New Degrees in the Netherlands
Evaluation of the Bachelor–Master Structure
and Accreditation in Dutch Higher Education

FINAL REPORT

Don F. Westerheijden
Leon Cremonini
Renze Kolster
Andrea Kottmann
Leonie Redder
Maarja Soo
Hans Vossensteyn
Egbert de Weert

Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS)
Universiteit Twente
Postbus 217
7500 AE Enschede
tel. 053 – 4893809 / 4893263
fax. 053 – 4340392
e-mail d.f.westerheijden@utwente.nl

CHEPS, August 2008
Kenmerk: C8DW150

EBAMAC report v25 | 2008-08-18

Contents
Preface
0

vii

Executive summary

1

0.1 The study

1

0.2 The reforms in general

1

0.3 Degree reform in the universities

2

0.4 Degree reform in the hbo sector

3

0.5 Transitions from bachelor to master study programmes

3

0.6 Degrees and labour market

5

0.7 Internationalisation and mobility

5

0.8 Life-long learning and qualification frameworks

5

0.9 Accreditation

5

1

7

Introduction

1.1 Background and aims of the study

7

1.2 Research questions and report structure

9

1.2.1 Bachelor and master degrees, original evaluation questions

9

1.2.2 Bachelor and master degrees, emerging issues

11

1.2.3 Accreditation

11

1.2.4 International comparison of the reforms in Dutch higher education

12

1.3 Methodological remarks

14

2

16

Introduction and impact of bachelor and master degrees

2.1 The transition towards the bachelor master system in Dutch higher education

16

2.1.1 The proportion of programmes translated into the bachelor–master
structure

16

2.1.2 Information to students about the consequences of the bachelor–master
structure transition
2.2 Curriculum innovation in terms of course content

18
19

2.2.1 Curriculum innovation rather than ‘cutting up’

19

2.2.2 ‘Broad bachelors’, fewer bachelor programmes

20

2.3 Throughput and output: flexibility and degrees

21

2.3.1 Retention of students and bachelor degree attainment

22

2.3.2 Transition from university bachelors to master cycle

27

2.3.3 Transition to the labour market

30

EBAMAC report v25 | 2008-08-18

ii

2.4 Emerging issues in the bachelor–master implementation

32

2.4.1 Transition from hbo bachelors to university masters programmes

32

2.4.2 Diversity of master programmes

36

2.4.3 The developments towards a third cycle and professional doctorates

39

2.4.4 The development of short higher education programmes
(associate degrees)
3

Accreditation

3.1 Introduction of accreditation in national perspective

40
41
41

3.1.1 Policy initiatives

41

3.1.2 Implementation of the accreditation scheme

43

3.2 Impact of accreditation in a national perspective
3.2.1 Efficient and effective accreditation system

46
46

3.2.2 Improvement of quality and effectiveness of accreditation in
Dutch-Flemish cooperation
4

International reflection on the bachelor–master structure

4.1 The Bologna process

51
53
53

4.1.1 Historical overview of the Bologna process

53

4.1.2 The Bologna process and the Netherlands

54

4.1.3 Recognition of degrees and study periods

55

4.1.4 Lifelong learning and national qualifications framework

57

4.1.5 Establishment and recognition of joint degrees

58

4.1.6 European curriculum innovation projects

59

4.2 Bachelor–master degrees in an international perspective

59

4.2.1 Stocktaking indicators

60

4.2.2 International perspective on the bachelor–master transition

60

4.2.3 Developments in curriculum and student mobility

62

4.2.4 Student mobility

63

4.3 Implementation of accreditation in Europe
4.3.1 Position of the Netherlands in comparison to other EU-countries
4.4 International perceptions of Dutch higher education

68
68
69

4.4.1 Acceptance and comparability of graduates and degree titles

70

4.4.2 Mobility to and from the Netherlands

71

4.4.3 Strong and weak points of Dutch higher education and students

72

iii

5

Conclusions and recommendations for future developments

5.1 Initial objectives of the bachelor–master reform

73
73

5.1.1 IJkpunt: The proportion of programmes translated into the
bachelor–master structure

73

5.1.2 IJkpunt: The extent to which the previous university programmes are
divided into two phases (bachelor and master) without creating
completely new programmes.

73

5.1.3 IJkpunt: Students’ transition into the new system or completing studies for
the ‘old-style’ degree and limitation of delay in individual study
planning

74

5.1.4 IJkpunt: Recognition of Dutch higher education abroad

74

5.1.5 IJkpunt: Flexibility and freedom of choice for students

74

5.1.6 IJkpunt: Innovation in terms of course content

76

5.1.7 IJkpunt: transition from higher education to the labour market

76

5.2 Emerging issues concerning the bachelor-master reform

77

5.2.1 IJkpunt: Transition of hbo bachelor graduates to university master
programmes

77

5.2.2 Diversity of university master programmes

77

5.2.3 IJkpunt: Master programmes in hbo

78

5.2.4 Third cycle and professional doctorates

78

5.2.5 Short higher education programmes (associate degrees).

78

5.3 Evaluation of the accreditation scheme

79

5.3.1 Support and credibility for accreditation by an independent organisation 79
5.3.2 Transparency through clearly reasoned judgements on quality of
programmes

79

5.3.3 Several organisations can perform site visits

79

5.3.4 Clarity about administrative consequences in case of too low quality

79

5.3.5 Assurance of quality of private (‘aangewezen’) higher education

79

5.3.6 Effective and efficient accreditation system

80

5.3.7 Improvement of quality and effectiveness of accreditation in
Dutch-Flemish cooperation
5.4 International comparison of the reforms in Dutch higher education

80
80

5.4.1 How does the transition to bachelor–master degrees compare with other
countries?

80

5.4.2 How does the accreditation scheme compare with Europe?

81

5.4.3 Reception of Dutch higher education abroad

82

iv

5.4.4 Conditions for mobility to and from the Netherlands

82

5.4.5 Dutch students’ competences for the European Higher Education Area

83

Appendices

85

Appendix 1 Abbreviations

87

Appendix 2 Interviews

88

The Netherlands

88

International experts

88

Belgium

88

Germany

88

Denmark

89

Sweden 89
United Kingdom

89

NESO Offices

89

References

91

v

List of Tables
Tab. 1 Number of accredited study programmes by higher education sector, in April 2008

17

Tab. 2 Percentage of student retention in relation to the number of new enrolments

23

Tab. 3 Master programme destinations of university bachelor degree holders

29

Tab. 4 Employment rate, university graduation cohort 2005-2006

32

Tab. 5 Accredited Research Master programmes by disciplinary area

37

Tab. 6 Accreditation decisions by NVAO (until 18-4-2008)

44

Tab. 7 Stopped accreditation cases, by year

46

List of Figures
Fig. 1 Flowchart of university cohort 2005, situation 2007, by study status

24

Fig. 2 Graduates per academic year ending in 1991…2007

25

Fig. 3 Graduates in academic years ending 1991…2007, per degree type

26

Fig. 4 Hbo bachelor graduates enrolling in university study programmes

35

Fig. 5 Number of hbo Master degrees per year

38

Fig. 6 Accreditation scheme

43

Fig. 7 Division of positive accreditations across levels and subsectors

45

Fig. 8 Proportion of international students in EU countries, 1999-2006

65

Fig. 9 Proportion of students from EU countries studying abroad, 1999-2006

66

Fig. 10 Percentage of relevant outbound credit mobility in percentages by higher education
sector

67

Preface

Governments across Europe are increasingly paying attention to the implementation of
the Bologna objectives as they search for effective policies that enhance their higher
education degrees, accountability and quality assurance, international cooperation and
mobility.
This document presents the results of a study on the introduction of the bachelormaster structure and accreditation in the Netherlands. The study has been initiated by
the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW in Dutch) to comply with
the legal obligation to evaluate new legislation five years after its initial
implementation. The study has been undertaken by a research team at the Center for
Higher Education policy Studies (CHEPS) at the University of Twente, the Netherlands
that performed a (meta-)analysis of existing evaluation reports and other relevant
information and databases. Additionally, a limited number of interviews were held
with major stakeholders in the Netherlands and with experts in some European
countries to study the reception of the new Dutch higher education structures in
society and abroad.
This document covers all major aspects of reform involved and makes policy
recommendations for some of them:
• Degree reform in the universities
• Degree reform in the hbo sector
• Transitions from bachelor to master study programmes
• Degrees and labour market
• Internationalisation and mobility
• Life-long learning and qualification frameworks
• Accreditation
Overall, the study shows that the Netherlands is among the countries that quickly
restructured their degrees towards the two cycles of the Bologna Declaration and that
the new system can be seen as quite successful in terms of educational content,
application of ECTS and access to the master cycle.

EBAMAC report v25 | 2008-08-18

viii

This document is the product of a successful, collaborative effort between the
research team at CHEPS, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, and an
International Expert Panel. The study team would like to thank the members of the
International Panel, Marijk van der Wende, Sybille Reichert, Nick Harris and Jim Allen,
for their stimulating criticism and support.
The research team thanks ROA and VSNU for their cooperation in making new
statistics available for this report. Special thanks also go to our main contact persons at
the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Frans de Zwaan and Yvonne Bernardt.
Jürgen Enders
Director of CHEPS

0

Executive summary

0.1

The study

The study was commissioned by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science to
evaluate the laws on the reform of higher education degrees towards the bachelor–
master structure and on the reform of quality assurance towards a programme
accreditation system of 2002. The study consists mainly of a meta-evaluation of
previous evaluative reports, produced in the framework of monitoring the
introduction process and investigating issues that arose during the transition.
Additionally, a limited number of interviews were held with major stakeholders in the
Netherlands and with experts in some European countries to study the reception of the
new Dutch higher education structures in society and abroad. The international
perspective is especially relevant, because the reform laws were instigated by the
Bologna process, which aims at establishing a European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) by 2010. The main goals of the reforms were:
• Increased recognition of Dutch higher education abroad (in the framework of
the Bologna process);
• Flexibility and freedom of choice for students;
• Smooth transitions between higher education and the labour market.
At this time, over five years after introduction of the reforms, the transition phase is
over but impacts only begin to show, so that definitive answers to many evaluation
questions cannot yet be given.

0.2

The reforms in general

The Netherlands is among the countries that quickly restructured their degrees
towards the two cycles (undergraduate-graduate, or bachelor–master) of the 1999
Bologna Declaration. With very few exceptions, even in the complicated area of
medicine etc., all study programmes in Dutch higher education have been brought
under the new degree structure. The transition process was on the whole rapid and
smooth, although in the beginning there were some negative side-effects associated
with the great speed of transition, such as poor information to students. The reform of

EBAMAC report v25 | 2008-08-18

2

CHEPS

the degree system moved gradually in a quite positive direction. From a European
perspective, the new system can be seen as quite successful in terms of educational
content, application of ECTS (replacing the previous study point system by the
European Credit Transfer System), access to the master cycle, etc.

0.3

Degree reform in the universities

Regarding innovation of the curricula in the universities, the idea of a simple ‘cut’ of
the previous drs./mr./ir.-study programmes gave way to more differentiation, both at
the bachelor and at the master levels. The majority of bachelor programmes remain
rather specialised, but some broad programmes have been established, e.g. in the
‘colleges’ of the Universities of Utrecht and Maastricht. Another broadening of learning
in the bachelor phase has been the introduction of major-minor systems since the
1990s.
At the master level, next to normal 60 EC study programmes (120 EC in sciences
and engineering, 180 EC in medicine c.a.), universities initiated ‘top’ master
programmes, as well as research master programmes. Only research masters, of which
there are more than 100, are accredited as such and have a size of 120 EC even in areas
that normally have 60 EC-masters. The number of master programmes in universities
is high, though in recent years there has been somewhat of a decrease. A shared overall
vision with regard to the desired character of master programmes and hence their
number seems to be lacking in the country. One-year master programmes regularly
encounter problems in cooperating internationally for joint degrees with countries that
have two-year masters themselves.
Recognising that a discussion on the length of the master programmes has taken
place recently, we recommend developing a more coherent national vision on breadth
and profiles of master programmes offered in the Netherlands, including those in the
hbo sector.1 Regarding the university sector, the discussion should address at least:
(1) the desired characters and number of master programmes, connected to (2) the
place of ‘top master’ programmes, as well as (3) hindrances to full cooperation in joint
degree programmes.

1

The term ‘hbo’ in this report will be used for the ‘universities of applied science’, ‘hoger
beroepsonderwijs’ in Dutch.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

0.4

3

Degree reform in the hbo sector

Most of the impact of the degree reform has been on the university sector, as for the
hbo sector little changed: its 240 EC (European credits) programmes remained as
bachelor programmes.
The recognition and development of master programmes in the hbo sector has not
had a quick start, also due to the government’s funding arrangements, under which as
a rule university master programmes are funded, while those in hbo institutions are
not. In some areas, master programmes have been established (e.g. advanced nursing).
The Dutch discussion about the different titles associated with hbo degrees (e.g.
B.Eng.) and those of university degrees (e.g. B.Sc.) is not much recognised abroad: in
countries with binary systems, the Dutch binary line is interpreted close to their own,
while in countries with a unitary system, the distinctions are more or less ignored.

0.5

Transitions from bachelor to master study programmes

The bachelor–master degree system has stimulated mobility between study
programmes at the moment of transition from the bachelor to the master cycles. While
in the university sector most students stay in the same set of study programmes
(around 85% in 2005/2006), change of faculties and institutions increases, also across
the ‘binary line’ distinguishing universities from hbo institutions. In 2006/2007, around
11% of students entering university master programmes held a bachelor degree from
another university. Moreover, university master programmes enrol a substantial
number of hbo bachelor degree holders, currently probably close to 20% of the total
master enrolment in Dutch universities. Finally, there is also a substantial enrolment of
foreign students (around 25% of master students?). Enrolment in Dutch university
master programmes is, in sum, very heterogeneous.
Students with bachelor degrees from other fields, both from universities and from
hbo institutions, usually have to complete a ‘pre-master’ programme of as a rule 30 EC
to gain the needed competencies to enter the master programme. This practice is now
becoming well-structured. Increasing cooperation between hbo institutions and
universities in counselling students during their bachelor cycle is another positive sign
of making the transition more transparent and smooth.2

2

Cooperation is fully possible under the current law; merger between universities and hbo institutions
is not, although development of comprehensive higher education institutions is an option in some
other countries.

4

CHEPS

Notwithstanding the presence of pre-master programmes, the enrolment criteria for
master programmes are in terms of candidates’ required competences and knowledge
for success in the different master programmes are not articulated very well in most
universities; institutional admission strategies are largely lacking. Admission strategies
would also include views on optimal numbers of students in master programmes. We
recommend the higher education institutions to take this issue up in the near future.
A peculiarity of the Dutch degree system is the existence of ‘continuation masters’
(‘doorstroommasters’) in universities with a guaranteed right of access for its ‘own’
bachelor graduates. The existence of continuation master programmes is connected to
the absence of a ‘hard cut’ (‘harde knip’) between bachelor and master programmes. A
‘hard cut’ means that only students who have fulfilled all requirements for the bachelor
degree can enrol in a masters’ programme. Until now, this option has been unpopular
in order to keep the transition from bachelor to master smooth for the programme’s
‘own’ students. Applying a ‘hard cut’ would have several benefits, it is argued. First,
all capable students would have equal chances of entering master programmes, thus
increasing mobility across faculties, higher education institutions, sectors and
countries. Moreover, the ‘hard cut’ would underline the university bachelor degree as a
degree in its own right, giving access to master programmes, to the labour market, and
being regarded as a ‘passport’ for mobility. Applying an admission strategy including
a ‘hard cut’ also stimulates students to finish their bachelor degree on time
(improvement of studievoortgang). We recommend strengthening the position and
meaning of the university bachelor degree by abandoning the obligation to offer
‘continuation master’ programmes; such a concept does not exist in mature bachelor–
master systems abroad (USA, UK, etc.). As a telling example, also in Switzerland an
obligatory ‘continuation master’ type of programmes was introduced after the Bologna
Declaration, but has recently been made optional for reasons like those discussed in the
Netherlands: strengthening the position of the bachelor degree and stimulating
mobility. Swiss higher education institutions now may offer distinctive options to
student with regard to enrolment into master programmes, with or without selection.
Introducing a ‘hard cut’ should be accompanied by (1) better articulation of the
admission strategy, including actual rather than formal requirements on entering
students in master programmes (instroomeisen) and (2) measures to minimise delay for
students (e.g. avoiding long waiting times after completion of pre-master tracks by
offering entry to master programmes every semester).

New Degrees in the Netherlands

0.6

5

Degrees and labour market

The change to the bachelor–master degree system does not seem to have had an impact
on the retention rate of students; the percentage of drop-outs is unchanged over the
bachelor phase both in hbo institutions and in universities.
The university bachelor degree is not yet seen as an entry qualification to the labour
market in the Netherlands. This is not in line with the expectations from the Bologna
Declaration, however understandable it is that actors find it difficult to give the new
degree type a place in the labour market. First statistics suggest that university
bachelors entering the labour market (around 5% of university bachelors) nevertheless
have the same high job chances as other university degree holders.

0.7

Internationalisation and mobility

International experts are overall quite positive about the quality of the Dutch higher
education system, about mobility possibilities to and from the Netherlands, as well as
about Dutch students’ competencies compared to students from many other European
countries.
The new degree system has not led to an increase in international mobility since
2004. The Netherlands is slightly below the EU average in terms of the proportion of
incoming international students.

0.8

Life-long learning and qualification frameworks

A more flexible higher education system with shorter degree courses should facilitate
its inclusion in a life-long learning system. The OECD review of Dutch higher
education in 2007 criticised the Netherlands’ lack of development in this respect. A
further condition for an integrated life-long learning system is the development of an
encompassing qualifications framework. The Netherlands is not in the forefront of
developing a national qualifications framework based on the European frameworks
developed in and around the Bologna process. We recommend speeding up the
development of the Netherlands’ qualifications framework.

0.9

Accreditation

The accreditation system in place since 2003 has successfully built on the previouslyexisting quality assurance scheme. It assures basic quality and in recent years has made

6

CHEPS

a beginning with recognising special qualities of study programmes. Abroad, it is seen
by most as highly credible and rigorous, thus assisting mobility of Dutch students and
graduates in the EHEA.
As discussions on a new design for it are underway, with a lighter touch approach
and more responsibilities for the higher education institutions themselves, there is no
need to treat the accreditation system in greater depth here.

1

Introduction

1.1

Background and aims of the study

This study has been initiated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW
in Dutch) to comply with the legal obligation to evaluate new legislation five years
after its initial implementation, in this case the introduction of the bachelor–master
structure and accreditation in the Netherlands. The study (meta-)analyses existing
evaluation reports and other relevant information and databases. In 2002-2003 two new
laws came into effect that had a major impact on Dutch higher education:
•

The law of 6 June 2002 (Stb. 303) that introduced the bachelor–master system.

•

The law of 6 June 2002 (Stb. 302) that introduced accreditation in Dutch higher
education.

These laws have been promulgated at the same time as the subjects are heavily
interrelated. Inspired by the European Bologna process, the bachelor–master system
implied the introduction of a new system of degrees in Dutch higher education—or
perhaps we should say a return to the oldest system of degrees, because bachelor and
master could already be recognised in the statutes of the University of Paris in the year
1215 (Leff, 1992, p. 325; Rüegg, 1992, p. 8). The system with doctorandus as the main
degree3 developed slowly in Dutch higher education since the late 19th century and
only came to full development after World War II (Groen, 1987, p. 71).
With the degree change additional instruments came along, such as the European
Credit Transfer System (ECTS), Diploma Supplement (DS) and—in a separate change
of the higher education law, as we just mentioned—new ways of quality assurance.
The new accreditation scheme was meant to assure that Dutch quality assurance, based
on minimum standards would meet international agreements on transparency, quality
and transferability of degrees.

3

Doctorandus had been the designation for students about to become a full doctor since at least the 17th
century (e.g. de Ridder-Symoens, 1992, p. 197), and is still in use in Flanders. As a degree, the doctoral
examination (rather than the final promotion) was given civil effect from 1876 onwards; as a person’s
title it was abbreviated to drs. In the broad area of engineering, the equivalent was ingenieur (ir. for
university-level engineers, ing. for hbo engineers); in law, the degree was meester (mr.).

EBAMAC report v25 | 2008-08-18

8

CHEPS

Both laws are now subject to an integrated objective evaluation process. Our
evaluation, five years after the actual introduction of bachelor–master degrees and
accreditation across the higher education system compares the current state of affairs
with the policy aims at the time of introduction. A major source of evaluation criteria
can be derived from the explanatory memoranda of the two laws (‘Memorie van
toelichting’) of 2001, and mainly for the introduction process from the formulation by
the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science in 2003 in its IJkpuntenbrief informing
the parties in the higher education system of the issues that would guide the Minister’s
policy as well as the monitoring and evaluation of the bachelor–master structure
(Staatssecretaris Hoger Onderwijs, 2003, p. 30). These documents set aims for the later
state of affairs, but also held a number of boundary conditions for the transition
process from the old system (with its drs./mr./ir./ing.-degrees and quality assurance
without accreditation) to the new one. In the monitoring of the transition process,
obviously most attention went to the boundary conditions rather than to longer-term
aims. In our report, the emphasis should be more on the longer-term aims than on the
transition conditions.
In its broadest formulation, the changes in Dutch higher education at the turn of the
century were intended to ‘offer students more choice and give institutions leeway to
develop education that is open, flexible and internationally oriented’ ("Memorie van
Toelichting, ... bachelor-masterstructuur in het hoger onderwijs," 2001--our translation).
Openness and flexibility were put into the perspective of life-long learning, with
learners moving repeatedly between study and work—or both in part-time
simultaneously—from the beginning. The other major perspective was that of
internationalisation: Dutch higher education had to become more attractive for foreign
students, and chances for Dutch students and graduates internationally should
increase. The introduction of the bachelor–master structure is one of the means to these
ends. A harmonised credit system (ECTS) is another, mentioned in the Bologna
Declaration as well, as are the more traditional means of internationalisation such as
EU-Directives for some regulated professions and international covenants for degree
recognition, in particular the Lisbon Recognition Convention.
The main goals for the accreditation system are (summarised in: Inspectie van het
Onderwijs, 2005b, p. 10):
§ Improve the international position of Dutch higher education;
§ Transparency of the quality of education;
§ Independent position of quality assurance;

New Degrees in the Netherlands

9

§ Clarity with regard to administrative consequences of lack of quality;
§ Assurance of quality in privately funded (‘aangewezen’)4 higher education;
§ Visibility of the pluriformity and different profiles of higher education
institutions.
In addition to evaluating the laws on the basis of their original objectives, this study
focuses on the dynamics and new, unanticipated developments that emerged after the
introduction of the bachelor–master and accreditation systems in the Netherlands.
What have been typical reactions of higher education institutions and other
stakeholders and what counter-effects have become visible 5-6 years after introducing
the two laws? What future developments of bachelor–master and accreditation can be
expected in terms of the internal dynamics in the higher education system and the
relationship between higher education and the wider society?
Finally, the current evaluation study gives an international comparative view: how
do Dutch developments compare with wider European movements? Have the legal
changes contributed to a better perception of and international trust in Dutch higher
education abroad?

1.2

Research questions and report structure

In the previous section, the main goals for the new policies have been summarised.
Elaborating the evaluation aims into the research questions as given in the sources
mentioned results in an unwieldy, long list of questions. Without losing either the main
aims or the questions posed originally from sight, we will use a three-fold structure for
the remainder of this report: first, evaluation questions around the bachelor–master
reform will be addressed (sub-divided in original and emerging issues), then we turn
to the accreditation reform and finally we look at international aspects.

1.2.1

Bachelor and master degrees, original evaluation questions

First, we bring the evaluation questions around the degree structure together; this will
make up chapter 2. Under this heading, we will start (§ 2.1) by treating briefly the main
questions of the transition process. In particular, we will look at:

4

Henceforth, for brevity we shall use ‘privately funded’ do denote the non-publicly funded but
recognised higher education institutions (‘aangewezen onderwijs’), and ‘publicly funded’ for the higher
education institutions funded from the public budget (‘bekostigd onderwijs’).

10

CHEPS

1.

The speed and smoothness of introduction of the new degree structure, i.e.
a. the proportion of programmes transformed into the bachelor–master
structure, and
b. the extent to which the previous university programmes were divided into
two phases (bachelor and master) without creating completely new
programmes.
Students’ interests in a smooth transition, focusing on
a. proper information about the consequences of the transition,
b. decent transition into the new system for students who started in the old
structure, and
c. the consequences with regard to individual study planning should remain
limited as much as possible.

2.

The main interest in our study is, however, the impact of introducing the bachelor and
master degree system on the Dutch higher education system as it is at this moment
(first half of 2008). The issues mentioned in the MvT’s, the IJkpuntenbrief etc. that are
relevant from this perspective will be grouped in chapter 2 as follows.
§ 2.2 will focus on curriculum innovation in terms of course content, especially in
the bachelor phase in universities:
1.

2.
3.

Curriculum innovation when introducing bachelor and master cycles rather
than simply ‘cutting up’ the old study programmes in 3+1 or 3+2 years, without
creating completely new study programmes,
Development of ‘broad bachelor’ study programmes, reduction in the number
of bachelor programmes,
Introduction of major-minor models to increase options for students

The outcome of the degree reform should be—focusing on the Netherlands for the
moment—a higher education system that is flexible, with freedom of choice for
students, and with smooth transitions to the labour market. These questions, in terms
of (numerical) throughput and output, are addressed in § 2.3:
1.

5

Flexibility and freedom of choice for students
a. Can every university bachelor student enter at least one master programme
without selection?
b. What are arrangements for entry of students from other university
programmes and disciplines into master programmes?
c. Can hbo5 bachelor graduates enter master programmes in universities with
fewer hindrances and delays than before?
d. Efficiency gains are expected:6

The term ‘hbo’ in this report will be used for the ‘universities of applied science’, ‘hoger
beroepsonderwijs’ in Dutch.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

11

i) Students obtain bachelor degrees instead of dropping out
ii) More efficiency in master phase expected due to more differentiation
iii) More master-level graduates (university + hbo)
Smooth transition between higher education and the labour market, where the
main interest is in employment for university bachelor degree holders.

2.

The other goals mentioned in the original policy statements, i.e. the Explanatory
Memorandum (‘Memorie van Toelichting’) and the IJkpuntenbrief, have to do with the
international acceptance of the new degrees, which we will treat in chapter 4.

1.2.2

Bachelor and master degrees, emerging issues

After the debate about the introduction of the bachelor–master degree system, the
implementation process started and had its own dynamics, leading to the emergence of
perhaps unexpected issues. Moreover, the Bologna process also had its own dynamics
with the addition of new matters to the reforms (e.g. realising that the reform of the
first and second cycles would have impact on the third, Ph.D. phase). Some of the main
issues arising in the course of time will be addressed in § 2.4. In fact, the IJkpunten letter
foreshadowed a large proportion of the emerging issues, beyond the immediate goals
as mentioned in the laws. Major emerging issues, not covered above, include the
following:
1.

4.

Transition from hbo bachelor to university master and the development of premaster programmes and the like;
Diversity of master programmes, especially the development of ‘top’ masters
and Research Masters variants, but also master programmes in hbo institutions;
The developments towards a third cycle and the development of professional
doctorates;
The development of short higher education programmes (associate degrees).

1.2.3

Accreditation

2.
3.

Concerning accreditation, a number of questions have been raised specifically, based
on the original aims in the law of 2002. Some questions are intertwined with those on
international issues (and can be found in chapter 4). Other questions are about the
operation and impact of the accreditation system. These will be addressed in chapter 3:
1.

6

Support and credibility for accreditation by an independent organisation;

The issue of efficiency arose later, it was not prominent in either the MvT or the IJkpuntenbrief, but it fits
best in this place in the report.

12

CHEPS

2.

Transparency through clearly reasoned judgements on the quality of study
programmes;

3.

A diverse quality assurance system because several organisations can perform
site visits [external evaluations];

4.

Clarity about administrative consequences in case of too low quality;

5.

Assurance of quality of privately funded higher education (‘aangewezen
onderwijs’);

6.

Efficient and effective accreditation system;

7.

Improvement of quality and effectiveness of accreditation in Dutch-Flemish
cooperation.

1.2.4

International comparison of the reforms in Dutch higher education

A major drive for the 2002 legal changes came from the Bologna process, setting the
introduction of bachelor–master degrees and accreditation squarely in an international
perspective. The international aspect is therefore of prime importance in this
evaluation. Two types of questions were raised in the international comparative
perspective. First there were questions about the comparative state of affairs (how does
the Dutch situation compare with the situation in other countries involved in the
bologna process?). Second, there were questions concerning the reception of the
reforms in the Netherlands in foreign higher education systems. This gives us a
threefold structure for the comparative chapter:
• Comparative state of affairs regarding the bachelor–master degree reform;
• Comparative state of affairs regarding the accreditation reform;
• Reception questions.
With regard to the degree reform, ‘state of affair’ questions will be treated in § 4.2:7
What happened with relation to the implementation of Bachelor–master in the Bologna
process in Europe? And does the Netherlands occupy a leading position in the
European developments?
1.

7

How does the transition in the Netherlands compare with other countries?
What is the state of affairs with regard to the international orientation and
recognition of Dutch higher education?
a. Are all measures needed for that implemented in the Netherlands (e.g.
ECTS, Diploma Supplement?

In § 4.1 we will give a brief account of the Bologna process as a backdrop to the rest of this chapter.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

2.
3.

13

b. Are legal frameworks adapted to (double and) joint degrees? And is there
sufficient compatibility of Dutch study programmes with those in other
EHEA-countries to facilitate (double and) joint degrees?
What is the situation regarding European curriculum innovation projects?
What are effects on international student mobility?

In the catalogue of questions for evaluation, one set of questions that belongs here will
not receive an answer for lack of data. For completeness’ sake they will be mentioned
here—in the hope of stimulating a next evaluation study:
4.

Recognition of Dutch higher education abroad
a. From statistics it should appear that bachelor and master degrees are
recognised in Europe and abroad at the right level (esp. in the USA and
Australia).
b. Compatibility of titles attached to degrees.
c. Acceptance of the level of Dutch graduates in the Netherlands and abroad,
as seen in accreditation reports and labour market figures

The accreditation reform is the subject matter of § 4.3: What happened with relation to
the implementation of accreditation in the Bologna process in Europe? How does the
transition in the Netherlands compare with other countries? In particular, did it result
in:
1.

Strong international position for Dutch higher education;

2.

Strengthening of trust in Dutch higher education abroad;

3.

International compatibility of study programmes based on quality rather than
on formal characteristics;

4.

Mutual recognition of quality assurance systems?

The reception of Dutch higher education abroad will be indicated through opinions of
experts in higher education in a number of European countries that are either
neighbouring countries of the Netherlands or are often seen as models for policy
development, i.e. Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the United
Kingdom. In the section (§ 4.4) reporting on the interviews we held with them, the
underlying issue is the level of trust in the international community of Dutch higher
education, degrees and graduates in terms of quality and credibility. Specifically we
will look at:
1.

2.

Are the Dutch hbo and university titles understood and recognised abroad in
the right way? How are Dutch degrees valued in terms of degree recognition for
further academic study and at the international labour market?
What are the opinions about mobility to and from the Netherlands, apart from
the (legal) conditions mentioned before:

14

3.

CHEPS

a. Programme offer and proficiency of students and staff in English
b. Hindrances to cross-country mobility
Did the reforms result in students who have the necessary competences to be
mobile both for further study and for the European labour market?

In the IJkpuntenbrief explicitly no quantifiable targets were formulated. That makes our
evaluation more difficult, but also more nuanced in terms of impacts of the legal
reforms. In addition to these criteria for the evaluation, some further stimuli have to be
mentioned, such as the national agenda relating to the expected shortage of highlyeducated employees (SER 2000 and CPB 2001). For this reason, the Committee that
worked on the establishment of the bachelor–master system particularly emphasised
the issue of flexibility in Dutch higher education (Onderwijsraad, 2000). Flexibility was
stressed also to stimulate life-long learning. In its recent review of Dutch higher
education, the OECD (2007) again pointed at the weak life-long learning structure in
the Netherlands.

1.3

Methodological remarks

An added value of our (meta-)evaluation compared with previous evaluative reports is
to particularly look at the effects or impacts of the bachelor–master structure and the
accreditation system, rather than only look at the implementation process.
Evaluators should not fall into the trap of viewing the introduction of bachelor–
master degrees and of accreditation as ends in themselves (Rogers, 2008); they are
means to the ends associated with the Netherlands’ position in the emergence of the
EHEA. We already mentioned that we should not focus too much on the transition
process anymore, but rather on the current state of affairs, with first results and
possibly some first indications of impacts of the two laws. In achieving results and
impacts, other instruments (and reforms) play a role as well, besides the two laws (e.g.
the Lisbon Recognition Convention with its Diploma Supplement or visa policies for
foreign students). Methodologically, that raises the question how much of ensuing
changes in the higher education system should be ascribed to which instrument—if to
any instrument at all.
Moreover, making these policy measures a success depends not only on Parliament
proclaiming a law, or on the Ministry of OCW sending out circular letters, but also on
cooperation by other government agencies such as the NVAO, by other organisations
in the higher education system (universities and hbo institutions, evaluation agencies,
recognition agencies, etc.) and by individuals (students and graduates) (Uusikylä &

New Degrees in the Netherlands

15

Valovirta, 2007; Witte, 2006). Implementation, and even more so impacts, should
therefore be studied by taking into account other actors’ contributions to the policy.
This will be done both by including documents stating views and activities of these
other actors, and by interviewing them.
Two more technical remarks concern the statistics. First, some five years after the
introduction of the bachelor–master degrees is too early to see its results documented
in statistics that are stable enough to think of successes or trends. When it comes to
impacts, we are still in the transition period, with students still graduating for their
‘old-type’ degrees besides students graduating with bachelor and master degrees. On
the labour market, students with bachelor and master degrees are now only beginning
to appear. In fact, this is not just a remark about statistics but about the timing of the
evaluation project: in many respects we are too early to judge impacts of the reforms,
though too late to tarry with the transition process.
Second, there is not a single, authoritative source that gives us all the necessary
data. Different studies report different figures from different sources. Where possible,
we have used authoritative figures from CBS or from the umbrella organisations
VSNU and hbo raad. However, our study largely is a meta-evaluation, building on
existing studies rather than doing our own data collection; accordingly we are bound
to using these different data sources. Even though we tried to use consistent data as
much as possible, some inconsistencies remain. We advise readers not to put too much
emphasis on exact numbers, but focus on the broad trends.

16

CHEPS

2

Introduction and impact of bachelor and master degrees

In this first empirical chapter we cover the research questions related to the
introduction of the bachelor and master degrees, and the impacts of the new degrees
on the higher education structure and students. To structure and cover all the relevant
questions mentioned in chapter 1 this chapter consists of 4 parts. Section 2.1 deals with
the transition from the ‘old’ structure towards the bachelor–master structure. Section
2.2 discusses effects on curricula, followed by section 2.3 on transition from higher
education to the labour market. Finally, section 2.4 discusses the (unexpected)
dynamics generated by the implementation of the bachelor–master structure in Dutch
higher education.

2.1

The transition towards the bachelor master system in Dutch higher education

In this section we discuss the extent to which the traditional Dutch study programmes
have been translated into the bachelor–master structure, the information provided to
students and the extent to which bachelor graduates can enrol in master programmes.

2.1.1

The proportion of programmes translated into the bachelor–master structure

By 2004, less than two years after the introduction of the law, 90% of the study
programmes had been restructured. The transition went so fast that the Inspectorate
doubted the meticulousness of the process, especially regarding the participation from
within the institutions in discussing the plans (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003a,
2005c, p. 9). By 2006, there were 29 single-cycle study programmes (‘ongedeelde
opleidingen’) left, mostly in the area of medicine and veterinary science; in 2007,
practically all study programmes had been restructured (Ministerie OCW, 2007).
In the medical disciplines, though, adoption of the bachelor–master was not
straightforward, due to the international regulations affecting the profession
(Meyboom-de Jong, Schmit Jongbloed, & Willemsen, 2002). In 2008, only the University
of Rotterdam does not yet have the Bachelor–master structure for its medical
programmes. The universities of Utrecht, Groningen, Amsterdam (both universities),
Maastricht and Nijmegen have implemented the bachelor–master structure or will start
with it in the academic year 2008-2009. The situation is similar for the studies dentistry

17

New Degrees in the Netherlands

and veterinary medicine. Because of the special character of these studies in the broad
area of medicine, they are structured on a three years’ bachelor programme followed
by a three years’ master programme.
Tab. 1 Number of accredited study programmes by higher education sector, in April 2008

hbo
512
177
689

Bachelor
Master
Total

university
347
715
1062

Total
859
892
1751

Source: www.nvao.net
Note: these figures include all positive accreditation decisions, including privately funded higher
education institutions, part-time studies, etc.

The table (Tab. 1) shows that most programmes (61%) accredited and taught8 in Dutch
higher education are found in universities, although the majority of students (over
65%) study at hbo institutions (‘hogescholen’). This means that on average, university
study programmes have less than half the number of students as hbo study
programmes. The balance between bachelor and master programmes is quite different
across the subsectors: the hbo sector mostly has bachelor programmes and the
universities have more master programmes.

2.1.1.1

The extent to which the previous university programmes are divided into two phases
(bachelor and master) without creating completely new programmes.

For the publicly-funded hbo institutions the introduction of the bachelor–master model
did not lead to major changes, as the previously existing programmes were
automatically recognised as ‘new-style’ bachelor programmes until re-accreditation
was due (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003b). The universities took the transition
towards the bachelor–master system as a chance to change the content of their
curricula (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003a, p. 18). Generally speaking the former
four-year single-cycle studies have been divided in a bachelor of nominally three years
(180 EC) and a master programme of one year (60 EC). The former five year studies

8

Using the NVAO’s list of accredited study programmes weeds out most ‘sleeping’ programmes
(programmes without students, for which higher education providers did not want to spend the
money to try to get an accreditation); however, it may miss over a hundred of study programmes not
yet accredited because they have de jure accreditation until the end of 2009.

18

CHEPS

have been transformed into three-plus-two year programmes, i.e. 180 EC bachelor
programmes followed by a 120 EC master phase.
Dutch higher education by and large chose a model of specialised master
programmes. After the bachelor–master introduction there were fewer master
programmes then there had been graduation specialisations (‘afstudeerrichtingen’)
(Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c) inside the old-style programmes. Currently there
are about twice as many master programmes as bachelor programmes (interview0508).9 Furthermore for every bachelor programme there is at least one linked
‘continuation’ master programme.
The Inspectorate investigated the Parliament’s requirement, mentioned in the
IJkpuntenbrief (Staatssecretaris hoger onderwijs, 2003), prohibiting universities from
setting up professionally-oriented programmes belonging to post-initial training or
competing with hbo programmes, because that would create unfair competition
(Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c). The Inspectorate did not directly answer the
question of master programmes had an academic or professional tendency; that
judgement was left to the accreditation organisation (NVAO, see next chapter). Out of
49 university master programmes selected for investigation, only in one case was the
Inspectorate not convinced that it was made out of a previously existing programme.
That programme was closed by the institution (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2004b;
Staatssecretaris Hoger Onderwijs, 2004).

2.1.2

Information to students about the consequences of the bachelor–master
structure transition

The question if ‘Students [are]... informed properly about the consequences of the
transition and what they can do after their studies in terms of further education’
figured conspicuously in the first years of the bachelor–master transition. The
Inspectorate concluded that in their enthusiasm to change rapidly towards the new
degree structure, higher education institutions were well-organised with regard to
information but study programmes sometimes were not sufficiently clear in their
information about students’ possibilities to transfer to the new structure and about the
9

Exact counts of programmes are difficult, as the major data base, CROHO, until the completion of the
first round of programme accreditations will remain ‘polluted’ with ‘sleeping’ study programmes,
which had been recognised previously but were not actually offered to students, expected to exist
mainly in private higher education institutions (‘aangewezen instellingen’). Moreover, the IB-Groep, the
operator of the CROHO database, depends on the higher education institutions for its data (Inspectie
van het Onderwijs, 2008a).

New Degrees in the Netherlands

19

possibilities for further study associated with a particular bachelor degree (Inspectie
van het Onderwijs, 2003a, p. 55, 2004a, p. 29). However, even at that time the
information supplied by higher education institutions was considered as ‘sometimes
brief but sufficiently transparent’ and students stated they were satisfied with the
information (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2007, p. 10). Study councillors in the higher
education institutions were seen as dependable and helpful in informing students
(Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2004a, p. 29).
After those first years, the question lost some of its pertinence, although the issue of
transition paths between bachelor and master programmes, especially if they are not
the ‘standard’, ‘consecutive’ programmes (‘doorstroommaster’), has remained of interest,
however. For instance, the Studychoice website now incorporates a special module
with the aim of collecting all available information on this issue in the country to assist
students in preparing for switching to non-consecutive master programmes.10

2.2

Curriculum innovation in terms of course content

2.2.1

Curriculum innovation rather than ‘cutting up’

As mentioned at the beginning of this section, there is a noteworthy, albeit
unsurprising, difference in the curriculum reforms which took place in the hbo
institutions compared with the universities (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003b, p. 18).
In the hbo institutions, 57% believe that the curriculum has not changed; in the case of
universities, instead, 80% believe that the curriculum has changed in part and 16% that
the curriculum has changed entirely. This is not surprising because the hbo studies
already lasted four years before the bachelor – master reform, which made the
transition more an administrative issue for them. But for university studies the
duration of separate programmes changed with changing the previous programmes
into two cycles (bachelor and master). Therefore more programme innovation was
needed in university programmes (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003b, p. 225).
The same document reported that according to respondents the main changes in
the hbo sector included a stronger ‘work-field orientation’, a more applicative and
multidisciplinary nature of the curriculum aside with talks of introducing greater
differentiation (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003b, p. 18). A move towards more
competency-based learning was also a continuing trend in the hbo sector (Witte, 2006,
10

See: www.studiekeuze123.nl/web/site/default.aspx?m=bachelor–mastersaansluitingen.

20

CHEPS

p. 251). In contrast, the new university bachelors were considered less specialised and
more multidisciplinary in nature whilst the new university master programmes led to
stronger specialisation and more pronounced research orientation.
The bachelor–master reform gave an impulse to the already existing trend of
introducing ‘major-minor’ models in the Netherlands, i.e. curricula in which a main
subject or discipline is combined with a coherent ‘package’ of modules in one or more
other subjects or disciplines (possibly in different higher education institutions,
domestic or foreign) chosen as a block by the student.
Further room for curriculum innovation is available in the sense that many
bachelor programmes were seen to demand less than full-time study from most
students (Commissie ‘Ruim baan voor talent’, 2007; Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2004a,
p. 12, 2008a, 2008b; van den Broek, Wartenbergh, Wermink, Sijbers, Thomassen, van
Klingeren et al., 2007).
Despite the variety of master programme offerings (and their nomenclature), as yet
there have been few substantive changes at this level. The Inspection’s report De Master
Meester? suggested as the main reason for the lack of innovation that the government
did not stimulate curriculum change and that universities must obtain approval by the
Accreditation Organisation (NVAO) when developing new master programmes
(Ministerie OCW, 2007). Besides, to the extent that curriculum innovation took place in
the maxter cycle, attention was focused on the development of research and top
masters often besides (mostly) one-year master programmes, deemed too short to
realise the ambitions of the various stakeholders, including the government,
universities, and students (Ibid, page 33). In particular, it was commented from the
field that a one-year master programme does not allow time for an internship (‘stage’)
or stay abroad, which in turn was one of the major problems Dutch study programmes
faced in the international cooperation for joint master programmes (see § 4.1.5).
Finally, the bachelor–master reforms have increased the workload of examination
committees, which according to the Inspection could lead to risks of arbitrary decisions
and infringements on students’ rights (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c, page 28).

2.2.2

‘Broad bachelors’, fewer bachelor programmes

In universities, the traditional ‘long degree’ leading to the doctorandus degree had to be
split. At first, participants perceived that requirements were to make a direct
translation of the first years of ‘old-style’ drs.-programmes into bachelor programmes
(interview 05-08), thus reducing the stress of change but also reducing the opportunity

New Degrees in the Netherlands

21

to innovate. However, the reforms in the university sector have led to some important
innovations. In particular, the bachelor–master arrangements gave an impulse to the
already ongoing process of renewal which involved the idea (in both the hbo and
university sectors) of a first broad phase followed by a specialist phase of study
(Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003a, p. 15; Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c, p. 33;
Witte, 2006, pp. 230-231).
The idea of a very broad bachelor is based on the liberal arts tradition, that is, a
broad training programme across disciplines within which students can make choices.
Students are selected in an intense process in which motivation plays a major role;
English is the language of instruction. The introduction of broad bachelor programmes
in the university colleges of Utrecht and Maastricht were not directly connected with
the bachelor–master reform (interview 05-27), although the degree reform may have
sparked off additional interest in their development (interviews 05-14a, 05-16a). The
two universities in Amsterdam announced in 2008 that they would open a college in
2009 (www.auc.nl/aboutauc).
Such a broad, multi-disciplinary bachelor cycle should be followed by greater
differentiation and specialisation at the master level. However, the increased demands
on specialised masters implied that the breadth of the bachelors was harder to
accomplish (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2007, p. 28). As a consequence, broad
bachelors remain a small part of the offer and do not (yet) replace the more specialised
first-cycle programmes (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003a, p. 21).
Increasingly, Dutch higher education institutions wish to cater for the different
talent levels and ambitions of their students. Calls for more ‘challenging’ study
programmes are translated not only into the colleges mentioned in the previous subsection, but also in ‘honours programmes’, ‘master classes’ etc. These distinctive
streams were not explicitly part of our evaluation, but should be noted as new forms of
diversity in the bachelor cycle, and as one of the measures against uniformity
(Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2008b, pp. 9, 35). Development of a more ambitious
culture of study is one of the Minister’s aims (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c, p.
12), and would address a weakness common to many Dutch students in international
experts’ eyes (see § 4.4.3).

2.3

Throughput and output: flexibility and degrees

The ‘proof of the pudding’ of the bachelor–master degree reform should be retrievable
in figures too: the degrees must be awarded, and there were expectations in advance

22

CHEPS

about which and how many. In the early history of the Dutch discussion about the
bachelor–master system, the VSNU voiced its fear, for instance, that too few students
would continue to the master cycle after obtaining a bachelor degree (Witte, 2006, p.
222). In this section, we shall look at the—until now few—available figures on degree
attainment and transition to the labour market. The number of students enrolling in
university bachelor programmes has been stable over 2004-2006 at around 37.500 per
year.11 In hbo institutions, in the same years 87.000-89.000 new bachelor students
entered the system. In 2005/2006, in total 27.800 students started a master study
programme in Dutch universities. A year later, numbers had risen to almost 39.800.
The rapid rise is explained by the fact that only ‘fast’ students with university bachelor
degrees enrolled in 2005/2006. In hbo institutions the number of new master students
had been stable at around 5.000 but dropped with circa 500 in 2007/2008.

2.3.1

Retention of students and bachelor degree attainment

The introduction of the bachelor–master structure was expected to lead to efficiency
gains in terms of students getting bachelor degrees instead of dropping out in the
master cycle, due to increased programme differentiation.
Numerical efficiency of study has been on the Dutch political agenda since the early
1980s at least (Bijleveld, 1989, 1993). It was assumed the bachelor–master system would
increase the higher education system’s retention rate. This would translate into
(1) more students getting their bachelor degree instead of dropping out and (2) more
students obtaining their degrees in the master phase due to more differentiation
(Staatssecretaris Hoger Onderwijs, 2003). However, statistical data do not show a
significant increase in the number or percentage of retention throughout the country
(see Tab. 2), and this percentage has been stable for the last twenty years (Ministerie
OCW, 2007, p. 33).
Due to a lack of recent and comprehensive data it is impossible to determine how
the retention figures are related to the introduction of the bachelor–master system. Fro
example, growing numbers of enrolment (+14% in the hbo sector in four years; +7% in
the university sector in 2 years), in general mean an increase in less-prepared students,
which would lead to a decrease in retention rates. Maybe—but this is speculative

11

Figures on university enrolment in this paragraph from: www.vsnu.nl/web/show/id=96658/ langid=43/
framenoid=41685/ langid=43/secure= false, accessed 2008-07-21; for hbo enrolment see http://www.hboraad.nl/?id=137&t=kenget, accessed 2008-07-21. The umbrella organisations give higher estimates than
the CBS figures in tab. 2 although all are based on the CRIHO administration.

23

New Degrees in the Netherlands

without further research—it is a positive effect of the bachelor–master reform that this
negative tendency was counterbalanced.
Tab. 2 Percentage of student retention in relation to the number of new enrolments

Year
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2003
2004
2005

Entering bachelor students (number)
hbo
After 1 year
67.200
84
66.700
87
72.600
87
76.200
86
76.900
86
University
34.000
94
35.900
93
36.300
93

Retention %
After 2 years
81
83
83
82

92
90

After 3 years
80
82
81

90

Source: CBS, 2007 page 191.

Regarding the efficiency of study, one way of looking at this question is to analyse how
many credits students gain per year and if that number increases over the years. It
appears, then, that hbo students’ efficiency has increased from 84% to 86% between
2004 and 2006; university students showed a slight increase from 80% to 81% in the
same period (van den Broek, Wartenbergh, Wermink, Sijbers, Thomassen, van
Klingeren et al., 2007, p. 70).
Another way of looking at efficiency is to see how many students attain their
degree in a certain period of time. The most recent data available from the Association
of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) concern the 2005 enrolment cohort (see Fig.
1). This cohort entered almost completely into bachelor-master degree programmes.
The figure shows that two out of every three students (67%) entering university
bachelor programmes in 2005 did so on the basis of having obtained a secondary
school diploma (vwo). One in five (21%) came from hbo institutions, while 6% showed
a foreign degree and the last 5% were ‘other’ cases. By 2007, 78% of the 2005 students
were on track for a university bachelor degree; they ought to obtain their bachelor
degree by August 2008 to be on time but those data were not available at the time of
writing. 1% already had earned their degree before this date. It can also be seen that
most of the (self-)selection took place in the first year, because after one year, 7% had
moved to hbo study programmes and another 7% had dropped out of Dutch higher
education (and there were minor movements back into the university of 1% or less).
However, almost as much drop-out took place after the second year (5%), and there

24

CHEPS

also was some further migration to hbo study programmes (2%). These figures match
the Inspection’s observation that 21% of students in universities had quit studying in
universities after two years: as the figure below shows, 9% had gone to hbo
programmes and 12% dropped out after two years. Similarly, the Inspection found that
almost 23% of those starting in hbo institutions were no longer in that sector after two
years (Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands
and Flanders (NVAO), 2007).
O ut of HE

<1%

H BO
7%
67 % 2a ry e d
21 % HBO
6% fo reig n
5% rest

6%

H BO

<1%
2%

100%

Ba chelor
Ye ar 1

86%
7%

U ni.
Bach elor

Uni.
Bache lo r

78%

1%

5%
1%

O ut of H E

Bach elor deg ree 0.2%

2005

Out of HE
5%
B ache lor d egree 1%

2006

2007

Fig. 1 Flowchart of university cohort 2005, situation 2007, by study status
Source: 1cHO 2007, VSNU/CBS (hoofdinschrijvingen, full time)

The overall figures cannot reveal how many students had switched study programmes
within the university sector. The Inspection of Education found that only little over
half the students were following the same study programme in the same institution
two years after initial enrolment (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2008a, p. 15). It should
be borne in mind, though, that one of the functions of the first year of study is precisely
to guide students to better-matching study programmes; think also of the discussion
about the ‘binding study advice’ (‘bindend studieadvies’ or ‘BSA’). This should be seen as
a contribution to the effectiveness of the overall higher education system by leading
more students to degrees with which they may work and participate in society rather
than as a reduction of efficiency by causing delay in achieving degrees.

25

New Degrees in the Netherlands

For an earlier cohort, those starting in 2002 when the bachelor programmes were
partly introduced, the VSNU calculated that after five years (i.e. with up to two year’s
delay), 56% of those who had started university study programmes had earned a
bachelor degree. This low percentage is partly due to students who started their master
degrees before finishing their bachelor degree fully (‘soft’ entry into ‘continuation
master’ programmes).
The total number of graduates has grown over the last 17 years (see Fig. 2); the rate
of growth since ca. 1999 has been rising steadily, but on aggregate has not changed
visibly due to the change-over to the bachelor–master degree system.

120.000

100.000

80.000

60.000

40.000

20.000

0
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Fig. 2 Graduates per academic year ending in 1991…2007 (HE total; absolute numbers)
Source: CBS Statline, accessed 2008-06-09.12
Looking at the different types of degrees (see Fig. 3), it appears that the largest number
of graduates are hbo bachelors and that their numbers in large part explain the rise of
graduates between 1999 and 2004, but has remained constant since then. The rise in

12

Figures exclude post-initial master degrees, e.g. in hbo institutions, and medical professional degrees,
additional university teachers’ degrees etc. Figures for 2006/2007 are temporary and subject to revision.

26

CHEPS

numbers of graduates in the most recent years must therefore be ascribed mainly to the
university sector and is largely a consequence of most students obtaining two degrees
instead of one: first a bachelor degree and then one or more years later their master
degree. Due to the still incomplete phasing out of the old-style ‘doctoraal’ degree
(drs./mr./ir.), this figure has to be interpreted with much care and it cannot yet be
judged if the policy target of more (master) graduates is being met. Every year, the
number of bachelor degrees in universities is higher than the number of master degrees
awarded, so that even counting with some years’ delay, we may expect that some
university bachelor graduates stop studying; around 5% of university bachelor
graduates do not wish to continue immediately with a master programme in a Dutch
university (van den Broek, Wartenbergh, Wermink, Sijbers, Thomassen, Klingeren et
al., 2007). Part of the 5% enter the labour market, another part concerns students
enrolling in higher education institutions abroad (interviews 05-08; 05-16a).13
70.000

Associate degree
Bachelor HBO
Bachelor WO
Doctoraal (drs./mr./ir.)
WO master

60.000

50.000

N diplomas

40.000

30.000

20.000

10.000

0
1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Acad. Yr. ending

Fig. 3 Graduates in academic years ending 1991…2007, per degree type (absolute numbers)
Source: CBS Statline, accessed 2008-06-09.14

13

Interviews are designated by the date at which they were conducted, to safeguard anonymity of the
interviewees.

14

Figures exclude post-initial master degrees, e.g. in hbo institutions, and medical professional degrees,
additional university teachers’ degrees etc. Figures for 2006/2007 are temporary and subject to revision.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

2.3.2

27

Transition from university bachelors to master cycle

The first question in this section is whether every university bachelor graduate can
enter at least one master programme without encountering a selection hurdle. The law
required that there should be at least one master programme connected to each
bachelor programme in universities to which those bachelor graduates can enrol
without selection. According to the annual Studentenmonitor questionnaire of 2006, 87%
of full-time bachelor students in universities planned to continue studying in the
master phase; in fact, 86% of the university bachelors of 2005/2006 did stay in the same
university for their master study. For 68% of master students in universities the fact
that their programme was directly consecutive to the bachelor had been one of their
motives in choosing the programme (van den Broek, Wartenbergh, Wermink, Sijbers,
Thomassen, van Klingeren et al., 2007, pp. 59, 63). As stated in the previous section,
such ‘doorstroommasters’ have been established everywhere; hence, the legal
requirement was realised. However, as some of our interviewees pointed out, this
requirement degraded the bachelor–master system. Their principal objection was that a
bachelor plus consecutive master programme would not be seen as separate
programmes but in fact continued the pre-2003 situation. In this respect the ‘hard cut’
(‘harde knip’ 15) was mentioned as a solution to enforce the recognition of the bachelor
and master cycles as separate study programmes.
The next question concerned the arrangements for enrolment of students from
other university programmes and disciplines into university master programmes (i.e.
non-consecutive masters). At first, higher education institutions did not have clear
guidelines on admission criteria for their master programmes. This was mentioned as
one of the reasons for the low proportion of bachelor degree holders in universities
transferring to master programmes that were not immediately following on their
bachelor programme (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c, pp. 10-12). Because the
universities’ attention was focused on rapid development of bachelor programmes,

15

The ‘hard cut’ means the condition that a student must have fulfilled all requirements for a bachelor
degree before being allowed to start in a master programme. A major drawback of this rule is that
students who have fulfilled all but one or a few requirements of their bachelor degree must wait for
one year (or nowadays one semester, in programmes adapting to the ‘hard cut’) before they can
continue their educational career. This made the ‘hard cut’ an unpopular option in universities
(Schade, 2004). On the other hand, without it, students are less motivated to finish heir bachelor degree
(leading to lower efficiency indicators) and the pre-2003 situation persists of students who are ready to
finish their master degree but still have some bachelor courses to be finished.

28

CHEPS

master programmes and admission criteria were developed later and in a piecemeal
fashion (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003a, pp. 28, 66, 2004a, p. 15).
For university students there are basically three transition trajectories if they want
to switch between universities to follow a master programme. First, the university
students can be admitted directly into the master programme. This applies if the
receiving master programme judges that the student’s bachelor degree is related to the
master or that it is comparable to the bachelor programme which the ‘doorstroom’students followed). The second option is that the university students follow a premaster programme after completing their bachelor (see § 2.4.1). Third, students may
take several courses during their bachelor study at the receiving university, to make up
for ‘deficiencies’. In that way they avoid the pre-master track, so that they are directly
admissible once they fulfilled the courses and completed their bachelor (in Dutch:
‘bijvakkers’).16 Also in hbo institutions ‘transition profiles’ have been introduced during
the bachelor phase (Witte, 2006, p. 251). Until 2005-2006, 58% of master students had
not encountered a selection process; 35% had had to fulfil requirements regarding
courses (or, less often, grades and motivation) and 6% had to succeed in a competitive
selection process (van den Broek, Wartenbergh, Wermink, Sijbers, Thomassen, van
Klingeren et al., 2007, pp. 65-66).
Looking at the quantitative level of mobility of students at the point of choosing a
master programme, the introduction of the bachelor–master system did not have a
major immediate impact. To a very large extent, university bachelor graduates in the
first years of the new degree system opt for the continuation master programme
(‘doorstroommaster’) offered by their university (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c, pp.
10-11). From data in the Studentenmonitor 2006, we calculated that in 2005/2006
enrolment in master programmes consisted for 7% of students coming from other
universities or other sectors of knowledge (van den Broek, Wartenbergh, Wermink,
Sijbers, Thomassen, van Klingeren et al., 2007, p. 10). The VSNU’s analysis of national
statistics (‘1cHO2007’ data) showed that in 2005/2006 85% of university bachelor
degree holders progressed to a master-degree programme in the same university (see
Tab. 3). Further calculations led the VSNU to the conclusion that 79% of students
entered a continuation master programme. However, Tab. 3 shows that the proportion
of students remaining in the same university showed a tendency to go down, from 92%
16

Note that the Inspection of Education found that often there is room for increasing the workload in the
bachelor phase (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2008b; also van den Broek, Wartenbergh, Wermink,
Sijbers, Thomassen, van Klingeren et al., 2007b). If combined with higher demands on the bachelors’
competences, this might make pre-master tracks much less often necessary.

29

New Degrees in the Netherlands

in 2002/2003 (when the bachelor-master structure was beginning to be introduced) to
85% in 2005/2006.
The same table shows that in the 2005/2006 academic year 5% of the university
bachelor degree holders went to a different Dutch university, and 10% chose another
option, which might be to go abroad for a master degree or to enter the labour market.
It is estimated that around 5% entered the labour market (see § 2.3.3), which leaves
around 5% for international mobility and other options.
Tab. 3 Master programme destinations of university bachelor degree holders (absolute and %)

In Dutch university master programme
Academic
year
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007

At the same
university
1841
92%
4877
87%
11039
86%
16267
85%
17340*
78%*

In another
university
28
1%
190
3%
603
5%
986
5%
1074*
5%*

Not in Dutch
university master
programme
by 1-10-2007
125
508
1178
1929
3709*

6%
9%
9%
10%
17%*

Total
1994
100%
5575
100%
12820
100%
19182
100%
22123*
100%

* Figures up to 1-10-2007, subject to change.
Source: VSNU analysis of 1cHO2007 data.

A year later, in 2006/2007, according to the VSNU web site the inflow of university
students from other universities in master studies was 11%.17 Although the bases for
these calculations may be different so that the statistics are not directly comparable, the
trend seems to be that students increasingly choose other master programmes than the
continuation track; the flexibility of the bachelor–master system is becoming more of a
reality.
Several factors may have kept the university–university mobility rather low at the
beginning. First, the perceived lack of information is a factor. University students from
the beginning felt well-informed about the entry qualifications and inflow moments of
their ‘doorstroom’-master. This information is directly supplied to them by their initial
university. However information from other master programmes offered by other
universities was rather scarce in the first years (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2004a, p.
15). The information situation is beginning to improve (see website mentioned in
footnote 10).

17

http://www.vsnu.nl/web/show/id=96712/langid=43/framenoid=39657/langid=43/secure=false (accessed
2008-05-12).

30

CHEPS

Second, mobility was kept low by the absence of a ‘hard cut’ (‘harde knip’; see
footnote 15 and associated text, above). Until now, most universities mostly admitted
their ‘own’ bachelor students into the (continuation) master programmes even if they
did not yet fully complete their bachelor or complied with the entry qualifications
(Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2004a, p. 21). Considering the alternative of going to
another higher education institution demanding full compliance with bachelor
requirements from ‘other’ degree holders, and the resulting study delay, it is
understandable that university students preferred continuing in the same setting. Some
interviewed stakeholders argued that the next step should be a formal separation
(‘harde knip’) between the bachelor and master cycles. The position of pre-master
programmes becomes even more crucial in case of a hard cut between bachelor and
master programmes. Questions that then will have to be addressed include whether
the ‘hard cut’ applies before or after the pre-master programme; how many moments
of entry per year are offered (year-system or semester-system) in order to minimise
delay for students, etc.
Whether, how and in what numbers hbo bachelors enter university master
programmes will be covered in section 2.4.1.

2.3.3

Transition to the labour market

The bachelor–master degree reform was meant to increase the employability of
graduates. The Bologna Declaration explicitly mentioned the need for bachelor
programmes to be relevant to the labour market.
The hbo bachelor degree is closely linked to the labour market. The university
bachelor degree, however, neither has close links with the labour market, nor is it seen
as a full academic degree by Dutch stakeholders including most of our interviewees,
among them were the representatives of employers (with few exceptions). Reasons for
this attitude might include: employers are unfamiliar with the university bachelor, the
graduates are relatively young, and/or employers are employing candidates who –in
the future- can hold managerial positions, for which the knowledge and depth of a
master degree are needed (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c, pp. 27, also interview
05-19). From a university perspective there also seems to be little interest in making the
university bachelor a qualification for the labour market (interview 05-16a). In 2005
more than half the university bachelor programmes did not have a clear labour market
qualification (NVAO, 2007, pp. 21, 22). At the time, most university programmes had
not yet consulted representatives of the potential labour market to discuss the desired

New Degrees in the Netherlands

31

competences and knowledge levels (‘eindtermen’) for the bachelor (and master) degrees
(ibid.). However, in focusing on the labour market universities are bound by the
distinction of the binary system and thus have to make sure the university bachelor
(and master) will not enter the territory of hbo bachelors. Furthermore, also students
did not regard the university bachelor degree as a qualification for the labour market,
but rather as an occasion to choose their master programme (NVAO, 2007, p. 21).
Most of the Dutch stakeholders interviewed in our study found the new degree
system clear and comprehensible from a labour market perspective, with the exception
of the university bachelor. Representatives of employers confirmed this view in our
interviews. Making the university bachelor fully labour-market relevant requires a
reassessment by higher education and industry of their own assumptions concerning
this degree. Some NESO 18 officers reported having difficulties explaining to foreign
employers (and students) the distinction between hbo masters and master degrees
from universities.
The concern about employability of first-cycle graduates is wide-spread among
universities in countries that used to have single-cycle, long study programmes
(Reichert & Tauch, 2005). This may be characteristic of the early stage of reform,
however to progress to better acceptance of bachelor-degree holders on the labour
market, not only changes in the higher education institutions are needed but also on
the labour market. The Trends IV report in this respect stressed the role of professional
bodies (Reichert & Tauch, 2005).
Actual employment statistics for the new university bachelor and master degrees
are only beginning to appear (see Tab. 4, below). The data on the 2005-2006 cohort of
graduates show that the differences between holders of ‘old-style’ degrees and those of
bachelors and masters in the university sector differ little: around 96% to 97% of
university graduates find employment once they enter the labour market. The decimals
should not be given too much importance as the sample size, especially for bachelor
degree holders entering the labour market, is rather small.19 Considering that the
bachelor degree is not seen as a final degree by most stakeholders, it is not surprising
that there are not many bachelors entering the labour market. The fact that they find

18

NESO are the Netherlands Education Support Offices, organised by Nuffic, meant to promote the
attractiveness of Dutch higher education abroad. NESO offices are located in China, Indonesia, Mexico,
Taiwan and Vietnam.

19

The statistics presented in the table do not include the universities of Amsterdam (UvA), Maastricht
and Utrecht. This means that the two largest universities are missing. Sample size also precluded from
breaking the data down to knowledge areas.

32

CHEPS

employment in practically the same rate as other university degree holders is more of a
surprise in that view. Possibly, the current labour market situation with shortages
rather than unemployment helps make the situation this positive. Besides, maybe the
bachelors entering the labour market have more adventurous personalities than
average, giving them better job chances than average. Nevertheless, there does not
seem to be much scepticism on the labour market as to the employability of the
university bachelors.
Tab. 4 Employment rate, university graduation cohort 2005-2006

‘Old style’ university degrees
University bachelor degree
University master degree
Total
Source: ROA

Employed or self-employed
(absolute)
10.950
1.966
8.117
21.033

2.4

Emerging issues in the bachelor–master implementation

2.4.1

Transition from hbo bachelors to university masters programmes

(%)
96.5
96.0
97.0
96.6

When preparing the bachelor–master system it was assumed that the new system
would facilitate a smooth transition for hbo graduates who to a master degree in a
university. In this section this goal will be evaluated.
2.4.1.1 Situation before and after the introduction of the bachelor–master degrees

Already before the introduction of the bachelor–master system, hbo graduates could
continue their study career at a university. Universities had to offer these students a
programme which would allow them to graduate with an academic degree within a
maximum of three years (Vossensteyn & Goedegebuure, 1992).
Due to the introduction of the bachelor–master transition more (centralised)
attention was given to this particular group. The new system should in theory make
the transition easier with less hindrances and delays. Within the bachelor–master
system a bachelor degree gives access to a master degree. However this principal of the
Anglo-Saxon system is somewhat difficult in the Dutch Higher Education due to its
binary system.
To allow hbo bachelor graduates to continue their study career in a university
master it was understood that these students would have to follow mandatory courses

New Degrees in the Netherlands

33

(‘pre-master’ programmes) before they could be enrolled in the master programme.
These programmes aim to bridge the gap between the knowledge and competences of
hbo graduates20 and university master programme requirements. Therefore, the
programmes consist largely of elements not covered in the hbo bachelor curriculum,
e.g. research methodology, statistics and academic skills (Hogeterp & Kolster, 2005).
Most pre-master programmes for hbo students consist of 30 to 60 EC (half a year to a
full year).21 Depending on the length of the master programme (one year being the
minimum) a hbo student can often attain a university master degree in 1.5 to 2.5 years.
This is an improvement compared to the pre-2003 situation.
About five years after the introduction of the bachelor–master system all Dutch
universities have pre-master programmes in place. Admission to these programmes is
in principle open to every hbo bachelor. Nonetheless, universities can and do select
students on the basis of their previous education and after mandatory assessments
(taken before enrolment). These assessment mostly cover the knowledge of English
and/or mathematical proficiency (Kolster, 2007).
2.4.1.2 Cooperation between universities and hbo institutions

Regarding ‘pre-master’ programmes special attention must be given to the increasing
cooperation between universities and hbo institutions. Nowadays every Dutch
university has some sort of cooperation with one or more hbo institutions. Although
some universities and hbo institutions started exploring the opportunities for
cooperation before the introduction the bachelor–master system, it was certainly a
trigger for a more elaborated form of cooperation (Van Zoggel, 2005). Some
universities and hbo institutions formalised their cooperation by merging their
governance boards.22 Without going into much detail on the forms and extent of the
(institutional) arrangements, the cooperation holds advantages for hbo students, such
as that hbo bachelor students (in some cases a select group) often are given the
opportunity to follow pre-master courses during their bachelor curriculum,23 thus
gaining half a year. After successful completion of the pre-master and bachelor
programme these students are directly admissible in the academic master.

20

And other students with different competences, i.e. from other bachelor programmes, but here we
focus on the hbo bachelor holders.

21

An issue is if pre-master programmes are part of normal higher education, and with that, if students
have a right to the normal grants/loans. This issue, however, is not part of our evaluation.

22

Those of UvA-HvA, and VU-Windesheim.

23

Just like the ‘normal’ pre-master programmes, these courses mostly amount to 30 EC.

34

CHEPS

2.4.1.3 Progress on the hbo bachelor to university master goal

The introduction of the bachelor–master system and the developments of ‘pre-master’
programmes as separate programmes and programmes embedded in some hbo
curricula, appear to have made the transition easier in terms of required minimal time,
hindrances and barriers. Still, hbo students encounter problems in the transition,
mainly due to (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c):
(1) the diversity of admission criteria and
(2) the lack of governmental involvement in the pre-master programmes.
Both points have led to a non-uniform policy regarding tuition fees and students’
grants/loans, as well as regarding funding, quality assurance and recognition of the
pre-master programmes. Furthermore, the Inspection of Education underlined three
problems (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2007):
(1) the cultural differences between hbo and university sectors,
(2) the lack of involvement of the institutional leadership, and
(3) the lack of facilities.
On the positive side, the Inspection’s report concluded that the admission criteria had
been improved since 2005 and were sufficiently clear.
Considering that there are apparently fewer barriers than before, one might expect
growth in hbo graduates’ enrolling in university master programmes. However, the
introduction of the bachelor–master system did not include a goal to increase the
number of transitions from hbo institutions to universities (Ministerie van OCW, 2003).
In statistics on hbo bachelor graduates continuing their study career at a university,24
there is not a clear trend over the last fifteen years (see Fig. 4). From 1993 to 1996 there
was a rapid decrease from 16% to 8%, then between 1995 and 2004 the hbo inflow
doubled in absolute numbers (from around 3000 to over 6000). In percentages the
growth was somewhat less marked; from 8% in 1995 to almost 14% (around 8000
persons) in 2003 and 2004. Since then, figures have stabilised at around 7500, or almost
13% of all hbo bachelors. It is early to make definitive statements about trends, but
since the introduction of the bachelor–master reform absolute mobility between hbo

24

The numbers concern the total percentage of hbo bachelor graduates of academic year t enrolled in
university programmes in academic year t+1, regardless whether the programme is a bachelor or a
master. See also Kolster (2007).

35

New Degrees in the Netherlands

and universities did not increase. 25 In the academic year 2005/2006, this number of hbo
bachelors would make up over a quarter (27%) of all newly-enrolling master students
in universities; in 2006/2007 it would be 19% due to the quick growth of numbers of
master students.26 As the figure shows, not all hbo bachelor degree holders enter
master programmes (directly), so that these percentages cannot be taken at face value.
Yet this indicates that hbo bachelors make up a considerable part of the master
students in Dutch universities.

Fig. 4 Hbo bachelor graduates enrolling in university study programmes
(in % of hbo bachelors)
Source: Ministry OCW, based on 1cHO statistics

Looking at the figure in more detail, the reform towards the bachelor–master degrees
has been made quickly for this group of students: starting from zero in 2001, in 2004
practically all transitions from hbo-bachelors to university study programmes were to

25

VSNU’s calculation on 1cHO 2007 statistics indicate around 7500 students entering master degree
programmes in 2006 with an hbo history. This figure rose steadily over recent years and does not
include hbo inflow into bachelor and pre-master programmes.

26

Calculating from another base, the VSNU found that former hbo students made up 29% and 24% of
master

enrolments

in

these

years,

respectively

(www.vsnu.nl/web/show/id=96658/langid=43/

framenoid=41685/ langid=43/ secure=false, accessed 2008-07-21)

36

CHEPS

the bachelor and master programmes. It may seem remarkable that the large majority
of hbo-bachelors enter universities at the bachelor level rather than at the master level,
because they already hold a bachelor degree. Most likely, this is because pre-master
programmes are counted as part of the bachelor cycle.
In summary, the transition from hbo to university is serving a sizable minority of
students, but an hbo bachelor degree is still seen primarily as a qualification to enter
the labour market (Ministerie van OCW, 2005).

2.4.2

Diversity of master programmes

The diversity of types of names of master programmes has increased with the
bachelor–master degree reform. The Cohen Committee in 2001 had proposed a
classification into research programmes, study programmes for teacher training and
programmes preparing students for different functions in society; the former two
categories should be two-year programmes. A year later, the Reneman Committee
distinguished research programmes, professional ones and ‘domain’ (general) masters;
the committee also zoomed in on criteria for research masters (Witte, 2006, pp. 236,
244). Now, in 2008, the usual distinctions are between continuation masters
(‘doorstroommasters’), top or prestige masters and research masters; the professional
masters in the traditional professional areas in the universities mostly remain aloof of
the debate (medicine c.a., accountancy, etc.). The rationale behind allotting study
programmes to the different categories was not always clear (Inspectie van het
Onderwijs, 2005c). Another issue in this respect, also emerging in some of our
interviews, was an overall vision with regard to the desired numbers and types of
master programmes that seems to be lacking in the Netherlands.
As mentioned before, at least one ‘continuation master’ programme had to be
provided by the universities in connection with every bachelor study, to maintain the
idea that a ‘complete’ university education must be completed at the master level.
Accordingly, ‘standard’ master programmes can be found everywhere. They have a
size of 60 EC or in specific disciplines 120 EC. Entry is guaranteed to bachelor degree
holders from the ‘own’ programme; candidates with bachelor degrees from other
programmes must fulfil conditions with regard to knowledge, skills and competences
equivalent to the ‘own’ bachelors to gain entry. As the Inspection of Education
reported (2005c), most former graduation topics where converted to tracks or
specialisations within the new-style master programmes. These graduation topics are
not subject to separate accreditation and institutions can subsume as many as they like

37

New Degrees in the Netherlands

under a single master degree. On the other hand, accrediting all study specialisations
separately even if they have more than 70% of their courses in common (which is the
NVAO’s criterion to consider study programmes as basically the same) would clutter
the accreditation system.
Universities consider ‘top’ and ‘prestige’ master programmes important in their
profiling. The idea of top programmes entered the policy agenda with the Rinnooy Kan
Committee and the Minister’s reaction to it (Commissie-Rinnooy Kan, 2000; Ministerie
van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschappen, 2000). They were to be highly demanding
and should be able to attract talented students internationally (Witte, 2006, p. 250).
Moreover, since the introduction of the bachelor–master structure research master
programmes quickly gained popularity. By the end of 2006, 113 research master
programmes had been accredited (NVAO, 2007, p. 7), mostly in the humanities and
social sciences (see Tab. 5). ‘Top masters’ are not accredited separately, and are for that
reason not easily recognisable. Universities may use the adjective to distinguish master
programmes that aim to attract the very best students (internationally) and that tend to
prepare for a further research career, just like research master programmes. Top master
programmes tend to occur in the sciences. The reason for the popularity of ‘top’
masters rather than research masters may be that in these areas all master programmes
were already 120 EC programmes, so that they stood little to gain from official
recognition as research master programmes. In the humanities and social sciences, by
contrast, the recognition as a 120 EC programme instead of 60 EC does make a large
difference.
Tab. 5 Accredited Research Master programmes by disciplinary area

Number
%

Humanities

Social Sciences

52
46

49
43

Biomedical and
Geo Sciences
12
11

Total
113
100

Source: (NVAO, 2007)

Research master programmes admitted mostly between 10 and 60 students per year
each; the relatively low intake of students gave rise to some concern among
universities and stakeholders. To tackle the problem of low student numbers in
research master programmes, these programmes should be given a more distinctive
profile and awareness of them among the student population should be increased,
explaining moreover that these programmes are research-oriented, but do not
irrevocably mean definitive career decisions (Ministerie OCW, 2007). Moreover, it

38

CHEPS

should be stressed that research careers in the knowledge society are not limited to
universities, but also include research, design and innovation jobs in the rest of the
economy.
The quality of research master programmes is valued highly by the accreditation
committees in which the accreditation organisation NVAO cooperates with the Royal
Academy of Sciences KNAW. However, the level of diversity, the lack of an
unambiguous degree (although there are advantages and disadvantages to using the
M.Phil. title;27 interview 05-08), the local nature and high costs of these programmes
remain reasons of concern (ibid.).
Many interviewees were of the opinion that ‘top’ masters labels ought to be
abolished, because all masters are ‘top’ and the presence too many categories of master
programmes confuse the Dutch higher education ‘market’. The research master,
however, was universally seen as a good complement to the ‘normal’ masters. How the
diversity of master programme offerings was viewed abroad, was not part of our
interviews with international experts.

Fig. 5 Number of hbo Master degrees per year
Source: Ministry OCW, based on 1CijferHO statistics

In general, Dutch universities market themselves by emphasising their curricula, the
presence of a major-minor system, and the possibilities offered to study abroad and/or
do internships during one’s studies. There is a call for more graduates in science and

27

The main advantage of the M.Phil. is that it is a distinctive title; the main disadvantage that in some
(US) higher education systems it is seen as a ‘consolation prize’ for who dropped out of the Ph.D.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

39

engineering and, concerning language and literature studies, there are efforts to
increase the offer of these programmes in English to strengthen the international
position of Dutch programmes (HOOP, 2004)(NVAO, 2007, p. 39).
The development of further master programmes in hbo institutions was considered
an important policy goal (Staatssecretaris Hoger onderwijs, 2003). Master programmes
already existed in the hbo sector (e.g. in teacher training, arts, architecture) and have
been extended since the introduction of the bachelor–master system, especially in the
area of health (advanced nursing practice, physician assistant). Some of the hbo master
programmes in the heath sector receive public funding (Witte, 2006, pp. 235-236).
Nevertheless, the hbo institutions’ Executive Boards (‘Colleges van Bestuur’) consider
establishing new master programmes a frustrating task (Inspectie van het Onderwijs,
2005c, p. 37). Their main frustrations lie in the slow political decision-making process,
unfair competition from universities on funding,28 and issues related to the titles of
degrees in the Dutch binary system. Yet, according to an expert meeting (Inspectie van
het Onderwijs, 2006c, p. 7), hbo master programmes have considerable added value in
comparison with the old situation, particularly because of their explicitly professional
orientation. If this added value becomes apparent in the world of work, then the
funding problem might be resolved, according to this meeting’s report. Moreover, the
Minister recently approved a budget to fund these new master programmes, with € 5
million available in 2008, growing to € 20 million by 2011. The number of hbo master
degrees had been growing fairly steadily since 1992 (see Fig. 5, above). After the
introduction of the bachelor–master degrees, the growth seems to have sped up,
although it is too early to state so confidently.

2.4.3

The developments towards a third cycle and professional doctorates

Originally, the Bologna Declaration only mentioned two cycles, which became bachelor
and master in the Netherlands. In a ministers’ follow-up meeting, in Berlin in 2003, the
third cycle was added to the Bologna process (see chapter 4).
Compared with many participating, the Netherlands had already started
formalising the trajectory from master degree to doctor degree early on. Research
schools (‘onderzoekscholen’) had been organised in the Netherlands since the early 1990s
(Bartelse, 1999). The relationship between graduate study programmes (master
programmes) and the following trajectory may change because of the introduction of
28

Because the law classifies master programmes in universities as part of the initial, funded, phase rather
than the advanced, non-funded, phase as in the hbo sector.

40

CHEPS

the research master programmes, especially in the social sciences and humanities,
where the research master programmes are longer than the normal ones (120 instead of
60 EC). The expectation of reaching the Ph.D. degree in three instead of four years is the
most prominent potential change (NVAO, 2007, p. 39).
Another recent change with regard to the third cycle is the increased interest in
developing ‘professional doctorates’, alongside the traditionally research-oriented
Ph.D. degree (dr.). Plans for professional doctorates have been under development
among Dutch universities at least since 2005, building on earlier experiences with for
instance postgraduate designers’ programmes (‘ontwerpersopleidingen’), as in the
Technical University of Eindhoven (www.3tu.nl/en/education/sai). Professional
doctorates are shorter (two-year) study programmes oriented to professional practice,
with a high-level thesis focusing on research in practical situations. It leads to degrees
like (in Anglo-Saxon countries) DBA, Ed.D., MD, D.Eng., etc. In the Netherlands a
PD.+field title is used, e.g. PDEng. (Huisman & van der Wende, 2005).
Besides serving other professionals, professional doctorates might play a role in
upgrading of staff in hbo institutions, which in turn might add to the
professionalization of the education for undergraduate students in those institutions.
The Ministry OCW and the hbo sector agreed to stimulate upgrading of staff members,
expecting professional doctorates to play an important role (Staatssecretaris Hoger
Onderwijs, 2005b). Some universities are active in this area in a structured way (e.g.
University of Utrecht).
More recent developments with regard to professional doctorates were not found.

2.4.4

The development of short higher education programmes (associate degrees)

Another new type of degrees are the Associate Degrees (Ad), a new version of ‘short
hbo’ education, with a two-year (full-time) curriculum. Associate degrees are meant to
play a role in life-long learning, by giving opportunities to vocationally-trained persons
already on the labour market (‘mbo-4’ level). Shorter degrees than the bachelor are not
explicitly covered by the Bologna Declaration, but of course not forbidden by it either,
and exist in other countries as well (e.g. certificates and diploma’s in the UK and
Ireland). Experiments with associate degree programmes have begun in 2006-2007
(Staatssecretaris Hoger Onderwijs, 2005a). The first ten associate degree diplomas were
awarded in 2006-2007 (see also Fig. 3). The associate degrees will be evaluated
separately.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

3

Accreditation

3.1

Introduction of accreditation in national perspective

3.1.1

Policy initiatives

41

Accreditation of all study programmes leading to a bachelor or master degree was
introduced simultaneously with the new degree system itself. The WHW was changed
to include an independent national accreditation organisation instead of the brief
reference to a collective external quality assurance scheme. Accreditation was meant to
come ‘on top’ of the old external quality assurance scheme and as such did not replace
it. It should lead to more concise and easily understandable statements on the quality
of study programmes through the ‘approval stamp’ of accreditation, but not take away
from the improvement function of peer review—although some commentators
doubted this would be possible (Goedegebuure, Jeliazkova, Pothof, & Weusthof, 2002;
Westerheijden, 1997, 2003).
One of the elements of the previous quality assurance schemes in Dutch higher
education that met with ever decreasing support was that they were being coordinated
by the umbrella organisations of the higher education institutions themselves, the
VSNU and the HBO Raad. At first, in the mid-1980s (Ministerie van Onderwijs &
Wetenschappen, 1985), the umbrella organisations’ involvement had been a way to
gain support from the higher education institutions for quality assurance. Besides, the
organisational distance from the government was intended to strengthen the potential
for quality improvement. The necessary accountability and the rigorousness of the
quality assurance scheme were assured by the Inspection for Education (Jeliazkova &
Westerheijden, 2004; Scheele, Maassen, & Westerheijden, 1998). This arrangement was
considered a success and served as a model for other countries’ quality assurance
schemes, e.g. in Denmark and Portugal. Through the EU’s pilot project in quality
assurance and the activity of the VSNU the word was spread much wider (Amaral,
1994; Kern, 1998; Thune, 1994; Vroeijenstijn, 1995).
After about a decade of experience with this quality assurance scheme, it was
becoming a routine and the political and social support for it seemed to fade, as
mentioned above. In a way, the actors all got used to the processes and procedures and

42

CHEPS

knew ‘how to play the game’. In the new arrangement of the 2002 change of law, the
major change was the introduction of accreditation ‘on top of’ the quality assurance
system. Put succinctly: the external evaluation reports were too thick and too vague for
‘end users’ in society (students, parents, employers) to be useful and the simple
‘yes/no’ accreditation statement would radically change that. In the institutional
arrangement of accreditation, emphasis was put on:
•

credibility for accreditation by putting an independent organisation in charge;

•

transparency through clearly reasoned judgements on the quality of study
programmes;

•

clarity about administrative consequences in case of too low quality.

These points implied: first, establishing what became the NVAO as a ‘zelfstandig
bestuursorgaan (ZBO)’, an independent governmental agency for accreditation, which
was—second—working on the basis of a well-formulated framework and, third,
explicit formulation of consequences of non-accredited status for study programmes.
These consequences were:
o no recognition of the degree (cancellation from the CROHO);
o no grant/loan support for students enrolled in the programme;
o no public funding for the programme (only applicable to funded higher
education institutions).
Two other elements of the institutional arrangement were characteristic for the new
Dutch quality assurance scheme:
•

a diverse quality assurance system because several organisations can perform
external evaluations (the Dutch vbi’s: ‘visiterende en beoordelende instellingen’);

•

assurance of quality of non-funded higher education (‘aangewezen onderwijs’).

The diversity of quality assessment agencies (‘visiterende en beoordelende instellingen
(vbi’s)’) on the one hand ensured that the experience of VSNU and hbo Raad could be
kept in the system, although their evaluation departments had to be made into
independent organisations. On the other hand it opened the market on as equal a basis
as possible for private companies to become vbi’s. This was connected to an

43

New Degrees in the Netherlands

arrangement nowhere found, namely with separate organisations doing the evaluation
(vbi’s) and assessing them for accreditation (NVAO’s task; see Fig. 6).29
Opening the market with a ’level playing field’ was also a major drive behind the
other element, i.e. including non-funded higher education (‘aangewezen onderwijs’) in
the accreditation scheme.

Self-Eval uation
R eport

Stu dy Programme

Ext ernal
Eva luati on R eport

Quali ty
as ses smen t
agenc y (vbi )

Accreditati on
Decision (letter)

Accreditati on
Agency (NVAO )

Fig. 6 Accreditation scheme

3.1.2

Implementation of the accreditation scheme

The establishment of an independent accreditation agency had been prepared by a
‘trailblazer committee’ (Commissie Accreditatie Hoger Onderwijs, 2001) and the
Netherlands Accreditation Organisation (NAO) was established quickly after the law
had been adopted with strong representatives of the academic community in its board
to achieve credibility and acceptance by the higher education institutions.
Internationalisation developments quickly overtook the new-born organisation and on
3 September 2003 an international treaty was signed, merging the Dutch accreditation
organisation into the NVAO, the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation
(Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and
Flanders (NVAO), 2007, p. 22; "Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de
Vlaamse Gemeenschap van België inzake de accreditatie van opleidingen binnen het
Nederlandse en Vlaamse hoger onderwijs," 2003).30 The NVAO resides in The Hague,
with Dutch and Flemish staff members as well as Dutch and Flemish governors. The

29

It is well-established good practice in accreditation schemes to separate strictly the team making the
external evaluation and the board making the accreditation decision. However, making the separation
as strict as locating them in different organisations was a model only found in Germany, which had
established an accreditation scheme since 1999 (Schade, 2004).

30

Although the NVAO is a bi-national organisation, our report only concerns its operation in the
Netherlands.

44

CHEPS

committee of the two ministers responsible for higher education is the ultimate
administrative authority for the NVAO, but operationally it is autonomous
(http://www.nvao.net).
To avoid the NVAO immediately being flooded with accreditation requests, all
programmes were awarded de jure accreditation for (as a rule) six years after their
previous external review, until at the latest 2009. Already in 2003, the first Dutch study
programmes were accredited. Until April 2008, the NVAO made 1765 accreditation
decisions (see Tab. 6). The vast majority were positive decisions (accentuated by
coloured lines in the table): 1751 (99.2%) study programmes were accredited. Almost
half (49%) the accredited programmes were bachelor programmes, and the other half
(51%) master programmes (see fig. 7).31 As mentioned above, the majority (61%) of
accredited programmes are found in universities, with on average two master
programmes (715) for each bachelor programme (347). With that number of decisions
made, the NVAO is on schedule for completing the first round by the end of 2009, as
planned (interview 04-29).
Tab. 6 Accreditation decisions by NVAO (until 18-4-2008)

Subsector of higher education
Hbo – Bachelor

University – Bachelor
University – Master
Hbo – Master

Decision
Negative
VBI-report rejected
Probation
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Accredited
Negative (new programme)

Total
Source: www.nvao.net, accessed 2008-04-18.

31

The statistics do not distinguish between ‘initial’ and ‘post-initial’ master programmes.

Number
2
5
5
512
347
715
177
2
1765

45

New Degrees in the Netherlands

Wo-Ma Accredited
41%

Hbo-Ma
Accredited
10%

Hbo-Ma Negative
(new programme)
0%
Hbo-Ba Negative
0%
Hbo-Ba VBI-report
rejected
0%

Wo-Ba Accredited
20%

HBO-Ba Probation
0%
HBO-Ba Accredited
29%

Fig. 7 Division of positive accreditations across levels and subsectors
Source: www.nvao.net, accessed 2008-04-18.

Interestingly, not a single negative decision was made about university programmes
(university bachelor and university master). There may be several reasons, e.g. that
university programmes are better at fulfilling the accreditation criteria than those in
hbo institutions, or that the vbi’s active for university programmes give more positive
external evaluation reports, or that the universities avoid asking accreditation for
programmes that they expect to come out weak. It may not be possible to know which
of these options is the most likely, because the NVAO does not publish such
information. However, the NVAO mentions that 156 cases were stopped before an
accreditation decision was made, in practically all (153) cases because the higher
education institutions withdrew their requests (see Tab. 7). Moreover, the NVAO
mentions that some of the withdrawn requests concerned research master programmes
(which do not occur in the hbo sector). So we know that not all initiatives from
universities were successful, which implies that self-regulation under the threat of
possible negative accreditation was effective in universities. In other words: ‘There is
added value [in NVAO’s accreditation], but that materialises before the actual
accreditation process and not as a visible result of negative decisions’ (Committee for
the review of the Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and Flanders
(NVAO), 2007, p. 21). The international review committee noted that the test of new
study programmes (toets nieuwe opleiding) had a similar improvement effect.

46

CHEPS

Tab. 7 Stopped accreditation cases, by year

Withdrawn
Dismissed
Total

2003
2

2004
37

2005
39

2

37

39

2006
48
3
51

2007
27
27

Total
153
3
156

Source: http://nvao.net/beoordeelde-opleidingen, accessed 2008-04-26

Finally, the NVAO estimates that higher education institutions and quality assessment
agencies (vbi’s) together have stopped a number of study programme developments
and accreditation processes before they could reach the NVAO. This self-regulation of
the higher education system to withdraw low-quality plans may have affected
hundreds of initiatives, although actual numbers are not known. An indication will be
available at the end of the first round of accreditation in 2009: all ‘sleeping’
programmes, many of them in privately funded higher education institutions,32 are
then expected to be weeded out of the CROHO (Committee for the review of the
Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), 2007).

3.2

Impact of accreditation in a national perspective

3.2.1

Efficient and effective accreditation system

Does the Netherlands have an efficient and effective accreditation system? Some
figures with regard to effectiveness have been given above: the system adequately
performs its task to evaluate a large number of study programmes (Inspectie van het
Onderwijs, 2006a).
The accreditation system was introduced after thorough preparation, yet quickly in
international comparison. Procedures and regulations were incrementally adapted in
the first years of operation, learning from experiences. This ensured increasing
effectiveness, but also led to some dissatisfaction out of uncertainty among the vbi’s
and higher education institutions. After the Inspection’s mid-term review and in
association with the international review of the NVAO, some larger adaptations were
made (Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands
and Flanders (NVAO), 2007):
32

There were around 3,000 licences for study programmes in private higher education institutions at the
outset of the accreditation system (Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The
Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), 2007).

New Degrees in the Netherlands

•

47

Study programmes were given a period of one year to improve weaknesses, during
which their accreditation status was pending but not withdrawn as before
(‘statutory repair period’, more or less like a ‘probation’ period); the original
arrangement was deemed too strict;

•

The division of tasks between NVAO and vbi’s was clarified; for instance, decision
rules were formulated more extensively by the NVAO;

•

The order of initial accreditation and macro-efficiency check was reversed: first a
test of macro-efficiency (indicating the chance that public funding would become
available), and then the detailed accreditation of the study programme plans;

•

‘Special marks’ were introduced (NVAO, 2006). These were meant to enable
recognition of higher education institutions’ specific profiles and proven extra
quality, and thus to stimulate development of specific profiles.

The outcomes of the accreditation system give trustworthy information to users about
the quality of higher education: ‘The output of the system is and can be trusted by
students, employers and the general public’ (Committee for the review of the
Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), 2007, p. 21).
Is it also effective in improving quality? Low-quality programmes are not permitted
to operate, and higher education institutions to a very large extent ensure that the
accreditation requests are of a sufficient quality not to fail before they reach the NVAO.
In that sense, the accreditation system protects Dutch society against low-quality
higher education; the basic quality is assured. This effect is similar to the assurance of
basic quality under the old quality assessment system (Jeliazkova & Westerheijden,
2000). But the new accreditation system did put higher requirements on the internal
quality management of the higher education institutions, which is seen as a benefit for
quality (Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The
Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), 2007, p. 21).
Under the old system, it proved difficult to stimulate study programmes to engage
in continuous quality improvement above the level needed for positive evaluation
outcomes (Jeliazkova & Westerheijden, 2000). A similar situation prevails again: ‘There
is a very strong orientation on processes and procedures (which are rather formalistic
and legalistic) and there is too little attention paid to content and to quality
improvement above the threshold level’ (Committee for the review of the
Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), 2007, pp. 22,

48

CHEPS

23). This can be regarded as a result of the decision to make accreditation a yes/no
decision instead of a gradual grading system.33
To overcome the effect of no improvement above the threshold of basic quality, the
current accreditation system has introduced awarding special marks (see above) as a
way to introduce such stimuli. Between late 2006 and May 2008, three ‘special quality’
marks were awarded, and seven ‘special characteristics’ marks to Dutch higher
education programmes. ‘Special characteristics’ included for example attention to
sustainability in chemistry studies, and aspects of integrating practice into education.
‘Special quality’ was awarded to programmes with a high level of students’
performances (in two university bachelor programmes; one also recognised for its
efficiency), or with high quality staff (one hbo bachelor programme) (See:
www.nvao.net; accessed 2008-05-02). The fact that ‘special marks’ were awarded about
10 times in the first year indicates effectiveness. Special marks were expected to be
extraordinary, and then so many in the first year may indicate that there were many
programmes waiting for this occasion to arise. The special marks are too new to judge
if they will be effective in stimulating many study programmes in many higher
education institutions towards continuous quality improvement.
In a way, the separate accreditation of research master programmes can be seen as a
‘special mark’ accreditation, too (the research master programmes are treated in
§ 2.4.1).
Another, more basic way in which the accreditation system might stimulate further
quality improvement is by comparing one study programme with other similar
programmes in the Netherlands. The old quality assessment system relied largely on
this method, as visiting committees included as a rule all programmes in a disciplinary
area in their reports (in all protocols, e.g. hbo-Raad, 1990; VSNU, 1999). This idea was
abandoned with the accreditation of individual study programmes against certain
‘objective’ standards, partly based on the results of the study for the Court of Accounts
(Algemene Rekenkamer) which showed that this comparison was seen as no longer
providing a challenge to improve (Jeliazkova & Westerheijden, 2000). However, the
Dutch universities continued with their clustered evaluations as before, to allow for
national comparisons (Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of
The Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), 2007, p. 27). Also, student organisations
repeatedly voiced that they saw the national comparison as an important tool for

33

Accreditation systems with grades are rare worldwide, apparently because grades are not robust, e.g.
because accreditation is inherently too subjective as it is relying on (informed) peer review.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

49

student choice, apparently not trusting the accreditation standards to which all were
compared. Following this lead of universities and students, the Inspectorate remarked
that the hbo sector ought to increase the national comparability34 of accreditation
judgements (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2006b, p. 12).
Third, quality improvement could be stimulated by setting high standards. There
are, however, no objective means of judging standards in higher education
internationally. We can state, though, that the NVAO applies European standards with
regard to output levels, i.e. the Dublin Descriptors (which later have been incorporated
in European qualification frameworks). Also, the international review of the NVAO in
2007 did not note any problems with regard to standards applied (Committee for the
review of the Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO),
2007). Similarly, our international interviewees agreed that NVAO standards were
high and that Dutch students going abroad were well qualified.
Finally, the accreditation system could stimulate quality improvement by the
availability of diverse vbi’s. Diversity should stimulate profiling (just like ‘special
characteristics’) as well as—perhaps—setting higher standards than the minimum
required by the NVAO. With the introduction of the accreditation system, the market
for vbi’s was opened. The number of vbi’s that entered the Dutch market remained
limited, however. In 2008, the list of vbi’s ‘fulfilling the criteria to perform visitations’
on the NVAO-website included seven agencies. This is more than the two in the old
quality assessment system (VSNU and hbo Raad), but two of the seven are the
successor organisations to those of the umbrella organisations (QANU and NQA). One
had been active already among the privately funded higher education institutions
which had not been part of the old quality assessment system (Certiked). Three others
are specialised agencies for certain fields of knowledge (engineering, business studies,
public administration); two of these are based in Germany, one is a European
association. Moreover, the bulk of visitations are performed through QANU and NQA
among the publicly funded institutions and by Certiked among the privately funded
higher education institutions (interview 04-29). Accordingly, the market for vbi’s
remains in fact limited, and the stimulus for diversity of standards for individual study
programmes equally remains limited. It should be noted, besides, that evaluation
agencies known as setting high standards are not on the NVAO list and do not
34

For comparison of study programmes, other policy instruments are more suited than accreditation.
The Ministry of OCW since the 1980s supported the publication of printed comparative guides
(Keuzegids), and since early 2006 this has been stepped up to the interactive website
www.studiekeuze123.nl.

50

CHEPS

function within the current accreditation system. For instance, in the area of business
studies it is international good practice to strive for the ‘triple crown’ (accreditation by
AACSB, AMBA and EQUIS).35 Moreover, the international review of the NVAO
suggested that the open market system contributed to the ‘low trust’ in the
development of the accreditation system (Committee for the review of the
Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO), 2007, p. 6).
A debated issue is the efficiency of the system: is it a costly way of assuring basic
quality? The Inspection’s mid-term review concluded (Inspectie van het Onderwijs,
2005a, pp. 7-8):
The costs of accreditation for publicly funded higher education amount to ca. € 10 million per year.
This concerns 0.36% of the total of resources available to higher education on the national budget
2005. For private higher education, the costs can only be estimated globally to be € 2 to 3 million.
These sums contain the costs of institutions for the work of external organisations, the NVAO and
the vbi’s, and the government’s budget for the NVAO. Besides, institutions incur internal costs for
accreditation, especially for composing a self-evaluation. Crucial is which of these costs can (may)
be ascribed to the accreditation and which to the internal quality management of the institution.36

The tariffs of the different vbi’s were quite similar, but from the point of view of higher
education institutions costs could be reduced by clustering accreditation processes of
similar programmes (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005a, p. 8).
Higher education institutions that did not have extensive internal quality
management until 2003 had to invest in upgrading these activities; this applied
especially to universities and to privately funded higher education institutions
(Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005a, p. 8). For the whole country, this may have meant
additional costs of about € 1 million per year. Other elements increasing the costs of the
accreditation system included:

35

Such triple accreditation may be more of a marketing tool than actual proof of high quality, but the
point is that profiling using quality arguments is not limited to the ‘official’ accreditation system.

36

Authors’ translation. Original: ‘De kosten van accreditatie bedragen in het bekostigd onderwijs zo’n €
10 mln. per jaar. Het gaat om 0,36% van het totaal aan middelen dat overeenkomstig de Rijksbegroting
in 2005 beschikbaar is voor de toerusting van het hoger onderwijs. Voor het aangewezen onderwijs
kunnen de externe kosten slechts globaal worden geschat op € 2 à 3 mln. Alle bedragen omvatten de
kosten die de instellingen maken voor het werk van de externe organisaties, de NVAO en de VBI’s, en
de rijksbijdrage aan de NVAO. Daarnaast maken de instellingen ook interne kosten voor de
accreditatie, met name voor het opstellen van een zelfevaluatie. Cruciaal is hier welke kosten aan
accreditatie kunnen (mogen) worden toegerekend en welke aan de interne kwaliteitszorg van de
onderwijsinstelling.’

51

New Degrees in the Netherlands

•

Tax regime: vbi’s are subject to VAT (BTW), increasing the total cost by circa € 1
million per year;

•

Splitting old university programmes into bachelor and master phases that were to
be accredited separately led to cost increases of ca. € 0.5 million per year;

In the same report, the Inspectorate also mentioned some aspects reducing the costs of
the accreditation system, such as the longer cycle (six instead of five years, but the
actual cycle under the old quality assessment system was longer than the official five
years, especially in the hbo sector), a shift of government subsidies and the expectation
that efficiency gains could be made in later years by the higher education institutions
after building up their internal quality management systems.37

3.2.2

Improvement of quality and effectiveness of accreditation in Dutch-Flemish
cooperation

The NVAO is a unique organisation among accreditation agencies, because it operates
in the two distinct higher education systems of Flanders and the Netherlands. This
report only concerns the functioning of NVAO in the Netherlands. However, the
international committee reviewing the NVAO in 2007 made some suggestions to
increase the similarity between the Dutch and Flemish accreditation systems, because
notwithstanding

some

inevitable

political

and

legislative

differences

more

harmonisation would be possible and, according to the Committee, desirable
(Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and
Flanders (NVAO), 2007, p. 27, not repeating elements mentioned before):
• Introduction of protection of academic titles in the Netherlands;
• Harmonisation of accreditation cycles.
The Committee feared that the absence of legal protection of titles in the Netherlands
still would leave openings to providers offering non-accredited programmes. The
Flemish legal protection of titles would protect society better against rogue higher
education.
The Committee was also afraid that the faster pace of accreditation (six-year cycle)
in the Netherlands, compared with the eight-year one in Flanders, might lead to
problems, including loss of quality improvement, using up all available peers as
37

The VSNU investigated the additional costs of proposed legal changes in 2006, but hardly commented
on the accreditation costs on that occasion .

52

CHEPS

reviewers, and higher costs. As the design for the next cycle is already under
discussion, and the ministers concerned already replied to these and other remarks
from the review committee (Plasterk & Vandenbroucke, 2008), in the current report we
will not to go into that discussion in-depth.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

4

53

International reflection on the bachelor–master structure

In this chapter an international perspective on the implementation of the bachelor–
master system and accreditation system will be presented. To provide the broad
background, a brief overview will be given of the progress of the Bologna Declaration
(1999). In the following sections two key components of the Bologna Declaration,
namely the introduction of the Bachelor–master structure and accreditation will be
treated from an international perspective. Then sections follow concerning curriculum
innovations and international student mobility. The final section of this chapter
presents elements of the international perception of Dutch higher education as
evidenced by interviews.

4.1

The Bologna process

In this section the Bologna process will be briefly examined. First an historical
overview of the main points evolved from the Bologna process will be given. Second,
the overall progress of the Netherlands in relation to the other participating countries
will be discussed.

4.1.1

Historical overview of the Bologna process

The Bologna Declaration triggered changes in higher education systems throughout
the counties who signed the treaty. Originally, there were 29 signatory parties, which
increased to 46 now, including all 27 EU member states. The ultimate aim of the
Bologna Declaration was to construct a single European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) by 2010 through increased compatibility and comparability of higher
education systems, in order to facilitate internal mobility for students, graduates and
higher education institution staff members, but also to make European higher
education more recognisable and attractive to students and scholars from outside
Europe. The original declaration consisted of six action lines. In later ministerial
summit meetings new issues were added to the action lines. The action lines are:38
38

http://bologna-project.pbwiki.com/Bologna Action Lines (accessed 2008-04-15).

54

CHEPS

Bologna conference (1999)

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees
Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles
Establishment of a system of credits
Promotion of mobility
Promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance
Promotion of the European dimension in higher education

Prague conference (2001)

7. Focus on Lifelong learning
8. Inclusion of higher education institutions and students
9. Promoting the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area
Berlin conference (2003)

10. Doctoral studies and the synergy between the European Higher Education Area
and the European Research Area.
In 2005 the conference was held in Bergen. Here two main points were addressed:
(1) Achieving the goals, via partnerships, social dimension and external dimension,
and (2) Emphasis on implementation of action lines.
The most recent ministerial follow-up conference was held in London in 2007. This
conference resulted in a more intense focus on the (1) social dimension (students in
Higher Education should be a reflection of the demographic diversity in the society),
(2) external dimension (informing the world about the Bologna-process), and (3) data
collection (to enhance the comparability). In 2009 the follow-up conference will be
organised in Leuven by the Benelux countries and will focus on the continuation of the
Bologna process after 2010.

4.1.2

The Bologna process and the Netherlands

In preparation for the 2005 Bergen conference the first Bologna Process Stocktaking
was produced for the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG). This stocktaking exercise
gave an overview of the progress on the action lines for all the countries involved in
the Bologna process (now 46 in total). It did so mostly on the basis of standardised
national reports submitted by the participating countries’ authorities. In 2007 a second
Stocktaking report was produced in preparation for the London (Stocktaking Working

55

New Degrees in the Netherlands

Group 2005-2007, 2007). The stocktaking results were summarised into a brief list of
indicators.39
The 2007 Stocktaking Report divided the Bologna process in five pillars with twelve
‘indicators’ related to the action lines. As the implementation of the bachelor–master
system and accreditation system will be discussed later in this chapter, our focus now
will be on the other action lines. These other action lines fall under the pillars:
•

recognition of degrees and study periods,

•

life-long learning, and

•

joint degrees.
In the following, we shall apply the ‘pillars’ of the 2007 Stocktaking report, and

integrate major findings of the European University Association’s (EUA) Trends V
report (Crosier, Purser, & Smidt, 2007). The EUA published studies among universities
in the ever expanding Bologna area before each of the follow-up conferences,
anticipating and counterbalancing the stocktaking reports that are focused at the
national level.

4.1.3

Recognition of degrees and study periods

The pillar ‘recognition of degrees and study periods’ consists of three indicators,
namely:

(1) stage

of

implementation

of

diploma

supplement,

(2) national

implementation of the principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, and (3) stage
of implementation of ECTS.
4.1.3.1 Stage of implementation of diploma supplement

The Diploma Supplement ‘is an instrument to improve transparency - developed to
describe the nature, context, content and status of the studies successfully completed and which all Bologna governments pledged to provide to all students free of charge
by 2005’ (Crosier et al., 2007, p. 65).
The Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science reported in its latest national
report (2006) that it estimated 75% of the bachelor and master graduates of universities
received their diploma supplement automatically. The other 25% received the diploma

39

It must be borne in mind that these are only official indicators, self-reported and not checked. To what
extent these national reports reflect the actual state of affairs ‘at the chalk-face’ of higher education
remains an open question. The EUA’s Trends reports may give some indication of precisely that,
especially since they consist not only of questionnaires but also involve site visits.

56

CHEPS

supplement upon request. No information was available from the hbo institutions.
Since higher education institutions are by law obliged to give diploma supplements
(art. 7.11 lid 3 WHW), one might expect that all students received it automatically.
Since this is not the case, the 2007 stocktaking report gave the Netherlands four points
(out of maximum five). This placed the Netherlands behind 27 other participating
countries that all scored a five. Noteworthy is that, although the definition did not
change, the Netherlands received a lower ranking in 2007 than in 2005.
The 75% figure—if sustained in the hbo sector—would compare favourably with
the European average: just under half the higher education institutions responded to
the EUA that they issued the diploma supplement as a standard procedure (Crosier et
al., 2007).
4.1.3.2 National implementation of the principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention

The ‘Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in
the European Region’ (Lisbon Recognition Convention) is a treaty (CETS No. 165)
signed by 45 countries inside and outside the EU. The treaty deals, among other things,
with recognition of prior received qualifications by international students and the
acceptance of international students in national higher education systems based on
their qualifications. Although the Netherlands signed the treaty in 2002, it has not been
ratified until now. Since ratification was the indicator for the 2007 Stocktaking report
the Netherlands scored poorly (1 out of 5). The principles of recognition are being
applied in practice, and the Dutch agency involved in the ENIC/NARIC networks for
recognition, Nuffic, is generally seen as one of the most active and expert organisations
of its kind in Europe. Nonetheless formally this is by far the weakest point in the
implementation of the Bologna process in the Netherlands in comparison to the other
participating countries.
4.1.3.3 Stage of implementation of ECTS

Just as the introduction of two cycles of the bachelor–master structure, the
implementation of the ECTS began in 2002. The usage of ECTS is 100% in the first and
second cycles of Dutch higher education. Hence in both Stocktaking reports the
Netherland scores the maximum 5. In 2005 the Netherlands was among 20 other
participating countries, in 2007 this number increased to 27. An issue for the future in
this respect is the application of the credits system in third-cycle programmes.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

4.1.4

57

Lifelong learning and national qualifications framework

‘“New style” qualifications frameworks are tools that are designed with the goals of
making qualifications more transparent and learning paths more (Crosier et al., 2007, p.
65). Two European-level qualifications frameworks have been developed. First, the
higher education ministers in the Bologna process agreed on a formulating a
qualifications framework for higher education, based on the Dublin Descriptors
developed at the beginning of the Bologna process (Westerheijden & Leegwater, 2003).
Soon after, this was integrated in the European Parliament’s qualifications framework
all levels of learning, clearly in the context of developing life-long learning across the
continent.
During the Bergen follow-up conference (2005) it was decided that the participating
countries should improve recognition of prior learning of individuals. The goal was to
stimulate the lifelong learning principle by stimulating individuals’ access to higher
education on the basis of their experience, instead of only on academic qualifications.
The 2007 London conference’s communiqué reiterated this goal: ‘Fair recognition of
higher education qualifications, periods of study and prior learning, including the
recognition of non-formal and informal learning, are essential components of the
EHEA, both internally and in a global context’ (Ministers responsible for Higher
Education, 2007, p. § 2.5).
The Netherlands has some policies in place to support recognition of prior learning.
Nonetheless a formal nation-wide qualifications framework40 is missing, so that
assessment of prior learning is not based on uniform guidelines across the country.
‘The idea of qualifications frameworks is to provide the overarching system-level
architecture into which individual qualifications fit. Their purpose is to enhance
transparency, and to make it understandable to citizens how qualifications can be used
in a variety of ways – whether for further study or for the labour (Crosier et al., 2007).
Because of this, access to higher education programmes and allocation of credits
toward a qualification and/or exemption from programmes requirements are not made
according to the same standards by all institutions involved. For that reason the 2007
stocktaking report gave the Netherlands 3 out of 5. In comparison: 17 countries scored
5 out of 5 and 11 countries scored 4 out of 5. Nevertheless, only three countries
(Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom) have published fully-developed national
qualification frameworks until 2007 (Crosier et al., 2007, p. 65).
40

This is still not fully implemented. The stakeholders are currently discussing the possibilities
(interview 05-13).

58

CHEPS

4.1.5

Establishment and recognition of joint degrees

The establishment and recognition of joint degrees is strongly promoted by the EU and
involved institutions. The London follow-up conference mentioned in this respect: ‘at
national level, we will work to implement fully the agreed recognition tools and
procedures and consider ways of further incentivising mobility for both staff and
students. This includes encouraging a significant increase in the number of joint
programmes …’ (Ministers responsible for Higher Education, 2007, § 2.3, emphasis
added).
Although the Netherlands belong to the countries with a relatively high degree of
participation in study programmes in which higher education institutions from several
countries take part (Crosier et al., 2007), regulation of the ensuing degrees is still only
partially in place. Double-degree programmes (two participating higher education
institutions from different countries both issue a diploma to graduates) are not
uncommon, but as yet legislation is lacking to establish joint degrees (with cooperation
among several higher education institutions from different countries leading to a single
diploma for graduates, e.g. in Erasmus Mundus programmes). Legislation is currently
being prepared and has been promised to Parliament for 2008 (Tweede-Kamerstuk
2007-2008; 31288, nr. 18; interview 05-13).
It seems that many other participating countries are more or less in the same
situation. The Netherlands is amongst a group of 16 countries in which legislation does
not specifically refer to joint degrees or where legislation is being prepared
(Stocktaking Working Group 2005-2007, 2007). These countries score 4 out of 5. The
remaining participating countries all score 5 out of 5, i.e. these countries have
implemented legislation which allows and encourages establishing joint degrees.
An issue in establishing and officially recognising (e.g. through accreditation) joint
degrees are the different variants of bachelor–master systems across countries. For
instance, in Germany two-year master programmes are the rule, making cooperation
with one-year programmes in the Netherlands problematic. Another German rule of
behaviour is that study programmes should not last longer than five years in total,
making cooperation of hbo institutions (with their four-year bachelor cycle) in twoyear master programmes difficult (Nickel, Westerheijden, & Zdebel, 2008). This is not
to say that all adaptations have to be made in the Dutch regulation; e.g. the five-year
rule is not a legal rule, but just a (hard to change) rule of thumb in Germany.
Another problem that hbo institutions may run into is that in Flanders and many
other higher education systems ‘professional master programmes’ are either not

New Degrees in the Netherlands

59

recognised or viewed with suspicion as the term is used to cover many different and
not always trusted study programmes in those countries (Crosier et al., 2007).
There also are complications with regard to accreditation of cross-border study
programmes: legal regulations are geared to programmes operating purely within the
national borders and often in the legal seats of the higher education institutions. Joint
programmes often have to be accredited twice, or special arrangements have to be
negotiated ad hoc (Nickel et al., 2008). Again the details of different regulations across
countries pose problems that are hard to overcome, e.g. the prohibition against issuing
B.A. or B.Sc. in Dutch hbo institutions, whereas their German counterparts are allowed
to use those titles (Nickel et al., 2008).

4.1.6

European curriculum innovation projects

On a formal level, the Bologna process is concerned with harmonising degree
structures, quality assurance schemes such as accreditation, organising courses
according to ECTS, etc., but does not directly influence the content of study
programmes in higher education. If—and if so to what extent—curricula are innovated,
depends more on stimuli at the national and institutional levels (Witte, 2006).
Curriculum innovation initiatives across European country borders are mostly
found in double or joint degree projects, and in the large project ‘Tuning educational
structures in Europe’, commonly called ‘Tuning’ (http://tuning.unideusto.org/
tuningeu/). The aim of this multi-year project, funded with support of the EU’s
Socrates programme, it to reach agreement among academic teaching staff from many
different countries at the level of certain disciplines, to reach agreement on common
requirements in terms of learning outcomes and competences for a master degree in for
instance history or education. One of the two general coordinators is Robert Wagenaar
of the University of Groningen; obviously then, Dutch higher education plays a role in
this curriculum innovation project.

4.2

Bachelor–master degrees in an international perspective

The implementation of the bachelor–master system in the Netherlands was triggered
by the Bologna declaration in 1999, just as in many other signatory countries. This
gives the unique opportunity to evaluate the introduction of the bachelor–master
system in the Netherlands in relation to introduction of what is nominally the same
system in the other participating countries. Before going in to the actual
implementation, two indicators taken from the Stocktaking reports (2005 and 2007),

60

CHEPS

will be discussed. These issues are: access to the next cycle and implementation of a
national qualification framework.

4.2.1

Stocktaking indicators

The ‘access to the next cycle’ indicator measures to what degree first cycle qualification
give access to second cycle programmes and to what degree second cycle qualifications
give access to third cycle programme. Access is defined as: ‘The right of qualified
candidates to apply and to be considered for admission to higher education’ (art. 1 of
the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in
the European Region, 1997). In the 2007 stocktaking report there were 37 countries that
received the maximum score (5 out of 5). The Netherlands was among this group.
Therefore this part of the implementation of the bachelor–master structure seems to be
well implemented in the Dutch Higher Education system. The Netherlands made
progress on this indicator since 2005. The 2005 Stocktaking report gave the Netherlands
on this point 4 out of 5, which meant ‘there is relatively smooth access for the majority
of students with minor structural or procedural problems’.
The indicator ‘implementation of a national qualification framework’ was
introduced in the 2007 Stocktaking report as agreed in the Bergen follow-up conference
(2005). In Bergen the ministers had agreed that participating countries should have
started work on the national qualification framework by 2007. As mentioned above, the
Netherlands national qualification framework is in preparation, and will be designed
in conjunction with the overarching qualification framework for the EHEA.41 Hence the
Netherlands scored 3 out of 5. With this score the Netherlands is among 10 other
countries, ahead of 24 countries, but lagging behind 11 countries.

4.2.2

International perspective on the bachelor–master transition

4.2.2.1 Introduction of two-cycle degree system

Since the implementation of the two cycles of the bachelor–master system is an event
taking place internationally, a comparison on the progress can be made. Both
stocktaking reports (2005 & 2007) included the indicator ‘stage of implementation of
the first and second cycle’. Both times, the Netherlands scored 5 out of 5. In 2005, 16
41

From the Trends V report it appeared that having a national qualifications framework is not sufficient:
the higher education institutions must know it and work with it, which in 2006-2007 only seemed to be
the case in Ireland.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

61

other countries also had the maximum score; in 2007 this number had grown to 22 (out
of 45). This shows that the Netherlands went ahead fast with introducing the bachelor–
master system (cf. also Witte, 2006). For instance, even some neighbouring countries
were less advanced in 2007: Belgium (Flemish community) scored 4 out of 5 and
Germany 3 out of 5. This means that Flanders had 60% to 89% of its students in the
two-cycle system, and Germany 30% to 59%. Flanders expected to complete the
introduction of the two-cycle system in 2008-2009 (with the exception of some master
with a longer than average duration) (Ministry of Education and Training, 2006).
Germany expected the transition to be completed by 2010 (Bundesministerium für
Bildung und Forschung, 2006).
4.2.2.2 Articulation of the two cycles: independence and transition

The intention of the two-cycle degree system in the Bologna Declaration was,
amongst other things, to introduce a shorter study programme than the long singlecycle degree usual on the European continent in order to get more graduates with
some higher education experience on the labour market rather than have dropped-out
students without any certification of the qualifications they gained in their years of
experiencing higher education. Hence the emphasis in the Bologna Declaration on
establishing a first cycle leading to ‘...degree ... [which] shall also be relevant to the
European labour market as an appropriate level of qualification’ (European Ministers
Responsible for Higher Education, 1999). As an almost self-evident condition for the
first degree, i.e. the bachelor degree, to be accepted as relevant, the first phase must be
seen in society as an independent course of study. The independent status was stressed
in the Bologna Declaration by stating: ‘Access to the second cycle shall require
successful completion of first cycle studies’. In terms of the current discussion in the
Netherlands: a ‘hard cut’ between the bachelor and master cycles was presupposed.
This was also the situation in the ‘model’ countries that already had a mature two-cycle
degree system, such as the United Kingdom and the United States. The normal
expectations of students first entering higher education would be to take a three-year
or four-year study programme,42 leading to a bachelor degree. The bachelor degree is
the normal degree with which to enter the labour market.43 For instance, in 2005/2006
in the USA 1,485,000 bachelor degrees were awarded and master degrees amounted
42

In the United Kingdom, a bachelor study usually takes three years, in the United States it is a four-year
study. In some cases, after four years, students in Britain may obtain a bachelor honours degree.

43

In academic professions such as law and medicine, entry to the profession requires a master degree,
which in some case in the UK (but not in the USA) can be taken as a single-cycle, four-year study.

62

CHEPS

only to 40% of that number (694,000) according to federal statistics (http://nces.ed.gov/
programs/digest/d07/, table 258, accessed 2008-07-21). Achieving a master degree in the
UK or USA might follow ‘end-on’ (i.e. directly after the bachelor cycle), but equally
could be taken—if at all—after some years of working experience. For instance,
business schools as a rule require MBA students to have a number of years of working
experience. In those countries, moreover, it is self-evident that entry into a master
study requires a completed bachelor degree and a selection process.
On the European continent, the traditional university view that ‘full’ higher
education means achieving a master degree remained strong. The Netherlands are not
the only country where initially students were more or less given the right to continue
master-level studies after obtaining a bachelor degree. In combination with a practice
employing smooth transition regulations rather than strict selection, this undermined
the independent status of the new and therefore still little-recognised bachelor degree.
A very pertinent example comes from Switzerland. As in the Netherlands, in
Switzerland the degree system was reformed in line with the Bologna Declaration, and
originally the view prevailed that ‘complete’ higher education meant obtaining a
master degree. Again like in the Netherlands, a type of ‘continuation master’ existed in
which students could enter without further requirements beyond having the
appropriate type of bachelor degree (Schweizerische Universitätskonferenz, 2006, art 33); in practice a ‘hard cut’ was not maintained, it appears. This situation has been
changed recently to boost the acceptance of the bachelor degree as an independent,
complete higher education degree. Universities are no longer obliged to offer one or
more master programmes without selection requirements. They are still free to do so,
thus opening up an area where higher education institutions can distinguish
themselves from each other in their approach to students with regard to their
admission strategy to master programmes. The development is too recent to find fullfledged university admission strategies in public sources until the end of this report’s
editing.

4.2.3

Developments in curriculum and student mobility

4.2.3.1 European curriculum innovation projects

Due to the increased compatibility of higher education systems throughout Europe
aimed at by the Bologna Process and the concomitant introduction of bachelor–master
systems in many countries, the idea was that more joint education projects between
higher education institutions in the participating countries would emerge.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

63

Regarding the highest level of integration, i.e. study programmes leading to a joint
degree given out on behalf of several higher education institutions, the WHW
legislation requiring most Master programmes to total 60 EC, together with the
programme accreditation requirements, make development and awarding of joint
degrees with higher education institutions in other countries difficult in the
Netherlands (see also § 4.1.5). Also based on the national reports submitted for the
Stocktaking reports (2005 & 2007) we can conclude that the Netherlands is lagging
behind in comparison to many neighbouring countries, although some interviewees in
Sweden and Denmark observed that joint degrees were not simple to organise in their
countries either (interviews 04-24b; 04-25).
Looking more generally at joint and double degrees, interviewees from several
countries remarked that Dutch higher education institutions are very active at the
European level (interviews 04-24c, 04-29c, 05-07). Likewise, the Trends V report noted
that the Netherlands are in the vanguard together with Germany, France, Italy, Spain
and the UK (Crosier et al., 2007, p. 30; cf. also Bundesministerium für Bildung und
Forschung, 2006).
Having a legal framework to support joint and double degrees can be an important
stimulus. For instance, in Flanders four years after introducing the legal framework in
which international joint and double degrees can be awarded and recognised at all
levels and cycles and one year after introducing a decree on the establishment of
measures for restructuring and flexibility in higher education, every university and
almost all hogescholen had become active in the field of joint and double degrees
(Ministry of Education and Training, 2006). A similar situation exists in Germany,
where appropriate legislation has been in place ‘for many years’ and ‘German higher
education institutions participate in almost half of the Masters programmes funded by
Erasmus Mundus’ (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2006).

4.2.4

Student mobility

Improving student mobility was prominent in the introduction of the bachelor–master
system (IJkpuntenbrief, Staatssecrtetaris Hoger Onderwijs, 2003). The goal was to
increase both the inflow of foreign students and outflow of Dutch students.
Looking at all forms of registered mobility, in the academic year 2003/2004 close to
50,000 international students studied in the Netherlands and over 18,000 Dutch
students studied abroad. While the number of international students in the Dutch
higher education system has consistently increased, the number of Dutch students

64

CHEPS

abroad seems to have declined in the recent years. This section presents some evidence
on the main trends in terms of student mobility in Dutch universities and compares the
evidence with that in other countries, although it is too early to draw any conclusive
generalisations as to their connection with the bachelor–master degrees. It has to be
recognised that international comparative data on various higher education
internationalisation measures have been constantly improved, yet many challenges
remain. For example, not all mobile students are administered and some numbers are
therefore missing or underestimated; separation between degree mobility44 and credit
students45 is not always applied consistently across countries, which makes crosscountry comparison difficult; and data from various sources (UNESCO, OECD, Nuffic)
often give considerably different impressions although all can claim to be authoritative
data sources. Therefore the evidence presented below should be interpreted as an
illustration of general trends rather than as hard and definitive facts.
The number of international students in the Netherlands, as we mentioned, has
consistently increased since the end of 1990s. According to the estimates by Nuffic,
about 49,750 international students studied in the Netherlands in the year 2006. This
estimate includes students who study towards a Dutch higher education degree as well
as mobility for credits. International students make up about 8.7% of all students in
Dutch higher education institutions (Nuffic, 2006).
Figure 4 presents trends percentages of international degree students since 1999 in
the Netherlands and the other EU countries. The Netherlands (the heavy line in the
figure) is slightly below the EU average in terms of the proportion of international
students. Especially France, the United Kingdom and Austria stand out as countries
with high percentages of foreign students. The percentage of international students in
the Netherlands increased significantly between 2002 and 2004 but the trend stabilised
after that. The consistent growth in international student numbers characterises many
European countries and leaves the relative position of the Netherlands more or less
unchanged (Nuffic, 2006).

44

Degree mobility means that students go abroad for a whole study programme, obtaining a degree from
a foreign higher education institution. For degree mobility, the crucial question is if the foreign degree
will be recognised at the appropriate level in their home country.

45

Credit students or credit mobility denotes students going abroad for one or several course modules,
returning to their home country (and home institution) to obtain their degree. For credit mobility, the
recognition of credits is the major issue (for which ECTS was developed).

65

New Degrees in the Netherlands

20
18
16

UK
AT

% Foreign students

14

FR

12
10
8

NL

6
4
2
0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Fig. 8 Proportion of international students in EU countries, 1999-2006 (except Luxemburg and
Cyprus)
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Data Centre online

The majority of international students in the Netherlands hail from Germany (13,900 or
28% of all international students), followed by China (4,950), Belgium (2,400), and
Spain (2,000). The relative position of these countries has been quite stable over recent
years. While the number of German students has consistently increased over the years,
the number of Chinese students has somewhat declined. The loss of students from
China is related to developments in the Chinese as well as in the Dutch higher
education systems. The Chinese higher education system has considerably developed
and is now able to accommodate a larger share of its own students. On the Dutch side,
the tuition for non-EU students has been increased and an emphasis on quality
requirements rather than student numbers has been strengthened, e.g. through the
introduction of the Neso certificate (Nuffic 2006).46
The most popular areas of study at publicly funded higher education institutions
among foreign students are Economics and Behaviour & Society. Economics is growing
in popularity; foreign enrolment in Agriculture dropped significantly (with fewer

46

The Neso Certificate provides an assessment of the candidate’s proficiency in English and of the
educational diplomas needed for admission to a Dutch higher education institution.

66

CHEPS

Chinese students in particular). Most foreign students in publicly funded education are
following a bachelor’s programme.
Moving from inbound to outbound mobility, the number of Dutch students
studying abroad for a degree dropped in the year 2000 but started to increase again
somewhat in early 2000s (Nuffic, 2006). According to UNESCO data, the total number
of Dutch students abroad dropped from 13,090 in 1999 to 10,284 in 2006 (UNESCO; see
also Fig. 9). The proportion of Dutch students abroad is around 2.4 per cent, which is
somewhat below the EU average of 2.6% (Nuffic, 2006). Currently the UK and Belgium
are the primary destinations for Dutch students in the UNESCO statistics, followed by
Germany and United States. Seventy-five percent of Dutch students going abroad have
chosen another EU Member State as host country.
20
18

GR

16

MT

% Outward mobility

14
12

IE

10
8
6
4

NL

2
0
1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

Fig. 9 Proportion of students from EU countries studying abroad, 1999-2006 (except
Luxemburg and Cyprus)
Source: UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Data Centre online

In terms of credit mobility, the number of students who were mobile during their
studies peaked in 2000 and then started to decline (Fig. 10). One of the possible
hypotheses for this decline links it with the introduction of the bachelor–master
system,47 although it is too early to draw any final conclusions and other factors may

47

This explanation was reiterated by Nuffic general director Van der Eijnden in an interview with NRC
Handelsblad, 2008-06-24 ‘Animo voor Erasmusbeurs in Nederland daalt’: it is not distinctive among

New Degrees in the Netherlands

67

equally explain the decline (Nuffic 2006). In the hbo sector a similar decline started
already in 1999. An alternative explanation links the decline in the hbo mobility with
the economic boom in the Netherlands around the year 2000 (Nuffic 2006).

Fig. 10 Percentage of relevant outbound credit mobility in percentages by higher education
sector (1997/1998-2004/2005; dark = hbo, light = university)

Source: Nuffic 2006:44.
The one-year master programmes are a factor that influences student mobility. Often
these programmes are deemed too short to include a period of study abroad. Also,
several programmes had to abandon joint programme agreements because of the
prohibitive costs involved, in that way detracting from the recognition of Dutch higher
education abroad (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2007, p. 7).
Comparing the different implementation strategies of the bachelor–master systems
of the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany no clear distinction in effects on the student
mobility can be seen. All three countries seem to have more inflow of students from
foreign countries each year. In these countries the outflow seems to remain quite
constant, except for Germany which shows an upwards trend.48
In sum, the Netherlands seem to have become somewhat more attractive for foreign
students in the last ten years, but relatively to other EU countries the ranking of the

students to be mobile in the fairly similar European higher education systems and they rather study for
a period outside Europe.
48

Eurostat: Mobility of students in Europe; Tertiary Education (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/)

68

CHEPS

Netherlands hardly changed. Regarding outward mobility, the proportion of students
going abroad either for a full degree or for credit mobility seems to have dropped
rather than increased. We repeat our caveat that the time series since the introduction
of the bachelor–master system have been too short, and the figures from different
sources too contradictory to draw definitive conclusions.

4.3

Implementation of accreditation in Europe

4.3.1

Position of the Netherlands in comparison to other EU-countries

The Bologna process was used in many countries to reform elements of their higher
education systems (Witte, 2006). These included curricula and quality assurance
arrangements in a number of cases. After 1999, accreditation became an increasingly
popular manner of quality assurance; it had been so in Central and Eastern Europe
since the fall of communism in 1989/1990, but after 1999 it also reached Western
Europe (Campbell & Rozsnyai, 2002; Schwarz & Westerheijden, 2004; Westerheijden,
2001). The Netherlands was among the many countries that introduced accreditation at
the programme level in order to assure the quality of the new degrees (Jeliazkova &
Westerheijden, 2004).
The Netherlands has ever since followed the European guidelines and can therefore
be judged to be in the mainstream of quality assurance developments in Europe.
Both the Ministry of OCW and the NVAO are very active participants in the
European policy-making with regard to quality. The Ministry was closely involved in
the initiation of the Dublin Descriptors in 2002 (Westerheijden & Leegwater, 2003). The
NVAO is a member of ENQA which championed the European Standards and
Guidelines (ESG) (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2003a, pp. 11-12, 2005c, pp. 10, 21-22)
and was confirmed in that membership position by the international review that
confirmed NVAO’s compliance with the ESG (European Association for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education, 2005) . Besides, the NVAO has been one of the driving
forces behind the European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA), a group of thirteen
accreditation agencies aiming to achieve mutual recognition of their accreditation
decisions (www.ecaconsortium.net). This should simplify intra-European mobility of
graduates. The NVAO in May 2008 had agreements for mutual recognition of

New Degrees in the Netherlands

69

accreditations with six ECA-members (interview 04-25; making up half of all ECA
mutual recognition agreements at that time).49
Most international interviewees responded that the quality of Dutch higher
education and the accreditation by the NVAO carried high credibility abroad. Three of
the 15 interviewed persons had a more intermediate opinion of it, including some staff
members of Nuffic, because in their contacts with countries in e.g. South-East Asia they
came across the privately funded higher education institutions that did not yet have
their study programmes accredited.
A minority of countries in the early 2000s maintained or started institutional-level
quality assurance schemes, such as the UK (institutional audits), Norway (in some of
its schemes; others concerned study programmes) and Switzerland (evaluation of
faculties). The two most prominent Western European countries that at first had
introduced programme-level accreditation, i.e. Germany and the Netherlands, started
reconsidering this choice around 2007, after a number of years of experience. Both now
seem to be moving towards making the process one with a ‘lighter touch’ by giving
more attention to larger organisational entities (exact forms are unknown as yet).
An aim of the Dutch accreditation scheme was to maintain the previous quality
assessment scheme’s emphasis on quality improvement. The element of quality
improvement or quality enhancement is being given renewed attention in several
European initiatives in recent years, recognising that the focus on threshold quality
inherent in accreditation is necessary but not sufficient for the excellence drive desired
for, e.g. the Lisbon strategy needs.

4.4

International perceptions of Dutch higher education

The current section summarises a number of aspects of the reception of Dutch higher
education since the introduction of the bachelor–master structure in selected other
European countries (Belgium (Flanders), Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the United
Kingdom), based mainly on our 15 interviews with international experts. Where
applicable, interviewees’ remarks have been integrated in the previous sections, but
here we wish to emphasise the image of Dutch higher education and of Dutch students
in the eyes of fairly informed foreigners.

49

As a final indication of NVAO’s internationally prominent position, it became the seat of the secretariat
of the world-wide quality assessment agencies’ organisation, INQAAHE, in 2008.

70

CHEPS

4.4.1

Acceptance and comparability of graduates and degree titles

Although the issue of the different titles between hbo and universities was partly
discussed in chapter 2 already, we asked our interviewees about their understanding
of the differences between Dutch degrees and those in their own country, and about
the differences between university and hbo titles and the relevance they attached to
those differences.
Concerning the compatibility of Dutch bachelor and master degrees with those of
the countries of the interviewees, mostly broad compatibility was indicated. Some
mentioned, though, that Dutch one-year master programmes were seen as different
from their own two-year programmes. A few interviewees, referring to the UK and to
Denmark, emphasised that this was not just a matter of counting years, but that the
competencies of one-year masters were less than those of two-year masters (interview
04-24a, 05-22a); thus Dutch graduates from two-year master programmes were more
readily accepted on those countries’ labour markets.
The level of understanding the difference between the titles from universities and
from hbo institutions differed with the amount of contacts that interviewees had had
with students from the Netherlands (credential recognition officers as a rule had been
well informed by their colleagues from Nuffic) and with the presence of a binary
system in their own country. However, even in countries with binary systems the
distinction was always understood in society (interview 04-23). Moreover, interviewees
reported that in their countries people intended to interpret the Dutch binary
distinction in terms of the binary divide in their own country (e.g. interviews 04-24c,
04-25, 04-29a, 05-09); especially there seemed to be a tendency to understand hbo
institutions and their degrees as Fachhochschulen in Germany, as hogescholen in
Flanders, as polytechnics of the pre-1992 British higher education system, etc. Or the
difference between the sectors was not understood in the system, especially but not
only in unitary higher education systems (e.g. interviews 04-23, 04-25, 04-29a, 04-29c).
In the more regulated public sector of the labour market, e.g. in Germany, binary
distinctions carried more weight (interviews 04-29a, 04-29b).
On questions about the relevance of the difference between degrees from hbo
institutions and universities, especially a British interviewee went into more detail
about this, explained that in their country, different bachelor degrees were seen as
different routes but of basically the same level and therefore not much of a distinction
between the two sectors was made. Employers often did not care for the finer

New Degrees in the Netherlands

71

distinctions: ‘They want graduateness’ (interview 04-29c; similar in 04-29b).50 And:
‘Titles only play to role for recognition of professional standards’ (interview 04-29a).
To admission officers for master programmes in higher education institutions in
several countries, the difference between hbo and university degrees might sometimes
be somewhat more important, but that depended very much on the individual
university (interviews 04-29a, 04-29c).

4.4.2

Mobility to and from the Netherlands

4.4.2.1 Condition for mobility: Programmes taught in English and English proficiency

The widespread use of English as language of instruction is meant to promote the
international orientation of Dutch higher education (Inspectie van het Onderwijs,
2005c, p.12). The offer of course modules and whole degree programmes in English in
Dutch higher education institutions is the most extended of all non-English speaking
countries in Europe. But according to the Inspection of Education the English
proficiency of teachers and students does not always match the wealth of Englishtaught programmes (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2005c, p. 20). The Inspection’s
concerns applied both to the universities and to hbo institutions. However, foreign
credential evaluators, mobility officers and ministry representatives in our interviews
were of the opinion that the level of English mastered by Dutch students and staff
members engaged in outward mobility was quite high (all interviews51).
4.4.2.2 Views on mobility

Interviewees from Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the UK
indicated that student mobility to and from the Netherlands was among the easiest in
Europe: there were very few problems or complaints. Some remarks were made about
lacking Diploma Supplements for holders of especially older degrees (mainly pre-2003,
interview 04-25). Some of the interviewees also mentioned practical problems for
students who wanted to move across Europe. Practical problems related mostly to the
different organisation and calendars of the academic years, translation of Dutch exam

50

In Sweden, employer reactions to the bachelor–master system and international mobility are due to be
evaluated in 2009 (interview 04-25).

51

With one exception, a respondent from Flanders, where of course Dutch is the language of
communication for Dutch students.

72

CHEPS

grades into other systems52 and to the limited portability and access to student grant
systems across the countries (e.g. interview 04-29a).
Regarding mobility of teaching and research staff members, our interviews
uncovered few specific points, except that issues like pension schemes make it difficult
to include longer-term mobility into a person’s career (e.g. interview 04-24c). Also, the
translation of Dutch staff positions into foreign ones was less than straightforward, e.g.
in Germany.

4.4.3

Strong and weak points of Dutch higher education and students

Interviewees often stressed that it was difficult for them to give general characteristics
of Dutch students and Dutch higher education compared to their own; much depended
on the individual students and on the individual experiences of interviewees with
partners in the Netherlands. However, to the extent that generalisations may apply, the
following points were noteworthy.
A first impression was that Dutch graduates were quite similar to British ones.
There was a high level of satisfaction (interview 04-29c). The Dutch higher education
system was characterised by openness to English (interviews 04-23, 04-29a), leading to
a high level of proficiency among students and staff members.
Courses in Dutch higher education institutions were seen as more innovative, more
work-oriented (e.g. through projects) than many in Germany and Flanders (interviews
04-22, 04-29b, 05-07, 05-09), although the German dual learning system would give still
better preparation for the labour market.
The two points mentioned just now would make Dutch students more international
and worldly in attitude than e.g. their Flemish counterparts. Also, they would have
stronger report writing skills.
The reverse of these differences was, according to the same set of interviewees, that
Dutch students had less knowledge than Flemish ones. Moreover, the attitude of
students in the Netherlands was different: they were less focused on studying than on
being students and more often had part-time jobs.

52

Information on grades and grade systems ought to be part of the Diploma Supplement, but that is not
applied 100% in the Netherlands yet. Moreover, interviewees may have referred to pre-Diploma
Supplement situations.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

5

73

Conclusions and recommendations for future developments

Based on the information gathered we can draw a number of conclusions, leading to
some recommendations for future developments of the bachelor–master degree system
and its accreditation. In this chapter, we shall return to the list of evaluation questions
underlying our study, among them the IJkpunten, more explicitly than was visible in
the structure of the previous chapters.

5.1

Initial objectives of the bachelor–master reform

5.1.1

IJkpunt: The proportion of programmes translated into the bachelor–master
structure

Full success.

5.1.2

IJkpunt: The extent to which the previous university programmes are divided
into two phases (bachelor and master) without creating completely new
programmes.

Hardly any cases were found offending against this rule; this was not a problem worth
mentioning. There are fewer master programmes than there were graduation topics
(afstudeerrichtingen) in universities.
Also, it was not allowed that after the transition of university programmes, they
would offer programmes content-wise belonging to post-initial training or competing
with hbo programmes. Again, hardly any cases were found offending this rule. The
deeper issue is the different funding schemes for university and hbo sectors, with its
threat of ‘unfair competition’, and that remains a point for discussion.

74

CHEPS

5.1.3

IJkpunt: Students’ transition into the new system or completing studies for the
‘old-style’ degree and limitation of delay in individual study planning

These two ijkpunten are interrelated, and they are typical transition phase issues. They
were worries in advance, but no problems worth mentioning after five years were
encountered.

5.1.4

IJkpunt: Recognition of Dutch higher education abroad

(See conclusions on international issues, below.)

5.1.5

IJkpunt: Flexibility and freedom of choice for students

This point is concerned with several sub-issues, namely options for transition for
students between institutions, and between areas of knowledge at the point of the
transition from bachelor degree to master phase.
5.1.5.1 Transition bachelor–master for university bachelor graduates

It is early days to draw definitive conclusions, as the master phase has been in
operation only since a few years. At this moment we can point to the following
emergent trends.
The basic right of university students to enrol in a university-master after
completing a university-bachelor is ensured by the ‘doorstroommasters’, which have
been established in all universities. Mobility to ‘other’ university master programmes
started slowly, but seems to be increasing to ca. 11% of university bachelor students
changing universities, although statistics are only indicative as yet. For that reason, the
original questions regarding switching between universities and between areas cannot
be answered in much detail. The total enrolment in university master programmes is
rather diverse, with also about 20-30% (depending on years and way of calculating) of
enrolment made up of hbo bachelor degree holders and another maybe 20% of foreign
students. Further research into the quantitative and qualitative development of
enrolment in university master programmes is advisable. More urgently, universities
should develop comprehensive admission strategies into their master programmes to
adapt to this heterogeneous influx of students; up to now, admission seems to have
been regarded as an administrative process rather than as a strategic process focusing
on asking equivalence to the faculty’s ‘own’ bachelors rather than defining the
competencies and knowledge needed from all enrolling students to complete the
master programme successfully and on time.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

75

The debate on the adherence to a ‘hard cut’ (‘harde knip’), requiring all students to
have fulfilled all requirements for the bachelor degree before being allowed to enter
into a master programme, should lead to a conclusion soon. The independent values of
both bachelor and master degrees would be strengthened if the distinction between the
two was no longer blurred by ‘soft cut’ arrangements as in the continuation master
programmes (‘doorstroommasters’). Countries like the UK and the USA where a
bachelor-master structure has a long tradition, a clear distinction between bachelor and
master cycles is self-evident, and the bachelor degree is seen as full-fledged higher
education. The example of Switzerland has been mentioned as a country where
thinking in this regard has developed much recently: ‘continuation masters’,
introduced after the Bologna Declaration, are no longer obligatory and higher
education institutions are given freedom to formulate their own strategy on enrolment
in master programmes.
Pre-master programmes of usually 30 to 60 EC were introduced in Dutch
universities to bridge the gap between the end qualifications of bachelors from ‘other’
fields and from hbo institutions (more on them, below), and the entry qualifications of
university master programmes. Some pre-master programmes were set up in
cooperation between hbo and university institutions.
Higher education institutions should have arrangements in place to avoid undue
delay for students as a result of this, for example by ensuring enrolment immediately
upon finishing a pre-master track (perhaps entering master programmes each
semester?).
Some issues awaiting further solutions in the area of pre-master programmes
include:
§

Quality assurance of pre-master programmes

§

Uncertainty regarding grant/loan (StuFi) eligibility for pre-master students

§

Central policy for the funding of pre-master programmes

§

Diversity in admission criteria into pre-master programmes

§

Diversity in tuition fees for pre-master programmes.
Information to assist students in their choice for mobility at the moment of deciding

for a master programme is slowly becoming available in the Netherlands (website
under development at www.studiekeuze123.nl).

76

CHEPS

5.1.5.2 Efficiency of study: Retention and degree attainment

There are no reliable time series as yet about student retention and time to degree
(bachelor and master) since the bachelor–master reform. Available early figures do not
show signs of the hoped-for increase in retention.
Regarding numbers of degrees and if there was a growth due to the bachelor–
master reform, we could not give definitive answers as still over 10,000 old-style
degrees were awarded in 2006/2007. The number of bachelor and master degrees in the
universities is growing rapidly and has overtaken the ‘old-style’ degrees since
2005/2006. The numbers of hbo bachelor degrees remained stable since 2004. Further
monitoring in the coming years is needed to answer this question better.

5.1.6

IJkpunt: Innovation in terms of course content

The question of curriculum innovation is directed at universities, much more than at
the hbo sector. It may be somewhat in contrast with questions at the beginning, voicing
fear that programmes would not be based on previously-existing study programmes
and would encroach on the hbo master programmes. But here the question is about
development of ‘broad bachelor’ programmes and of major-minor models both to
increase options for students’ mobility when deciding about a possible master
programme but also for the benefit of academic formation (‘academische vorming’).
Besides the already-started university colleges in Utrecht/Middelburg and Maastricht,
one more such college is being designed now in Amsterdam.
Major-minor models have become a mainstream model for bachelor studies
nowadays, attesting to goal achievement in this respect at least to some extent.
However, there were also signs that the increased demands on specialisation of
masters, especially in one-year programmes, implied that the breadth of the bachelor
programmes was hard to accomplish.
Further room for curriculum innovation seems to be available in the sense that
many bachelor programmes were seen to demand less than full-time study from most
students.53

5.1.7

IJkpunt: transition from higher education to the labour market

The evaluation study concentrated on the questions of number of degrees attained and
on the labour market situation of university bachelor graduates. This new degree is not

53

We will return to master programmes and their innovation below (§ 5.2.2).

New Degrees in the Netherlands

77

yet seen as a degree with labour-market relevance; further action is needed to
implement the aspect of the Bologna Declaration focusing on the first degree being
relevant to the labour market.
It is estimated that around 5% of the university bachelor graduates wish to enter
the labour market. Their chance of getting a job is 96%, not significantly different from
university graduates with either an ‘old-style’ degree or a master degree.

5.2

Emerging issues concerning the bachelor-master reform

5.2.1

IJkpunt: Transition of hbo bachelor graduates to university master
programmes

Transition from hbo institutions to university master programmes is treated as an
emerging issue, although it was already mentioned in the IJkpuntenbrief. As intended,
the length of time for hbo bachelor graduates to attain a master degree in universities
has been reduced to 1.5-2.5 years (from around 3 years). There was no policy intention
to increase the number of hbo graduates enrolling in universities, and statistics do not
show a marked increase of this type of mobility. Still, hbo bachelor degree holders
make up a substantial part of enrolment in university master programmes; estimates
are between 20% and 30% (depending on year and method of calculation, as
mentioned above). Hbo graduates almost invariably have to follow pre-master tracks;
the issues mentioned around pre-master tracks above affect them as well. Intensive
cooperation between hbo institutions and universities in some cases has led to
‘transition tracks’ being integrated into the bachelor phase, thus further reducing the
time students need to attain a master degree.

5.2.2

Diversity of university master programmes

The diversity of master programmes has increased since first introduction of Bachelor–
master model: next to ‘standard’ master programmes of 60 EC (mostly), 120 EC (in
natural sciences and engineering in the university sector) or 180 EC (in medicine etc.),
universities developed separately accredited research master programmes (120 EC in
all disciplines) and ‘top’-master programmes. As the latter are an unregulated
category, some interviewees found them decreasing the transparency of the
programme supply. Research masters are welcomed in the higher education system,
although the number of students enrolling is less than hoped for by parties.

78

CHEPS

A clear, shared view on the desired character(s) of master programmes and hence
their numbers seems to be absent in the Netherlands.
One-year master programmes encounter more difficulties than two-year ones in
establishing joint degree programmes internationally.
A renewed discussion on master programmes should address at least these three
issues: (1) the desired characters and number of master programmes, connected to
(2) the place of ‘top master’ programmes, as well as (3) hindrances to full cooperation
in joint degree programmes.54

5.2.3

IJkpunt: Master programmes in hbo

182 Master programmes in hbo institutions had been positively accredited by spring
2008. The figures do not show what percentage of the hbo master programmes this
represents, or whether these are ‘initial’ or ‘post-initial’ programmes.

5.2.4

Third cycle and professional doctorates

Later on in the Bologna process (since 2003), the third cycle of doctorates was added to
the process. In the Netherlands, this has not yet led to much change in the Ph.D.
training that was restructured since the 1990s, although graduate schools integrating
master and third-cycle levels have been subject of discussion.
The idea of professional doctorates has remained under discussion, but without
much concrete development in recent years.

5.2.5

Short higher education programmes (associate degrees).

Short higher education courses are not covered by the Bologna Declaration, but of
course are not forbidden by it either. Experiments with Associate Degrees have started
in 2006/2007 and will be evaluated separately.

54

The latter issue also depends on the legal regulation of joint degree programmes.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

5.3

Evaluation of the accreditation scheme

5.3.1

Support and credibility for accreditation by an independent organisation

79

The NVAO has established its position rapidly as the single accreditation organisation
for Dutch (and Flemish—but we are limited to the Dutch side) higher education
programmes.
The international review of the NVAO in 2007 confirmed that it operates to
European standards.

5.3.2

Transparency through clearly reasoned judgements on quality of programmes

Frameworks guiding the evaluations were established by the NVAO, and elaborated
and applied by the evaluation agencies (vbi’s). The international review of the NVAO
did not uncover problems in this respect.

5.3.3

Several organisations can perform site visits

Independent evaluation agencies (vbi’s) were organised quickly, too, in relation to the
establishment of the NVAO. Besides the quality assessment departments of the VSNU
and hbo Raad that were made independent, other independent evaluation agencies
entered the ‘market’, too, as was intended. Market dynamics in the sense of study
programmes or higher education institutions switching to other evaluation agencies
than they had used before, remained limited, however.

5.3.4

Clarity about administrative consequences in case of too low quality

The legal reform detailed the consequences of loss of accreditation clearly. After the
international review of 2007 and in line with earlier remarks by the Inspection about
the severity of the system, because there was too little flexibility for study programmes
to make improvements after a negative accreditation decision, a (short) amelioration
period was introduced.

5.3.5

Assurance of quality of privately funded (‘aangewezen’) higher education

Privately funded higher education institutions are included in the accreditation system
on the same footing as public (‘bekostigd’) higher education. It seems that the system is
equally effective for this part of higher education, although this cannot be asserted

80

CHEPS

confidently until the end of the first round at the end of 2009, as there still are study
programmes making use of the respite they were given not to need accreditation for
their operation until then.

5.3.6

Effective and efficient accreditation system

Effectiveness is not easily measured, because much of the improvement function
remains ‘hidden’ in the preliminary process: weak accreditation proposals are mostly
withdrawn before an accreditation decision is made and probably even more often
before the request even reaches the public stages of the process. The very low number
of negative accreditation decisions is therefore of very little significance.
Regarding the efficiency of the system, we rather refer to the ongoing
developments for the second round of accreditation, which is aimed at diminishing the
transaction costs of the process.

5.3.7

Improvement of quality and effectiveness of accreditation in Dutch-Flemish
cooperation

The current evaluation study did not address the issue of the bi-national cooperation
explicitly, but quoted from the international review of the NVAO in 2007, which made
some remarks in this respect, amongst others about the short cycle length in the
Netherlands and about the lack of legal protection of bachelor and master titles in this
country.

5.4

International comparison of the reforms in Dutch higher education

5.4.1

How does the transition to bachelor–master degrees compare with other
countries?

The Netherlands started the degree reforms quickly and thoroughly. Among the
accompanying measures, the use of ECTS was introduced quickly as well. With regard
to the Diploma Supplement, practice in the Netherlands is not perfect but reasonably
developed (DS is given automatically in 75% of university cases; hbo figure unknown),
although the ratification of the Lisbon Recognition Convention to which the Diploma
Supplement originally belonged is still awaited. Regulatory reform is also still awaited
with regard to enabling joint degree programmes and the development of a
Netherlands Qualifications Framework. On the positive side again, the impression

New Degrees in the Netherlands

81

from international sources is that the difference between the reforms-on-paper and the
reforms-in-practice is smaller for the Netherlands than for some other countries in the
Bologna process.
From a regulatory perspective, and viewing the practices underlying the legal
reforms, the Netherlands at this moment is still keeping up well with other countries,
although the head-start advantage is being lost.
Effects on student mobility remain limited, as far as statistics can show. Incoming
mobility is increasing slowly or remained stable since 2004, more or less in line with
developments in other European countries. Outgoing mobility has decreased after
2003. It should be noted, though, that the statistics are far from perfect and do not
capture much of the ‘free mobility’, so that not more than broad trends can be gleaned
from them.

5.4.2

How does the accreditation scheme compare with Europe?

The Netherlands at this moment is keeping up well with other countries; NVAO was
evaluated positively for compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines in
2007. As with the degree reform, the Netherlands was fast with starting the reform of
quality assurance towards accreditation.
The Netherlands is well embedded in the forefront of working towards mutual
recognition of accreditation decisions in the EHEA.
Debates about the accreditation system in Germany are broadly similar to those in
the Netherlands: the initial choice for programme accreditation is giving way to
arguments for more efficiency, for the assessment of larger entities, and possibly
putting more trust in th higher education institutions’ own organisation of quality
assurance for study programmes. Contrary movements, towards stricter and more
extended accreditation systems do not occur in any countries with functioning
accreditation schemes.
The questions of reception and trust in Dutch higher education as a result of the
accreditation scheme will be treated in the next section.
Accreditation of joint programmes leading to double or joint degrees should be
simplified, e.g. by making higher education institutions fully responsible for the
quality and standards of all degrees that they issue, including joint degrees. In that
case, a single evaluation or accreditation of a (joint) study programme would suffice as
the institution is also to vouch for the education taking place in partner institutions
abroad.

82

CHEPS

5.4.3

Reception of Dutch higher education abroad

Views on Dutch higher education in surrounding countries and some important
comparators (Belgium (Flanders), Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the United
Kingdom) are positive. The Dutch bachelors and masters are received at the
appropriate levels, although experience with the new bachelor–master degrees is still
limited. Thus, trust at this moment is still largely based on the usually positive
experiences with ‘old-style’ degrees (including those of hbo institutions).
The distinction between hbo and university degrees is not always understood
completely and almost invariably given less importance than within the Netherlands.
Notwithstanding information by Nuffic etc., higher education institutions and
employers abroad often interpret the Dutch binary structure as more or less the same
as the national distinctions, in countries that have different sectors in their higher
education systems. In countries without binary structures, the distinction is considered
rather unimportant. Both for continued study (especially for Ph.D. programmes) and
for employment in the private sector, the ultimate decision is with the receiving higher
education institution or the receiving employer, and in those decisions as a rule
individual curricula vitae are considered, not just the higher education degrees.
The standards of Dutch higher education degrees are valued highly abroad; the
practical certainty of solid basic quality backed up by what is generally seen as a
rigorous accreditation process is a major factor in this trust.
In countries that as a rule have two-year master phases (in our sample: Denmark
and Germany), the Dutch one-year master programmes are deemed too short to give
the necessary competences to graduates. This is sometimes a negative factor in the
recognition of Dutch higher Education abroad and it is one of the main factors making
joint degree programme development with foreign higher education institutions
difficult.

5.4.4

Conditions for mobility to and from the Netherlands

In Denmark and Sweden, legislation for joint degrees was not yet in place, making
engagement in joint programmes problematic also from their side. Other legal barriers
include different academic calendars, complexities of student grant systems, but also
issues of titles and degrees for hbo institutions (e.g. in cooperation with German
Fachhochschulen). Beyond those highly important formalities, cooperation with Dutch
higher education and higher education institutions was usually judged to be among

New Degrees in the Netherlands

83

the easiest in Europe. The large offer of courses and study programmes in English at
Dutch higher education institutions is a factor of importance in this respect.
The English proficiency of Dutch higher education staff and students is valued
highly in international comparison.
The rise of mobility figures aimed for in the Bologna Declaration did not show yet.
Strengthening the position of the bachelor degree as a ‘full-fledged’ higher education
degree would assist in making labour-market mobility with a bachelor degree a betteraccepted option in the eyes of graduates.

5.4.5

Dutch students’ competences for the European Higher Education Area

Judgements about strengths and weaknesses of the typical Dutch students (or
stereotypes?) include that they are proficient in English, and have an international
outlook. Yet they have a less serious attitude towards studying.

Appendices

EBAMAC report v25 | 2008-08-18

Appendix 1 Abbreviations

CBS

Central Bureau of Statistics

DS

Diploma Supplement: a document issued with each higher education
diploma explaining the place of the degree in the Dutch higher education
system, of the grades given, etc.

EC

European Credits: workload indicator of higher education courses and
modules in line with the ECTS. An academic year consists of 60 EC,
throughout all countries in the Bologna process. This implies that the
workload per EC may be different across countries. The recommended
range is 25-30 working hours per EC.

ECTS

European Credit Transfer System

EHEA

European Higher Education Area: the intended outcome of the Bologna
process by 2010.

hbo

The higher education sector of ‘universities of applied science’, ‘hoger
beroepsonderwijs’.

NVAO

Netherlands-Flanders Accreditation Organisation

OCW

Education, Culture and Science (Ministry responsible for higher education)

VSNU

Association of Dutch Universities

EBAMAC report v25 | 2008-08-18

88

CHEPS

Appendix 2 Interviews

The Netherlands
Anna Bakker, PAEPON
Christiaan van den Berg, VSNU
Erwin van Braam, hbo-Raad
Ms. De Bruin, Nuffic
Mark Frederiks, NVAO
Peter Froling, Inspectie van het Onderwijs
Fabienne Hendricks, Bestuur ISO
Leendert Klaassen, NVAO
Marlies Leegwater, Ministry OCW
Chiel Renique, VNO-NCW
Paul de Rook, Bestuur ISO
Eus Schalkwijk, NQA
Ms. Scholten, Nuffic
Getrud Visser- van Erp, MKB-Nederland
Frank Wamelink, QANU

International experts

Belgium
Daniel de Schrijver, Naric – Flanders
Luc François, Associatie Universiteit Gent
Annegreet Olijve, VLIR
Noël Vercruysse, Ministry of Education, Department Onderwijs en Vorming, Afdeling Hoger
Onderwijs, Vlaanderen

Germany
Gerti Becker-Dittrich, Zentralstelle für ausländisches Bildungswesen im Sekretariat der
Kultusministerkonferenz, Bonn
Henning Dettleff, Abteilung Bildung / Berufliche Bildung, BDA Bundesvereinigung der
Deutschen Arbeitgeberverbände, Berlin

New Degrees in the Netherlands

89

Rüdiger Jütte, Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK)/German Rectors' Conference, Internationale
Abteilung/International Department, Bonn

Denmark
Allan Bruun Pederson, Cirius (ENIC/NARIC agency), Copenhagen
Hevig Gyde Thomson, University of Copenhagen

Sweden
Karin Dahl Bergendorff, Swedish National Agency for Higher Education, Department for
Evaluation of Foreign Higher Education, Stockholm

United Kingdom
Cloud Bai Yun, Head of UK Naric, London

NESO Offices
Maureen van der Meché, NESO Mexico
Malte Stokhof, NESO Vietnam
Jacques D. van Vliet, NESO China

90

CHEPS

Appendix 3 International Expert Panel

Prof.Dr. Marijk van der Wende (chair), professor and dean, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the
Netherlands
Dr. Sybille Reichert, Director, Reichert Consulting, Zürich, Switzerland
Dr. Jim Allen, researcher, Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market (ROA),
Universiteit Maastricht, the Netherlands
Nick Harris, Director – Development and Enhancement, QAA, Bristol, United Kingdom

New Degrees in the Netherlands

91

References

Amaral, A. A. (1994). Developments in Portugal. In D. F. Westerheijden, J. Brennan & P. A. M.
Maassen (Eds.), Changing Contexts of Quality Assessment: Recent Trends in West European
Higher Education (pp. 179-184). Utrecht: Lemma.
Bartelse, J. A. (1999). Concentrating the Minds: Institutionalisation of the graduate school innovation
in Dutch and German higher education. Utrecht: Lemma.
Bijleveld, R. J. (1989). The Two Tier Structure in University Education: An evaluation of a major
restructuring operation. In P. A. M. Maassen & F. A. van Vught (Eds.), Dutch Higher
Education in Transition: Policy issues in higher education in the Netherlands (pp. 31-47).
Culemborg: Lemma.
Bijleveld, R. J. (1993). Numeriek rendement en studiestaking: Een theoretische analyse van factoren die
samenhangen met rendement en studiestaking in het wetenschappelijk onderwijs. Culemborg:
Lemma.
Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (2006). National Report: 2005-2007. BFUG,
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/londonbologna/, accessed 2008-02-01.
Campbell, C., & Rozsnyai, K. (2002). Quality Assurance and the Development of Course Programmes.
Bucharest: CEPES-UNESCO.
Commissie-Rinnooy Kan. (2000). Advies inzake de invoering van een bachelor-master systeem in het
Nederlandse hoger onderwijs (No. 20000417/528). 's-Gravenhage: Onderwijsraad.
Commissie ‘Ruim baan voor talent’. (2007). Wegen voor talent. Den Haag: Ministerie van
Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.
Commissie Accreditatie Hoger Onderwijs. (2001). Prikkelen presteren profileren: Eindrapport.
Amsterdam: Van de Bunt.
Committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The Netherlands and Flanders
(NVAO). (2007). Report of the committee for the review of the Accreditation Organization of The
Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO). s.l.: NVAO.
Crosier, D., Purser, L., & Smidt, H. (2007). Trends V: Universities Shaping the European Higher
Education Area. Brussels: EUA.
de Ridder-Symoens, H. (1992). Management and Resources. In H. de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A
History of the University in Europe: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500-1800) (Vol. 2).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education. (2005). Standards and
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area. Helsinki: European
Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. (1999). Joint declaration of the European
Ministers of Education Convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999. Bologna.

92

CHEPS

Goedegebuure, L. C. J., Jeliazkova, M., Pothof, F., & Weusthof, P. J. M. (2002). Alle begin is
moeilijk : Evaluatie van de proefaccreditering HBO. Enschede: CHEPS, Universiteit Twente.
Groen, M. (1987). Het wetenschappelijk onderwijs in Nederland van 1815 tot 1980. Een
onderwijskundig overzicht: I. Wetgeving. Civiel effect. Godgeleerdheid. Rechtsgeleerdheid. Indologie.
Geneeskunde. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
hbo-Raad (Ed.). (1990). Sectorale kwaliteitszorg HBO, 1 Basisdocumenten 1990. Den Haag: HBORaad.
Hogeterp, L. & Kolster, R. (2005), Een brug tussen het HBO en WO; doorstroommogelijkheden van
HBO-bachelors naar WO-masters, HBO-raad, Den Haag
Huisman, J., & van der Wende, M. (2005). Het professioneel doctoraat: wat is het en wat niet?’
Th&Ma(5).
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2003a). BaMa Transities (No. 2003-15). [Utrecht]: Inspectie van het
Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2003b). Onderwijsverslag 2002/2003. Utrecht: Inspectie van het
Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2004a). De Master meester? De invoering van masteropleidingen in het
wetenschappelijk onderwijs. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2004b). Verkenning van Masteropleidingen op het grensvlak van HBO
en WO: BaMa deelonderzoek. Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2005a). Accreditatie: De kosten in kaart (Inspectierapport No. 200520). s.l.: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2005b). Accreditatie: Introductie (Inspectierapport No. 2005-10). s.l.:
Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2005c). BaMa ontkiemt. [Utrecht]: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2006a). Accreditatie in werking: Beoogde en niet-beoogde effecten.
Midterm review deel 3. s.l.: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2006b). Accreditatie: De opleiding aan het werk (Inspectierapport No.
2006-36). s.l. [Utrecht]: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2006c). BaMa competenties in het hoger onderwijs, wens en
werkelijkheid: Verslag expertmeeting 2 december 2005. s.l. [Utrecht]: Inspectie van het
Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2007). BaMa stroomt door: BaMa-onderzoek naar de toelating tot de
wetenschappelijke masteropleidingen (No. 2007-1). [Utrecht]: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2008a). De staat van het onderwijs: Onderwijsverslag 2006/2007.
Utrecht: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Inspectie van het Onderwijs. (2008b). Masterjaren tellen: BaMa-onderzoek naar de duur van de
Nederlandse wetenschappelijke masteropleidingen. s.l.: Inspectie van het Onderwijs.
Jeliazkova, M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2000). Het zichtbare eindresultaat. Den Haag: Algemene
Rekenkamer.

93

New Degrees in the Netherlands

Jeliazkova, M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2004). The Netherlands: A Leader in Quality Assurance
Follows the Accreditation Trend. In S. Schwarz & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Accreditation
and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area (pp. 323-345). Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Kern, B. (1998). A European Union Perspective on Follow Up. In J. P. Scheele, P. A. M. Maassen
& D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), To be continued...: Follow-up of quality assurance in higher
education (pp. 39-63). Maarssen: Elsevier/De Tijdstroom.
Kolster, R. (2007). Het stapelgedrag van hbo-ers: Een onderzoek naar de omvang en motivatie van hbodiplomastapelaars. Enschede: CHEPS, Universiteit Twente [unpublished master thesis]
Leff, G. (1992). The Faculty of Arts. In H. de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in
Europe (Vol. I, Universities in the Middle Ages, pp. 307-336). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Meyboom-de Jong, B., Schmit Jongbloed, L. J., & Willemsen, M. C. (2002). De arts van straks: een
nieuw medisch opleidingscontinuüm. Utrecht: Koninklijke Nederlandsche Maatschappij tot
Bevordering der Geneeskunst; Disciplineoverlegorgaan Medische Wetenschappen van de
Vereniging van Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten; Vereniging Academische
Ziekenhuizen; NVZ vereniging van ziekenhuizen; Landelijk Centrum Verpleging en
Verzorging.
Ministerie OCW (2001), Memorie van Toelichting, ... bachelor-masterstructuur in het hoger
onderwijs, TK (2000-2001), 28 024, nr. 3
Ministerie OCW (2005), Beleidsreactie op inspectie-rapport BaMa ontkiemt, Den Haag
Ministerie OCW (2005a). Beleidsreactie op het rapport “Kort en goed? Verkenning invoering
korte programma’s in het hoger beroepsonderwijs”, Letter to Parliament, 20 juni 2005,
HO/BL/2005/22876
Ministerie OCW. (2007). Het hoogste goed: Strategische agenda voor het hogeronderwijs-, onderzoek- en
wetenschapsbeleid. Den Haag: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap.
Ministerie OCW (2007b). Brief ... Aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
[Tussenevaluatie], Kamerstukken II, 29 281, 2007-2008, nr. 8.
Ministerie van Onderwijs & Wetenschappen. (1985). Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit:
Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1985-1986, 19253, nr. 2.
Ministerie van Onderwijs Cultuur en Wetenschappen. (2000). Naar een open hoger onderwijs:
Invoering van een bachelor-masterstructuur in het Nederlandse hoger onderwijs. Zoetermeer:
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.
Ministry

of

Education

and

Training

(2006).

National

Report:

2005-2007.

BFUG,

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/londonbologna/, accessed 2008-02-01.
Ministers responsible for Higher Education. (2007). London Communiqué: Towards the European
Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world. London.
Nickel, S., Westerheijden, D., & Zdebel, T. (2008). Evaluationsbericht CUNE project. Gütersloh;
Enschede: CHE; CHEPS.
Nuffic (2006). International Mobility in Education in the Netherlands. Den Haag: Nuffic.

94

CHEPS

NVAO. (2006). Notitie Nieuwe beleidslijnen bijzondere kwaliteitskenmerken. Den Haag: NVAO.
NVAO. (2007). Research Master Review 2007: De verkenning van een nieuw domein. Den Haag:
NVAO.
Onderwijsraad. (2000). Advies inzake de invoering van een bachelor-master systeem in het Nederlandse
hoger onderwijs (No. 20000417/528). s.l. [The Hague]: Onderwijsraad.
Plasterk, R. & Vandenbroucke, F. (2008). Beleidsreactie van het Comité van Ministers over de
internationale peer review van de NVAO, annex to letter to Parliament.
Reichert, S., & Tauch, C. (2005). Trends IV: European Universities Implementing Bologna. s.l.
[Brussels]: European University Association.
Rogers, P. J. (2008). Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of
Interventions. Evaluation, 14(1), 29-48.
Rüegg, W. (1992). Themes. In H. de Ridder-Symoens (Ed.), A History of the University in Europe
(Vol. I, Universities in the Middle Ages, pp. 3-34). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schade, A. (2004). Shift of Paradigm in Quality Assurance in Germany: More Autonomy but
Multiple Quality Assessment? In S. Schwarz & D. F. Westerheijden (Eds.), Accreditation and
Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area (pp. 175-196). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Scheele, J. P., Maassen, P. A. M., & Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds.). (1998). To be Continued . . . :
Follow-Up of Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Maarssen: Elsevier/De Tijdstroom.
Schwarz, S., & Westerheijden, D. F. (Eds.). (2004). Accreditation and Evaluation in the European
Higher Education Area. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schweizerische Universitätskonferenz. (2006). Bologna-Richtlinien und Kommentar, 2. Aufl. Bern:
Schweizerische Universitätskonferenz - Conférence universitaire suisse - Conferenza
universitaria svizzera.
Staatssecretaris Hoger Onderwijs. (2003). IJkpunten bachelor-master (Brief aan VSNU, HBO-Raad,
ISO, LSVb, NAO, Inspectie van het Onderwijs). Den Haag.
Staatssecretaris Hoger Onderwijs (2005). Prestatieagenda 2005 HBO-raad - OCW, Letter to
Parliament, 30 mei 2005, HO/BL/05/20088
Staatssecretaris van onderwijs, cultuur en wetenschap (2004). Brief over "Verkenning van
masteropleidingen op het grensvlak van hbo en wo", Kamerstukken II, 29 800, Nr. 10.
Stocktaking Working Group 2005-2007. (2007). Bologna Process Stocktaking London 2007. London:
Department for Education and Skills.
Thune, C. (1994). The Evaluation Centre in Denmark. In D. F. Westerheijden, J. Brennan & P. A.
M. Maassen (Eds.), Changing Contexts of Quality Assessment: Recent Trends in West European
Higher Education (pp. 163-178). Utrecht: Lemma.
Uusikylä, P., & Valovirta, V. (2007). Three Spheres of Performance Governance: Spanning the
Boundaries from Single-Organization Focus towards a Partnership Network. Evaluation,
13(4), 399-419.

New Degrees in the Netherlands

95

van den Broek, A., Wartenbergh, F., Wermink, I., Sijbers, R., Thomassen, M., van Klingeren, M.,
et al. (2007a). Studentenmonitor 2006 (Beleidsgerichte studies Hoger onderwijs en
Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek No. 129). Den Haag: Ministerie OCW.
Verdrag tussen het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden en de Vlaamse Gemeenschap van België inzake
de accreditatie van opleidingen binnen het Nederlandse en Vlaamse hoger onderwijs,
(2003).
Vossensteyn, H. J., & Goedegebuure, L. C. J. (Eds.). (1992). Stap voor Stap : een onderzoek naar de
effecten van de harmonisatiewet, in het bijzonder op het stapelen in het hoger onderwijs. Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen.
Vroeijenstijn, A. I. (1995). Improvement and accountability: navigating between Scylla and Charybdis:
Guide for external quality assessment in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley.
VSNU. (1999). Quality Assessment Made to Measure: Protocol for External Assessment of Educational
Programmes 2000-2005. Utrecht: VSNU.
Westerheijden, D. F. (1997). A solid base for decisions: Use of the VSNU research evaluations in
Dutch universities. Higher Education, 33(4), 397-413.
Westerheijden, D. F. (2001). Ex oriente lux? National and Multiple Accreditation in Europe after
the fall of the Wall and after Bologna. Quality in Higher Education, 7(1), 65-75.
Westerheijden, D. F. (2003). Hoe lang accreditatie? Th&Ma, 10(4), 45-48.
Westerheijden, D. F., & Leegwater, M. (Eds.). (2003). Working on the European Dimension of
Quality: Report of the conference on quality assurance in higher education as part of the Bologna
process, Amsterdam, 12-13 March 2002. Zoetermeer: Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en
Wetenschappen.
Witte, J. K. (2006). Change of degrees and degrees of change: comparing adaptations of European higher
education systems in the context of the Bologna process. Enschede: CHEPS, University of
Twente.