Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52011SC1063

**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 /\* SEC/2011/1063 final \*/**

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Introduction.................................................................................................................... 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2)
Evidence on the economic and social contribution
of higher education

(3)
The changing student population;

(4)
The evolving skills requirements to which higher
education needs to respond;

(5)
The ways higher education institutions
contribute to innovation;

(6)
Funding and governance of higher education – at
system and institutional level

(7)
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 institutions[1].

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 higher education systems has a positive impact on performance[2]. In comparison to more
homogenous systems, diversified higher education systems are argued to:

(1)
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;

(2)
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;

(3)
Be more effective:
diversity favours institutional specialisation, which allows higher education
institutions to focus their attention and energy on what they do best;

(4)
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
Classifications[3]
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-Map[4]

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.

U-Multirank[5]

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
countries[6],
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)
A three-cycle degree structure (with bachelor,
master and doctoral qualifications);

(2)
The generalisation of the European Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)[7]
and the Diploma Supplement (DS)[8];

(3)
National Qualification Frameworks (NQF) to
describe clearly the different cycles and qualifications in national education
systems, based on learning outcomes achieved, thus allowing comparison with the
Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA)[9];

(4)
Recognised national quality assurance systems,
consistent with European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for quality assurance
adopted in 2005 and articulated at European level[10].

(5)
Mutual recognition of qualifications and
learning credits (supported by the elements above), in line with the Lisbon
Recognition Convention[11].

In addition to these structural reforms,
the initial scope of the Bologna Process was swiftly expanded to encompass the
social dimension[12]
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 Programme[13].

Implementation of the Bologna Process has
been monitored closely by the main stakeholder groups[14]. 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.

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

Source: Bologna Stocktaking Report 2009

(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 structure[15]. 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 student workload and learning outcomes:
a 2010 study[16]
found that full implementation had been achieved in only 12 countries in the
EHEA.

·
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 Area[17] 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 abroad[19];

·
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 EHEA[20];

·
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 States[21];

·
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 below[22]);

·
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 countries[23].

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 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
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)

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 States[24], 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.

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

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).

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

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
recruitment[25].
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 such as the new
European Vacancy Monitor[26]
– 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

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.

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

Figures in Euro || Below upper secondary education || Upper secondary education || Tertiary education

EU 27 || 12,700 || 14,800 || 21,500

Belgium || 15,400 || 19,800 || 25,000

Bulgaria || 1,900 || 3,100 || 4,100

Czech Republic || 5,900 || 7,400 || 9,700

Denmark || 21,000 || 25,400 || 30,600

Germany || 15,500 || 18,300 || 23,200

Estonia || 4,500 || 6,000 || 8,100

Ireland || 17,700 || 23,800 || 32,100

Greece || 9,700 || 11,900 || 17,600

Spain || 11,500 || 14,800 || 19,500

France || 17,600 || 20,200 || 25,900

Italy || 13,800 || 18,200 || 24,500

Cyprus || 13,100 || 17,700 || 23,600

Latvia || 3,700 || 5,600 || 8,200

Lithuania || 3,500 || 4,700 || 7,400

Luxembourg || 27,100 || 32,800 || 46,400

Hungary || 4,000 || 4,900 || 6,800

Malta || 9,100 || 12,200 || 15,500

Netherlands || 17,400 || 20,500 || 26,200

Austria || 16,100 || 20,900 || 25,300

Poland || 4,000 || 5,100 || 8,100

Portugal || 7,900 || 10,700 || 17,900

Romania || 1,600 || 2,500 || 4,400

Slovenia || 9,900 || 11,900 || 16,500

Slovakia || 4,500 || 5,700 || 7,500

Finland || 16,700 || 20,600 || 26,900

Sweden || 17,100 || 21,500 || 25,100

United Kingdom || 12,800 || 16,300 || 22,900

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 studying[27].

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 world[28].
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
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

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 (ISCED 4[29]). 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 EU[30].

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 || 15921 || 19040 || 19473 || 2.3

Belgium || 356 || 402 || 425 || 2.0

Bulgaria || 261 || 264 || 274 || 0.5

Czech Republic || 254 || 393 || 417 || 5.7

Denmark || 189 || 231 || 235 || 2.4

Germany || 2055 || 2245 || 2439 || 1.9

Estonia || 54 || 68 || 68 || 2.7

Ireland || 161 || 179 || 183 || 1.4

Greece || 422 || 638 || : || :

Spain || 1829 || 1781 || 1801 || -0.2

France || 2015 || 2165 || 2173 || 0.8

Italy || 1770 || 2014 || 2012 || 1.4

Cyprus || 10 || 26 || 31 || 12.9

Latvia || 91 || 128 || 125 || 3.6

Lithuania || 122 || 205 || 211 || 6.3

Luxembourg || 2 || : || : || :

Hungary || 307 || 414 || 398 || 2.9

Malta || 6 || 9 || 10 || 5.6

Netherlands || 488 || 602 || 619 || 2.7

Austria || 261 || 285 || 308 || 1.9

Poland || 1580 || 2166 || 2150 || 3.5

Portugal || 374 || 377 || 373 || 0.0

Romania || 453 || 1057 || 1098 || 10.3

Slovenia || 84 || 115 || 114 || 3.5

Slovakia || 136 || 229 || 235 || 6.3

Finland || 270 || 310 || 297 || 1.0

Sweden || 347 || 407 || 423 || 2.2

United Kingdom || 2024 || 2329 || 2415 || 2.0

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
years[31],
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).

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

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.

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

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.

Figure 3‑3: Tertiary education attainment: 2010 levels
and national targets [34]

Source: Eurostat, EU Labour Force Survey

Nine Member States[35] have set national targets at
levels above the 40% EU target; seven[36]
have set national targets at the level of the EU target, while nine Member
States[37]
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 2020[38].
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 ISCED[39] 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 attainment[40].

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 targets[41]), but also highlights the
prevalence of similar qualification types in the Baltic States, Sweden, Romania
and Hungary. For a number of other Member States[42] 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 2010[43]

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]. 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 States[46] and in the overall working age
population (25-64) in 22 of the 27 Member States[47].

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

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 law[48], 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 Eurydice[50]
highlights the diversity of national student classification and monitoring
systems. For example, while Austria, Germany 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 project[51],
based on surveys of students in a majority of EU Member States and other
European countries[52],
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
background[53].
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 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.

The relative under-representation of
students from disadvantaged socio-economic 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 shows[54]
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 education[55].
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, 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 age[56].
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

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 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 agenda[57].
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 education[58].
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 experience[59]. 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.

The latest EUA Trends report[60] , 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.

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

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.

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)
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.

(2)
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.

(3)
An increasing need for skills related to the
development and implementation of climate and environmentally friendly
solutions, technology and services.

(4)
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 world[62]. 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 regions[63].

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 Framework[65]
defines eight core competences[66]
- 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 survey[67]
(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 Jobs[68],
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 development holds for those seeking to develop the highest levels of
skills and thus has direct implications for Europe's higher education systems[69].

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:

·
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
facilities[71],
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 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 Process[72]
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 system[73].
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 State[74].

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 institutions[75]. As noted by the OECD’s
current AHELO project[76],
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 training[77].

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 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,
Germany[78]

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 Forum[80], 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 2011[81]. The overall
objective of this action is to ensure stronger societal and economic relevance
and outreach of higher education through strengthening the employability,
creativity and innovative potential of graduates and professors and the role of
higher education institutions as engines of innovation.

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
approaches[82].

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 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 decade[84].
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 level[85]. 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 EU[86],
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. 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 Sweden[87]

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
Europe[88]
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 employment[89].
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 Hungary[90]

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 competences[91]
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 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 materialised[92], even if the impact of ICT has
been considerable and e-learning remains firmly on the agenda of higher
education institutions.

Recent studies show that higher education
institutions worldwide are 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
students[93].
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 internationally[94]. 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 learning[95].
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 students[96].

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 deployment of
ICT in higher education will need to be overcome. This will in turn require response
from public policy[97],
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 abroad[98].
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 Market[99].

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 language[100].
Recent years have seen a considerable increase in international degree
mobility, as learners from outside Europe follow degree programmes in Europe[101], 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 mobility[102].

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 mobility[103].

Box 4‑5: Policy and practice: Promoting outgoing
mobility in Denmark[104]

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 Mobility[105]
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 people[106]. 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 funding[107] 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
1997[108],
now ratified by all EU Member States with the exception of Cyprus. The most
recent stocktaking report of the Bologna Process[109] 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: PRIME[110]

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
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 Norway[111]

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 specialisation[112] 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.

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 partners[113].

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 strategies[114].
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 available[115].
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 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

Country || Total public spending || Of which direct public spending || Total private || Total private plus direct public

|| 2001 || 2008 || 2008 || 2008 || 2008

EU-27 || 1.08 || 1.14 || 0.92 || 0.39 || 1.30

Belgium || 1.34 || 1.38 || 1.19 || 0.30 || 1.50

Bulgaria || 0.82 || 0.89 || 0.83 || 0.69 || 1.53

Czech Republic || 0.79 || 0.97 || 0.92 || 0.27 || 1.20

Denmark || 2.71 || 2.19 || 1.57 || 0.70 || 2.27

Germany || 1.10 || 1.21 || 0.98 || 0.25 || 1.23

Estonia || 1.03 || 1.13 || 0.96 || 0.26 || 1.21

Ireland || 1.22 || 1.31 || 1.14 || 0.24 || 1.38

Greece || 1.07 || || 1.42 (05) || : || 1.5 (05)

Spain || 0.97 || 1.07 || 0.96 || 0.26 || 1.22

France || 1.21 || 1.24 || 1.15 || 0.32 || 1.47

Italy || 0.80 || 0.84 || 0.67 || 0.41 || 1.08

Cyprus || 1.14 || 1.85 || 0.91 || 0.89 || 1.80

Latvia || 0.89 || 0.99 || 0.92 || 0.72 || 1.64

Lithuania || 1.33 || 1.04 || 0.89 || 0.44 || 1.33

Luxembourg || : || : || : || : || :

Hungary || 1.08 || 1.02 || 0.87 || 0.3 (06) || 1.1 (06)

Malta || 0.88 || 1.06 || 1.06 || : || 1.1 (05)

Netherlands || 1.36 || 1.52 || 1.07 || 0.47 || 1.54

Austria || 1.37 || 1.49 || 1.12 || 0.20 || 1.32

Poland || 1.04 || 1.05 || 1.03 || 0.50 || 1.53

Portugal || 1.03 || 0.95 || 0.81 || 0.49 || 1.30

Romania || 0.78 || || 1.08 (07) || 0.53 (07) || 1.6 (07)

Slovenia || 1.28 || 1.22 || 0.93 || 0.18 || 1.11

Slovakia || 0.82 || 0.77 || 0.62 || 0.44 || 1.06

Finland || 1.99 || 1.90 || 1.62 || 0.08 || 1.70

Sweden || 2.00 || 1.82 || 1.36 || 0.17 || 1.52

UK || 0.79 || 0.84 || 0.39 || 0.83 || 1.22

Croatia || : || 0.95 || 0.92 || 0.32 || 1.24

Iceland || 1.07 || 1.49 || 1.16 || 0.10 || 1.25

Turkey || 0.87 || : || : || : || :

Norway || 1.84 || 2.08 || 1.16 || 0.04 || 1.20

United States || 1.48 || 1.26 || 1.00 || 1.68 || 2.69

Japan || 0.55 || 0.65 || 0.48 || 1.01 || 1.50

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

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 Slovakia[116] 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.

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

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 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

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 topic[118],
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 education[119] and the right level and modes
of public investment in human capital[120].
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 recommendations[121].

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 EUA[122] highlights substantial cuts
in public spending on higher education in a number of Member States, including
Greece, Italy, Latvia and the UK[123],
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 longer[124].
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 EU[125].

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 trend[126] 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 Germany[127].
The ability of institutions to draw increasingly on alternative sources of
funding in part reflects increasing levels of financial autonomy[128].

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 Lithuania[129]

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

Europe's higher education landscape is
characterised by a wide range of organisational and governance models. In all
EU countries, higher education institutions are legally autonomous[130], 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].

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 countries[132], including all EU Member
States, and covering different dimensions of governance found:

In 20 countries (out of 33[133]) 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.

Box 6‑3: Policy and Practice - Supporting the
efficient management of institutions, Czech Republic[134]

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 BRIC[135]
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 come[136].

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 citizenship[137]. 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.

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

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 countries[138], 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

|| Foreign students in EU-27 (in 1000)

|| 2000 || 2007 || 2008

Total || 788.5 || 1430.2 || 1467.4

Europe || 384.4 || 599.6 || 608.1

- EU 27 || 316.4 || 479.2 || 487.8

-other Europe || 68.0 || 120.4 || 120.3

Africa || 134.2 || 246.0 || 241.7

Morocco || 38.2 || 46.3 || 44.2

Algeria || 14.9 || 21.8 || 20.3

Nigeria || 3.5 || 22.0 || 23.3

Asia || 183.0 || 405.5 || 413.5

China || 18.6 || 117.5 || 115.8

India || 6.6 || 39.3 || 43.1

Japan || 10.7 || 12.4 || 10.5

Americas || 63.1 || 121.6 || 124.3

USA || 22.7 || 32.2 || 30.8

Canada || 5.8 || 10.8 || 10.8

Brazil || 6.8 || 12.9 || 14.6

Oceania || 2.9 || 7.7 || 7.1

Unknown nat. || 20.9 || 49.8 || 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 US[139].

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) || 39.3 || 38.4

United States || 24.1 || 18.7

United Kingdom || 11.3 || 10.0

Germany || 9.5 || 7.3

France || 7.0 || 7.3

Australia || 5.4 || 6.9

Canada || 4.8 || 5.5

Russian Federation || 2.1 || 4.3

Japan || 3.4 || 3.8

Italy || 1.3 || 2.0

Spain || 1.3 || 1.9

New Zealand || 0.4 || 1.8

Austria || 1.5 || 1.6

Switzerland || 1.3 || 1.4

Belgium || 2.0 || 1.3

Netherlands || 0.7 || 1.2

Korea || 0.2 || 1.2

Sweden || 1.3 || 1.0

Czech Republic || 0.3 || 0.8

Greece || 0.4 || 0.8

Turkey || 0.9 || 0.6

Denmark || 0.7 || 0.6

Portugal || 0.5 || 0.6

Norway || 0.4 || 0.5

Hungary || 0.5 || 0.5

Poland || 0.3 || 0.4

Ireland || 0.4 || 0.4

Chile || 0.2 || 0.4

Finland || 0.3 || 0.3

Slovak Republic || 0.1 || 0.2

Estonia || 0.0 || 0.1

Mexico || 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 trend[140]
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 technology[141]. 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.

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

Source: UNESCO

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
Excellence[142]),
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.

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 working on the European Higher
Education Area http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1290\_en.htm

·
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 for Strategic Management of
Universities, http://www.utwente.nl/mb/cheps/publications/Publications%202009/C9HdB101%20MODERN%20PROJECT%20REPORT.pdf

·
Eurobarometer (2010a) Employers' perception
of graduate employability, Flash Eurobarometer 304, November 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/public\_opinion/flash/fl\_304\_en.pdf

·
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

·
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&furtherNews=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 the Expert Group on New Skills for New Jobs
http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=568&langId=en&eventsId=232&furtherEvents=yes

·
European Commission (2010c) Efficiency and
effectiveness of public expenditure on tertiary education in the EU, EPC
and DG ECFIN, September 2010. http://europa.eu/epc/pdf/joint\_report\_on\_tertiary\_education\_-\_ecofin\_final\_en.pdf

·
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 final, 28.08.2010
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 education COM(2009) 487 final, 21.9.2009 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0487:FIN:EN:PDF

·
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 Framework http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education\_culture/publ/pdf/ll-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

·
EUA (2011b) Financially Sustainable
Universities II - European universities diversifying income streams, http://www.eua.be/Pubs/Financially\_Sustainable\_Universities\_II.pdf

·
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 and academic staff, April 2008 http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic\_reports/091EN.pdf

·
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 Opportunities, January 2010 http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?langId=en&catId=782&newsId=731&furtherNews=yes

·
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

·
Rauhvargers, Deane and Pauwels (2009) Bologna
Process Stocktaking Report 2009, Flemish Ministry of Education and
Training, Brussels. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/Stocktaking\_report\_2009\_FINAL.pdf

·
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.

[1]               Reichert, S (2009)

[2]               See van Vught, F.A.et al. (2010)

[3]               http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/

[4]               See http://www.u-map.eu/

[5]               See http://www.u-multirank.eu/

[6]               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

[7]               A student-centred credit system based on the student
workload required to achieve specified learning outcomes

[8]               A standardised template containing a description of
the nature, level, context, content and status of studies completed by an
individual student

[9]               Which has subsequently been linked to the wider
European Qualifications Framework (EQF), launched by the EU and covering all
levels of education and training

[10]             Notably through the European Quality Assurance Register
for Higher Education (EQAR);

[11]             Council of Europe and UNESCO Convention on the
Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European
Region, April 1997

[12]             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"

[13]             See European Commission (2010a)

[14]             See, for example, Rauhvargers, Deane and Pauwels
(2009), ESU (2009), EUA (2010), Eurydice (2010)

[15]             EUA (2010)

[16]             CHEPS 2010a

[17]             Agreed by European Ministers of Higher Education at
their meeting in Bergen 2005

[18]             Adopted for all strands of education and training by
the EU Council and Parliament

[19]             See, for example, ESU (2009)

[20]             CHEPS 2010a

[21]             Eurydice (2010)

[22]             Also refer to Eurydice (2011)

[23]             Eurydice (2010)

[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.

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

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

[27]             These costs are examined in more detail in Section 7 on
higher education funding.

[28]             See, for example CEGES (2007), OECD (2010a)

[29]             Post secondary, non-tertiary education.

[30]             In 2008, almost 1 million of the 19 million students in
the EU (5.2%) were nationals of non-EU countries.

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

[32]             Tertiary educational attainment measured with reference
to ISCED 5 and 6

[33]             Tertiary educational attainment measured with reference
to ISCED 5 and 6

[34]             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)

[35]             BE, CY, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, PL, SE

[36]             DK, LU, LT, EE, SI, PT, SK

[37]             AT, BG, CZ, EL, HU, IT, LV, MT, RO

[38]             See European Commission (2011c)

[39]             International Standard Classification of Education

[40]             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)

[41]             ISCED 4a and 4b in Germany and ISCED 4a in Austria

[42]             BE, CZ, FR, CY, LU, MT and PT

[43]             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

[44]             London Communiqué of 2007

[45]             Eurostudent (2011)

[46]             The average higher education attainment rate in the
EU-27 for those aged 30-34 is 37.2% for women and 30% for men.

[47]             The exceptions (where male graduates outnumber female
graduates in the population 25-64) are LU, DE, AT, NL and CZ.

[48]             Respectively 68% and 58% female students in 2009

[49]             Respectively 62% and 75% male students in 2009

[50]             Eurydice (2011)

[51]             Eurostudent (2011)

[52]             Does not cover BE, HU, BU, GR and Scotland (Observers)
or Cyprus and Northern Ireland (non Members)

[53]             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.

[54]             For example, OECD (2010a) Eurydice (2010)

[55]             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.

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

[57]             See also Eurydice (2011), Section 1.3

[58]             See OECD 2010a

[59]             Eurostudent (2011), pp.26-28

[60]             EUA (2010)

[61]             Eurostat calculations

[62]             See Oxford Research (2010)

[63]             See European Commission (2010b)

[64]             CEDEFOP (2010a)

[65]             European Commission (2006)

[66]             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.

[67]             Eurobarometer (2010a)

[68]             European Commission (2010b)

[69]             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 appropriate ways to develop these skills and competencies. http://www.oecd.org/document/35/0,3746,en\_2649\_201185\_40277475\_1\_1\_1\_1,00.html

[70]             ENQA (2005). Developed by ENQA in cooperation with EUA,
EURASHE and ESIB

[71]             See Section 4.3

[72]             See 2005 Bergen Communiqué

[73]             http://www.ehea.info/article-details.aspx?ArticleId=69

[74]             See http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44\_en.htm

[75]             See for example, EUA (2010), GHK (2011)

[76]             Assessing Higher Education Learning Outcomes (AHELO)
www.oecd.org/edu/ahelo

[77]             EUA (2010)

[78]             See: http://www.hrk.de/de/projekte\_und\_initiativen/5913.php

[79]             European Commission (2010b)

[80]             University-Business Forum, see
http://ec.europa.eu/education/higher-education/doc1261\_en.htm

[81]             Call for proposals:
http://ec.europa.eu/education/calls/doc2905\_en.htm

[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

[83]             See: http://eit.europa.eu/nc/activities/education/overview.html?print=1

[84]             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)

[85]             EUA (2010)

[86]             See European Commission (2009)

[87]             See: http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c6/14/30/87/358bd536.pdf

[88]             European Commission (2010b)

[89]             EUA (2010)

[90]             See: http://www.kslll.net/PoliciesAndAchievements/ExampleDetails.cfm?id=139&OtherSourceId=&compendiumid=2

[91]             Digital Agenda for Europe, European Commission (2010x)

[92]             Economist Intelligent Unit (2008)

[93]             OECD (2005)

[94]             Evidence to date indicates that internationalisation is
not a primary motivation for deploying ICT in programmes - see, for example
Economist Intelligent Unit (2008)

[95]             OECD
(2005)

[96]             Economist
Intelligent Unit (2008)

[97]             See
European Commission (2010d), OECD (2005)

[98]             See Leuven
/ Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué
http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/Declarations/Leuven\_Louvain-la-Neuve\_Communiqu%C3%A9\_April\_2009.pdf

[99]             Parey, M and F. Waldinger (2011)

[100]            For example, French and German students on medical
courses in, respectively, Belgium and Austria.

[101]            The number of international students studying in
Europe increased by 60% between 1999 and 2007, CHEPS (2010a), p. 73.

[102]            Eurydice Higher Education in Europe 2009, p. 43.

[103]            Eurydice (2010)

[104]            http://www.uvm.dk

[105]            “Promoting the Learning Mobility of Young People”, Green
Paper, COM(2009) 329 final.

[106]            http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st10/st10545.en11.pdf

[107]            The ability to have access to national student support
funding (grants and/or loans) during study periods abroad.

[108]            Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications
concerning Higher Education in the European Region

[109]            Rauhvargers, Deane and Pauwels (2009)

[110]            See http://www.esn.org/content/prime-problems-recognition-making-erasmus

[111]            See: http://www.lanekassen.no/Toppmeny/Languages/English/Norwegian-students-abroad/

[112]            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)

[113]            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.

[114]            http://ipts.jrc.ec.europa.eu/activities/research-and-innovation/s3\_a.cfm

[115]            2009: Comparable expenditure data only becomes available
around three years after the reference year.

[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

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

[118]            See CHEPS (2010c)

[119]            See European Commission (2010c)

[120]            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).

[121]            European Commission (2011b)

[122]            EUA (2011a)

[123]            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.

[124]            OECD (2011a)

[125]            Eurydice 2011

[126]            See CHEPS (2010c)

[127]            Rollwagen, I (2011)

[128]            CHEPS (2010c) found universities in 14 countries had a
high level of financial autonomy in 2008 (compared to 11 countries in 1995).

[129]            See: http://www.smm.lt/en/index.htm

[130]            Eurydice (2008), CHEPS (2010b)

[131]            European Commission (2006a), p.5

[132]            CHEPS (2010b)

[133]            EU-27, NO, LI, IS, CH, TR, HR.

[134]            http://www.msmt.cz/european-union/ipn-in-the-field-of-tertiary-education-research-and-development/efficient-institutions?lang=2

[135]            Brazil, Russia, India and China

[136]            On this, see OECD (2009)

[137]            This includes both EU students studying in another EU
country and non-EU students studying within the EU

[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.

[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.

[140]            Weber, L. and J. Duderstadt (2010)

[141]            ACA Seminar on Brazil, Russia, India, China: Key
points on the European Higher Education Compass? Brussels, 18 March 2011.

[142]         http://www.bmbf.de/en/1321.php

[Top](#document1)