1

IE

European Association for International Education

aE

Admissions Officers and Credential Evaluators

E A I E P r o f e s s i o n a l s e c t i o n

Developments in the recognition field

between the Bologna process Ministerial conferences in Prague May 2001 and Berlin September 2003

For the ACE track sessions at 15th Annual Conference of the European Association for International Education 10 to 13 September, 2003, Vienna, Austria

2

IE

European Association for International Education

aE

N e w s of the recognition field A review articles and a compendium of international documents relevant to the sessions of the ACE track of 15th Annual Conference of the EAIE 10 to 13 September, 2003, Vienna, Austria Compiled and edited by Andrejs Rauhvargers Approved in Paris on June 14, 2003 by the board of ACE professional section: Chairman -

Prof. Andrejs Rauhvargers, Latvian Rectors' Council, Latvia

Members -

Dr. James Frey, Education Credential Evaluators Ltd, Milwaukee, WI, USA,

Nina Kowalewska, Department for Evaluation of Foreign Higher Education,

Swedish National Agency for Higher Education

Hans Knutell, Admissions Office, Uppsala University, Sweden

Board helper

Gunnar Vaht, Estonian ENIC/NARIC, Estonia

The views expressed in the introductory article and comments are the ones of the authors and not necessarily the official views of the EAIE

3

Free of charge distribution only Printed in Latvia in co-operation with Latvian Academic Information Centre (Latvian ENIC/NARIC)

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................................................... 4 ACE SESSIONS AND WORKSHOPS................................................................................................................. 5

Introduction and overviews .......................................................................................................................... 7 ACE AS A SUPPORT FOR ADMISSION OFFICERS AND CREDENTIAL EVALUATORS ....................... 7 BOLOGNA AND QUALIFICATIONS: QUALITY, RECOGNITION, CREDIT AND ACCREDITATION IN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE .............................................................................................................. 8 RECOGNITION AND QUALIFICATIONS’ FRAMEWORKS1 ..................................................................... 14 INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALING OF TERTIARY EDUCATION - PRINCIPLES, QUESTIONS & CONCERNS ....................................................................................................................................................... 16

MAIN RECENT DOCUMENTS................................................................................................................... 20 by ENIC and NARIC networks.................................................................................................................... 20

STATEMENT BY THE ENIC AND NARIC NETWORKS ON THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA (VADUZ STATEMENT)........................................................................................................................ 21

STATEMENT................................................................................................................................................. 21 RECOMMENDATION ON THE RECOGNITION OF JOINT DEGREES...................................................... 23

Definitions....................................................................................................................................................... 24 General principles ........................................................................................................................................... 24 Legislation....................................................................................................................................................... 24 Quality assurance and institutional recognition .............................................................................................. 25 Information...................................................................................................................................................... 25

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON THE RECOGNITION OF JOINT DEGREES D..................................................................................................................................... 26

Preamble.......................................................................................................................................................... 27 General considerations .................................................................................................................................... 27 Definitions....................................................................................................................................................... 27 General principles ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Legislation....................................................................................................................................................... 29 Quality assurance and institutional recognition .............................................................................................. 29 Information...................................................................................................................................................... 30

ACE SESSIONS AND WORKSHOPS

Stream: Accreditation & evaluation 2.01 ACE Opening Session Overview of ACE-related developments in the Bologna Process The ACE Opening Session will give an overview of recent developments in European higher education relevant to recognition and admission, outcomes of Bologna seminars on Master degrees (Helsinki), degree structures (Copenhagen) and life-long learning (Prague). Cooperation between recognition and quality assurance, efforts to improve recognition of joint degrees, and effects of globalisation will also be discussed. All levels Thursday 11 Sep 13.30–15.00 Chair/Speaker - Andrejs Rauhvargers, Latvian Rectors' Council, Riga Speakers: Jindra Divis, NUFFIC, Den Haag; Anita Lehikoinen, Ministry of Education, Helsinki 2.03 Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR): best practice PLAR is very much in focus in Sweden today as well as in many other European countries. The session will give examples of three very different approaches on how to deal with prior learning assessment from three different Swedish institutions. Intermediate level Friday 12 Sep 09.00–10.30 Chair - Hans Knutell, Uppsala University, Uppsala Speakers: Gunni Öhlund, Association of Swedish Higher Education (SUHF), Stockholm, Eva Björkman, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Carina Kjörling, Kungl Tekniska Högskolan (KTH), Stockholm, Karin Sikström, Mälardalen Univ., Eskilstuna 2.05 Access to higher education institutions with Chinese qualifications This session will cover the Chinese system concerning access to higher education in China, comparison of the conditions for the admission of Chinese students in different countries, the evaluation of Chinese secondary school leaving certificates, and the Chinese National University Entrance Examination. The problem of fake diplomas from China will also be discussed. Specialised level Friday 12 Sep 09.00–10.30 Chair - James Frey, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc, Milwaukee, WI Speakers: Cloud Bai-Yun, UK NARIC, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, Ingrid Qing Xu Bjorkly, Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Edu. (NOKUT), Oslo, Stefan Hase-Bergen, German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), Bonn

Stream: Management and organisation 6.02 The international admissions office: trials, tribulations, resolutions, and relief International admissions officers perform a variety of tasks on a daily basis and this routine brings problems and issues of concern. Funding issues, credential evaluation issues such as forgeries or documentation, office administration, time management, and student crisis management all occupy our offices and can place us in dilemmas. The speakers hope that with mutual participation between the audience and themselves, practical solutions and ideas will be shared and energise us for when we return to our offices. Intermediate level Friday 12 Sep 14.00–15.30 Chair - Marybeth Gruenewald, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc, Milwaukee, WI Speakers: Hans Knutell, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Christopher Harris, Anglia Polytechnic University, Cambridge

Stream: Policy and strategy 8.13 The role of European curricula and joint degrees in the development of the European area of higher education In the Bologna process, higher education institutions were called upon to increase the development of curricula offered in partnership by institutions from different countries leading to a recognised joint degree. The session will provide an overview of activities (e.g. EUA Survey of Master and Joint Degrees, EUA Joint Masters Project, international follow-up) and present institutional and students' perspectives. Intermediate level Saturday 13 Sep 10.30–12.00 Chair - Barbara Weitgruber, Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science & Culture, Wien Speakers: Lesley Wilson, European University Association (EUA), Brussels; Bettina Schwarzmayr, The National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), Wien; Andrejs Rauhvargers, Latvian Rectors' Council, Riga 8.15 The status of graduates from the post-secondary non-university sector: Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, the Slovak Republic, and an outlook The idea is to look at the status of graduates from a certain field of the post-secondary non-university sector (fachhochschule, hogescholen, neuniverzitné vysoké skoly), professional opportunities, the (lack of) possibility to be admitted to post-graduate studies, and assessment by the labour market. Controversial contributions by resource persons (rectors' conferences, conferences of the representatives of the non-university sector representation of employers) are expected from four countries. Saturday 13 Sep 10.30–12.00 Chair-Christoph Demand, Ministry of Education, Science & Culture, Wien Speakers: - Jindra Divis, NUFFIC, Den Haag; Stefanie Hofmann, Association of Universities and Other HE Institutions, Bon, Maria Hrabinska, Institute of Information & Prognoses of Education, Bratislava

Stream: National Education systems 9.03 Update on education in South Africa During the past 15 years, the educational system of South Africa has undergone tremendous changes. This session will provide an update on secondary and tertiary education. Specialised level Friday 12 Sep 14.00–15.30 Chair - James Frey, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc, Milwaukee, WI Speaker: Nadina Coetzee, South African Qualifications Authority, Waterkloof, Pretoria 9.04 Higher education update: Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina This session will emphasise issues of importance for admissions and credential evaluation, such as recognition status of institutions, academic programme offerings, curriculum and grading information, documentation and verification practices, and sample documents. The session will feature in-depth information on the current situation in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Intermediate level Friday 12 Sep 16.00–17.30 Chair/Speaker- David Godfrey, University of Maryland University College, Heidelberg

5

Speakers: Ann Koenig, American Ass of Coll Reg & Adm Off (AACRAO), Scottsdale, AZ; Bardha Qirezi, University of Pristina 9.05 An overview of Canadian education In a survey of almost 2500 international students in Canada, many commented that the excellence of Canadian education was a well-kept secret. Presenters will share some of those secrets with you. They will explain the nuts and bolts of Canada's education system, and sketch opportunities for European and other students. Introductory level Saturday 13 Sep 10.30–12.00Speakers: - Pari Johnston, Association of Universities & Colleges Canada, Ottawa, ON; Mary Kane, Canadian Bureau for International Education (CBIE), Ottawa, ON 9.06 Cuba and Peru: current views This session will review the educational systems of Cuba and Peru, with special emphasis on secondary and tertiary educational programs, institutions, and credentials. Intermediate level Saturday 13 Sep 13.30–15.00 Chair - Margit Schatzman, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc, Milwaukee, WI Speakers: Isabel Londońo, Foundation for the Future of Colombia (COLFUTURO), Santafé de Bogota; Lou Nunes, SpanTran Educational Services Inc, Tampa, FL 9.07 Development and changes to qualifications in Asia-Pacific The UK has designated the Asia-Pacific region as a priority for recruiting international students to come and study in the UK. The UK NARIC have conducted an extensive overview of the education systems in this area. This session will offer a comprehensive review of the changes and developments within the provision of education and qualifications from this region. Introductory level Saturday 13 Sep 15.30–17.00 Chair - Cloud Bai-Yun, UK NARIC, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire Speaker - Karen Marshall, National Academic Recognition Information Centre (NARIC), Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Workshops Workshop II International credential evaluation – advanced level International credential Evaluation: Advanced Level This workshop will review basic principles and procedures of international credential evaluation from both the European and the American points of view. Special attention will be paid to international legal instruments in this field. The main part of the workshop will consist of a roundtable discussion by experts of educational credentials representing several types of higher education, including university qualifications, non-university qualifications and qualifications from private institutions. Participants will be invited to submit ‘difficult’ credentials beforehand, which will be discussed during the workshop. The problems around fraudulent documents will also be addressed. Specialised level Wed, 10 Sep 09.30–16.30 Chair/ Speaker - Jessica Stannard, Nuffic, Den Haag Speakers: Rolf Lofstad, Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT), Oslo; Margit Schatzman, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc, Milwaukee, WI Workshop IX International credential evaluation – beginners level The workshop is designed for newcomers and experienced newcomers in the field of credential

evaluation. The topics covered will include: the trends in credential evaluation regarding academic and professional recognition, credential evaluation methodology, the building up and use of sources and how to deal with forgeries and refugee files. Through presentations, case studies and hands-on exercises, participants will be given the opportunity to analyse and discuss educational credentials and to obtain some insight in the essentials of credential evaluation. Introductory level Wed, 10 Sep 09.30–12.30 Chair/Speaker - Carita Blomqvist, National Board of Education, Helsinki Speakers: Lucie de Bruin, NUFFIC, Den HaagMarybeth Gruenewald, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc, Milwaukee, WI Workshop XII Methodology and institutional impacts of accreditation Accreditation is one of the most important measures of quality assurance within the Bologna Process. In this workshop the methodologies and concepts of three different national accreditation approaches (Austrian, Swiss, German) will be presented to discuss the following questions: (1) Which institutional impacts does accreditation have? Are there differences which depend on the national approaches? (2) Which are the relations to other measures of quality assurance? Is there a danger of a quality assurance bureaucracy? (3) Does accreditation modify the role of state in higher education? (4) How far does accreditation contribute to the development of a quality culture in higher education institutions? Introductory level Wed 10 Sep 13.30–16.30 Chair- Achim Hopbach, HRK, Bonn Speakers: Bettina Schiller, Accreditation, Certification & Quality assurance Institute, Bayreuth; Therese Steffen Gerber, Center of Accreditation & Quality Assurance of the Swiss Uni, Bern; Elisabeth Fiorioli, Austrian Accreditation Council, Wien Workshop XVI Degree mills and other non-recognised institutions of higher education General overview of the field will be given. Discussion of the principles of ‘recognition’ and ‘accreditation’ and their roles in the evaluation of higher education credentials. Methods for determining and interpreting the status of higher education institutions will be recommended. Different types of institutions and typical ways in which they operate will be presented. Other reasons for refusing recognition of higher education credentials will be discussed. Discussion will also include other forms of non-legitimate credentials and institutions and why they cannot (or as an alternative) should not be evaluated to make it a little more precise. Intermediate level Thursd., 11 Sep 09.00–12.00 Chair- Margarita Sianou, World Education Services, New York, NY Speakers: Ann Koenig, AACRAO, Scottsdale, AZ; Jessica Stannard, Nuffic, Den Haag; Erik Waldemar Johansson, Swedish NARIC, Stockholm

6

Introduction and overviews

ACE AS A SUPPORT FOR ADMISSION OFFICERS AND CREDENTIAL EVALUATORS

Introduction by

Hans KNUTELL, Head of admissions office, University of Uppsala, Sweden

During the last decade we have seen an increase in the mobilisation of students never witnessed before. The phrase international education has gotten a new meaning. All admissions offices and credential evaluators at universities are faced with a new challenge. Students with credentials gathered from many institutions around the world are seeking admission or want to have a degree based on many forms of credentials. All this makes the task of evaluating credentials a much more difficult one but also much more interesting. There are several obstacles that we have to overcome. The education market has become an important source of income for many countries as well as for private entrepreneurs. This has lead to a not wanted develop-ment of many not so serious education institutions as well as a market for forged document. There is a deman-ding task for credential evaluators and admissions officers to decide if a document comes from a recognized institution or not or if the documents are real or false. Also the recent developments in the world with the fall of the iron curtain, the development in former Yugoslavia, the problems in the Middle East, the rise of many new countries has created a wave of students crossing borders in order to get a decent education. In many cases they have had to leave their countries without documents verifying their educational background. This also creates new challenges for credential evaluators in universities and other institutions. All the new problems point out the importance of creating networks around the world in order to be able to handle the new challenges. Admissions officers and credential evaluators must find a plat form to meet and exchange experiences. Networking also means to create a data base of colleagues to whom you can turn to if you run in to a problem.

ACE can be such a plat form and through ACE the necessary net work can be build. At the annual conferences ACE is organising a number of sessions dealing with educational systems in many countries, recognized and not recognized institutions, forged documents, work shops on credential evaluation, the development after the Bologna declaration, prior learning assessment and so on. All the sessions and works shops are very hands on and it is well known that the participants bring back home a lot of useful materials that can be used in the daily work. Another very important aspect is those participants have a chance to getting to know colleagues from all over the world which is the start to building up a net work which can be fruitful. The success of ACE in the matters mentioned above is depending on the participating of many admissions officers and credential evaluators. During the last years admissions officers have not taken part in a number that should be desired. The ACE board has therefore decided to try to change this. This can be done for example by creating sessions at the annual conference more specifically aimed for admissions officers. Another thing to be addressed is that the board has a feeling that admissions officers at universities and other educational institutions do not really have the information of the advantages of ACE. Therefore the ACE board intend to find contact information of admissions officers around Europe in order to be able to direct the information directly to them. You, who are reading this, should spread this information to your colleagues back home and to your national net work. You are also are welcome to contact any of the members of the ACE board with suggestions of improvements in the work done by ACE or if you have ideas of topics to address in the conferences to come.

7

BOLOGNA AND QUALIFICATIONS: QUALITY, RECOGNITION, CREDIT AND ACCREDITATION IN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE An overview Jindra DIVIS, NARIC advisory board (and former President of the ENIC network)

1 Introduction International credential evaluation is one of the pillars of the Bologna process. The creation of a competitive and attractive European education area, and the promotion of mobility and European employability, will have little chance of success if the knowledge and skills acquired in different European education systems are not recognized beyond national borders. This applies both to borders within the Bologna zone and beyond. Whereas, in 1999, it received only a mention in the Bologna Declaration, international recognition is a key focus of the 2001 Prague Communiqué. The Communiqué also urges the ENIC and NARIC networks of recognition information centres to take up the ‘recognition gauntlet’ independently and in ollaboration with the European Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA).1In 2001 an ENIC/NARIC Working Party analyzed the Bologna process from a recognition perspective in its Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process – final report and used this to draw up a ‘recognition agenda’ for the next five years.2 The ENIC and NARIC networks and ENQA have also established a collaborative venture based on two exploratory documents, which was given the green light in spring 2002 at the annual meetings of all three networks. These two international projects form the basis of this paper, which examines the relationship between recognition and quality assurance and possible implications for the national context. Although the debate surrounding GATS and education is also tangentially related to this matter, it will not be considered here.

2 International recognition in the Bologna process The past 15 years have seen many notable achievements in the world of international recognition. They range from the Lisbon Recognition Convention of 1997,

1 There are two networks of recognition information centres in

Europe: the Council of Europe and UNESCO’s European Network of Information Centres on Recognition and Mobility (ENIC) and the European Commission’s network of National Academic Recognition Information Centres (NARIC). They have a joint website: http://www.enic-naric.net. 2 Recognition issues in the Bologna process – final report (of the ENIC Working Party on Recognition Issues in the Bologna process), 2001 (see: http://www.aic.lv/meeting/net_meet/English/It_5.htm ).

including the various instruments in its regime,3 to the Diploma Supplement and ECTS. Consolidation is needed in some areas, while the Bologna process necessitates a change of direction in others. Generally speaking, the following assumptions can be made. There is no longer a need for new international legislative instruments. The focus needs to shift from legislative to more flexible solutions, such as Codes of Good Practice and Recommendations. Many more stakeholders could be involved in the latter, and the end product is easier to amend, which is an advantage given the rapid pace of development in education. The harmonization of degree structures – the core of the Bologna Declaration – will undoubtedly benefit transparency and comparability. But we must remember that the introduction of a flexible bachelor’s/master’s structure will also – possibly above all – lead to more diversity, certainly in Master’s degrees. There might be huge differences between degrees bearing the same name, in terms of admission requirements, content, learning objectives and function, as well as in the rights they confer. Furthermore, higher education institutions in Europe are more and more inclined to differentiate themselves from what is seen increasingly as the competition. Within this increased flexibility, we are also seeing a major increase in the individualization of education. A range of profiles is emerging within a more clearly defined framework of qualifications. Greater transparency does not therefore necessarily lead to ‘automatic recognition’. The harmonization of degree structures in Europe will not obviate the need for individual recognition, but it will simplify the process. The availability and reliability of information, and trustworthy and accessible information brokers, will be crucial in the evaluation and recognition of qualifications. The recognition information centres and their networks will play an important role in both the gathering and passing on of information and the interpretation of it in the national or regional context. Whereas, in the past, international recognition was mainly a matter of academic recognition to ensure that foreign students and graduates were placed correctly

3 Recommendation of criteria and procedures for the assessment of foreign qualifications, Strasbourg/Bucharest, 2001 (see: http://www.aic.lv/meeting/conv_com/eng/c_it_7.htm). The UNESCO-Council of Europe Code of good practice in the provision of transnational education, Strasbourg/Bucharest, 2001 (see: http://www.aic.lv/meeting/conv_com/eng/C_Item_6.htm. Recommendation of criteria and procedures for the assessment of foreign qualifications, Strasbourg/Bucharest, 2001 see: http://www.aic.lv/meeting/conv_com/eng/c_it_7.htm

8

within the academic system, nowadays evaluation is becoming more and more important for professional purposes. Promotion of European employability goes hand in hand with a growth in professional recognition. Contact and negotiation with the social partners and trade organizations is becoming steadily more important. The well-known trends in education, from privatization to globalization, from virtualization to the concept of lifelong learning, have not only substantially altered the education landscape, but also the field of diploma evaluation. The formal degree at the end of a regular educational pathway now faces stiff competition. Transnational education is undermining concepts like ‘national borders’ and ‘national context’. Lifelong learning is no longer merely a theoretical concept – it reflects a reality whereby, in people’s life course and career, we are seeing a shift from formal education to various forms of learning.4 In evaluating qualifications acquired through formal education, the focus therefore lies less and less on the education process, the curriculum, and more and more on learning outcomes. When it comes to other forms of learning, assessment of competencies is more relevant, irrespective of the learning pathway followed. This means that traditional diploma evaluation has to be expanded to include a methodology and procedures that allow for the assessment of competencies. In 2001, therefore, the ENIC and NARIC networks made this a priority for the next five years.5Finally, the close links between recognition and quality assurance, institutionalized in a collaboration between the networks and bodies involved, are extremely important for the future of credential evaluation. They are therefore the subject of this paper.

3 Quality assurance and accreditation as a recognition issue For the purposes of this paper, quality assurance systems and accreditation have been regarded as one and the same thing. Of course this is not accurate from a methodological and procedural point of view. Whereas a quality assurance system aims mainly at raising standards, accreditation focuses on accountability and consumer protection. Accreditation shows that a course or institution has attained a certain established level of quality. But from the point of view of foreign consumers – or of someone evaluating credentials from an academic or professional perspective – this is the most pertinent issue, relevant to systems with either quality assurance or accreditation.

4 Verkenning levensloop (‘A Life Course Exploration’), Ministry of Social Affairs & Employment et al. 2002. 5 Individual centres have taken it up as well. For example, the Dutch ENIC/NARIC has taken the matter in hand in its ACCEPT project, in close collaboration with the national EVC Kenniscentrum and the Empowerment Centre EVC, and with financial support from the European Commission: Assessment of competencies in education, professional training and employment.

Where do the concepts of recognition and quality assurance/accreditation meet? The first thing to consider is the target groups.

Target groups

Who What (main products/services)

Recognition (R)

Admission and the acceptance of credits earned elsewhere

Higher education

Quality assurance/|

accreditation (Q/A)

Raising standards and accountability

R Evaluation of credentials; information on status of institutions and/or curricula and recognition options Information on education systems and qualifications from other countries

Students

Q/A (Information on status of institutions and/or curricula)

R Evaluation of credentials Information on other countries’ qualifications (and systems)

Graduates, professionals

Q/A n.a. R Evaluation of credentials or

information on recognition procedures for professional purposes (regulated professions) Information on other countries’ systems and qualifications

Government/ministries

Q/A Improvement and enforcement of quality assurance systems (accountability, public protection)

R Evaluation of credentials Information on other countries’ qualifications (and systems)

Employers

Q/A via R? National context: indirect through management of quality assurance system (public protection) International via R: information on status of institutions, programmes and diplomas.

Both involve services or activities relevant to a range of clients: higher education institutions, students and government bodies. Recognition is probably only relevant to graduates and professionals. The common target groups are higher education institutions and students, while the labour market (employers) is a new and rapidly growing target group. In general, the main objectives of quality assurance and accreditation in the national context are the improvement and enforcement of standards, efforts to improve quality (mainly quality assurance), consumer protection, and accountability (mainly accreditation). Of course, guaranteeing a minimum standard of higher education degrees and diplomas is an important aspect of the quality assurance and accreditation system. We can therefore regard the recognition of degrees and diplomas in other countries as the main aim of quality assurance/accreditation from an international perspective. And it is precisely the ‘minimum standard’ and/or accreditation that is so important in the

9

evaluation of credentials and qualifications, for both academic and professional recognition. Defining and explaining a quality statement in the national context should present few problems. However, to do so effectively for target groups in other countries is more difficult. Firstly, the required information sources and channels are not always available, and those that are tend not to be transparent or clear enough for foreign consumers. Furthermore, the information and information channels will not have been designed to suit the needs of a wide variety of consumers, particularly foreign consumers. Experience in the field of professional recognition, in particular – recognition for the labour market – has shown that information on quality from other countries needs to be properly channelled or ‘translated’. The ENICs and NARICs are fulfilling this role as well as they can at the moment, but more structure is clearly needed. The problem gets worse when we come to areas where it is not clear whether there has been a quality check and, if so, who carried it out. This is the case, for example, with joint degrees, franchising and, above all, transnational education (TNE). As we have said, credential evaluation is impossible if we do not know about the standard of institutions and the programmes they offer. But we must bear in mind that, while this is a necessary precondition, it is not enough in itself. Knowledge of quality (and accreditation) alone is not an adequate basis for evaluating a credential. To position it correctly in the education system or labour market of the receiving country, one needs a thorough knowledge of the system that conferred the qualification. As stated above, this will not essentially change with the introduction of the bachelor’s/master’s system throughout Europe.

4 ENIC/NARIC networks and ENQA The above developments, and the call in the Prague Communiqué, prompted the ENIC/NARIC networks and the European Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (ENQA) 6 to establish a joint working group to analyze the problems and devise solutions.

4.1 Background and exploration of the issues Its first observation was that the issues surrounding quality from a recognition perspective can be divided into two categories. The first category concerns matters associated with the national context: - regular accreditation/quality assurance - quality differentiation - not officially recognized/accredited programmes

offered by officially recognized/accredited institutions.

Closer international cooperation on quality assurance and accreditation would guarantee that many problems were solved on an ad hoc basis. Information on a course or qualification is always available somewhere, and in

6 http://www.enqa.net/

the worst case it would simply have to be dug up, possibly ‘translated’ and passed on. Of course for some regions it is still crucial that the regular accreditation system be made more transparent to guarantee the international credibility of the regular education system. But generally speaking the national systems in the Bologna zone safeguard the ENQA standards. And international initiatives launched by organizations like INQAAHE and UNESCO to develop a worldwide ‘label’ for accreditation bodies should certainly bear fruit in the future (see below). Quality differentiation is a more difficult area. In most countries, one assumes that higher education meets a guaranteed standard comparable to all formally recognized higher education institutions. Ranking is a sensitive issue in virtually all countries, apart from the US, for example. It is nevertheless important for those evaluating credentials that they have some insight into possible differences in quality, particularly in regions or higher education systems where there is reason to doubt whether the standard of all higher education institutions is properly safeguarded. If these doubts are ignored, this generally means that good institutions are ultimately also damaged by the growing mistrust, and that they too have difficulty getting their qualifications recognized in other countries. Non-accredited programmes offered by accredited institutions, such as the Dutch postgraduate master’s degrees in the pre-NAO7 era, require particular attention. But the Dutch example is not the only one. Although such programmes of study meet minimum quality requirements (sometimes definitely, sometimes most probably), they cannot be formally recognized or accredited. The current, rather unsatisfactory solution is to explain their status and quality to the consumer on a case-by-case basis. The solution that the Working Group of the networks suggests is to devise a way of describing formats that can be applied to this kind of programme, and would include an explanation of why they cannot be accredited. Such a statement could then be sanctioned by the three networks, giving the programme an authoritative or even semi-official status in the countries affiliated to the networks. This method also has broader application, allowing the networks to tackle various problems that can be solved by means of what we might call authoritative communication. The second category consists of issues related to the international context: - virtual education not covered by regular national

accreditation or quality assurance mechanisms - transnational education (not covered by a national

accreditation system) - private education. These programs might lead to a degree, or they might represent the so-called non-degree programs. We must above all avoid equating accredited/non-accredited with good/bad. It is no longer acceptable to reject a programme simply because it is not accredited.

7 Together with the introduction of the Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees structure in the Netherlands, the Dutch authorities established an accreditation system run by the Netherlands Accreditation Organisation (NAO).

10

There are now too many valuable programmes, provided by many institutions, that are not accredited. The bottom line is that we need insight into the quality of study programmes. If there is no national mechanism to provide this, how can we guarantee quality? Although the right information sources are very important, a more proactive approach is needed. The three networks have decided to launch joint initiatives to analyze the problems and put forward solutions.

4.2 Specifics A number of specific issues have been placed on the Working Group’s agenda for 2003. They should lead to a more detailed approach to the matter outlined above. Firstly, joint degrees are often referred to as a possible focus of joint activity. The uncertainty surrounding the quality of study programmes leading to joint degrees in some countries is a major obstacle to their recognition. Prompted by the European Association of Universities’ study of this issue, among other things, an informal working group of the ENIC/NARIC networks have produced draft international recommendations on the structure and recognition of joint degrees. After ENQA representatives have had the opportunity to make comments and suggestions, the document will be presented to the competent authorities so it can function as an official recommendation under the Lisbon Recognition Convention, thus promoting the international acceptance and recognition of joint degrees. One of the most essential concepts within credential evaluation methodology, and as such the cornerstone of recognition legislation such as the Lisbon Recognition Convention and the EU Directives on professional recognition, is that of “essential differences”. A diploma or qualification must be recognized in the receiving country unless the receiving country can demonstrate substantial differences between the programmes in question. According to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, these differences concern the content, structure, duration/study load and quality. The Convention and associated documents look in greater depth at the possible differences in content, structure and duration/study load, but say nothing about quality. The Working Group has therefore decided to address this issue with the ultimate aim of producing a typology of accreditation/quality assurance systems from the perspective of recognition. The typology recently devised by the ENQA will be taken as the starting point. In the light of the introduction through Europe of the ‘Bologna structure’ (basically bachelor’s and master’s degrees), there is likely to be a great need for a typology of degrees. Several interesting initiatives are already underway, both nationally and internationally. The developments mentioned in the preceding paragraph are particularly important. The Working Group has decided that the ENICs/NARICs will comment on the existing initiatives, in which many people in the quality assurance sector are already actively engaged. The main ones are the Joint Quality Initiative’s Dublin Descriptors and the Tuning Project (see below). The

ENICs/NARICs will therefore also recommend that the initiators of these projects work together. Attempts are also being made to tackle the issue of transnational education (TNE), or at least ‘real’ TNE, i.e. education that cannot be traced back to a national education system in any way whatsoever, unlike franchising, for example. One possible solution is to promote joint compilation of Codes of Good Practice for education providers.8 Providers that observed such a code would be assured that the ENICs/NARICs would consider their degrees. Furthermore, in the debate on the Codes of Good Practice, the ENICs/NARICs could specify exactly what quality criteria they regard as important. The quality assurance systems could then take this into account in the future. The setting up of new evaluation (not accreditation) mechanisms for this kind of programme has also been suggested. The ENQA could take the initiative, and the ENIC and NARIC networks would accept the outcomes. The subject of the increase in non-degree programmes, which credential evaluators all over Europe are encountering, has also been discussed. Although the problem is acknowledged by all, it currently does not fall within the competence of the ENQA, so it will not be tackled jointly for the time being. Finally, the subject of information provision remains high on the agenda, although it is assumed that this can in fact best be tackled in the framework of actual collaboration between the national ENIC/NARIC and the quality assurance or accreditation body.

5 Other relevant initiatives A number of the initiatives mentioned above have important implications for the ‘meeting’ of recognition and quality assurance/accreditation. Some are discussed in brief below. This overview is by no means comprehensive, as it concentrates only on the initiatives regarded as important from the point of view of the ENIC and NARIC networks. The Joint Quality Initiative is an informal network consisting mainly of representatives of quality assurance organizations and ministries, which aims to increase the transparency of collaboration between quality assurance systems, and to clarify the bachelor’s/master’s structures in Europe.9 Three of its projects are important for recognition. Firstly, the ‘Shared descriptors for bachelor’s and master’s degrees’ (the ‘Dublin descriptors’), whereby generic learning objectives or competencies are set out for bachelor’s and master’s. Secondly, ‘Distinction in naming of degrees’, whereby the various names of degrees in different countries are described, including any differences between professional and academic degrees. Finally, the Joint Quality Initiative is devising a ‘Draft description format’ which would describe the main features of a

8 It should be noted that such a Code of Good Practice already exists, as one of the documents/recommendations appended to the Lisbon Recognition Convention. What is in fact needed is an implementation mechanism. 9 http://www.jointquality.org

11

qualification or degree, including its accreditation status. Work is also underway on a ‘Glossary of Terms for the Development of the National Framework of Qualifications’. Obviously, all these initiatives are very important for anyone with responsibility for recognizing qualifications and degrees in Europe. A follow-up to the Dublin descriptors with input from the ENICs and NARICs would constitute a good step towards more transparency, and therefore towards better comparability between European degrees. The qualification format must of course be consistent with the international Diploma Supplement developed by the ENICs and NARICs. The Tuning Project – ‘Tuning education structures in Europe’ – aims to harmonize education structures in Europe, more specifically the nature of bachelor’s and master’s degrees.10 The focus is mainly on subject-specific competencies (or learning objectives) in a number of selected disciplines. Irrespective of the results, which are very relevant, the discussions within the process are important for recognition. The European Association of Universities (EUA) was established in March 2001 and is a merger of the CRE-Association of European Universities and the Confederation of EU Rectors’ Conferences.11 It is the largest European association of higher education institutions and it aims, among other things, to promote a culture of or inclination towards quality assurance in institutions. It also concerns itself with the recognition of qualifications, as evidenced for instance by its coordinating role in ECTS and the Diploma Supplement. It also coordinates research, such as the studies on the introduction of bachelor’s and master’s degrees in Europe and the problem of joint degrees. This organization’s work most certainly straddles the boundary between recognition and quality assurance. An initiative launched by UNESCO in September 2001 – the Global Forum for Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Diplomas, actually established in October 2002 – could be an important development. Its aim is to place and maintain issues concerning quality assurance and the accreditation of programmes (or institutions) and the international recognition of diplomas on the agenda of the higher education sector and national and international policymakers. Cross-border education will receive particular attention. UNESCO’s approach is global, and therefore transcends the boundaries of most other initiatives, which tend to have a regional focus. But that could also be its Achilles’ heel, because it has to take account of huge differences (including in pace) in different parts of the world. We should also mention UNESCO’s European education organization, CEPES, in Bucharest.12 This organization, co-secretary of the ENIC network alongside the Council of Europe, is also active in the field of accreditation with its ‘Indicators for Institutional and Programme Accreditation in Higher/Tertiary Education’ project, part of ‘Strategic Indicators for

10 http://odur.let.rug.nl/TuningProject/index.htm

11 http://www.unige.ch/eua/ 12 http://www.cepes.ro/

Higher Education in the Twenty-first Century (2001-2003)’. A working group is currently analyzing quality indicators recently used in accreditation, and drawing up a set of core standards and corresponding performance indicators for both programme and institutional accreditation. Another international initiative is the International Network of Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE).13 The main aim of this network is to gather and disseminate information on existing and forthcoming quality assurance methodologies and practices in higher education. The idea behind this is to promote best practice in quality assurance and quality improvement. Its network function is very important, as it provides a place where quality assurance and accreditation organizations can literally and figuratively ‘meet’. INQAAHE also aims to foster use of credit transfer systems and encourage institutions to provide material to facilitate the international recognition of diplomas. The network also intends to sound the alarm on dubious accreditation processes and organizations, an activity which will be highly important for recognition. Finally, we should like to mention one more interesting and so far unique initiative: a consortium involving UNESCO, INQAAHE and the International Association of University Presidents (IAUP), which has proposed that a ‘Worldwide Quality Label for Quality Assurance and Accreditation’ be instituted.14 This initiative would not only foster international cooperation between quality assurance and accreditation bodies, it would also do great service to the world of recognition, allowing diploma evaluators all over the world to verify the reliability of quality assurance systems or accreditation mechanisms.

6 Implications for the national setting Given the developments discussed above, what priorities should the national recognition information centres (ENICs/NARICs) be setting? To summarize, we can say that there is a common misunderstanding that the introduction in Europe of the bachelor’s/master’s structure, combined with the realization of compatible quality assurance or accreditation systems will lead to the automatic mutual recognition of diplomas and degrees, with no intervention by a ‘translation’ body. Quality and accreditation is just one aspect of the information that diploma evaluators are expected to provide to education institutions and employers. Other important aspects include content, structure, selectivity, educational approach and function. As the outgoing Dutch education minister, Maria van der Hoeven, put it in an interview in 2000: ‘Even if you are participating in the bachelor’s/master’s structure, employers still need an idea of the content of programmes in other countries, of what job applicants can and can’t do’.

13 http://www.inqaahe.nl 14 http://www.ia-up.org/iaupinfo.htm#mission

12

But the issue of quality is crucial for recognition, and thus for international mobility and employability, as called for in the Bologna Declaration. It is safe to conclude that the traditional products and services of the recognition centres will remain essential: case-by-case diploma evaluation will continue to be a highly relevant product. In most countries, the centres will also have to support various bodies implementing the international statutory instruments, particularly the Lisbon Recognition Convention and the EC Directives. Furthermore, the ENICs/NARICs will play an important role in the further development and introduction of transparency instruments, such as the international Diploma Supplement and the (ECTS). But the new directions that diploma evaluation and recognition will be required to take are more relevant to the subject of this paper. They are also important for both the ENIC/NARIC networks and the national centres themselves. In future, information provision will be a product that, in terms of relevance, can match up to regular, case-by-case diploma evaluation. On-line communication will play a key role in this. The aim is: a) to give various target groups in other countries an

insight into the quality assurance and/or accreditation status of programmes covered by an official accreditation system (see also below);

b) to reflect generic similarities and differences in the bachelor’s and master’s degrees offered in Europe, on the basis of a number of defined criteria.

The emphasis is shifting more and more towards evaluation for the labour market: professional recognition, with non-traditional qualifications steadily gaining in importance. The world of recognition, and the Dutch ENIC/NARIC, must therefore take account of a continual shift in its customer base, and an important future role for direct contact with employers. This means that the ENICs/NARICs will be involved in explaining foreign qualifications to employers, from the accreditation results to learning objectives. One really satisfactory solution would be to reflect both

qualifications and employers’ requirements in competencies. What does this imply for the relationship between the worlds of accreditation/quality assurance and recognition at national level? As we have already noted, information provision is a key issue. The ENIC/NARIC networks and ENQA expect that it will be possible to answer the most important questions concerning study programmes covered by a single official accreditation system simply by providing enough information. It is therefore important that each country devises a transparent on-line system offering information about quality and accreditation status for the entire educational system. It should cater for a range of target groups, both at home and abroad. In view of the above, this can probably best be guaranteed by close collaboration between the national ENICs/NARICs and the authorities that are responsible for accreditation or quality assurance in higher education. The tuning of bachelor’s and master’s degrees, or at least the identification of differences and similarities, is attracting national and international attention. Developments abroad and their implications for international recognition are important to the national debate on this issue – from the description of learning objectives to the English names of degrees. It is therefore highly recommended that national recognition information centres contribute their specific expertise and experience in their own country too. Finally, the problem of non-accredited programmes (and qualifications), including TNE, must be tackled also in the national context. This can vary from developing Codes of Good Practice, to launching various evaluation initiatives. The strategy will thus vary from country to country. In the Netherlands for example, the Centre for International Recognition and Certification, that also functions as the Dutch ENIC/NARIC, has taken up the challenge by deciding to certify non-degree programmes targeted at foreign students.

13

RECOGNITION AND QUALIFICATIONS’ FRAMEWORKS1

A.Rauhvargers, Latvian Rectors’ Council, President of the Lisbon Recognition Convention International Committee

The Bologna process discussions regarding the qualifications’ structures, their transparency, “readability” and international comparability have lead to a new term “qualifications’ frameworks”. In fact, a national qualifications’ framework is nothing more than a precise description of the structure of national qualifications system, indicating the workload, level and learning outcomes of each qualification and the sequence in which the qualifications follow each other. Although one could say that each country already has some kind of a national qualifications’ framework already, the first systematic attempts to describe qualifications in terms of level, workload, profile and learning outcomes are just emerging. The potential impact of the emerging national qualifications’ frameworks on recognition was discussed at the Copenhagen Conference on Qualifications’ structures in Europe1

The role of recognition is essential with a view of reaching the goals of Bologna process. This role has changed from just a procedure for acknowledgement of diplomas to evaluation of a foreign qualification aimed at finding its right path in the host country’s education or employment system. To properly place a foreign qualification in another country’s system, the focus of credential evaluation shifts from input characteristics, which may vary in different countries and higher education institutions, towards learning outcomes and competencies earned. While the main accent at learning outcomes rather than duration of studies and other input characteristics was fully acknowledged in the Lisbon Recognition Convention and especially in its subsidiary texts, until recently there were very few attempts in Europe to start

1 This arrticle is based upon a discussion paper prepared for the

group discussion on Recognition and qualifications’ frameworks at the Conference on Qualifications’ structures in Europe, Copenhagen, 27-28 March, 2003. The conclusions were endorsed by the group discussion (group chair – J.Divis, facilitator- A.Rauhvargers, rapporteur- H.Otte), see also Final report of the Copenhagen conference by General raporteur S. Bergan (page 39).

describing qualifications in terms of learning outcomes. For this reason, so far credential evaluators could only attempt to estimate the learning outcomes knowing the duration and contents of programme. The two main present transparency tools are tye European Credit transfer system (ECTS), which allows to replace study time with workload and Diploma supplement, which, among other useful characteristics of the qualification, requires indication of the rights that the qualification gives to the holder for further studies or employment in that country where the qualification has been issued. The new initiatives such as development of national qualifications’ frameworks,2 Joint Quality Initiative3, Tuning4, leading to a description of the level, workload, learning outcomes and profiles of qualifications stimulate recognition and they should be further promoted. It is however recommended that the different efforts and especially the cross border ones are in some way coordinated to avoid different definitions of the same issues or creation of different jargon that may lead to confusion. The outcomes of the new initiatives could and should be mounted into the Diploma supplement. Amending diploma supplement rather than attempts to replace it with results of the new initiatives is also justified by the proven usefulness of the Diploma Supplement and longstanding and costly efforts to introduce it in many European countries. National qualifications’ frameworks are powerful transparency tools; therefore development of such qualification frameworks in all the Bologna process countries could be encouraged by the Berlin ministerial meeting. The examples of already existing National qualifications’ frameworks, however, demonstrate how

2 British (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), Danish, Scottish and Irish examples were discussed at Copenhagen seminar on Qualifications’ structures, see ACE website http://www.aic.lv/ace/bologna/sem.html 3 see http://www.aic.lv/ace/bologna/Prg_berl/Amst_book.pdf 4 Project “Tuning Educational structures in Europe”, see book at http://www.aic.lv/ace/bologna/Prg_berl/Tun_Book.pdf

14

different these frameworks can be in different educational systems. An overarching EHEA qualifications’ framework should therefore be created to:

• provide an overall model for and guide all the national frameworks,

• serve as a device for translation of the information about qualifications from one national system to another.

It seems feasible to start creation of the European qualifications’ framework now, even if minority of European countries have elaborated their qualifications’ frameworks at present. It is expected that work at a European qualifications framework should, clarify many issues, stimulate development of national qualifications’ frameworks. Due to the wide diversity of European higher education systems, a need to assign levels to credits has become evident. When elaborating the eventual European qualifications’ framework, this issue should be taken on board. The cooperation between qualifications’ networks, quality assurance and recognition in the long run could work according to the following scheme:

National Qualifications’ Frameworks describe qualifications in terms of level, workload and learning outcomes, Quality assurance mechanisms confirm that the programs provide education that, if completed, will lead to these learning outcomes. Ultimately, the recognition authorities will assess person’s qualifications in order to verify that an individual has attained the stipulated learning outcomes. European Qualifications’ framework

– provides an overall model for and guides the national frameworks,

– is used to translate information between national qualifications’ frameworks.

As a result, Credentials’ evaluators will – easily find information on level and quality of

the foreign qualification – use European qualifications’ framework to

interpret the orientation, profile and main learning outcomes of the foreign qualification

– devote most of their effort to find the right path for the foreign qualification in host country’s education and/or employment system.

15

INTERNATIONAL CREDENTIALING OF TERTIARY EDUCATION - PRINCIPLES, QUESTIONS & CONCERNS James S. Frey, Ed.D, President, Educational Credential Evaluators, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA Each year, millions of educational credentials issued by educational institutions in one country are submitted to officials in another country as part of the process for obtaining immigration, employment, professional licensure, admission to an advanced educational program, or other benefits for which educational qualifications are a prerequisite. The process by which these educational credentials are reviewed by decision makers is referred to generically as evaluation. The international recognition accorded to tertiary (postsecondary) educational credentials and to the qualifications they represent is based upon a combination of facts and perceptions. Those entrusted with the responsibility for making official recognition decisions have an ethical obligation, both to the society they serve and to the individuals whose credentials are being evaluated, to maximize the factual bases for their decisions and to minimize the perceptual bases. This article presents my view of the principles of international educational credential evaluation, and then asks some questions about tertiary education in the 21st century and shares some concerns. Basic Principles of International Educational Credential Evaluation I. In every geographic area, the range of human

intellectual ability, from the very bright to the very dull, can be described by the standard bell-shaped curve of normal distribution.

If we cannot accept this principle, then there is no basis for the acceptance of educational credentials between any two geographic areas, whether they be as similar as Berlin and Munich or as different as Bangladesh and Mozambique. II. One year of full-time academic study at one

educational institution is the equivalent of one year of full-time academic study at another educational institution at the same level of education.

One year of full-time academic study at the University of London is the equivalent of one year of full-time study at the University of New Delhi or the University of Cairo or the University of Beijing or the University of Buenos Aires or the University of Kentucky. If this is not true, then there is no objective basis for comparing educational achievement, whether the two educational institutions are located in the same country or in different countries. III. There are significant differences between primary

and secondary education, and between secondary and tertiary education.

For example: Physics may be studied at all levels of education. Wherever it is studied, physics includes mechanics, heat, sound, electricity, magnetism, and light. The study of physics differs from one level of

education to another because differences in the educational and experiential background of the students result in differences in the depth and breadth of the information that is covered. Because the same subject can be taught at different levels of education, and can be described at each level with the same or similar terminology, it is not possible to determine the level of an individual course solely by reading a course description or syllabus. IV. Satisfactory completion of a given degree program

may lead to employment within a specific field or profession, but receipt of a degree does not necessarily confirm eligibility for professional licensure in another jurisdiction.

In some countries, a professional license and an academic degree are the same credential. There is no distinction. In other countries, however, the two qualifications are distinct. There the process of professional licensure is administered by a governmental agency, not by an educational institution, and a licensure examination may be required. The qualifications required for professional licensure, and the level and quantity of education they represent, differ from country to country. Thus it is not illogical to say that an applicant from one country has the equivalent of a university degree in another country but is not yet qualified to practice the relevant profession. V. Bilateral and Multilateral Agreements Are Not

Universally Binding In some countries, tertiary education is totally controlled by an agency of the national government. The government can enter into bilateral and multilateral agreements, and tertiary educational institutions must abide by them. In other countries, the national government does not have complete control over tertiary education. Complete or partial control is exercised by regional governments (for example: Land in Germany; province in Canada and Pakistan; state in India and the United States; state and territory in Australia). In the United States, for example, the federal (national) government has no direct authority over education at any level. As a result, the United States can not be an official participant in any international agreement concerning the comparability of educational qualifications. In some countries, tertiary educational institutions are completely autonomous. They set their own require-ments for admission and for graduation, and they determine for themselves when and under what circumstances those requirements can be waived. In many instances, the various academic subdivisions of an educational institution have the authority to make

16

decisions that might or might not be consistent with decisions made by other subdivisions of the same institution. Similarly, in many countries professional licensing agencies are not governed by national legislation. They are governed by regional or local legislation and/or by regulations issued under their own authority. Therefore they have the authority to make their own determinations concerning the eligibility for professional licensure of an applicant who was educated in another jurisdiction. Professional licensure requirements are probably more variable in the United States than in any other country. For example, an architect educated in Wisconsin does not qualify for licensure in California unless an extra course on earthquakes has been completed. An architect educated in California does not qualify for licensure in Wisconsin unless an extra course on the effects of cold weather and heavy snow loads on roofs has been completed. Illinois requires secondary school social studies teachers to have completed a course on the History of Illinois. Wisconsin requires them to have completed courses on Cooperatives and on the Conservation of Natural Resources. VI. Experienced reasonable persons can reach

differing conclusions concerning the nature of aneducational program and concerning the equivalence or lack thereof between two educational programs.

This is perhaps the most important principle of all. Just as three physicians can diagnose the same patient differently, and recommend different types of treatment, so can three experienced conscientious international educational credential evaluators differ in judgment concerning the comparability of educational qualifications. Questions About Tertiary Education in the 21st Century A. What is the purpose of university education? When the ancient universities were established (Alexandria in Egypt, Bologna in what is now Italy, Mustansiriyah in what is now Iraq, Taxila in what is now India), the purpose of university education was clear. It was to pass on to future generations the accumulated wisdom of society. In the Middle Ages, the traditional university curriculum, the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and logic), was expanded by the addition of the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy). Over the centuries other discrete subjects were added, mostly of a theoretical nature such as theology, literature, and history. In the 1860s, the Morrill Land Grant Act transferred valuable tracts of land owned by the federal government of the United States to state governments in exchange for university instruction in agriculture, home science, and the mechanical arts. This marks the addition of applied professional (some called it vocational) training to university curricula. Most other countries have followed this example, with perhaps the last being England, which made engineering a university-based subject one hundred years later.

Universities now had a dual purpose: to pass on the accumulated wisdom of society, and to train students for technical occupations. In the 19th Century, German educators developed a different philosophy of tertiary education. For them, the purpose of a university was to advance the frontiers of human knowledge through research and publication. In the United States and in many other countries, including Germany, the purpose of a university is now a blend of these three missions: pass on knowledge, train professional workers, and advance the frontiers of human knowledge. Some educational systems have added a fourth mission: community or public service. What is the purpose of a university in the 21st century? There’s no clear answer. It depends upon whom you ask. Argentina: In 2001, the government offered extra funds to universities that encourage students to take courses the government recommends, and threatened to cut funds to universities that do not. The intention is to reward universities that help fulfill the country’s practical needs,15

Association of African Universities: Higher education institutions must become more responsive to local development needs. The mission of universities is to produce job creators, not job seekers.16

Australia: The goal is not to meet a range of social, economic, and cultural purposes. The goal is to be an enterprise, a quasi-business organization, serving itself.17

Australia: The top universities, together one of Australia’s largest export earners, fear their share of the world market for students is slipping because of bad publicity in Asia.18

Bulgaria: The goal of higher education is the training of highly qualified specialists and the promotion of scientific and cultural progress. Higher education is the provider of tomorrow’s leaders and politicians, and therefore plays a pivotal part in developing a well-functioning society. 2England: Higher education is an international business, an industry in a cut-throat market, and universities cannot afford to become parochial. 4England: Higher education needs to respond to employer demand for more and better trained technicians and professionals, to develop key skills that are relevant and in demand for a 21st Century workforce.3England: Education should be accessible to all who desire it for their own sense of personal achievement, irrespective of the prospects for immediate payback in the world of work. 3England: The education of the people should be limited to the requirements of their occupations and should not extend beyond what relates to their work. 3France: Universities are evolving from theoretical teaching programs to degrees based more on the needs

15 London Times Higher Educational Supplement [THES], 20 04.2001 16 International Higher Education, Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Spring 2001. 17 THES, 27 October 2000. 18 THES, 19 September 1997.

17

of professional life, and to increasing and improving student mobility into and out of the country. 3Japan: Companies are pressing universities to undertake more of the applied research and professional education of graduates formerly undertaken by companies.19

Japan: The Ministry of Education believes that the universities are not competitive enough internationally in research or in attracting overseas students. As a result, the best Japanese university graduates enroll in graduate degree programs in other countries. 5Lithuania: Higher education institutions are changing curricula to meet the needs of the new market economy and the globalization of the Lithuanian economy.20

Malaysia: As part of its campaign to become a world-class center for education, the government wants to provide a more competitive environment. 4National Unions of Students in Europe: Higher education is a public good and, as such, institutions act in the public interest. Their ultimate purpose is to foster social responsibility and civic involvement and thus drive social development. THES, 11 May 2001.21

Palestine: The purpose of higher education is to meet the scientific and technical needs of the economy and society. 2Scotland: The purpose of higher education is to promote entrepreneurship among, staff, students, and graduates. 3Scotland: Higher education needs to be devoted to socio-economic and techno-cultural modernization. 4Senegal: Universities have a moral obligation to ameliorate society’s problems. 2South Africa: Universities have a societal function, to provide significant and substantial experiences of engaging with diversity issues as preparation for civic engagement and social responsibility. 4United States: Higher education serves five purposes: individual student development, advancement of human capability in society at large, expansion of educational justice, transmission and advancement of learning and wisdom, and the critical evaluation of society to foster society’s self-renewal. 2If we accept these position statements, tertiary education should train people in the skills needed by the national economy; conduct scientific research and promote scientific progress; promote cultural progress and social development; ameliorate society’s problems: train civic leaders; foster individual personal achievement; act as an enterprise and get its share of the international market; improve student mobility into and out of the country; transmit and advance knowledge; and critically evaluate society. Are these really appropriate purposes for tertiary education? Are they compatible? Can tertiary education fulfill all of these objectives? Who decides which ones are most important? B. Is education a product or a process? England: Students should be members of an academic community, not customers. 1National Unions of Students in Europe: Students are not consumers of a marketable education service, but equal

19 THES, 1 December 2000.

20 International Higher Education, Summer 2001. 21 THES, 11 May 2001.

partners in the higher education community and a force for change.6New Zealand: The government stresses the importance of nurturing a knowledge society and the universities’ key role in bringing it about.22

Russia: Student assessment reflects not only their knowledge but also their ability to display key competencies that have been built into the curriculum: to chair a meeting, to work in a team, to manage a project.5United States: There is a significant increase in the number of persons who obtain a General Educational Development (GED) Certificate (by examination) instead of a high school diploma. But the examination is no substitute for four years of high school. High school education is more important than the documentation.23

World Trade Organization: Higher education is a commercial product, to be bought and sold like any other commodity. The import and export of higher education should be free of unnecessary restrictions. 2Can education be both a product to be sold and bought and a process to be experienced and completed? Are these two divergent aspects compatible? Who decides which is more important? C. Why do universities seek to have an international

dimension? Åland Islands, Denmark, Faroe Islands, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, & Sweden: Universities should collaborate more closely and create joint centers of excellence in research and researcher training to attract more students.5Australia: Up to 2,500 qualified Australian students were not admitted to information technology programs because of inadequate government support. Two-thirds of the students enrolled in information technology programs were full-fee paying students from overseas. 3Czech Republic: Universities should attract more corporate sponsors so graduates can move directly into positions of public or corporate prominence. 5England: Universities should compete internationally. 5England: China is the fastest growing market for UK university recruitment. 1India: Universities need to fill the gap between supply and demand that foreign universities are cashing in on for marketing their courses, and to reduce the diversion of bright students to substandard foreign universities. 5When one compares the reasons why universities seek to have an international dimension with the purposes of tertiary education, there is little compatibility. Money and prestige appear to be the dominant reasons. Who decides whether or not a university should recruit and enroll international students? Who decides why?

Concerns About Tertiary Education in the 21st Century 1. There is no clear philosophical mission for tertiary

educational institutions. Should they train those with the best academic and intellectual skills, or use their programs to expand the percentage of the population educated at the postsecondary level?

22 THES, 22 June 2001. 23 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 8 July 2001.

18

d. A tertiary educational institution in the Netherlands offers a four-year program of study for citizens of the Netherlands, who complete 42 credits per year. It also offers a two-year program of study in the same academic field for citizens of the United States, who complete 75 credits per year. The institution claims that the two sets of students complete the same academic program and receive the same degree.

Should they conduct teaching and research in fields of study requested by the public, or identified as important by the government, or which will make a profit? Who should decide?

2. There is almost universal agreement on the need for quality control, but no clear definition of what constitutes quality tertiary education.

3. There is no clear identification of the public to be served. Should tertiary educational institutions serve people residing in their own geographic area, or citizens of their own country, or citizens of other countries?

4. Because of these deficiencies, tertiary education is now in a state of competitive marketing. The Open University in England now operates staffed offices in the United States and in most European countries. Other British universities operate in Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia, Singapore, and other countries. Australian universities operate in Malaysia and Singapore. U.S. universities operate in Germany and Poland. U.S.-patterned (but not U.S. regionally accredited) institutions have flooded the globe.

5. Because of these deficiencies, tertiary education is now in a state of caveat emptor (buyer beware). Intellectual honesty on the part of tertiary educational institutions cannot be assumed.

a. A university in the United States will, for a fee, post on its own grade report courses taken at an institution outside of the United States that can not be used in its own degree programs but which can then be more easily transferred to other universities which are not aware of the distinction.

b. A university in the United States will, for a fee, post on its own grade report a non-credit in-service program for teachers, listing it as a graduate (postgraduate) course so the teachers can qualify for salary increases, without noting that this course cannot be used for any degree program at the university.

c. A university in the United Kingdom offers on-site a postgraduate degree program that requires for admission a first class or high second class bachelor’s degree and at least two years of work experience, and that requires for graduation completion of ten courses and a dissertation. It also offers via distance learning a postgraduate degree program in the same academic field that has no educational and no employment requirements for admission, and that requires for graduation completion of ten courses but no dissertation. The university claims that the two sets of students complete the same academic program and receive the same degree.

e. A university in Australia offers an on-site degree program to citizens of Australia. It also offers a distance learning degree program in the same field of study to citizens of Singapore. The program offered in Singapore requires different courses and leads to a degree with a different name. The University claims that the two degrees are the same in essence and should be treated as though they are the same in fact.

f. A private company in Hong Kong (not an educational institution) teaches in Chinese courses it has licensed from a private company in Singapore (not an educational institution) which holds a franchise from a university in England. Students who complete the appropriate courses in Hong Kong receive a degree from a university in Wales.

When a tertiary educational institution receives official degree-granting recognition from those who have authority over tertiary education in the country in which the institution operates, it receives that recognition for degree programs it offers to citizens of that country. When an officially recognized degree-granting institution chooses to offer degree programs to citizens of another country, on-site or via distance learning, it is reasonable to expect that the names of those degree programs, the components of those degree programs, and the credentials confirming completion of those degree programs will be identical to those offered to citizens of the institution’s own country. When that is not the case, it is reasonable for an international educational credential evaluator to withhold acceptance of those degrees and the components thereof. Conclusion Tertiary education throughout the world is in greater turmoil now than at any time since the Protestant Reformation in Europe. Those who are providers of tertiary education are being subjected to philosophical, administrative, and financial pressures from an increasing number of directions. Those who clearly define their mission, their goals, their degree programs, and their quality standards will have a better chance to have their degrees officially recognized internationally.

Annex I

19

MAIN RECENT DOCUMENTS

by ENIC and NARIC networks

20

ENIC NETWORK (COUNCIL OF EUROPE/UNESCO) NARIC NETWORK (EUROPEAN COMMISSION)

10th Joint Meeting of the ENIC and NARIC Networks Vaduz (Liechtenstein), 18-20 May 2003

STATEMENT BY THE ENIC AND NARIC NETWORKS ON THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA (VADUZ STATEMENT)

STATEMENT 1. The ENIC and NARIC Networks, in a declaration adopted at their annual meeting in Vilnius in June 1999, declared their willingness and ability to contribute to the Bologna Process. The Networks outlined the basis for their work to help implement the European Higher Education Area in the ENIC report on Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process. Their work to improve and facilitate recognition of qualifications in Europe rely on and seek to implement the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (Lisbon Recognition Convention) as well as, for professional recognition, the European Union Directives on professional recognition. 2. In terms of the legal framework for recognition, the ENIC and NARIC Networks played an important role in preparing the UNESCO/Council of Europe Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education and the Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications, both of which were adopted by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee in 2001. At their 2003 meeting, the Networks considered a draft Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees, to be submitted to the Convention Committee for adoption in 2004. 3. The ENIC and NARIC Networks, meeting in Vaduz on 18 - 20 May 2003 for their annual joint meeting, hereby confirm their intention to continue to contribute to the Bologna Process aiming to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010. In so doing, they draw on a membership of national centres representing countries party to the Bologna Process as well as countries interacting with the European Higher Education Area in other ways. 4. The ENIC and NARIC Networks fully support the ultimate goal of the European Higher Education Area: to facilitate the mobility of students, staff and higher education graduates within as large a part of Europe as possible. They recognize that the European Higher Education Area must be built on both national policies and joint policies in key areas agreed within a European framework, and that without commitment to and implementation of these policies at national level, the

European Higher Education Area will not become an effective reality. 5. The ENIC and NARIC Networks consider the Bologna Process to be the most important reform of higher education in Europe in the present generation and see their contribution to it as helping build bridges between education systems and qualifications and as fora for the further development of recognition policies in Europe and beyond. 6. The recognition of qualifications is of key importance to the realization of several key goals of the Bologna process: • increased academic and professional mobility • transparency • increased employability of higher education

graduates • the European dimension and is also important to the “external dimension” of the Bologna Process, i.e. the interaction between the European Higher Education Area and other parts of the world, some of which participate in the ENIC network on an equal footing. The outcomes of transparent quality assurance procedures are also of key importance to the recognition of qualifications, and the ENIC and NARIC Networks declare their intention to continue their cooperation with the European Network for Quality Assurance in higher education (ENQA). Last, but not least, the ENIC and NARIC Networks see higher education as part and parcel of a comprehensive system of Lifelong Learning. Improved recognition of higher education qualifications as well as of access qualifications will therefore help implement this important goal of the Bologna Process, as outlined in the Prague Communiqué. 7. The role of the ENIC and NARIC Networks in developing the legal framework for the recognition of qualifications in Europe also points to their key role in implementing this framework and in developing recognition policies at European level as well as of the mission of each member of the Networks at national level. 8. On this background, in their further contribution to the European Higher Education Area, the ENIC and NARIC Networks will in particular seek to: (a) facilitate recognition of qualifications issued

within the framework of the two tier degree structure being adopted by the countries

21

participating in the Bologna Process, with a view to reducing the time, effort and cost required for the recognition of qualifications within the European Higher Education Area. They will continue to develop and improve methods for recognition of qualifications based on their level, quality and profile;

(b) develop cooperation between the recognition and quality assurance networks, in keeping with the request by Ministers in their Prague Communiqué. In this, they refer to the ongoing discussions between the ENIC and NARIC Networks and representatives of the European Network on Quality Assurance in higher education (ENQA). While they consider that clear and transparent quality assurance procedures, as well as publication of their outcomes, will greatly facilitate the recognition of qualifications, the ENIC and NARIC Networks also underline that, while quality assurance is essential for recognition, it cannot substitute the individual assessment needed to place a qualification into another education or employment system;

(c) improve information on the recognition of foreign qualifications. In this, they will continue to promote the European Credit Transfer System, the Diploma Supplement and other tools to improve transparency as well as to develop improved guidelines and systems for information exchange. In the latter, they refer in particular to the conclusions of the Bologna Seminar on Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process, organized jointly by the Council of Europe and the Portuguese authorities in Lisbon on 11 – 12 April 2002;

(d) improve recognition of joint degrees and other possible innovative initiatives aiming at increasing student mobility and bridging the gaps between national education systems. In this, they will build on the study and pilot on joint degrees at masters level carried out by the European University Association and supported by the European Commission and they will contribute to the implementation of the draft Recommendation on the Recognition of Joint Degrees referred to above once it shall have been adopted by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee;

(e) develop recognition procedures aiming at the recognition of learning outcomes rather than the formal paths that have led to these outcomes. In this, they will in particular build on the results of the Joint Quality Initiative and the TUNING project supported by the European Commission as well as on the work

carried out on the recognition of prior learning and non-traditional qualifications. Recognition based on learning outcomes is important also with regard to facilitating lifelong learning;

(f) contribute to the development of transparent qualifications frameworks at national level as well as in the context of the European Higher Education Area;

(g) improve recognition of qualifications from other parts of the world as well as improved recognition of qualifications from the European Region elsewhere. In this, they will in particular build on and contribute to the work of the UNESCO Global Forum on Quality Assurance, Accreditation and the Recognition of Qualifications;

(h) underline the need for international cooperation to be based on clear and transparent quality standards and work for the implementation of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention and its subsidiary texts as well as, as appropriate, the European Directives on professional recognition;

(i) develop model terms of reference for national information centres.

9. The goals set by the ENIC and NARIC Networks, as well as by their individual members are ambitious and of key importance to the success of the Bologna Process. The Networks, as well as their individual member centres, are prepared to meet the challenges of the Bologna process and contribute to realizing the opportunities the European Higher Education Area holds forth. They invite national authorities as well as other actors, such as international organizations, higher education institutions, professional associations, student organizations, employers and NGOs, to make greater use of the experience and expertise of the Networks and their members. The ENIC and NARIC centres will seek close cooperation with other information centres in their countries, notably the National Reference Points active in the framework of the Bruges-Copenhagen process for vocational education and training, 10. Reaching these goals will depend on the efforts, experience, knowledge and skills of the Networks, their members and the Organizations serving the Networks, but also of the resources put at their disposal. The ENIC and NARIC Networks take this opportunity to underline the need for each country to maintain an adequately staffed and equipped national information centre, in keeping with the requirements Article IX.2 of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention as well as contributing to the running of both Networks.

22

RECOMMENDATION ON THE RECOGNITION OF JOINT DEGREES Text adopted in 2004 Directorate General IV: Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport (Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education - Higher Education and Research Division) of the Council of Europe and UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education (UNESCO-CEPES) Preamble

The Committee of the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe and UNESCO is to achieve greater unity between their members, and that this aim can be pursued notably by common action in cultural matters; Having regard to the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (ETS no. 165); Having regard to the European Cultural Convention (ETS no. 18); Having regard to the process towards the establishment of a European higher Education Area, and in particular to the Declaration of the European Ministers of Education adopted in Bologna on 19 June 1999 as well as to their Communiqués adopted in Prague on 19 May 2001 and Berlin on 19 September 2003; Having regard to the Diploma Supplement elaborated jointly by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO, to the UNESCO/Council of Europe Code of Good Practice in the provision of transnational education, to the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and to the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications; Having regard to the practical action in favour of improving the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education carried out by the Council of Europe/UNESCO European Network of national

information centres on academic recognition and mobility ("the ENIC Network"); Considering that the Council of Europe and UNESCO have always encouraged academic mobility as a means for better understanding of the various cultures and languages, and without any form of racial, religious, political or sexual discrimination; Considering that studying or working in a foreign country is likely to contribute to an individual's cultural and academic enrichment, as well as to improve the individual's career prospects; Considering that the recognition of qualifications is an essential precondition for both academic and professional mobility; Convinced that the joint development of curricula between higher education institutions in different countries and the award of joint degrees contribute to academic and professional mobility and to the creation of a European Higher Education Area; Convinced that the development and improved recognition of joint degrees will contribute to developing the European dimension of higher education and entail important benefits for individuals as well as for European society as a whole; Aware that the recognition of qualifications originating in such joint arrangements is currently encountering difficulties of a legal as well as of a practical nature; Conscious of the need to facilitate the recognition of joint degrees; Recommends the governments of States party to the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region

23

(hereinafter referred to as “the Lisbon Recognition Convention”): i. to take into account, in the establishment of their recognition policies, the principles set out in the appendix hereto which forms part of this Recommendation; ii. to draw these principles to the attention of the competent bodies concerned, so that they can be considered and taken into account; iii. to promote implementation of these principles by government agencies and local and regional authorities, and by higher education institutions within the limits imposed by the autonomy of higher education institutions;

iv. to ensure that this Recommendation is distributed as widely as possible among all persons and bodies concerned with the recognition of qualifications concerning higher education; Invites the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the Director-General of UNESCO, as appropriate, to transmit this Recommendation to the governments of those States which were invited to the Diplomatic Conference entrusted with the adoption of the Lisbon Recognition Convention but which have not become parties to that Convention.

APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE RECOGNITION OF JOINT DEGREES

General considerations 1. The present Recommendation is adopted within the

framework of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and applies to the Parties to this Convention. The principles and practices described in this Recommendation can, however, equally well be applied to the recognition of qualifications in countries other than those party to the Lisbon Recognition Convention or to qualifications issued between or among national education systems.

2. The purpose of the present Recommendation is to improve the recognition of joint degrees. While degrees that are considered as belonging to the education system of a Party to the Lisbon Recognition Convention even where parts of the degree have been earned in other education systems fall under the provisions of the Convention, the present Recommendation concerns joint degrees.

3. While the scope of the Lisbon Recognition Convention as well as of subsidiary texts adopted under the provisions of Article X.2.5 of the Convention concern the recognition of qualifications in countries other than that in which they have been earned, the provisions of the present recommendation may equally well be applied, mutatis mutandis, to joint degrees issued by two or more institutions belonging to the same national higher education system.

Definitions 4. Terms defined in the Lisbon Recognition

Convention are used in the same sense in the present Recommendation, and reference is made to the definition of these terms in Section I of the Convention.

5. A joint degree should, for the purposes of this Recommendation, be understood as referring to a higher education qualification issued jointly by at least two or more higher education institutions or

jointly by one or more higher education institutions and other awarding bodies, on the basis of a study programme developed and/or provided jointly by the higher education institutions, possibly also in cooperation with other institutions. A joint degree may be issued as

a) a joint diploma in addition to one or more national diplomas,

b) a joint diploma issued by the institutions offering the study programme in question without being accompanied by any national diploma

c) one or more national diplomas issued officially as the only attestation of the joint qualification in question.

General principles 6. Holders of joint degrees should have adequate

access, upon request, to a fair assessment of their qualifications

7. Competent recognition authorities should recognize foreign joint degrees unless they can demonstrate that there is a substantial difference between the joint degree for which recognition is sought and the comparable qualification within their own national higher education system. Competent recognition authorities of Parties whose higher education institutions confer joint degrees should recognize these degrees with the greatest flexibility possible.

Legislation 8. Governments of States party to the Lisbon

Recognition Convention should, where appropriate, therefore review their legislation with a view to removing any legal obstacles to the recognition of joint degrees and introduce legal provisions that would facilitate such recognition.

24

Quality assurance and institutional recognition

9. Competent recognition authorities may make the recognition of joint degrees conditional on all parts of the study programme leading to the degree and/or the institutions providing the programme being subject to transparent quality assessment or being considered as belonging to the education system of one or more Parties to the Lisbon Recognition Convention.

10. Where the joint degree is issued on the basis of a curriculum developed by a group or consortium consisting of a number of recognized higher education institutions, recognition of the degree may be made contingent on all member institutions or programmes of the group or consortium being subject to transparent quality assessment, or being considered as belonging to the education system of one or more Parties to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, even if only some of these institutions provide courses for any given degree.

Information 11. Institutions providing joint degrees should be

encouraged to inform the competent recognition authorities of programmes giving rise to such degrees.

12. As approproate, in order to facilitate recognition, candidates earning joint degrees should be provided with a Diploma Supplement, and study programmes leading to joint degrees should make use of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS).

13. The Diploma Supplement issued with a joint degree should clearly describe all parts of the degree, and it should clearly indicate the institutions and/or study programmes at which the different parts of the degree have been earned.

25

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON THE RECOGNITION OF JOINT DEGREES D Version as approved in 2034 for submission to the Lisboa Recognition Convention Committee for adoption Directorate General IV: Education, Culture and Heritage, Youth and Sport (Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education - Higher Education and Research Division) of the Council of Europe, UNESCO/CEPES and Directorate General of Education and Culture of the European Commission

INTRODUCTION

The Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region is the main international legal text concerning the recognition of qualifications. It was adopted on 11 April 1997 and entered into force on 1 February 1999. A list of ratifications and signatures may be found at http://conventions.coe.int by searching for ETS 165.

The Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention is also one of the key standards for the Bologna Process aiming to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010, the main goals of which include improving the mobility of students, staff and graduates, facilitating the recognition of qualifications and increasing the transparency of higher education systems in Europe.

The Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention has a double function. In legal terms, it is a treaty between states, and as such it is valid as a legal standard for the recognition of qualifications belonging to the higher education systems of the parties to the Convention as well as the qualifications covered by its subsidiary texts. In a broader sense, the Convention also serves as a guide to good practice, and in this sense, its provisions may, mutatis mutandis, be applied to all higher education qualifications, regardless of their origin. In this sense, the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention is in fact used as a standard well beyond its strictly legal function.

In article X.2.5, the Convention foresees that the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention Committee may adopt subsidiary

texts to the Convention. So far, three such texts have been adopted:

a Recommendation on International Access Qualifications (1999);

a Recommendation on Criteria and procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications (2001);

a Code of Good Practice in the Provision of Transnational Education (2001).

As will be seen, two of the three subsidiary texts adopted so far concern qualifications that are not a part of national education systems. This is partly because the Convention itself in a legal sense only covers qualifications belonging to the education system of Parties, and partly because the importance of qualifications not belonging to any national education system have increased vastly in importance since the Convention was adopted in 1997. This development is, with the increased emphasis on quality assurance, the most significant development in the recognition field since 1997.

Joint degrees The increased importance of joint degrees is a part of this overall development towards qualifications not

26

formally recognized as belonging to any – or any single – national education system, although it is a phenomenon of a different nature than transnational education.

While qualifications arising from transnational arrangements often fully stand outside national qualifications systems, in the case of joint degrees each component most often belongs to a national system and it is the combination of these elements that make competent recognition authorities (and others) consider joint degrees either as belonging to more than one national system or not fully belonging to any single national system.

This problem of typology should, however, not overshadow the considerable potential of joint degrees as an excellent means of stimulating academic mobility and cooperation between higher education institutions. As such, joint degrees have the potential to play an important role in helping establish the European Higher Education Area, as was underlined by the Prague Higher Education Summit:

In order to further strengthen the important European dimensions of higher education and graduate employability Ministers called upon the higher education sector to increase the development of modules, courses and curricula at all levels with ”European” content, orientation or organisation. This concerns particularly modules, courses and degree curricula offered in partnership by institutions from different countries and leading to a recognized joint degree. (Prague Communiqué, adopted by the Ministers of the Bologna Process)

However, this role can only be fulfilled if joint degrees are given adequate recognition. The purpose of the present Recommendation is therefore to help ensure fair recognition for a kind of qualification that has considerable potential, but that is in a strict legal sense not covered by the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention.

Within the Bologna Process, joint degrees have been the subject of a major study carried out by the European University Association and financed by the European Commission24. The present Recommendation is indebted to the study and seeks, as appropriate, to translate its main recommendations into legal provisions applicable in the context of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention. In so doing, it also takes account of the round table debate of the Council of Europe’s Higher Education and Research Committee (CD-ESR) on the European Higher

24 See Andrejs Rauhvargers “Joint Degree Study” in Christian Tauch and Andrejs Rauhvargers: Survey on Master Degrees and Joint Degrees in Europe (Bruxelles 2001: European University Association).

Education Area at the 2002 plenary session of the CD-ESR (Strasbourg, 2 – 3 October 2002).

Preamble

The Preamble places the Recommendation in the context of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention and the European Higher Education Area and points to the main developments that call for improved provisions for the recognition of joint degrees.

General considerations

The general considerations place the present Recommendation in the context of the Convention and points to the double function of the Convention as an international legal instrument and as a guide to good practice. Attention is also drawn to the fact that while joint degrees are most commonly issued as a result of cooperation between higher education institutions located in different countries and issuing their degrees within different higher education systems, joint degrees may in principle also be issued by higher education institutions located in the same country and issuing degrees within the same higher education system. With appropriate adjustments, the provisions of the present Recommendation may equally well be applied to such cases.

Definitions

This part of the Recommendation seeks to define joint degree as a generic term and to explore the main types of joint degrees. It is worth noting that the EUA study on joint degrees found that there is no common definition in use today, whether explicitly or implicitly, but a joint degree can be said to have all or some of the following characteristics:

the programmes are developed and/or approved jointly by several institutions;

students from each participating institution physically take part in the study programme at other institutions (but they do not necessarily study at all cooperating institutions);

students’ stay at the participating institutions should constitute a substantial part of the programme;

periods of study and examinations passed at the partner institutions are recognized fully and automatically;

the partner institutions work out the curriculum jointly and cooperate on admission and

27

examinations. In addition, staff of participating institutions should be encouraged to teach at other institutions contributing to the joint degree;

after completing the full programme, students either obtain the national degree of each participating institution or awarding body or a degree (usually an unofficial “certificate” or “diploma”) awarded jointly by the partner institutions25.

The main kinds of joint degrees may be illustrated by a number of examples, which may include very different levels of actual cooperation in curriculum development and mobility of staff and students.

Thus, joint doctoral degrees may range from joint supervision of thesis by professors from different countries to actual joint doctoral programmes where parts of the research towards the doctoral degree are carried out at different universities in different countries. At first and second degree level at one end of the spectrum there are examples of (virtual) universities established in cooperation between two or several countries with a view to offering joint curricula leading to joint degrees, such as the Transnational University of Limburg between the Flemish community of Belgium and the Netherlands, the Öresund University between Sweden and Denmark or the Interuniversity Europe Centre established in Bulgaria and Romania with the assistance of Germany. At the other end of the spectrum one will find cooperation on joint degrees which is rather a franchise of one country’s degrees in another country (e.g. several cases where British degrees are awarded at Dutch hogescholen).

Several broader joint degrees consortia are known that have a curriculum jointly approved by all consortium members, organize studies for each student at two or more partner institutions and issue unofficial joint degree certificates on top of a national qualification (e.g. a joint degree consortium in construction engineering). However, most commonly, due to legal difficulties and formal regulations, the joint curriculum with study periods at several institutions still lead to just one national degree.

While this relatively wide definition is aimed at allowing and facilitating the recognition of degrees from past as well as current and future arrangements, it should be emphasized that the further development of joint degrees as powerful instruments to further the European

25 Cf. Andrejs Rauhvargers, op. cit., p. 29

dimension of higher education and the establishment of the European Higher Education Area will depend on basing joint degrees on a high level of institutional cooperation, including the development of integrated curricula, and the review of national funding systems for higher education.

The term “joint degree” is used as the established term for the qualifications covered by the present Recommendation. The term “diploma” designates the official document attesting the qualifications.

General principles

This part of the Recommendation outlines the main principles on which it builds. These conform to the main principles of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention (see in particular Articles IV.1, V.1 and VI.1 of the Convention).

The point is also made that joint degrees should be recognized at least as favourably as other qualifications from the education system from which they originate. This is a particularly important provision in view of the findings of the EUA study referred to above, in that in current practice, it often seems more difficult to obtain recognition of a joint degree than of a “pure” foreign national degree. This is unjustified in view of the overall policy goal of stimulating international and inter-institutional cooperation and academic mobility.

It is also paradoxical and unjustified from another point of view, and to fully appreciate the paradox, it may be useful to bear in mind that recognition of joint degrees may concern three different situations:

recognition of the joint degree in a country one of whose institutions has provided a part of the study programme giving rise to the qualification;

recognition in a country one of whose institutions participates in the consortium having issued the degree, but this institution has not provided any part of the degree in question, i.e. the applicant has studied at other institutions participating in the consortium;

recognition in a third country, i.e. a country that has not in any way been involved in the study programme and/or consortium granting the qualification.

recognition of a degree, in any country, all or a part of which has not been subject to transparent quality assurance.

It should further be kept in mind that while recognition of all parts of the study programmes giving rise to a joint

28

degree is automatic among the partner institutions, such recognition is not necessarily granted outside of this consortium.

In situations (a) and (b) described above, recognition of a joint degree should in fact be easier than recognition of a “pure” foreign qualification since in a joint degree, the study programme leading to the degree has been elaborated jointly by one or more institutions belonging to the education system of the country in which recognition is sought and one or more foreign institutions. A recognized institution in the country in which recognition is sought will therefore already have assessed the profile, level and quality of the foreign components of the joint degree, and it would seem paradoxical if this assessment were not to be accepted by (other) competent recognition authorities in the country in which recognition is sought.

If recognition of a joint degree is sought in a third country (situation (c)), it is at least difficult to see why recognition of the joint degree should be more difficult than the recognition of a national qualification from any of the countries whose institutions have contributed to the joint degree.

It would therefore seem reasonable that the only justifiably difficult situation would arise if significant parts of a joint degree were delivered by an institution or higher education programme that does not belong to a national education system and/or that has not been the subject of transparent quality assessment (d), cf. also paragraph 11 of the Recommendation.

So far, there is no evidence of cases where the joint degree would have been given on the basis of many short periods of study at a large number of institutions. Rather, in the case of large joint degree consortia, it is the joint programme that has been jointly elaborated and approved by a dozen or more institutions, but students actually spend study periods at a limited number of consortium partners – e.g. two or three institutions. The principles of the Recommendation can well be applied also to such (so far hypothetical) cases, bearing in mind that when assessing a qualification awarded after studies of relatively short periods at a greater number of institutions, attention has to be paid to the integrity of the programme

Legislation

Paragraph 9 makes the case for reviewing national legislation with a view to removing any remaining legal obstacles to the recognition of joint degrees and/or introducing legal provisions that would facilitate such recognition.

This is also an important provision in the light of the findings of the study. For example, it still seems legally difficult in many countries to issue one single qualification in the name of several institutions,

especially when at least one of these institutions is foreign.

Another example is that it is not uncommon that higher education institutions have rules requiring that at least one half of the credits toward any given degree be taken at the institution in question for the degree to be issued by this institution. If a student seeks a joint degree from two or more institutions practicing this rule, the results are predictable. This is an obvious case where rules and regulations prevent a laudable initiative, but legislation may also impede fair recognition in less obvious ways. The call for a review of national legislation in this sense was made by the 2002 plenary session of the CD-ESR, and it is important to include the point in the present Recommendation.

Finally, it should be noted that the fact that national legislation does not specifically prevent joint degrees from being established or recognized is not a sufficient measure. In many cases, an absence of legal provision positively recognizing the concept of joint degrees may in itself constitute an impediment to the recognition of such qualification. Any review of national legislation should therefore consider positive provision for the recognition of joint degrees rather than just abolishing any explicit impediments to such recognition.

Quality assurance and institutional recognition

The increased importance of quality assurance and the acceptance of close link between the quality assurance and recognition of institutions and study programmes on the one hand and individual qualifications on the other hand is one of the major development since the adoption of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention in 1997. Whereas in 1997, there was still discussion of whether quality assurance was needed as general norm, the discussion now focuses on what kind of quality assurance is needed.

The close link between quality assurance and recognition was underlined by the Prague Higher Education Summit (May 2001), where the Ministers of the Bologna Process in their communiqué “called upon the universities and other higher educations institutions, national agencies and the European Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), in cooperation with corresponding bodies from countries which are not members of ENQA, to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference and to disseminate best practice”. Cf. also the comments to the General principles, above.

The Recommendation indicates that where a part of the study programme giving rise to a joint degree has not been the subject of quality assessment or is not considered as belonging to the education system of one or more parties to the Lisbon Recognition Convention, this may be a valid reason not to recognize the degree. In such cases, recognition authorities should, however, consider whether partial recognition may be granted, in

29

keeping with the provisions of the Recommendation on Criteria and procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications26.

It is important to note that in these cases where the studies for the joint degree have actually taken place in a limited number of institutions, but the joint degree is awarded in the name of a larger consortium, it seems rightly to require that all the consortium members are recognized institutions and that at least the institutions in which the student has actually studied for the joint degree, have been quality assessed.

26 Cf. paragraph 8 of this Recommendation, adopted by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee at its second meeting (Rīga, 6 June 2001).

Information Information on education systems as well as on individual institutions, programmes and qualifications is one of the key challenges facing those working with the recognition of qualifications. As identified by the conference on Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process, organized in Lisbon on 11 – 12 April 2002 by the Council of Europe and the Portuguese authoritiesTP27PT, the problem is not one of a lack of information, but rather of a lack of pertinent and focused information. The Diploma Supplement (cf. also Article IX.3 of the Convention) and the European Credit Transfer System are important information instruments that help facilitate the recognition of qualifications. In the case of joint degrees, it is particularly important that a Diploma Supplement be issued with the degree that would clearly describe the various components of the degrees in relation to the education systems within which they have been earn

27 See Sjur Bergan (ed.): Recognition Issues in the Bologna Process (Strasbourg, to appear in 2003: Council of Europe Publishing), in particular the articles by Stephen Adam and Chantal Kaufmann and the report by the General Rapporteur, Lewis Purser.

30

31