance of the knowledge and skills they acquire is inherently more difficult. 

The rapid expansion of quality assurance in higher education over the last decade, accelerated 
in Europe by the Bologna Process, has stimulated a wide-ranging debate on how best to assess 
the quality of higher education programmes. Views on the components of quality, and on the 
best  approaches  to  guaranteeing  it,  vary  across  the  EU.  However,  the  Standards  and 
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), developed 
as  a  common  framework  by  the  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher 
Education  (ENQA)70,  place  emphasis  on  ensuring  the  inherent  intellectual  quality  of 
programmes  and  teaching,  their  relevance  to  students  and  society  in  terms  of  learning 
outcomes  and  the  importance  of  creating  a  “culture  of  quality”  that  promotes  continuous 
improvement.  As  reflected  in  the  ESG,  there  is  a  broad  consensus  that  high  quality  higher 
education programmes combine a number of core features: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

69 

70 
71 

The programme is defined in terms of clear learning outcomes, which allow students 
to  understand  the  knowledge  and  skills  they  should  acquire,  form  the  basis  for 
student  assessment  and  quality  assurance  and  provide  employers  and  other 
stakeholders a clear idea of the skills set graduates should possess; 

The  content  draws  on  the  best  available  knowledge  in  the  subject  field  concerned, 
including insights from the latest research and the world outside academia; 

The staff teaching the programme are well qualified and have the right training and 
skills set to fulfil their pedagogical role; 

The structure, teaching or delivery methods are appropriate to the subject matter and 
tailored  to  the  needs  of  the  target  student  group  and  adequate  learning  resources 
(research and computer facilities71, libraries etc) are available; 

The programme is subject to quality assurance procedures from the outset, including 
formal,  up-front  approval  for  the  course  and  regular  periodic  reviews  by  external 

The  OECD's  Programme  for  the  International  Assessment  of  Adult  Competencies  (PIAAC)  is 
undertaking a new wide-ranging survey of adult skills in order to assess the skills competencies needed 
for individual success. The outcomes are intended to inform education practitioners and policy makers 
on 
competencies. 
http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3746,en_2649_201185_40277475_1_1_1_1,00.html  
ENQA (2005). Developed by ENQA in cooperation with EUA, EURASHE and ESIB 
See Section 4.3 

appropriate 

develop 

skills 

these 

ways 

and 

to 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
experts,  taking  into  account  the  views  of  students  and  employers,  labour  market 
representatives and other relevant organisations. 

1. The focus on learning outcomes 

Reformulating  study  programmes  in  terms  of  defined  learning  outcomes  for  students 
represents a significant cultural shift for European higher education. It requires the core focus 
of programme design to move away from inputs (the qualifications of teachers, hours studied) 
– the means through which programme objectives are achieved - and onto outputs, defined in 
terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes acquired by the learners. This shift lies at the heart of 
the move towards “student-centred learning” – wherein the results and impacts of the study 
experience for students are attributed utmost importance at programme and institutional level. 

The focus on learning outcomes in higher education is part of a wider trend within education 
and  training  more  generally,  spurred  on  by  the  development  of  National  Qualifications 
Frameworks  (NQFs)  in  the  context  of  the  Bologna  Process72  and  the  development  of  the 
European  Qualifications  Framework  (EQF).  Initially  focusing  on  the  level  of  higher 
education, NQFs show what learners may be expected to know, understand and be able to do 
on  the  basis  of  a  given  qualification  (ie  the  learning  outcomes  expected  from  these 
qualifications).  They  also  show  how  learners  may  move  between  qualification  levels  and 
types in an education system73. At EU level, the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), 
agreed in 2008, provides a standardised set out learning outcomes organised into eight levels, 
to which national qualifications can be linked. The objective is now to relate all existing and 
new  qualifications  –  at  all  levels  of  the  education  and  training  systems  -  to  the  appropriate 
EQF level, to allow employers and others to better understand the learning outcomes expected 
from qualifications gained in another EU Member State74.  

The  balance  of  evidence  from  recent  analysis  of  the  situation  in  Europe  shows  that  the 
concept  of  learning  outcomes  has  not  yet  become  established  in  many  higher  education 
institutions75. As noted by the OECD’s current AHELO project76, formulating programmes in 
terms of learning outcomes is challenging, and represents a particularly significant departure 
for  universities  accustomed  to  delivering  courses  defined  centrally  in  national  systems.  In 
such cases, academic staff have to take on a range of new responsibilities for the design and 
implementation of the courses they deliver. The European University Association argues the 
shift to a student-centred learning outcomes approach in many cases requires further resources 
to support smaller staff-student ratios, better learning facilities and staff training77.  

In addition to the shift to learning outcomes, higher education institutions are also adapting to 
the  increased  focus  on  transversal  competences.  This  implies  that  higher  education 
programmes  should  seek  not  only  to  impart  subject-specific  knowledge  and  skills,  but  also 
help  individuals  to  develop  their  core  transversal  competences,  notably  in  terms  of  critical 
thinking  and  learning,  communication,  entrepreneurship  and  creativity.  This  development 
brings with it its own challenges. In particular, there is an ongoing debate about, firstly, the 

72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 

See 2005 Bergen Communiqué 
http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=69  
See http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm  
See for example, EUA (2010), GHK (2011) 
Assessing Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO) www.oecd.org/edu/ahelo 
EUA (2010) 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
extent to which higher education can be expected to develop core competences if these have 
been  neglected  in  earlier  stages  of  the  education  system  and,  secondly,  the  best  way  to 
measure and assess such competences, which have not always been a focus of many higher 
education programmes.  
Box 4-1: Policy and practice: The Nexus project, Germany78 

The German Federal Government is funding a project to support higher education institutions 
in their efforts to modernise their study programmes, teaching, examination and recognition 
procedures. ‘Nexus’, which has been funded for the period  2010  to 2014, is  coordinated  by 
the  German  Rectors’  Conference  (HRK)  and  has  a  core  focus  on  student-centred  learning, 
modularisation and  ensuring employability of graduates. The  project involves dissemination 
of good practice from within Germany and beyond though through workshops, seminars and 
publications.  

2. Better links to research, innovation and the world of work 

Higher  education  systems  must  continue  to  evolve  if  they  are  to  respond  effectively  to  the 
skills  needs  of  a  knowledge  economy  and  challenges  related  to  delivering  high  quality 
education to an even larger proportion of the population. At a fundamental level, this implies 
complementing  the  traditional  academic  culture  in  universities  with  a  focus  on  delivering  a 
highly  skilled,  enterprising  and  flexible  workforce  –  which  in  turn  requires  increased 
interaction between higher education institutions and the world around them. Experience from 
around  the  world  has  shown  the  benefits  of  cooperation  with  external  partners,  including 
employers, innovative businesses and local and regional authorities. As the Expert Group on 
New Skills for New Jobs put it, "education and training can be effective and innovative only 
if the institutions themselves are innovative, "learning organisations" open to interactions with 
the world of business and work"79.  

In  order  to  support  the  development  of  closer  cooperation  between  higher  education 
institutions and companies in Europe, the Commission has launched the University-Business 
Forum80,  a  platform  on  European  level  for  a  structured  dialogue  between  the  stakeholders. 
The  exchanges  and  discussions  are  based  on  real  cases  and  address  university-business 
cooperation  related  topics  from  the  business  and  higher  education  perspectives,  including 
governance,  curriculum  development  and  delivery,  mobility,  lifelong  learning,  knowledge 
transfer,  entrepreneurship,  etc.  The  Forum  has  opened  a  dialogue  between  the  two  worlds 
about how they can work more closely together. It has demonstrated that there is an appetite 
on  both  sides  for  working  in  partnership  focused  on  education,  with  the  common  goal  to 
ensuring that education delivers high-level and highly valued skills, underpinned at all times 
by high levels of adaptability, entrepreneurship and creative and innovative capacities. 

In order to support implementation, a pilot action called "knowledge alliances" was launched 
in  April  201181.  The  overall  objective  of  this  action  is  to  ensure  stronger  societal  and 
economic  relevance  and  outreach  of  higher  education 
the 
employability, creativity and innovative potential of graduates and professors and the role of 
higher education institutions as engines of innovation.  

through  strengthening 

78 
79 
80 
81 

See: http://www.hrk.de/de/projekte_und_initiativen/5913.php  
European Commission (2010b) 
University-Business Forum, see http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1261_en.htm 
Call for proposals: http://ec.europa.eu/education/calls/doc2905_en.htm 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
                                                 
At the same time, it is important that teaching programmes in universities benefit as much as 
possible from new insights from the world of research – research which may be undertaken in 
the same organisation, but does not always feed into the programmes delivered to students. In 
this  context,  the  concept  of  the  "knowledge  triangle"  –  comprising  education,  research  and 
innovation  –  is  important.  To  optimise  skills,  innovation  and  research  outcomes,  it  is 
important  for  these  three  domains  to  work  closely  together.  This  in  many  cases  requires 
changes in the traditional approaches to designing and delivering education programmes. As 
noted by in Council Conclusions on the role of education in the knowledge triangle: 

for education to fulfil its role in the knowledge triangle, research and innovation objectives 
and outcomes need to feed back into education, with teaching and learning underpinned by a 
strong research base, and with teaching and learning environments developed and improved 
through greater incorporation of creative thinking and innovative attitudes and approaches82. 

Turning the theoretical concept of a strengthened knowledge triangle into reality in teaching, 
research and innovation is a complex task, but an area where progress is being made. Public 
authorities  can  play  an  important  role  in  supporting  higher  education  institutions  to  form 
closer links with employers and employer's organisations, external research organisations and 
innovative  businesses  to  enhance  their  educational  offer.  At  European  Union  level,  the 
European  Institute  of  Technology  (EIT)  has  been  established  to  test  innovative  approaches 
linking  different  actors  in  the  knowledge  triangle,  including  for  the  development  of  new 
higher education programmes and curricula.  
Box 4-2: Policy and practice: Education in the European Institute of Technology (EIT)83 

The  Knowledge  Triangle  is  a  useful  tool  to  grasp  the  dynamics  of  education,  research  and 
innovation  working  together  in  a  mutually  reinforcing  way  in  order  to  enhance  quality, 
achieve  excellence  and  to  contribute  to  economic  growth  and  advancement  of  society  as  a 
whole.  The  European  Institute  of  Technology  (EIT)  is  the  first  EU  initiative  that  seeks  to 
address  the  grand  societal  challenges  by  connecting  the  different  parts  of  the  knowledge 
triangle, in particular through the "Knowledge and Innovation Communities" (KIC).  

The EIT has departed from the traditional knowledge transfer vision of a linear progression 
from  education  into  research  and  then  further  to  the  market.  Instead,  it  strives  to  create  an 
interactive and dynamic relationship between education, research and business and industry, 
which better reflects the needs of the knowledge economy. A strong research base is a pre-
requisite for the Knowledge and Innovation Communities established by the EIT. Each KIC 
aims to become a world-wide reference for cutting-edge research in its specific thematic area, 
pooling the best talent in a collaborative, cross-disciplinary setting. Excellent research is then 
tapped by the EIT education programmes, which provide an environment for training world-
class researchers will.  

The  EIT  educational  concept  will  enhance  the  potential  of  the  higher  education  institutions 
engaged in KICs to integrate research and innovation results into the educational offer and to 
exploit the potential for marketable products and services with relevance to the thematic area. 
The universities participating in the KICs will continue to award EIT labelled Masters degrees 
and  PhDs,  which  provide  in-depth  scientific  knowledge  coupled  with  entrepreneurial  skills, 
creative  and  innovative  attitudes.  Dialogue  with  national  authorities  and  quality  assurance 

82 

Conclusions  of  the  Council  and  of  the  Representatives  of  the  Governments  of  the  Member  States  on 
developing the role of education in a fully-functioning knowledge triangle, 26 November 2009 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
bodies  helps  to  ensure  recognition  of  the  EIT  labelled  degrees  in  national  and  international 
context.  The  EIT  labelled  degree  programmes  are  characterised  by  inter-sectoral,  as  well  as 
international cooperation. 

Academia and business work hand in hand for the design and delivery of the curricula and the 
definition of the learning outcomes, while students and staff can move smoothly from higher 
education to business and vice versa. The approach of the EIT labelled Master and Doctoral 
courses  is  explicitly  international,  with  world-wide  recruitment  of  students  and  staff 
combining  high  research  potential  with  an  entrepreneurial  mindset.  The  courses  reflect  the 
achievements  of  the  European  Higher  Education  Area  in  terms  of  international  curriculum 
development, structured mobility periods in each programme, awarding of joint degrees and 
correct application of European transparency and internationalisation tools.  

3. Appropriate quality assurance 

As  already  highlighted,  the  development  of  internal  and  external  quality  assurance  (QA) 
mechanisms has been one of the most important trends affecting higher education in Europe 
in  the  last  decade84.  The  call  for  rigorous  QA  systems  as  part  of  the  Bologna  Process  was 
motivated in the first instance by a need to ensure mutual trust among participating countries 
in  the  quality  of  qualifications  delivered  by  other  higher  education  systems  within  Europe. 
However,  this  initially  trans-national  concern  has  sparked  a  widespread  debate  on  the 
appropriate  role  and  form  of  quality  assurance  systems  in  guaranteeing  high  quality  at 
national level, particularly in those countries with little or no previous experience of QA.  

Evidence from the ground shows a growing "quality culture" in higher education institutions, 
with  internal  quality  systems  in  place  and  frequently  managed  at  faculty  level85.  Moreover, 
almost  all  EU  Member  States  now  have  independent  QA  agencies,  working  to  a  greater  or 
lesser  extent  in  line  with  the  European  Standards  and  Guidelines  (ESG)  mentioned  earlier. 
Many  agencies  are  members  of  the  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher 
Education  (ENQA)  and  registered  in  the  European  Quality  Assurance  Register  (EQAR)  to 
facilitate recognition across Europe. This European dimension to quality assurance has been 
widely  welcomed,  with  the  EUA  (2010)  finding  it  have  had  a  range  of  positive  impacts, 
including in internationalising quality review panels, ensuring the participation of students in 
QA processes and further professionalising national QA agencies.  

Reliable information about the quality and relevance of learning programmes is of particular 
importance  for  young  people  entering  higher  education,  for  young  graduates  considering 
further studies and for adults seeking suitable continuing education or retraining. However, as 
shown in the European Commission's reviews of progress in implementing QA systems in the 
EU86,  both  internal  and  external  quality  systems  in  Europe  have  tended  to  focus  on 
accreditation of programmes against minimum standards, rather than pushing for excellence, 
and exploring new and innovative ways to ensure the quality and relevance of programmes. 

83 
84 

85 
86 

See: http://eit.europa.eu/nc/activities/education/overview.html?print=1  
60% of respondents to the 2010 EUA Trends survey rated the development of internal quality processes 
had  been  one  of  the  most  important  changes  affecting  their  organisations  in  the  last  10  years  –  EUA 
(2010) 
EUA (2010) 
See European Commission (2009) 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
This  said,  recent  developments  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  show  positive  trends  in 
developing new approaches to QA. 
Box 4-3: Policy and practice: Employability in quality assessment in Sweden87 

Sweden  is  introducing  measures  of  "employability"  and  the  employment  outcomes  of 
graduates as criteria to be taken into account in assessing the quality of study programmes as 
part of its national higher education quality assurance system. Questionnaires will be sent to 
alumni to collect data on graduate views on whether the education they received was useful in 
the labour market. The results of this analysis will be used as one element in determining the 
quality-based allocation of extra funding to the best performing universities.  

4. Guidance and counselling 

Recent  analysis  of  the  skills  situation  in  Europe88  concluded  that  too  many  individual 
education  and  training  decisions  are  made  in  the  absence  of competent  career  guidance  and 
counselling,  with  a lack  of understanding  of people’s strengths and  the real dimensions and 
opportunities of different careers, leading to inappropriate training and career choices. 

Improving guidance and counselling on career and further study choices in schools is vital to 
help  individuals  make  informed  decisions  and  reduce  wasteful  drop-out  resulting  from 
inappropriate  course  selection.  At  the  same  time,  career  guidance  within  higher  education 
itself is important to help students prepare for the world after studying and develop individual 
career  management  skills.  There  is  evidence  that  career  guidance  in  higher  education 
institutions has been developing rapidly in recent years, with universities striving to improve 
student  retention  and  prepare  their  students  for  employment89.  Reliable  information  on  the 
employment outcomes of previous graduates can be a valuable tool for students in selecting 
study options and for career guidance counsellors, as well as providing valuable feedback for 
those designing and delivering programmes. Improved data on what happens to alumni after 
their study period is vital for this to happen. 
Box 4-4: Policy and practice: Tracking graduates in Hungary90 

In  Hungary,  a  new  national  tracking  system  for  graduate  employment  outcomes  is  being 
developed  and  produced  its  first  results  in  autumn  2010.  This  new  system  consists  of  30 
projects in higher education institutions. It is locally implemented with a nationally consistent 
and  audited  methodology,  covering  the  professional  satisfaction  and  the  assessment  of  the 
personal career, the retrospective assessment of education and institution, and the applicability 
of studies. 

4.3. 

ICT in higher education 

Information  and  Communication  Technology  (ICT)  has  had  and  will  continue  to  have  a 
significant impact on higher education. The ubiquity of ICT means educational systems at all 
levels need to respond to increased demand for digital literacy and competences91 while such 
technologies  also  offer  the  potential  to  transform  the  teaching  and  learning,  research 
cooperation  and  the  administration  of  academic  institutions.  However,  deploying  ICT  is 

87 
88 
89 
90 

See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/14/30/87/358bd536.pdf  
European Commission (2010b) 
EUA (2010) 
See: http://www.kslll.net/PoliciesAndAchievements/ExampleDetails.cfm?id=139&OtherSourceId=&compendiumid=2  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
generally  costly  and  is  by  nature  a  "disruptive"  innovation,  requiring  both  considerable 
resources and cultural change within organisations. These factors help explain why the radical 
and rapid transformation of educational systems through technology, predicted by some at the 
turn  of  the  millennium,  has  not  yet  materialised92,  even  if  the  impact  of  ICT  has  been 
considerable and e-learning remains firmly on the agenda of higher education institutions. 

that  higher  education 

institutions  worldwide  are 

Recent  studies  show 
increasingly 
implementing  integrated  Learning  Management  Systems  (LMS)  at  institutional  level.  These 
are  software  systems  developed  for  both  administration  and  teaching  in  higher  education, 
enabling,  for  example,  enrolment  data  to  be  handled  electronically,  access  to  online  course 
materials  and  assessments  and  online  interaction  between  faculty  and  students93.  Such 
systems  provide  core  infrastructure  to  support the  work  of  both  administrative  and  teaching 
staff, with clear advantages in terms of knowledge management.  

Change  in  the  classroom  and  in  the  delivery  of  teaching  and  learning,  requires  not  only 
infrastructure, but a reformulation of curricula and course elements to exploit the potential of 
ICT.  This  can  range  from  simply  making  course  material  available  online  and  using  email, 
through  incorporating  web-based  elements  (projects,  assessments,  discussion  fora)  into 
campus-based programmes to fully online delivery, allowing students to follow courses from 
another  location  (distance  learning,  also  allowing  "virtual  learning  mobility").  Fully  web-
based  programmes,  with  no  or  limited  requirements  for  physical  presence  on  campus,  offer 
new  options  for  widening  access  to  higher  education  (for  example  to  those  in  the  labour 
market or with children) and marketing higher education courses internationally94. The falling 
costs  and  expansion  in  use  of  mobile  web-enabled  devices  makes  it  even  more  feasible  to 
incorporate innovative, ICT-based teaching techniques and components into higher education 
programmes.  

Although  the  potential  of  ICT  to  enhance  the  learning  and  research  experience  is  great,  the 
barriers  to  wider  deployment  remain  considerable.  Alongside  the  basic  infrastructure 
requirements and the associated investment, remodelling provision to take best advantage of 
ICT  is  no  easy  task.  Teachers  often  need  new  skills,  to  adopt  new  patterns  of  working  and 
develop new ways of cooperating with technical staff. Moreover, staff often have to undertake 
such  work  on  top  of  their  existing  duties,  particularly  as  e-learning  generally  complements, 
rather  than  replaces,  traditional  class-room-based  learning95.  This  means  they  need  to  be 
convinced  that  the  introduction  of  new  technologies  really  improves  the  quality  of  the 
educational offer they provide – an area where evidence is often still needed. The use of on 
line  delivery  tools  also  raise  questions  about  intellectual  property  and  sharing  of  learning 
resources  more  widely,  as  well  as  concerns  about  an  increased  risk  of  plagiarism  and 
"distractability" among students96. 

In  the  context  of  an  information  age,  where  students  are  increasingly  unfamiliar  with 
environments without continuous internet connectivity, it is clear the remaining barriers to the 

91 
92 
93 
94 

95 
96 

Digital Agenda for Europe, European Commission (2010x) 
Economist Intelligent Unit (2008) 
OECD (2005) 
Evidence  to  date  indicates  that  internationalisation  is  not  a  primary  motivation  for  deploying  ICT  in 
programmes - see, for example Economist Intelligent Unit (2008) 
OECD (2005) 
Economist Intelligent Unit (2008) 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
deployment  of  ICT  in  higher  education  will  need  to  be  overcome.  This  will  in  turn  require 
response from public policy97, including through continued support for the development and 
testing of innovative e-learning solutions, dissemination of effective practice, support for staff 
training and the creation of appropriate regulatory frameworks for intellectual property. 

4.4. 

The added value of learning mobility 

At meetings in Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve in April 2009, ministers responsible for higher 
education from the countries participating in the Bologna Process agreed the objective that by 
2020 20% of those graduating in the European Higher Education Area should have completed 
a  study  or  training  period  abroad98.  This  decision  reflects  a  growing  body  of  evidence 
demonstrating  the  value  of  mobility,  particularly  as  a  way  for  individuals  to  develop  their 
transversal  core  competences  and  help  prepare  themselves  for  work  in  an  increasingly 
Europeanised and globalised economy. A recent study, examining the career paths of students 
having participated in the EU's Erasmus Programme found that those who had spent a study 
period  abroad  were  15%  more  likely  to  work  abroad  in  later  life:  a  positive  trend  in  the 
context of the European Single Market99.  

Student  mobility  can  take  various  forms.  The  Erasmus  Programme  supports  short-term  or 
"credit" mobility, typically for one or two semesters during which students study or undertake 
placements in companies or other organisations in another participating country. Such credit 
mobility should ideally be built into the curriculum at the student's home institution and allow 
them to gain experience and credits of direct relevance to their home qualification. The term 
"degree mobility" is frequently used to refer to students undertaking an entire degree course in 
another  country.  Recent  years  have  seen  an  increase  in  degree  mobility  in  Europe,  most 
notably  at  Masters-level.  Although  there  are  some  examples  of  comparatively  large  cross-
border student flows at undergraduate level, these are comparatively few and tend to concern 
neighbouring  countries  with  a  shared  language100.  Recent  years  have  seen  a  considerable 
increase  in  international  degree  mobility,  as  learners  from  outside  Europe  follow  degree 
programmes  in  Europe101,  although  with  a  strong  concentration  in  the  UK,  Germany  and 
France (see Section 7.1). 

Despite difficulties in measuring mobility and limited data availability, it is clear that mobility 
flows  within  the  EU  are  unbalanced.  In  the  UK,  for  example,  less  than  1%  of  residents 
undertaking  a  higher  education  course  are  enrolled  abroad,  while  in  Cyprus,  Ireland, 
Luxembourg, Malta and Slovakia more than 10% of students are enrolled in another country. 
France, Germany and the UK are notable in combining high levels of incoming mobility with 
comparatively  low  (if  varying)  levels  of  outgoing  mobility.  In  contrast,  some  Central  and 
Eastern European countries, such as Slovakia, have high rates of outgoing mobility and low 
rates of incoming mobility102. 

97 
98 

99 
100 
101 

102 

See European Commission (2010d), OECD (2005) 
See Leuven / Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué 
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communiqu%C3%A9_April_2009.pdf  
Parey, M and F. Waldinger (2011) 
For example, French and German students on medical courses in, respectively, Belgium and Austria. 
The  number  of  international  students  studying  in  Europe  increased  by  60%  between  1999  and  2007, 
CHEPS (2010a), p. 73. 
Eurydice Higher Education in Europe 2009, p. 43. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Some  countries  have  adopted  a  mobility  policy,  either  to  boost  outgoing  mobility  (for 
example through top-up mobility grants), or incoming mobility (for example through courses 
in  English  or  preferential  access  to  accommodation),  or  both.  However,  relatively  few 
countries have set targets for mobility as part of their higher education development strategy, 
and  no  EU  country  has  yet  implemented  a  comprehensive  strategy  to  tackle  all  aspects  of 
student mobility103.  
Box 4-5: Policy and practice: Promoting outgoing mobility in Denmark104 

The main goal of the Danish national mobility strategy is to enhance the outgoing mobility in 
professional  Bachelor  programmes  by  mapping  the  opportunities  and  obstacles  to  mobility 
and  on  that  basis  develop  a  strategy  for  a  strong,  high  quality  internationalisation  as  an 
integral part of professional bachelor programmes.  

Promoting  transnational  learning  mobility  for  higher  education  students  and  those  in  other 
types of education and training has long been a key policy objective of the European Union, 
as reflected in the objectives of the successful Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus programmes. In 
addition  to  direct  financial  support  for  individuals  undertaking  mobility,  the  EU  works  to 
improve  the  framework  conditions  for  mobile  learners.  The  2009  Green  Paper  on  Learning 
Mobility105  formed  the  basis  for  a  wide-ranging  public  consultation  on  the  obstacles  to 
mobility,  the  results  of  which  informed  the  recently  adopted  Council  Recommendation  on 
promoting  the  learning  mobility  of  young  people106.  This  Recommendation  calls  upon 
Member  States  to  take  action  to  promote  learning  mobility  and  remove  obstacles  to  it, 
including  in  the  areas  of  information  provision,  administrative  obstacles,  "portability"  of 
student funding107 and recognition of learning credits and diplomas gained in other countries. 

Academic  recognition  is  a  core  action  line  of  the  Bologna  Process  and  is  governed  by  the 
Lisbon  Recognition  Convention  of  1997108,  now  ratified  by  all  EU  Member  States  with  the 
exception of Cyprus. The most recent stocktaking report of the Bologna Process109 concluded 
that  there  is  a  long  way  to  go  before  there  is  a  coherent  approach  to  recognition  of 
qualifications in Europe.  
Box 4-6: Policy and practice: EU funding support for academic recognition: PRIME110 

The project “Problems of recognition in making Erasmus” (PRIME 2010), aims to deliver a 
qualitative  and  quantitative  analysis  of  current  practice  of  recognition  in  the  EHEA,  collect 
best practices and success stories and create a student guidebook and video guide for current 
and  future  Erasmus  students.  It  is  hoped  these  tools  will  provide  students  with  clear 
information  on  their  rights  and  obligations  in  terms  of  recognition  and  drive  forward 
improvements in recognition practice at institutional and national level. 

Public  student  support  funding  is  frequently  not  portable  across  national  borders  in  the  EU: 
only  a  few  countries/regions  actually  provide  unconditional  support  to  students  studying 

103 
104 
105 
106 
107 

108 
109 
110 

Eurydice (2010) 
http://www.uvm.dk  
“Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People”, Green Paper, COM(2009) 329 final. 
http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st10/st10545.en11.pdf  
The ability to have access to national student support funding (grants and/or loans) during study periods 
abroad.  
Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region 
Rauhvargers, Deane and Pauwels (2009) 
See http://www.esn.org/content/prime-problems-recognition-making-erasmus  

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
abroad.  These  include  Belgium  (German-speaking  Community),  Luxembourg  and  the 
Netherlands. Some non-EU Member States, including Norway, have introduced fully portable 
funding mechanisms (see below). National funding is not portable in any cases in Italy (with 
the exception of two autonomous regions), Latvia, Poland and Romania. The majority of the 
remaining  Member  States  are  between  these  extremes,  and  provide  support  when  certain 
conditions are fulfilled.  
Box 4-7: Policy and practice: Portable student funding in Norway111 

Norwegian students may spend financial support of approximately EUR 10 600 a year on full-
time studies in a country of their own choice. They may also get extra support to cover tuition 
fees at foreign universities, partly as a grant and partly as a loan, to target exchange students 
and Master’s level. 

5. 

HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS AS DRIVERS OF INNOVATION 

5.1. 

Higher education institutions as centres of open innovation 

In the context of national and regional innovation strategies for smart specialisation112 and in 
partnership  with  research  centres  and  businesses,  higher  education  institutions  can  play  a 
crucial  role  in  knowledge  and  technology  transfer  –  the  process  through  which  ideas  are 
turned into innovative marketable products and services. There are a range of mechanisms by 
which  higher  education  institutions  can  contribute  to  these  strategies,  varying  in  their 
complexity.  

At one end of the scale, there are "transactional" services, provided by institutions in response 
to  specific  requests  or  requirements  from  outside  organisations,  with  clear  objectives  and 
specified outputs. However, there are also more developmental or transformational activities, 
which  can  be  in  response  to  latent  or  unstated  needs,  usually  involving  multifaceted 
partnerships and with less clear timelines and a more outcome driven approach. For instance, 
institutions can provide advices and services to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) 
and  participate  in  schemes  promoting  the  training  and  placement  of  high-level  graduates  in 
innovative businesses. They can also host incubators for spin-offs in science and technology 
parks  and  be  linked  to  innovative  clusters  and  networks.  Such  activities  are  frequently 
supported by dedicated national funding instruments and regional development funds, as well 
as the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).  

Realising the potential contribution of higher education institutions to regional innovation and 
growth requires to overcome barriers and to take advantage of enablers to build connections 
between the different partners in the so-called "triple helix": higher education institutions and 
research centres, businesses and public authorities. "Disconnections" can occur both between 
and within the three types of partner and the barriers to overcome are of different nature. For 
instance, higher education institutions are usually focused on teaching and research, driven by 
academic outputs and are part of national academic systems that are not targeted to respond to 
regional needs. As a result, there some institutions are viewed as being 'in' the region but not 
'of' the region where they are located.  

111 
112 

See: http://www.lanekassen.no/Toppmeny/Languages/English/Norwegian-students-abroad/  
Defined as "an entrepreneurial process of discovery that can reveal what a country or region does best 
in terms of science and technology" – see Foray et al (2009) 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In assessing the role of higher education institutions in the region, it is useful to identify the 
steps needed to create "connected region", in which institutions are key players. The process 
for connecting institutions into a regional innovation system requires a critical evaluation of 
the ability of the region’s public institutions and private businesses to articulate a demand for, 
and  capacity  to  absorb,  university  expertise.  There  is  ample  evidence  from  national  and 
international  case  studies  that  successful  partnerships  involve  'boundary  spanners'  providing 
leadership within and across the partners and enabling a mutual understanding of the drivers 
affecting all the partners113. 

Through  this  connecting  process,  higher  education  institutions  become  key  partners  for  the 
regional  authorities  in  formulating  and  implementing  their  smart  specialisation  strategies. 
They  can  contribute  to  a  rigorous  assessment  of  the  region’s  knowledge  assets,  capabilities 
and competencies, including those embedded in the institutions' own departments, as well as 
local businesses, with a view to identifying the most promising areas of specialisation for a 
region, but also the weaknesses that hamper innovation.  

Higher  education  institutions  that  are  already  strongly  involved  in  regional  economic 
development  are  those  that  are  most  suitable  to  join  this  smart  specialisation  process  in  the 
short  term.  Moreover,  it  is  necessary  to  raise  the  awareness  of  other  institutions  and  to 
encourage them to engage more actively in smart specialisation strategies. Institutions dealing 
with  economics,  public  policy  and  administration,  as  well  as  those  dealing  with  specific 
policy  areas  (such  as  industry,  health,  energy,  environment,  culture)  can  provide  public 
authorities with strategic advice, as well as experts to work directly on regional development 
priorities.  

The  European  Commission  has  set  a  set  a  Smart  Specialisation  Platform  for  providing 
methodological  guidance  and  practical  assistance  to  the  national  and  regional  authorities 
involved in the preparation of these strategies114. The toolbox of this Platform will include a 
Guide  'Connecting  universities  to  regional  growth'  to  facilitate  successful  partnerships 
between higher education, research institutions, businesses and public authorities. 

6. 

CREATING THE GOVERNANCE AND FUNDING CONDITIONS FOR SUCCESS 

6.1. 

Funding higher education 

Table 6-1 shows public and private expenditure on higher education as a percentage of GDP 
in the EU and selected non-EU countries for the most recent year for which comparable data 
is available115. The data here include all spending on higher education, including on research 
and development. The table distinguishes between total public spending on higher education 
and  direct  public  spending  on  higher  education.  The  latter  includes  direct  payments  to 
institutions,  but  excludes  payments  to  private  individuals  in  the  form  of  student  support. 
Where there is a considerable difference between the total and direct public spending figures 
–  for  example  in  Cyprus,  Denmark,  the  UK,  Sweden,  the  Netherlands  and  Austria  -  this  is 

113 

114 
115 

See,  for  example,  the  forthcoming  European  Commission  publication  Connecting  Universities  to 
Regional  Growth:  A  guide  to  help  improve  the  contribution  of  universities  to  regional  development, 
with a view to strengthening economic, social and territorial cohesion, in a sustainable way. 
http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/research-and-innovation/s3_a.cfm  
2009: Comparable expenditure data only becomes available around three years after the reference year. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
                                                 
typically  explained  by  relatively  high  expenditure  on  student  support  mechanisms,  through 
which public money is transferred to individuals in the form of grants (and potentially loans). 
Private  expenditure  on  higher  education  includes  tuition  fees  paid  by  students  and  research 
funding and other payments from non-governmental sector sources. As students may receive 
publicly funded grants or loans, which they in turn use to cover tuition fees (which count as 
private expenditure), it is preferable to use the combined total of direct public spending and 
private spending to avoid double counting and gain a more accurate comparison of national 
spending patterns. 

Table 6-1: Public and private expenditure of higher education in Europe as a proportion of GDP 
Total private plus 
direct public 

Of which direct 
public spending 

Total public spending 

Total private 

Country 

2001 

2008 

EU-27 

Belgium  

Bulgaria  

Czech Republic 

Denmark  

Germany  

Estonia  

Ireland  

Greece  

Spain  

France  

Italy  

Cyprus  

Latvia  

Lithuania  

Luxembourg  

Hungary  

Malta  

Netherlands  

Austria  

Poland  

Portugal  

Romania  

Slovenia  

Slovakia  

Finland  

Sweden  

UK 

Croatia  

Iceland  

Turkey  

Norway  

United States  

Japan  

1.08 

1.34 

0.82 

0.79 

2.71 

1.10 

1.03 

1.22 

1.07 

0.97 

1.21 

0.80 

1.14 

0.89 

1.33 

: 

1.08 

0.88 

1.36 

1.37 

1.04 

1.03 

0.78 

1.28 

0.82 

1.99 

2.00 

0.79 

: 

1.07 

0.87 

1.84 

1.48 

0.55 

1.14 

1.38 

0.89 

0.97 

2.19 

1.21 

1.13 

1.31 

1.07 

1.24 

0.84 

1.85 

0.99 

1.04 

: 

1.02 

1.06 

1.52 

1.49 

1.05 

0.95 

1.22 

0.77 

1.90 

1.82 

0.84 

0.95 

1.49 

: 

2.08 

1.26 

0.65 

2008 

0.92 

1.19 

0.83 

0.92 

1.57 

0.98 

0.96 

1.14 

1.42 (05) 

0.96 

1.15 

0.67 

0.91 

0.92 

0.89 

: 

0.87 

1.06 

1.07 

1.12 

1.03 

0.81 

2008 

0.39 

0.30 

0.69 

0.27 

0.70 

0.25 

0.26 

0.24 

: 

0.26 

0.32 

0.41 

0.89 

0.72 

0.44 

: 

0.3 (06) 

: 

0.47 

0.20 

0.50 

0.49 

2008 

1.30 

1.50 

1.53 

1.20 

2.27 

1.23 

1.21 

1.38 

1.5 (05) 

1.22 

1.47 

1.08 

1.80 

1.64 

1.33 

: 

1.1 (06) 

1.1 (05) 

1.54 

1.32 

1.53 

1.30 

1.08 (07) 

0.53 (07) 

1.6 (07) 

0.93 

0.62 

1.62 

1.36 

0.39 

0.92 

1.16 

: 

1.16 

1.00 

0.48 

0.18 

0.44 

0.08 

0.17 

0.83 

0.32 

0.10 

: 

0.04 

1.68 

1.01 

1.11 

1.06 

1.70 

1.52 

1.22 

1.24 

1.25 

: 

1.20 

2.69 

1.50 

Source: Eurostat (UOE data collection). Spending on the tertiary level includes R&D spending at universities. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
In 2008, the average level of combined direct public and private spending on higher education 
in the EU was 1.3% of GDP, varying from around 1.06% in Slovakia116 to 2.27% in Denmark. 
On an EU scale, a clear majority of expenditure on higher education comes from the public 
purse, although private expenditure is far from insignificant, ranging from less than 0.2% of 
GDP in Finland, Sweden and Slovenia to 0.7% or above in Denmark, Bulgaria, Cyprus and 
the UK. Average direct public expenditure and private expenditure in the EU lag considerably 
behind spending levels in the US. This is particularly true in the case of private spending on 
higher education, which equates to 1.68% of GDP in the US (compared to 0.39% of GDP in 
the  EU)  and  is  the  key  factor  in  the  exceptionally  high  level  of  total  investment  in  higher 
education in the US (accounting for 2.69% of GDP in 2008). 

As illustrated more clearly in Figure 6-1, it is possible to categorise EU Member States into 
several  broad  categories  according  to  their  higher  education  spending  profile.  There  are  the 
UK, Cyprus and Bulgaria, which, by EU standards, spend a comparatively high proportion of 
GDP on higher education, with a high proportion of private investment. At the other end of 
the spectrum, there are Finland and Sweden, where the vast majority of the high overall levels 
of spending comes from public sources, and private investment is low. France, Belgium and 
Austria present a similar, but less pronounced pattern, with total expenditure at lower levels, 
but still above the EU average. Denmark is notable as the only EU Member State with high 
levels of both public and private spending on higher education. Then come a middle group of 
Member States, including Latvia, Romania, the Netherlands and Portugal with above average 
spending on higher education as a proportion of GDP,  with  a  mixture  of  public  and  private 
investment. A final, large cluster of remaining Member States has comparatively low overall 
levels of spending, and low shares of private investment.  

116 

Along with SK, combined direct public and private spending was below the EU average in IT, HU, MT, 
SI, CZ, EE, ES, UK and DE 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 6-1: Direct public spending and private spending on higher education as % GDP (2008)117 

P
D
G
%
s
a
E
H
n
o
g
n
d
n
e
p
s

i

e
t
a
v
i
r
P

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0

UK

CY

BG

LV

DK

SK

IT

RO

PL

NL

FR

BE

IE
AT

PT

LT

EU27
HU

CZ

DE

ES

EE 

SE

FI

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Direct public spending on HE as % of GDP

Source: Eurostat (UOE data collection). Spending on the tertiary level includes R&D spending at universities. 

The  data  shown  above  naturally  reflect  relative,  rather  than  absolute,  levels  of  spending. 
Countries  with  higher  GDP  per  capita  are  able  to  spend  more  in  absolute  terms  for  every 
percentage point of GDP. This to some extent helps to explain the comparatively low levels of 
spending  on  higher  education  as  a  proportion  of  GDP  in  Ireland,  Germany  and,  to  a  lesser 
extent, Spain – all of which have relatively high levels of GDP per capita. 

Figure  6-2,  based  on  OECD  calculations,  attempts  to  provide  an  indication  of  the  absolute 
level of investment in higher education by showing the expenditure per student in selected EU 
and  non-EU  countries  in  US  dollars  converted  using  Purchasing  Power  Parity.  The  chart 
shows  both  total  investment  per  student  and  investment  per  student  excluding  R&D 
expenditure  –  the  latter  giving  a  better  impression  of  investment  levels  in  core  teaching 
activities.  This  alternative  measure  of  investment  also  shows  the  Nordic  countries,  the 
Netherlands  and  the  UK  with  the  highest  levels  of  investment  in  the  EU  and  a  number  of 
Central  and  Eastern  European  states,  along  with  Italy,  with  among  the  lowest  levels  of 
investment. It is notable that those EU countries with the highest level of overall spending per 
student – and particularly Sweden, the Netherlands and the UK also devote a comparatively 
high proportion of total investment to research and development. Figure 6-2 also confirms the 
very  high  levels  of  investment  in  higher  education  in  the  US,  with  a  comparatively  small 
difference  between  spending  per  student  with  and  without  R&D  spending.  Although  it  may 
reflect differing accounting methods, this provides and indication of the scale of investment in 

117 

Data on private expenditure for HU are from 2006, for private and public expenditure for RO are from 
2007 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
teaching and learning facilities, at least in the top US universities, in comparison to the level 
in the EU. 

Figure 6-2: Expenditure per student in higher education in developed and emerging economies 

s
P
P
P
n

i

D
S
U

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

Slovak Republic
Estonia
Poland
Czech Republic
Slovenia
Hungary

Portugal
Italy

Spain

Ireland

France

Belgium

United Kingdom
Finland
Netherlands
Germany
Austria

Denmark

Sweden

China

Russian Federation

Chile

Mexico

Iceland
Korea
Brazil
New Zealand

Japan
Australia

Norway

United States
Canada
Switzerland

Expenditure - per student all tertiary education

Expenditure per student - all tertiary education excluding R&D activities

Source:  OECD,  Education  at  Glance  (2010).  Data  for  2007  showing  annual  expenditure  by  educational  institutions  per 
student for all services 

The expansion of higher education systems of the last decade, combined in some cases with 
increased pressure on public finances and evidence about the high individual returns of higher 
education,  has  led  to  an  ongoing  debate  about  the  appropriate  balance  between  public  and 
private  investment  in  higher  education.  Over  the  last  decade,  more  countries  have  either 
introduced or raised tuition fees for individuals or at least started a policy discussion on the 
topic118,  even  though  public  funding  is  and  is  likely  to  remain  the  dominant  source  of 
investment in most EU countries. 

The recent economic crisis has led to a renewed emphasis on the long-standing question of the 
effectiveness and efficiency of public expenditure on higher education119 and the right level 
and  modes  of  public  investment  in  human  capital120.  The  central  role  of  education,  training 
and human capital development in the Europe 2020 Strategy means these questions also come 
to  the  fore  in  the  latest  EU  Annual  Growth  Survey  and  the  related  country-specific 
recommendations121. 

118 
119 
120 

121 

See CHEPS (2010c) 
See European Commission (2010c) 
This  debate  reaches  well  beyond  the  EU.  See  for  example:  OECD  Education  Ministerial  Meeting, 
Invest  in  Human  and  Social  Capital:  new  post-crisis  challenges,  Paris  4-5  November  2010  (Chair’s 
Summary).  
European Commission (2011b) 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
As  comprehensive,  comparable  data  on  higher  education  spending  takes  several  years  to 
become  available,  it  is  not  yet  possible  to  accurately  assess  the  impact  of  the  crisis  on 
government  spending  on  higher  education.  However,  a  recent  survey  by  the  EUA122 
highlights  substantial  cuts  in  public  spending  on  higher  education  in  a  number  of  Member 
States,  including  Greece,  Italy,  Latvia  and  the  UK123,  with  smaller  scale  reductions  in  a 
number  of  other  Member  States.  While  the  picture  is  stable  in  other  countries,  only  a  few 
Member  States  appear  to  have  increased  funding  for  their  university  sector:  most  notably 
France and Germany.  

In  those  countries  where  public  spending  cuts  have  been  implemented,  the  EUA  survey 
highlights a proportionally greater impact on teaching than on research. The reductions in the 
level  of  funding  available  for  teaching  appear  likely  to  place  further  strain  on  systems  that 
have already had to cope with large increases in student numbers. Moreover, there is evidence 
that the crisis itself is further increasing demand for higher education, as individuals postpone 
or  avoid  entry  into  difficult  labour  markets  by  choosing  to  study  or  study  longer124.  In  the 
short to medium term, this situation is likely to have an adverse effect on quality, as funding 
per student place declines further, and/or increase pressure for tuition fees to compensate for 
the decrease in public funding per place. The recent Eurydice study, Modernisation of higher 
education  in  Europe:  Funding  and  the  Social  Dimension  provides  an  overview  of  current 
levels of tuition fees and student support in the EU125. 

The developments related to the impact of the economic crisis and debates over tuition fees 
are taking place against a backdrop of wider, longer-term evolutions in the pattern of higher 
education funding in the EU. The most important trends include the following issues: 
A longer-term trend126 towards the use of competitive funding mechanisms by public 
authorities. These competitive funding methods include specific funding schemes, such as the 
Excellence Initiative in Germany, as well as less high profile changes to research funding 
allocation. The 2010 CHEPS study found that in nine out of 33 European countries surveyed, 
universities receive a high share of competitive research funds, accounting for over 25% of 
combined core funds and research budgets. 

At the same time, there is evidence of a diversification in the funding sources drawn on by 
higher education institutions. The 2010 CHEPS study found higher  education institutions in 
14 countries receive more than 25% of their revenues from “third party” funds (ie not directly 
from  public  sources).  This  trend  appears  to  be  well  established  and  intensifying,  evening  in 
countries where public investment in higher education is increasing, such as Germany127. The 
ability  of  institutions  to  draw  increasingly  on  alternative  sources  of  funding  in  part  reflects 
increasing levels of financial autonomy128. 

122 
123 

124 
125 
126 
127 
128 

EUA (2011a) 
In  the  UK,  the  decline  in  direct  public  spending  is  set  to  be  compensated  by  increased  private 
contributions  in  the  form  of  tuition  fees,  which  will  in  most  cases  at  least  double  from  the  academic 
year 2011-2012. 
OECD (2011a) 
Eurydice 2011 
See CHEPS (2010c) 
Rollwagen, I (2011) 
CHEPS  (2010c)  found  universities  in  14  countries  had  a  high  level  of  financial  autonomy  in  2008 
(compared to 11 countries in 1995). 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The development of a more substantial private higher education sector in the EU, alongside 
public universities. This trend is still concentrated mainly in Central and Eastern Europe, as 
well as in certain southern European countries. It also tends to be focused in particular 
disciplines (notably business-related) and types of provision (including continuing education, 
e-learning institutions). In the short to medium term, however, this trend will have an 
important impact on the distribution of public and private spending on higher education 
The emergence of new models public funding to students, combining grants and/or loans to 
cover both living expenses and, where they exist, tuition fees. New loans systems have been 
introduced not only in the UK, but also in Sweden and other countries. Where such funding is 
intended to covered tuition fees, it begins to follow a “funding follows the student”, rather 
than a traditional institutional, funding model. Lithuania has recently implemented a voucher 
system which takes this model even further. 
Box 6-2: Policy and Practice - Student voucher system in Lithuania129 

A new funding model based on a ‘student voucher’, whereby the funding follows the student, 
has  been  introduced  in  Lithuania.  The  student  voucher  covers  the  full  study  costs,  e.g.  the 
salaries for teachers and other staff, the necessary resources and services, and incentives for 
students (grants). The students choose freely an educational institution, be it public or private. 
Prior to the reform, the state financed only 47% of all costs per state-funded place, which led 
to concerns about the quality of study. With the implementation of the reform, twice as much 
funding has been allocated to each study place. 

6.2. 

Governance of higher education 

institutions  are 

Europe's  higher  education  landscape  is  characterised  by  a  wide  range  of  organisational  and 
governance  models.  In  all  EU  countries,  higher  education 
legally 
autonomous130,  although  the  extent  of  this  autonomy  varies  between  Member  States.  In  all 
cases,  institutional  autonomy  is  framed  within  national  accountability  systems,  intended  to 
ensure  institutions  are  answerable  to  governments,  taxpayers  and  society  at  large  for  their 
activities and use of public resources. All accountability systems involve checks and balances 
to  institutional  autonomy  and  to  some  extent  condition  the  freedom  of  institutions  to  act, 
although  the  degree  of  direct  state  intervention  and  control  has  traditionally  varied 
considerably  across  the  Union.  While  the  majority  of  higher  education  institutions  in  most 
Member States are formally public institutions, in others they are independent (albeit publicly 
funded),  while  in  many  countries  private  institutions  co-exist  alongside  public  or  publicly 
funded universities. 

The  last  decade  has  been  characterised  by  widespread  and  far-reaching  reform  of  higher 
education  governance  in  EU  Member  States.  The  broad  trend  has  been  towards  increased 
institutional autonomy, reflecting evidence that more autonomous institutions are better able 
to focus on their particular strengths and adapt to a changing environment at local, regional 
and  international  level.  The  Bologna  Process  and  the  EU  modernisation  agenda  have  both 
promoted  greater 
institutional  autonomy,  combined  with  appropriate  accountability 
mechanisms, arguing that "universities will not become innovative and responsive to change 
unless they are given real autonomy"131.  

129 
130 
131 

See: http://www.smm.lt/en/index.htm  
Eurydice (2008), CHEPS (2010b) 
European Commission (2006a), p.5 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Governance reform is a complex area, covering many aspects of higher education systems and 
their  day-to-day  operation.  Key  issues  include  human  resource  management,  financing  and 
quality  assurance,  course  planning,  access  and  internationalisation.  A  recent  review  of 
governance in higher education in 33 European countries132, including all EU Member States, 
and covering different dimensions of governance found: 
In 20 countries (out of 33133) universities have considerable institutional autonomy in starting 
new teaching and research programmes;  

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

In 14 countries universities have a high level of financial autonomy; 

In 11 countries universities enjoy a high level of institutional autonomy in terms of 
selecting their academic staff;  

In 5 countries universities have a high level of autonomy in determining their internal 
governance structures;  

The  vast  majority  of  European  countries  have  internal  and  external  evaluation 
systems in place for teaching and for research; 

In  16  countries,  universities  have  supervisory  or  governing  boards  with  external 
stakeholder membership. 

The  same  study  found  many  country-specific  examples  of  a  positive  interaction  between 
governance  reform  and  the  performance  of  institutions,  although  the  difficulties  associated 
with  performance  measurement  across  countries,  as  well  as  national 
institutional 
particularities, make it hard to identify a single model for successful governance.  

Across  the  EU,  governance  reform  has  often  resulted  in  higher  education  institutions 
assuming responsibilities formerly held by ministries, notably in the areas of human resources 
and  financial  management.  The  introduction  of  performance  contracts  and  multi-year 
agreements  between  the  state  and  the  institution  and  the  move  from  line-item  to  lump  sum 
budgeting have led to a "devolution" of authority. This is reflected in the strengthening of the 
position  of  the  executive  head  of  the  institution  (rector,  president,  vice-chancellor)  or 
department (dean) and the creation of new institutional governance bodies such as advisory or 
supervisory boards, largely or solely composed of external stakeholders. 

In parallel, the development of external quality assurance systems highlighted above, has led 
to  a  greater  centralisation  of  accountability  in  many  cases,  with  institutions  called  upon  to 
justify their performance to a greater extent than in the past. Both the increased devolution of 
responsibility  and  additional  requirements  in  terms  of  performance  reporting,  place  new 
demands on senior management within higher education institutions. This in turn calls for a 
professionalization of the management within institutions, including through training. 

132 
133 

CHEPS (2010b) 
EU-27, NO, LI, IS, CH, TR, HR. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Box 6-3: Policy and Practice - Supporting the efficient management of institutions, Czech Republic134 

The  Czech  Ministry  of  Education  has  launched  a  project  (running  from  2009  to  2012)  to 
respond  to  the  need  to  strengthen  the  effectiveness  of  higher  education  management  in  the 
Czech Republic. The core goal of the project is to support and develop efficient management 
principles,  especially  in  economic  and  administrative  processes  in  higher  education 
institutions  and  research  organisations.  The  main  output  of  the  project  will  be  a  new  set  of 
guidelines  for  institutions,  along  with  policy  recommendations  on  how  best  to  support 
institutional development, notably through training. 

7. 

THE INTERNATIONALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION 

The  growing  internationalisation  of  the  higher  education  sector  is  characterised  by  two 
potentially contradictory trends. It is possible to observe in parallel an increase in cooperation 
-  between  higher  education  institutions,  departments  and  individuals  across  the  world  -  and 
intensification in international competition – as institutions and countries compete for mobile 
students  and  staff.  In  a  related  trend,  the  development  of  higher  education  systems  in 
emerging  economies,  and  notably  the  so-called  BRIC135  countries,  has  a  double  set  of 
consequences  for  European  higher  education.  Firstly,  it  increases  the  supply  of  domestic 
graduates  for  the  national  labour  markets  in  these  countries,  allowing  the  economies  in 
question to upgrade their skills base and thus increasing pressure on the Europe's economy to 
compete  and  European  higher  education  to  keep  pace.  Secondly,  it  brings  new  competitors 
into  the  global  market  place  for  higher  education,  which  may  at  least  mean  fewer  students 
from these countries choose to go abroad for study and may attract prospective international 
students  away  from  Europe.  The  global  higher  education  landscape  is  already  a  complex 
picture of competition in some areas and cooperation in others. This complexity seems set to 
increase in the years to come136. 

7.1. 

Internationalisation of the study body 

The last decade has seen an increasing "internationalisation" of the study body in the EU. In 
2008, roughly 1.5 million (7.8%) of the 19 million higher education students in the EU were 
enrolled in countries other than their country of citizenship137. This figure compares with only 
788 000 in 2000 (5% of total students at that time), equating to an average annual increase of 
8.1% over the eight-year period. This trend has been driven by increased international student 
mobility  both  within  the  EU  and  on  a  global  scale.  Figure  7-1  shows  students  with  foreign 
nationality as a share of the total student population in the EU, as well as the US and Japan, 
distinguishing  between  country  or  region  of  origin.  The  data  includes  students  with  foreign 
citizenship, rather than mobile students per se. This means the figures include residents of the 
countries of study who happen to have foreign citizenship.  

134 

135 
136 
137 

http://www.msmt.cz/european-union/ipn-in-the-field-of-tertiary-education-research-and-
development/efficient-institutions?lang=2  
Brazil, Russia, India and China  
On this, see OECD (2009) 
This includes both EU students studying in another EU country and non-EU students studying within 
the EU 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 7-1: Proportion of foreign students enrolled in EU Member States, the US and Japan (2000/2008) 

s
t
n
e
d
u
t
s

i

n
g
e
r
o
f

%

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

EU BE PL LV RO LT SI SK IT BU EE ES HU FI GR MT PT CZ DK SE IE NL DE FR AT UK CY LU US JP

2000

5

0.4 6.6 2.8 0.4 0.9 1.2 1.4 3.1 1.6 1.4 3.2 2.1

5.6

3 2.2 6.8 7.4 4.6 2.9 9.1 6.8 12 11 19

3.6 1.5

2008 7.8 12 0.7 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.5 2.4 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 4.2 4.6 4.9 7.1 8.3 8.5 8.8 9.8 11 11 19 20 30 44 3.4 3.2

Source: Eurostat - UOE data collection (UNESCO, Eurostat, OECD) 

Figure  7-1  masks  significant  differences  in  the  composition  of  the  foreign  student  cohort  in 
different  Member  States.  Whereas  in  countries  like  Luxembourg,  Austria  and  Belgium,  a 
majority  of  foreign  students  in  2008  come  from  other  EU  countries138,  in  Cyprus,  France, 
Malta and Portugal, for example, more than 80% of all foreign students come from outside the 
EU. As shown in Table 7-1, the number of non-EU higher education students enrolled in EU 
higher  education  institutions  more  than  doubled  in  absolute  terms  between  2000  and  2008 
(from  less  than  500,000  to  almost  1  million)  to  account  for  67%  of  all  foreign  students 
(compared to only  60% in 2000). The  number of  students  from  India  and  from  China  grew 
six-fold from 2000 to 2008, reaching 43 000 from India and 116 000 from China in 2008. 

Table 7-1: Foreign students in the EU 

Total 

Europe 

- EU 27 

-other Europe 

Africa 

Morocco 

Algeria 

Nigeria 

Asia 

China 

India 

Foreign students in EU-27 (in 1000) 

2000 

2007 

2008 

788.5 

384.4 

316.4 

68.0 

134.2 

38.2 

14.9 

3.5 

183.0 

18.6 

6.6 

1430.2 

1467.4 

599.6 

479.2 

120.4 

246.0 

46.3 

21.8 

22.0 

405.5 

117.5 

39.3 

608.1 

487.8 

120.3 

241.7 

44.2 

20.3 

23.3 

413.5 

115.8 

43.1 

138 

Around  a  third  of  foreign  students  in  Austria  come  from  Germany.  Over  half  the  foreign  students  in 
Luxembourg come from France, Germany and Portugal. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Japan  

Americas 

USA 

Canada 

Brazil 

Oceania 

Unknown nat. 

Foreign students in EU-27 (in 1000) 

2000 

2007 

2008 

10.7 

63.1 

22.7 

5.8 

6.8 

2.9 

20.9 

12.4 

10.5 

121.6 

124.3 

32.2 

10.8 

12.9 

7.7 

49.8 

30.8 

10.8 

14.6 

7.1 

64.3 

Source: Eurostat (UOE collection) 

In  the  context  of  international  student  mobility  flows,  the  EU  is  a  net  receiver  of  students. 
Over 700 000 more students with non-EU citizenship are studying in the EU than EU citizens 
are  studying  outside  the  EU.  However,  the  US  is  a  net  receiver  of  students  from  EU,  with 
more than twice as many students from the EU going to the US as the reverse. In 2008, 138 
000  US  students  came  to  study  in  Europe,  although  this  figure  includes  short  stays  and 
summer courses. It is estimated that only around 30 000 US students annually come to study 
for at least a year. 

Looking at the wider picture, Table 7-2 shows the proportion ("market share") of all students 
studying  outside  their  country  of  citizenship  in  selected  countries  across  the  world  in  2000 
and 2008, based on OECD data. This shows that 18 EU countries together host almost 40% of 
foreign students in the world and that this proportion remained broadly stable between 2000 
and 2008. Around 28% of these students came from other EU Member States and over 40% 
from  the  European  Higher  Education  Area.  Moreover,  within  the  EU,  there  is  a  marked 
concentration  of  foreign  students  in  the  UK,  Germany  and  France,  reflecting  historical 
international links and language, as well as the attractiveness of the higher education systems 
in these countries.  

Over the same eight-year timeframe, the US market share in foreign students fell from 24% to 
less  than  19%  (although  absolute  numbers  have  increased),  partly  reflecting  increases  in 
foreign  student  intake  in  Russia,  EU  countries  such  as  Italy  and  the  Netherlands  and  New 
Zealand. Despite this trend, the US continues to attract considerably more students from Asia 
than the EU: in 2008, for example, over 50% of the 185,000 Indian students studying abroad 
went to the US139. 

Table 7-2: Market share for foreign students 2000 and 2008 
Market share, 2000 (%) 

Market share, 2008 (%) 

Total  share  of  18  EU  States  included  below 
(shaded rows) 

United States 

United Kingdom 

Germany 

France 

Australia 

Canada 

Russian Federation 

Japan 

39.3 

24.1 

11.3 

9.5 

7.0 

5.4 

4.8 

2.1 

3.4 

38.4 

18.7 

10.0 

7.3 

7.3 

6.9 

5.5 

4.3 

3.8 

139 

In 2008, almost 95,000 Indian citizens were studying in higher education in the US, compared to 34,600 
in the 19 EU Member States that are members of the OECD. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Italy 

Spain 

New Zealand 

Austria 

Switzerland 

Belgium 

Netherlands 

Korea 

Sweden 

Czech Republic 

Greece 

Turkey 

Denmark 

Portugal 

Norway 

Hungary 

Poland 

Ireland 

Chile 

Finland 

Slovak Republic 

Estonia 

Mexico 

Market share, 2000 (%) 

Market share, 2008 (%) 

1.3 

1.3 

0.4 

1.5 

1.3 

2.0 

0.7 

0.2 

1.3 

0.3 

0.4 

0.9 

0.7 

0.5 

0.4 

0.5 

0.3 

0.4 

0.2 

0.3 

0.1 

0.0 

0.1 

2.0 

1.9 

1.8 

1.6 

1.4 

1.3 

1.2 

1.2 

1.0 

0.8 

0.8 

0.6 

0.6 

0.6 

0.5 

0.5 

0.4 

0.4 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

0.1 

OTHER COUNTRIES 

17.4 

16.6 

Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2010 

7.2. 

Expansion of higher education internationally 

Investment in higher education as a driver of innovation has become a worldwide trend140 and 
a  growing  number  of  emerging  countries  –  in  particular  the  BRIC  states-  have  started 
investing  massively  in  their  universities  and  research  organisations  with  a  clear  focus  on 
science and technology141.  As  noted, these developments increase the pressure on European 
higher education to keep pace in terms of quality and attractiveness. 

Figure 7-2 shows the growth in students enrolled in higher education and in annual numbers 
of higher education graduates in China and Brazil between 2001 and 2009. This illustrates the 
expansion of the sectors in these two countries in the last decade, with student enrolment in 
China  increasing  by  over  200%  (almost  doubling  in  Brazil)  and  the  number  of  graduates 
quadrupling in China and more than doubling in Brazil.  

140 
141 

Weber, L. and J. Duderstadt (2010) 
ACA  Seminar  on  Brazil,  Russia,  India,  China:  Key  points  on  the  European  Higher  Education 
Compass? Brussels, 18 March 2011. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 7-2: Number of higher education students and graduates in China and Brazil 2001 and 2009 

30,000,000

25,000,000

20,000,000

15,000,000

10,000,000

5,000,000

0

2001

2009

Source: UNESCO 

Enrolments China

Enrolments Brazil

Graduates China

Graduates Brazil

9,398,581

29,295,841

3,125,745

6,115,138

1,804,660

7,716,957

422,019

1,008,876

Over the last few years, awareness of mounting international competition in higher education 
and research has grown among European governments and universities. This has been one of 
the factors behind a series of current and announced policy responses, including initiatives to 
boost the competitiveness of national higher education systems. This is the case, for example, 
in Denmark, the UK, Germany (Initiative for Excellence142), France (through the development 
of  regional  poles  of  excellence),  Spain  (through  the  selection  of  thematic  “campuses  of 
international excellence”, as part of a comprehensive national plan called Strategy University 
2015).  These  initiatives  are  to  a  varying  extent  also  a  response  to  the  challenge  posed  by 
rankings: there is little doubt that in France, for example, the pooling of research capacities on 
a regional basis and the merger of universities (as in the case of the formerly three universities 
of  Strasbourg)  also  aims  at  helping  national  clusters  of  institutions  gain  visibility  in  the 
leading rankings. 

142 

http://www.bmbf.de/en/1321.php  

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Bibliography 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CEDEFOP (2010a) Skills supply and demand in Europe: Medium-term forecast up to 
2020, http://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/Files/3052_en.pdf  

CEGES  (2007)  Rates  of  return  and  funding  models  in  Europe:  Final  report  to  DG 
EAC, January 2007 http://ec.europa.eu/education/pdf/doc230_en.pdf  

CHEPS et al (2010a) The Bologna Process Independent Assessment: The first decade 
of 
Area 
European 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290_en.htm  

Education 

working 

Higher 

the 

on 

CHEPS  et  al.  (2010b)  Progress  in  higher  education  reform  across  Europe  – 
Governance Reform. http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2259_en.htm  

CHEPS et al (2010c) Progress in higher education reform across Europe – Funding 
Reform. http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/news2259_en.htm  

Copenhagen  Process  (2010)  The  Bruges  Communiqué  on  enhanced  European 
Cooperation  in  Vocational  Education  and  Training  for  the  period  2011-2020 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc/vocational/bruges_en.pdf  

Economist Intelligence Unit (2008) The future of higher education: How technology 
will shape learning, Report sponsored by the New Media Consortium 

Eggins, H and P West (2011) The global impact of the financial crisis: Main trends 
in developed and developing countries in Higher Education Management and Policy, 
Volume  22  Issue  3/  Journal  of  the  Programme  on  Institutional  Management  in 
Higher Education, January 2011. 

ENQA  (2005)  Standards  and  Guidelines  for  Quality  Assurance  in  the  European 
Higher  Education  Area,  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance  in  Higher 
Education http://www.enqa.eu/files/ESG_3edition%20(2).pdf  

ESMU  (2009)  Higher  Education  governance  reforms  across  Europe,  European 
Centre 
Universities, 
http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/publications/Publications%202009/C9HdB101%20
MODERN%20PROJECT%20REPORT.pdf  

Management 

Strategic 

for 

of 

Eurobarometer  (2010a)  Employers'  perception  of  graduate  employability,  Flash 
2010 
Eurobarometer 
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_304_en.pdf  

November 

304, 

European Commission (2011a) Progress towards the common European objectives in 
education  and  training:  Indicators  and  benchmarks  2010/2011,  Commission  Staff 
Working Document SEC(2011)526  

European  Commission  (2011b)  Annual  Growth  Survey:  advancing  the  EU's 
comprehensive response to the crisis http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/en_final.pdf  

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

European Commission (2011c) Annual Growth Survey - Annex 1 Progress Report on 
Europe 2020 http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/1_en_annexe_part1.pdf  

European  Commission  (2011d)  European  Vacancy  Monitor,  Issue  no.  3,  July  2011 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=822&newsId=1044&furtherNe
ws=yes  

European  Commission  (2010a)  The  EU  contribution  to  the  European  Higher 
Education Area http://ec.europa.eu/education/pub/pdf/higher/ehea_en.pdf  

European Commission (2010b) New Skills for New Jobs: Action Now – A report by 
Jobs 
New 
the 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=568&langId=en&eventsId=232&furtherEv
ents=yes  

Expert 

Group 

Skills 

New 

for 

on 

European Commission (2010c) Efficiency and effectiveness of public expenditure on 
tertiary  education 
the  EU,  EPC  and  DG  ECFIN,  September  2010. 
http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/joint_report_on_tertiary_education_-_ecofin_final_en.pdf  

in 

European  Commission  (2010d)  Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the 
European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions - A Digital Agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245 
28.08.2010  
final, 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0245:FIN:EN:PDF  

European  Commission  (2009)  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the 
European  Parliament,  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the 
Committee  of  the  Regions  -  Report  on  progress  in  quality  assurance  in  higher 
http://eur-
education 
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0487:FIN:EN:PDF  

COM(2009) 

21.9.2009 

final, 

487 

European  Commission  (2006a)  Delivering  on  the  modernisation  agenda  for 
universities:  Education,  research  and  innovation,  COM(2006)  208  final,  10.5.2006 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0208:FIN:EN:PDF  

European  Commission  (2006b)  Key  competences  for  lifelong  learning:  European 
Reference 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/publ/pdf/ll-
Framework 
learning/keycomp_en.pdf  

ESU  (2009)  Bologna  with  Student  Eyes  2009,  European  Students  Union,  Leuven, 
Belgium 
http://www.esib.org/documents/publications/official_publications/BWSE2009-
final.pdf  

EUA  (2011a)  The  impact  of  the  economic  crisis  on  European  universities,  January 
2011 www.eua.be  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

EUA  (2011b)  Financially  Sustainable  Universities  II  -  European  universities 
diversifying 
streams, 
http://www.eua.be/Pubs/Financially_Sustainable_Universities_II.pdf  

income 

EUA  (2010)  Trends  2010:  A  decade  of  change  in  European  Higher  Education, 
European  Universities  Association 
http://www.eua.be/eua-work-and-policy-
area/building-the-european-higher-education-area/trends-in-european-higher-
education/trends-vi.aspx  

Eurostudent  (2011)  Social  and  Economic  Conditions  of  Student  Life  in  Europe: 
Synopsis of indicators - Eurostudent IV 2008–2011 http://www.eurostudent.eu/  

Eurydice  (2011)  Modernisation  of  higher  education  in  Europe:  Funding  and  the 
Social Dimension 

Eurydice  (2010)  Focus  on  Higher  Education  in  Europe  2010:  The  Impact  of  the 
Bologna 
Process 
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/122EN.pdf  

Eurydice  (2008)  Higher  Education  Governance  in  Europe  -  Policies,  structures, 
funding 
2008 
http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/091EN.pdf  

academic 

April 

staff, 

and 

Foray,  D,  P.  David  and  B.  Hall  (2009)  Smart  Specialisation  –  The  Concept, 
Knowledge  Economists  Policy  Brief  n°  9,  June  2009  http://ec.europa.eu/invest-in-
research/pdf/download_en/kfg_policy_brief_no9.pdf  

GHK  (2011)  Analysis  of  the  Development  of  Key  Competencies  for  Lifelong 
Learning, report for DG EAC 

OECD  (2011a)  Crisis  Survey  2010:  The  Impact  of  the  Economic  Recession  and 
Fiscal Crisis on Education in OECD Countries, D. van Damme and K. Karkkainen, 
OECD Education Working Papers, No. 56, OECD Publishing, 2011. 

OECD (2011b) Education at a Glance 2011 

OECD (2010) Education at a Glance 2010 

OECD (2009) Higher Education to 2030, Volume 2: Globalisation  

OECD (2005) E-learning in tertiary education: where do we stand?  

Oxford Research (2010) Transversal Analysis on the Evolution of Skills Needs in 19 
Economic  Sectors,  Study  for  DG  Employment,  Social  Affairs  and  Equal 
2010 
Opportunities, 
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=782&newsId=731&furtherNews=yes  

January 

Parey, M and F. Waldinger (2011) Studying Abroad and the Effect on International 
Labour  Market  Mobility:  Evidence  from  the  introduction  of  ERASMUS,  The 
Economic Journal, 121(5510: 194-222 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Rauhvargers, Deane and Pauwels (2009) Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009, 
Flemish 
Brussels. 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Stockt
aking_report_2009_FINAL.pdf  

Education 

Training, 

Ministry 

and 

of 

Rauhvargers, A. (2011) Achieving Bologna Goals: Where does Europe stand ahead 
of 2010? Journal of Studies in International Education, Volume 15, February 2011. 

Reichert, S (2009) Institutional diversity in European higher education: Tensions and 
challenges for policy makers and institutional leaders, EUA  

Rollwagen, I (2011) Diversifying the revenue base of German universities, in Higher 
Education Management and Policy, Volume 22 Issue 3 - Journal of the Programme 
on Institutional Management in Higher Education, January 2011 

van  Vught,  F.A.et  al.  (2010)  U-Map:  The  European  Classification  of  Higher 
Education  Institutions,  Center  for  Higher  Education  Policy  Studies  (CHEPS), 
University  of  Twente.  Project  funded  by  the  EU's  Lifelong  Learning  Programme 
www.u-map.eu 

Weber, L. and J. Duderstadt (2010), University Research for Innovation, Economica, 
London, 2010. ISBN 978-2-7178-5797-9. 

EN 

58 

   EN