Upload
dinhthuan
View
220
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Erasmus Assessment Report
Outgoing Students
2010
Il-Kunsill tal-Istudenti Universitarji
Report written by:
Larkin Zahra Francesca Scicluna
KSU International Officer KSU International Co-ordinator
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ i
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ix
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... xiii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Study Focus and Approach ...................................................................................... 3
2.2 Aims of Study ........................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Targets and Outcomes ............................................................................................ 3
2.4 Study Logistics ......................................................................................................... 4
2.5 Study Statistics ......................................................................................................... 5
2.5.1 University of Malta International and EU Office Data ..................................... 5
2.5.2 Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire .................................................... 6
2.5.3 Erasmus Focus Group ....................................................................................... 6
2.6 Difficulties Encountered .......................................................................................... 7
2.7 Limitations of Study ................................................................................................. 9
2.8 Report Structure .................................................................................................... 10
3. Analysis of the number of students going on Erasmus ................................................ 12
3.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 12
3.2 Total number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus .................. 12
3.3 Number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus per Faculty,
Institute and Centre ............................................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Faculty of Arts ................................................................................................. 14
3.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment .................................................................. 15
ii
3.3.3 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy.................................. 16
3.3.4 Faculty of Education ....................................................................................... 18
3.3.5 Faculty of Engineering .................................................................................... 19
3.3.6 Faculty of Health Sciences .............................................................................. 20
3.3.7 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology ............................... 21
3.3.8 Faculty of Laws ............................................................................................... 22
3.3.9 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery .................................................................... 23
3.3.10 Faculty of Science ......................................................................................... 24
3.3.11 Faculty of Theology ...................................................................................... 25
3.3.12 Institute of Criminology................................................................................ 26
3.3.13 Institute of Earth Systems ............................................................................ 27
3.3.14 Institute of Linguistics .................................................................................. 28
3.3.15 Mediterranean Institute ............................................................................... 28
3.3.16 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture ..................................................... 30
3.3.17 Centre for Communication Technology ....................................................... 31
3.3.18 European Documentation and Research Centre ......................................... 32
3.3.19 Centre for Conservation and Restoration .................................................... 33
3.4 Comparison between the number of students going on Erasmus between the
different Faculties, Institutes and Centres ............................................................ 34
3.5 Comparison of Malta’s situation when compared to the other countries
participating in the Erasmus Programme .............................................................. 36
3.6 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................... 38
4. Analysis of the Universities and Placements ............................................................... 39
4.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 39
4.2 General Overview .................................................................................................. 39
4.3 Specific Analysis ..................................................................................................... 40
4.3.1 Faculty of Arts ................................................................................................. 40
4.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment .................................................................. 46
4.3.3 Faculty of Dental Surgery ............................................................................... 48
iii
4.3.4 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy.................................. 48
4.3.5 Faculty of Education ....................................................................................... 50
4.3.6 Faculty of Engineering .................................................................................... 53
4.3.7 Faculty of Health Sciences .............................................................................. 55
4.3.8 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology ............................... 58
4.3.9 Faculty of Laws ............................................................................................... 60
4.3.10 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery .................................................................. 62
4.3.11 Faculty of Science ......................................................................................... 64
4.3.12 Faculty of Theology ...................................................................................... 66
4.3.13 Institute of Criminology................................................................................ 67
4.3.14 The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development of
Thinking ........................................................................................................ 68
4.3.15 Institute of Earth Systems ............................................................................ 69
4.3.16 Institute of Linguistics .................................................................................. 70
4.3.17 Mediterranean Institute ............................................................................... 71
4.3.18 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture ..................................................... 73
4.3.19 Centre for Communication Technology ....................................................... 74
4.3.20 European Documentation and Research Centre ......................................... 75
4.3.21 Others ........................................................................................................... 77
4.4 Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................ 79
5. Analysis of the Administrative Problems ..................................................................... 81
5.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 81
5.2 The University of Malta International & EU Office ................................................ 81
5.2.1 Competences of the University of Malta International and EU Office -
Outgoing Students ......................................................................................... 81
5.2.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 82
5.2.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group ................. 82
5.3 The University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres .................................... 84
iv
5.3.1 Competences of the University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres ... 84
5.3.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 85
5.3.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group ................. 85
5.4 Host University ...................................................................................................... 85
5.4.1 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group ................. 85
5.5 Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................ 86
6. Analysis of the Academic Problems ............................................................................. 88
6.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 88
6.2 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group........................ 88
6.2.1 Academic difficulties encountered during the exchange programme ........... 88
6.2.2 Academic difficulties encountered after the exchange programme ............. 89
6.3 The Erasmus Semester .......................................................................................... 89
6.3.1 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Assessment
Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 89
6.3.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Focus Group ...................... 90
6.4 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................... 90
7. Analysis of the Financial Aspect of going on Erasmus ................................................. 92
7.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 92
7.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 92
7.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group........................ 92
7.4 Analysis of the grants given per academic year per host country ........................ 93
7.3 Analysis of the grants given to the students at the University of Malta during the
academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 ........................................................... 95
7.5 Grants and Expenses ............................................................................................. 97
7.6 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................... 97
v
8. Analysis of the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire Results ........................... 99
8.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 99
8.2 Analysis of the Results ........................................................................................... 99
8.3 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................. 123
9. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 124
9.1 Chapter Introduction ........................................................................................... 124
9.2 Recommendations in order to improve Malta’s experience in the Erasmus
Programme .......................................................................................................... 124
9.3 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................. 127
10. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 129
List of Annexes
Annex 1: International exposure of the call for participants for the Erasmus Focus
Group
Annex 2: The questions asked in the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Annex 3: Erasmus Focus Group PowerPoint presentation
Annex 4: Sample of the Erasmus Focus Group booklet
Annex 5: Outgoing Erasmus students' interest-free loan scheme proposal
vi
List of Figures
Figure 1 Total number of students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year
2009-2010
13
Figure 2 Total number of the Faculty of Arts students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
14
Figure 3 Total number of the Faculty for the Built Environment students that
applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic
year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
15
Figure 4 Total number of the Faculty of Economics, Management and
Accountancy students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year
2009-2010
17
Figure 5 Total number of the Faculty of Education students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
18
Figure 6 Total number of the Faculty of Engineering students that applied,
got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
19
Figure 7 Total number of the Faculty of Health Sciences students that
applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic
year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
20
Figure 8 Total number of the Faculty of Information and Communication
Technology students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year
2009-2010
21
Figure 9 Total number of the Faculty of Laws students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
22
Figure 10 Total number of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students that
applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic
year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
24
Figure 11 Total number of the Faculty of Science students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
25
vii
Figure 12
Total number of the Faculty of Theology students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
26
Figure 13 Total number of the Institute of Criminology students that applied,
got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
27
Figure 14 Total number of the Institute of Earth Systems students that
applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic
year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
27
Figure 15 Total number of the Institute of Linguistics students that applied,
got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
28
Figure 16 Total number of the Mediterranean Institute students that applied,
got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
29
Figure 17 Total number of the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture
students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from
the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
30
Figure 18 Total number of the Centre for Communication Technology
students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from
the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
31
Figure 19 Total number of the European Documentation and Research Centre
students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from
the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
32
Figure 20 Total number of the Centre for Conservation and Restoration
students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from
the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
33
Figure 21 Outgoing Erasmus students in 2008-2009 as a share of student
population by country
37
Figure 22 Graph of grant given per host country in Euro 94
Figure 23 Rating of the perception of the Erasmus programme 100
Figure 24 Have you ever been on Erasmus? 100
Figure 25 Rating of the Erasmus experience 101
Figure 26 Amount of money received as a grant per month 102
Figure 27 Estimated costs per month 103
Figure 28 Was the grant fair? 103
viii
Figure 29 Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in
academic terms
104
Figure 30 Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in
campus life terms
105
Figure 31 Was the Erasmus semester appropriate? 106
Figure 32 Why wasn’t the Erasmus semester appropriate? 107
Figure 33 Rating of the University of Malta International and EU Office 107
Figure 34 Problems encountered at the University of Malta International and
EU Office (if applicable)
108
Figure 35 Support received from the respective local Faculties, Institutes and
Centres
109
Figure 36 Problems encountered with recognition when back in Malta 110
Figure 37 Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students
from your course?
111
Figure 38 Why would you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other
students from your course?
111
Figure 39 Why wouldn’t you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other
students from your course?
112
Figure 40 Have you applied to go on Erasmus? 113
Figure 41 Did you get accepted to go on Erasmus? 113
Figure 42 Why didn’t you go on Erasmus? 114
Figure 43 Transparency of the selection process 115
Figure 44 Would you consider applying again? 116
Figure 45 Why would you consider applying again? 116
Figure 46 Why wouldn’t you consider applying again? 117
Figure 47 Do you intend applying? 118
Figure 48 Why do you intend applying? 119
Figure 49 Why don’t you intend applying? 120
Figure 50 What would have triggered you to apply? 121
Figure 51 Gender distribution 121
Figure 52 Faculty, Institute and Centre distribution 122
ix
List of Tables
Table 1 Percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to the students
accepted to go on Erasmus per Faculty, Institute and Centre for the
2004/2005-2006/2007 and 2007/2008-2009/2010 academic years
34
Table 2 Amount of students who went on Erasmus per Faculty, Institute
and Centre for the 2004/2005-2006/2007 and 2007/2008-
2009/2010 academic years
35
Table 3 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Arts students wishing
to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
41
Table 4 Number of available places for the Faculty of Arts students wishing
to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
46
Table 5 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty for the Built
Environment students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010
academic year
46
Table 6 Number of available places for the Faculty for the Built
Environment students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-
2009/2010 academic year
47
Table 7 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Economics,
Management and Accountancy students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2009-2010 academic year
48
Table 8 Number of available places for the Faculty of Economics,
Management and Accountancy students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
50
Table 9 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Education students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
51
Table 10 Number of available places for the Faculty of Education students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic
year
52
Table 11 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Engineering students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
53
Table 12 Number of available places for the Faculty of Engineering students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic
year
55
Table 13 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Health Sciences
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic
year
56
x
Table 14
Number of available places for the Faculty of Health Sciences
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010
academic year
58
Table 15 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Information and
Communication Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2009-2010 academic year
59
Table 16 Number of available places for the Faculty of Information and
Communication Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
60
Table 17 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Laws students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
60
Table 18 Number of available places for the Faculty of Laws students wishing
to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
62
Table 19 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Medicine and
Surgery students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010
academic year
62
Table 20 Number of available places for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010
academic year
64
Table 21 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Science students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
64
Table 22 Number of available places for the Faculty of Science students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic
year
66
Table 23 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Theology students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
66
Table 24 Number of available places for the Faculty of Theology students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic
year
67
Table 25 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Criminology
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic
year
67
Table 26 Number of available places for the Institute of Criminology students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic
year
68
xi
Table 27 List of bi-lateral agreements for The Edward De Bono Institute for
the Design and Development and Thinking students wishing to go
on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
68
Table 28 Number of available places for The Edward De Bono Institute for
the Design and Development and Thinking students wishing to go
on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
68
Table 29 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Earth Systems
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic
year
69
Table 30 Number of available places for the Institute of Earth Systems
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010
academic year
70
Table 31 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Linguistics students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
70
Table 32 Number of available places for the Institute of Linguistics students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic
year
70
Table 33 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Mediterranean Institute
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic
year
71
Table 34 Number of available places for the Mediterranean Institute
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010
academic year
73
Table 35 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute for Tourism, Travel
and Culture students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010
academic year
73
Table 36 Number of available places for the Institute for Tourism, Travel and
Culture students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-
2009/2010 academic year
74
Table 37 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Centre for Communication
Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010
academic year
74
Table 38 Number of available places for the Centre for Communication
Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-
2009/2010 academic year
75
Table 39 List of bi-lateral agreements for the European Documentation and
Research Centre students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-
2010 academic year
76
xii
Table 40 Number of available places for the European Documentation and
Research Centre students wishing to go on Erasmus for the
2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
77
Table 41 List of bi-lateral agreements for the rest of the students wishing to
go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
77
Table 42 Number of available places for the rest of the students wishing to
go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
79
Table 43 Grants given per country for the 2004/2005-2009/2010 academic
years in Euro
93
Table 44 Grants given to the students during the academic year 2009-2010
in Euro
95
Table 45 Grants given to the students during the academic year 2008-2009
in Euro
96
Table 46 Estimated Expenses for the academic year 2009-2010 in Euro 98
xiii
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude towards the entire KSU executive for the
constant help and support that they have shown us during the time when we were
writing this report.
Special thanks go to the members of the Erasmus Focus Group who have helped us by
giving us an insight of the Erasmus Programme in relation to their respective Faculties,
Institutes and Centres. The members of the Erasmus Focus Group were: Ms Maria
Kristina Pace (Faculty of Arts), Ms Sharon Falzon (Faculty for the Built Environment), Ms
Danielle Farrugia (Faculty of Education), Mr Jean Marie Darmanin (Faculty of
Engineering), Ms Yvette Zarb (Faculty of Health Sciences), Ms Marika Attard (Faculty of
Theology), Ms Romilda Grima (Institute of Criminology), Ms Colette Caruana
(Mediterranean Institute), Ms Tamara Gauci (Centre for Communication Technology)
and Mr Hubert Paul Farrugia (European Documentation and Research Centre).
The KSU International Office would also like to thank Mr Ian Buhagiar and Ms Rachel
Cassar for their help and patience in helping us in the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire. Our appreciation also goes to those organisations and individuals who
promoted this questionnaire in order to collect as many responses as possible.
Finally, we would like to thank the University of Malta International and EU Office (Ms
Stefania Fabri, Ms Anna Callus, Ms Annhelica Agius and Ms Maria Vella) and the
European Union Programmes Agency (namely Mr Reuben Pullicino and Mr Karl
Mintoff) for their help in providing us with the necessary information to complete the
Erasmus Assessment Report.
1
1. Introduction
The European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students
Programme (Erasmus Programme) has been established in 1987 by the now European
Union. It is considered to be the ‘EU’s flagship education and training programme’1 that
aids higher education institutions all across Europe to co-operate together.
The European Union Portal describes the Erasmus Programme as follows:
Many studies show that a period spent abroad not only enriches students' lives in the academic and professional fields, but can also improve language learning, intercultural skills, self-reliance and self-awareness. Their experiences give students a better sense of what it means to be a European citizen. In addition, many employers highly value such a period abroad, which increases the students' employability and job prospects.
1
KSU believes that it is a major shortcoming from the relevant authorities concerned
that an assessment of the Maltese experience of the Erasmus programme has not been
done before. In fact, it is KSU who decided to study the current situation of the
Erasmus Programme since the aim of having the students to become more mobile can
be tackled in a more effective way by means of the statistics obtained and compiled by
this report. Such statistics and information cover the various aspects of the Erasmus
Programme. Moreover, these statistics will give a more clear indication of the problems
that are related to this programme and what is needed in order for such problems to
be overcome.
It is the objective of KSU that this research exercise is also done in relation to the
incoming international student in order to help these students to maximise their
experience at the University of Malta with the help of the university administration,
lecturing staff, relevant authorities and other organisations involved.
KSU believes that this report is the starting point of a series of activities in relation to
the Erasmus Programme. With the aid of the recommendations arising out of this
Erasmus Assessment Report, KSU will do its utmost to ensure that these
recommendations are effectively tackled for the benefit of all the students studying at
the University of Malta wishing to go on Erasmus. It is expected that these actions will
result in an increase in the take-up of this programme especially from the ones who
would not have opted to go on Erasmus before.
1 Ibid.
2
KSU’s concerns are not limited to the statistics of the number of students going on
Erasmus. We will work hard in order to minimise all the inconveniences related to the
application process, to the actual period during which one is abroad on Erasmus and to
the period when the students come back and expect a speedy and faithful recognition
of the marks obtained at the host university. If this report manages to address these
points, then the purpose of this assessment would be fulfilled as we would have
managed to improve the students experience in all the phases that they have to face
with in order to go on Erasmus.
It is not our intention to associate and blame the problems to a specific entity. We
believe that it was necessary to highlight the problems encountered by the students so
that all the relevant authorities and offices can focus their efforts to improve the
Maltese students’ experience on what is actually needed. We are sure that all the
officials concerned will do their best in order to address such shortcomings highlighted
by this report in the shortest time possible.
3
2. Methodology
2.1 Study Focus and Approach
The focus of this study is to assess the current situation of the Erasmus programme
with the specific intention of assessing whether students are reaping the full benefits it
can offer. Various aspects of the Erasmus Programme will be focused upon in order to
have a holistic analysis and assessment of this programme.
The approaches we intend to choose include both a qualitative and a quantitative
aspect. The qualitative aspect is tackled by the Erasmus Focus Group where a more in
depth discussion was organised in order to have a better insight of the particular
situation of each and every Faculty, Institute and Centre. The quantitative aspect
involves the statistical data collected from the International and EU Office of the
University of Malta and from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire which KSU
compiled in order to enrich the research aspect of this study.
2.2 Aims of Study
The primary aim of this study is to shed light on the experience of the Maltese students
within the Erasmus Programme especially after the May 2010 incident regarding the
suspension of the Lifelong Learning EU funds. Thus, this study is vital in order shift the
focus of the Erasmus Programme from one that is simply related to the grants issue, to
one that is wider in scope. This will ultimately lead us to analyse various aspects related
to this programme so that we will be able to give our recommendations in order to
have the current situation improved.
Another aim of this study is to have a single updated research on the Erasmus
Programme. To date, no real holistic study exists on such a programme. In previous
years, the discussion revolved more about numbers rather than other matters, such as
the actual experience of participating in an Erasmus exchange. We believe that this
report can trigger a more informed and true discussion on this programme.
2.3 Targets and Outcomes
The first target of this study is to examine the number of applications by the local
students to go on Erasmus and the number of the students who eventually decide to
go. The outcome of this target is to evaluate the take-up of such an opportunity offered
by the Erasmus Programme.
4
Another target is to assess the number and level of universities which the University of
Malta has an agreement with. The outcome of this target will revolve on whether the
University of Malta is offering a wide range of universities and placements which the
Maltese students can choose from and whether the agreements are signed with high
level universities or not.
This study will identify the administrative efficiencies and deficiencies both in relation
to the staff within the Faculties, Institutes and Centres, in relation to the International
and EU Office officials and related to the administration of the host university. The
outcome of this aspect will include suggestions in order to avoid the deficiencies and to
strengthen further more the efficiencies.
The assessment of the academic difficulties is also a target within the context of this
study. The outcomes related to this point are envisaged to include proposals on how
such difficulties can be tackled effectively and overcome.
The financial aspect of the Erasmus Programme will also be analysed in order to see
whether the grant given is fair and if it is enough. Another outcome related to this
aspect will be an assessment of whether the structure of how the grant is given (should
students from different courses that have different expenses related to their studies
receive the same amount of grant?) and what the grant should cover (maybe it should
cater for just the accommodation of the stay in that particular host university) are fair.
Moreover, the final target of this study is to suggest a number of recommendations to
be implemented in order for the Erasmus programme to be more successful. The
outcome of such suggestions would be an increase in the students who apply to go on
Erasmus, an increase in the take-up of this mobility programme and the avoidance of
all the difficulties that were experienced in the past that might have shadowed the
benefits of this programme.
2.4 Study Logistics
This study has had a large amount of promotion as from its early stages. The Erasmus
Focus Group is a case in point where we needed to find a representative from all the
Faculties, Institutes and Centres that registered students applying to go on Erasmus. A
call was sent through the mailing lists of the Education Commission and the Social
Policy Commission. A personal email was also sent to all the student representatives in
order to send it to their contact list to try and find participants from their respective
faculty. This call for participation was also forwarded by the student and youth
5
organisations present on campus where eventually it ended up being included in an
international newsletter sent to more than 30 countries (refer to Annex 1).
The Erasmus Assessment Report was given prominence in the summer recess as well.
KSU sent a mail shot to its members to encourage them to complete the questionnaire.
Moreover, KSU also sent the same message to the Registrar’s Office in order to be
forwarded to every student registered at the University of Malta. These mail shots
were complemented by the emails sent to the mailing lists of the Education and Social
Policy Commissions. A poster was also designed in order to further promote the
questionnaire, a soft copy of which was sent as an email shot while a hard copy of it
could be found all over the University of Malta campus (mainly in Student’s House).
2.5 Study Statistics
Various types of statistics were used for this study. These include data obtained from
the University of Malta International and EU Office, statistical data obtained from the
Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire and data obtained through the Erasmus
Focus Group.
2.5.1 University of Malta International and EU Office Data
Data was obtained from the University of Malta International and EU Office. Such data
consisted of several statistics related to the applications and take-up of the Erasmus
Programme and on the bi-lateral agreements which the University of Malta has an
agreement with.
It is worth noting that the data was split according to the current University of Malta
structure – according to the present composition of Faculties, Institutes and Centres.
This was essential in order to have a constant and coherent data which does not
change in relation to different academic years. In this way, comparisons between
different academic years could be made possible.
The analysis of this data was also split up according to the average annual percentages
of students who went on Erasmus for the academic years taken into consideration. We
decided to take this approach and not on the actual number of students that went on
Erasmus since the latter would not be suitable for comparison reasons.
6
2.5.2 Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
An Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire was compiled in order to gather a
general feedback from a large number of students. The questions that were included in
this questionnaire can be viewed in Annex 2.
The desired amount of respondents was set at five hundred students in order to have
this questionnaire as representative as possible. In fact, this questionnaire was
completed by students from almost all the Faculties, Institutes and Centres of the
University of Malta. The questionnaire was structured on this premise since it catered
for a wide plethora of situations: for students who have no interest in applying to go on
Erasmus, for students who applied and didn’t get accepted, for students who got
accepted but decided not to go and for students who got accepted and actually went.
The data obtained from the online questionnaire which totalled 519 respondents was
analysed through the IBM SPSS Statistics predictive tool.
2.5.3 Erasmus Focus Group
An Erasmus Focus Group was set up to collect more specific data in relation to the
various aspects of the Erasmus Programme. A call for a representative from every
Faculty, Institute and Centre was sent through various channels in order to gather a
better insight of the Erasmus Programme situation on a micro level. Moreover, when
we had more than one student interested in forming part of this Erasmus Focus Group,
we decided to choose between the applicants on the basis of the following criteria: to
have as much as possible a gender balance between the participants and to have a
representation of the various geographical groupings of Europe (Scandinavia, Western
Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries and Southern
Europe/Mediterranean countries). In this way we could get information which is closer
to reality since the different European scenarios for students going on Erasmus would
be taken into consideration.
A PowerPoint presentation was prepared for the Erasmus Focus Group in order to
trigger the discussion, a copy of which can be viewed in Annex 3. A KSU representative
was in charge of documenting all the responses so that all the opinions of the
participants would eventually be included in the study. Moreover, a booklet was
prepared in order to have a hard copy of these opinions since it might be the case that
some of the opinions in mind were not expressed by word of mouth. A sample of this
booklet can be viewed in Annex 4.
7
The Faculties, Institutes and Centres that were represented in this Erasmus Focus
Group are as follows: Faculty of Arts, Faculty for the Built Environment, Faculty of
Education, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Health Sciences, Faculty of Theology,
Institute of Criminology, Mediterranean Institute, Centre for Communication
Technology and the European Documentation and Research Centre.
Other representatives were found but did not participate in this Focus Group. A soft
copy of the booklet used during the Erasmus Focus Group was sent by email to these
students/University of Malta alumni, in order to receive additional feedback that would
not have been available to us otherwise. The Faculties, Institutes and Centres
concerned were as follows: Faculty of Laws and the Institute for Tourism, Travel and
Culture.
There were other Faculties, Institutes and Centres which were not represented in this
Erasmus Focus Group mainly due to the restrictions that stop the students from going
on Erasmus. In fact, a number of difficulties that the students find are to match the
study-units offered abroad with the ones offered at the University of Malta and the fact
that they have to do compulsory study-units or practical sessions during the semester/s
available for the students to go on Erasmus. These include the Faculty of Dental
Surgery, Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy, Faculty of Information
and Communication Technology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery and the Faculty of
Science, The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development of Thinking,
Institute of Earth Systems and Institute of Linguistics. The rest of the Institutes and
Centres present at the University of Malta were not considered to form part of this
Erasmus Focus Group since they had no student enrolled with them that participated in
the Erasmus Programme. The number of students participating in the Focus Group had
to be carefully considered in order not to hinder potential results through the
participation of an excessive number of people. Thus, our aim of having clear and
precise information through the discussion between the students involved would not
have been successful.
2.6 Difficulties Encountered
Our aim was to have the Erasmus Focus Group with a gender balance and a
representation from the various regional groupings of Europe. We registered interest
from a larger number of female students than their male counterparts. Moreover, even
though we managed to reach the majority of the European regional groupings (with the
exception of Central Europe), we had a number of countries that were represented
more than once. These included Ireland, the United Kingdom and Finland. However,
8
there was no other choice than accepting these participants since some Faculties,
Institutes and Centres would not have been represented otherwise.
One should also take notice that students from a number of Faculties, Institutes and
Centres did not form part of the Erasmus Focus Group. In some cases, the students that
we contacted replied that no student from their Faculty go on Erasmus since the study-
units between the University of Malta and the host universities which the University of
Malta has a bilateral agreement with do not match or because the students are obliged
to do certain practices in Malta every year that serve as an impediment from going on
Erasmus. The large number of fillings that the Dentistry students have to do is a case in
point. Other Faculties were not represented just because there was no student who
was interested in giving their say in this Erasmus Focus Group. The Erasmus Assessment
Report Questionnaire is one way how we tackled this difficulty since we received
feedback from the majority of students of all the Faculties, Institutes or Centres based
at the University of Malta.
Another difficulty encountered was to find students to complete the Erasmus
Assessment Report Questionnaire. A major contributor for this situation to develop
was the fact that we had to collect the necessary data during the summer recess. Many
students have other commitments in summer which are not related to their academic
life that might have hindered them from completing this questionnaire. To solve this
problem, we have intensified our promotion attempts in order to reach out as much as
possible to all the University of Malta students.
The Erasmus Programme was high on the agenda of many stakeholders in 2010. The
media gave it prominence every time there was a slight development. The attention
revolved mainly around the suspension of the Lifelong Learning funds. Thus, other
important aspects of this mobility programme were sidelined such as the academic
aspects and the statistics of the take-up of such a programme by the local students. We
wanted to compile this report in a holistic manner so that we could successfully assess
whether the students are reaping the full benefits of this programme. This is the reason
why this study includes a large number of aspects related to the Erasmus programme.
The last difficulty which we faced was to acquire the necessary information for this
study. We needed statistical data which we never received a reply for such as which
is/are the Erasmus Semester/s of every Faculty, Institute and Centre. In other cases, we
had to face bureaucratic hindrances that prevented us from obtaining the data that we
required.
9
2.7 Limitations of Study
One of the limitations of this study is the fact that the number of students accepted
refers to those students that have an average that is higher than the minimum
threshold needed to go on Erasmus. Thus, it might be the case that a number of
students that were accepted were not even given the possibility to go on Erasmus due
to the limited places available. Therefore, the difference between the students who
applied and the students who were accepted is confined to the number of students
who achieved a low average. This means that we do not have the data to compare how
many went on Erasmus from those who were actually given a place since no such data
exists. This is also true in the light of the fact that Erasmus Officers within the
University of Malta International and EU Office try until the very end to transfer the
places available that were not taken up from the students that would have withdrawn
their application to go on Erasmus and to make it available to the other students that
were not offered a place before.
Another limitation when comparing the statistical data acquired for this report is the
fact that some course structures have changed throughout the years taken into
consideration for the purpose of this study. A case in point is the Faculty for the Built
Environment whereby both fourth and fifth year students have the opportunity to go
on Erasmus while it was only the third year students that had this opportunity before.
The same situation apply for the European Documentation and Research Centre since
third year students have started being accepted to go on Erasmus as from this year
whereas only second year students could go on Erasmus in the past. Thus, some of the
data obtained cannot be compared due to the fact that a larger number of students
could have gone on Erasmus resulting in an artificial increase in the take-up of this
mobility programme when compared to the previous years (when the changes in the
Erasmus Semester/s were not in place).
Another limitation of this study is that the statistics and information that we obtained
does not cover the 2010-2011 academic year, the one which was under the spotlight
recently due to the suspension of some of the EU funds. It must be noted that the
primary aim of this study was to assess the Erasmus Programme in a holistic manner
and thus not limiting our efforts on the grants aspect of the mobility programme.
Nonetheless, the data for this academic year would have led this study to tackle all the
aspects arising out of this programme.
The majority of the data we have in hand is based on the situation within the University
of Malta. Recently, other Maltese educational institutions started participating in the
Erasmus programme (MCAST and ITS). Thus, these institutions were included when the
10
overall picture of the Erasmus take-up is taken into consideration. This means that the
data used to compare the Maltese situation with the other EU countries is not specific
to the University of Malta. Therefore, the data might not give the true picture of the
situation at the University of Malta since it is affected by the other educational
institutions concerned.
2.8 Report Structure
The first two chapters will provide an introduction and the methodology for this study
on the current situation of the Erasmus Programme. The third chapter will focus mainly
on the analysis of the number of students that applied to go on Erasmus, those who got
accepted and the ones who actually went to study or for a placement abroad. This
analysis will be made per faculty for the year starting from the academic year 2004-
2005 till the academic year 2009-2010. Moreover, the total percentage of the students
that went on Erasmus will be compared to the total number of University of Malta
students from that particular faculty that could have gone on Erasmus. This will show
how close Malta is from achieving the EU2020 strategy on student mobility.
The fourth chapter will deal with an analysis of the number of universities or
placements available per faculty for the year starting from the academic year 2006-
2007 till the academic year 2009-2010. This chapter will also tackle the level, as
perceived by the students, of the universities which the University of Malta has a
bilateral agreement with and the take-up of these places by the Maltese students going
on Erasmus. This analysis will be aided by the information obtained through the
Erasmus Focus Group.
The fifth and sixth chapter will identify the administrative problems and academic
problems encountered by the student. This will include an analysis of the Erasmus
Semester for each faculty, the recognition process for the marks obtained by the
student at the host university when transferred to the local marking system and the
issues related to the University of Malta International and EU Office. These chapters
will be focusing on the information and the data arising out of the Erasmus Focus
Group. It must be noted that both the administrative problems encountered at the
University of Malta and those encountered at the host university will be identified.
The seventh chapter will be based upon the analysis of the financial aspect of going on
Erasmus. The expenses that the students incur and an assessment of the grant given to
the student going on Erasmus will feature in this chapter. The Erasmus Focus Group
11
and the data collected from the University of Malta International and EU Office will be
the basis of such analysis.
The eighth chapter will analyse all the data that was collected from the Erasmus
Assessment Report Questionnaire. The questions asked were related to all the aspects
of the Erasmus Programme as tackled in the previous chapters in this report. The
analysis of the questionnaire was grouped in one chapter in order to have a more
structured evaluation of the responses.
In the ninth chapter, a number of recommendations that KSU suggests to be
implemented on every aspect tackled during this study will be made. Such
recommendations will include general suggestions and other more specific ones
related to particular faculties, offices or agencies. The tenth chapter will conclude the
study in order to analyse whether students are reaping the full benefits of the Erasmus
Programme.
12
3. Analysis of the number of students going on Erasmus
3.1 Chapter Introduction
This part of the report analyses the number of students that showed interest and
applied to go on the Erasmus Programme, those which were accepted and those
students who actually went on Erasmus per year per different Faculties, Institutes and
Centres starting from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010. A
bar chart for each Faculty, Institute and Centre has been plotted in order to offer the
possibility for students to undergo this programme. An analysis of the results obtained
from these bar charts as well as the comments obtained from the Erasmus Focus Group
follow. Additionally, the total students going on Erasmus has been compared to the
student population and a comparative analysis between the different Faculties,
Institutes and Centres has also been done.
3.2 Total number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus
The number of students going on Erasmus has increased throughout the years, with an
increase of 33.08% from the academic year 2004-2005 to the academic year 2009-
2010.
The percentage rise in students going on Erasmus, from the University of Malta,
between the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009/2010, was of 47.86% while the
percentage rise in the student population was 1.87%. Thus, one can see that more
students are going on average when compared to the current University of Malta
population. It must be noted that the number of students going on Erasmus is not a
relatively small one so it is much easier to have a shift in the percentages while this
does not apply to the total number of students enrolled to read for a degree at the
University of Malta since the number of students is much larger.
The Erasmus Focus Group has commented that these results are not surprising as it is
difficult to find students who are willing to take up this experience and deviate from
the security offered by home. Nevertheless, they opted to apply anyway because they
were extremely motivated to go on Erasmus. Additionally, some students think of
university as a collection of credits rather than a chance to broaden the mind.
13
Figure 1: Total number of students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the
academic year 2009-2010
361
280
314
242
293
355357
278
307
234
284
347
130
153
125117
149
173
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
Tota
l No
. of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
Total no. of Students that applied to go on Erasmus Total no. of Students that got accepted to go on Erasmus
Total no. of Students that went on Erasmus
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
14
77.78% of the Erasmus Focus Group has also commented on the fact that some
Faculties, Institutes and Centres are not as encouraging when students opt to go on
Erasmus. Moreover, it is hard to find a university where the credits match those at the
University of Malta.
3.3 Number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus per Faculty,
Institute and Centre
3.3.1 Faculty of Arts
In the Faculty of Arts, the percentage of students who went on Erasmus out of the total
students accepted has varied from 31.71% in 2007-2008 to 59.26% in 2005-2006. On
average during the six years taken into consideration, a percentage of 42.65% of the
students who were accepted to go on the Erasmus Programme actually went. This
figure decreased in the past three academic years where an average of 36.51% has
gone on Erasmus from 2007-2010 compared to 2004-2007 where 48.79% had gone.
Figure 2: Total number of the Faculty of Arts students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus –
from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The percentage of students applying to go on Erasmus has varied from year to year by a
maximum of 72.4% between the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, these
having the lowest and highest number of students applying for the Erasmus
47
29
50
43 43
38
47
27
49
41 42
38
16 16
26
1315 16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
15
Programme respectively. Despite this rapid increase in applicants, the percentage of
students who actually went on Erasmus decreased from 59.3% to 53.1% during the
academic years in question. Surprisingly, the 2005-2006 academic year, which marked
the lowest number of applicants and the highest percentage of non-accepted students,
resulted in the highest number of students going on Erasmus.
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that the number of students going on Erasmus
should have increased throughout the years as travelling has become easier and
cheaper. Also communication with the University of Malta, family and friends in Malta
has been facilitated when residing abroad. The reason for such figures in the latest
years, according to the Erasmus Focus Group, has shown that not much effort has been
put to promote the Erasmus Programme by the University of Malta.
3.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment
Figure 3: Total number of the Faculty for the Built Environment students that applied, got accepted and
went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The Faculty for the Built Environment has undergone a significant increase in the
number of students applying for the Erasmus Programme and actually going on
Erasmus. During the academic year 2009-2010, 64.29% of the students that were
2
13
1110
15
28
2
13
1110
15
28
45
43
18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
16
accepted on Erasmus actually participated in an exchange. This also marks the largest
percentage rise of students going on Erasmus since the academic year 2004-2005
where no student had undergone this mobility exchange programme.
Between the academic years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, the highest percentage of
students going on Erasmus was during the academic year 2006-2007 where 45.45% of
the students who got accepted went on Erasmus.
Between the academic years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, the highest number of students
that applied to go on Erasmus resulted in the least amount of students that actually
went, with only 20% of the students accepted actually going in the academic year 2008-
2009. This figure tripled in the following academic year (2009-2010).
Furthermore, all the students of the Faculty for the Built Environment who applied to
go on Erasmus from the entire academic years taken into consideration in this study
have been accepted. The average percentage of students who went on Erasmus
throughout these same academic years was 33.42% each year.
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that there is more awareness on the possibility of
going on Erasmus in the Faculty for the Built Environment resulting in an increased
number of students applying for this programme. The significant increase in 2009-2010
is due to the fact that the students who could apply to go on Erasmus were students
from both the third and fourth year. Therefore, the number of potential applicants
doubled when compared to previous years. Nevertheless, the number of students
going on Erasmus has increased in a higher proportion to the increase in students who
could have applied.
The Erasmus Focus Group also commented that during the academic year 2008-2009,
the students undergoing an Erasmus exchange programme was very low. It was noted
that during the same academic year, there was a significant amount of students who
had undergone a Direct Exchange Programme to non-EU countries. Thus, the latter has
affected the number of students going on Erasmus that are currently enrolled with this
Faculty.
3.3.3 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy
The Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy has experienced a very low
percentage of students who went on Erasmus as well as those willing to apply for an
Erasmus exchange. During the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007, an average
annual percentage of 0.85% of the students who have applied to go Erasmus actually
17
participated. An increase of 34.39% on the average annual percentage from the
academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 can be recalled resulting in an average annual
percentage of 35.42% in the last 3 years.
Figure 4: Total number of the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy students that
applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 until the academic
year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
During the 2007-2008 academic year, the percentage of students who went on
Erasmus in relation to the number of students who got accepted reached 60%. This has
shown a significant increase when compared to the previous 2 years, were no students
had undergone this exchange. Nevertheless, the number of students going on Erasmus
is still very small when compared to the size of the Faculty.
During the academic year 2009-2010, a percentage of 23.81% of the students who
applied for the Erasmus Programme have been rejected. The 5 students who went on
Erasmus, during the year 2009-2010, include 2 students who went on a placement.
These 2 students are reading for a degree in Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) in Social Work.
39
109
7
2021
39
109
5
20
16
13 3
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placement
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placement
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies or Placement
18
3.3.4 Faculty of Education
Figure 5: Total number of the Faculty of Education students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The Faculty of Education has shown variances in the amount of students applying per
academic year. Nevertheless, the amount of students going on Erasmus has been
rather consistent over the past 4 years.
The highest percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to the students
accepted to go was during the 2005-2006 academic year. During this period, 80% of the
students accepted to go on Erasmus have taken up this opportunity. The year has also
marked the highest amount of students actually going on this exchange programme.
During the 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 academic years, the average annual percentage of
students going on Erasmus was that of 35.23% of the students that got accepted. This
percentage has decreased rapidly by 19.83% in the last 3 years resulting in an average
annual percentage of 15.40%.
The interest shown by the students to apply for the Erasmus Programme has increased
within the last 3 years. Nevertheless, the students actually going on Erasmus has not
increased.
48
25
45
16
26
34
48
25
45
15
23
34
7
20
53 4 3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
19
3.3.5 Faculty of Engineering
During the 2004-2005 to 2009-2010 academic years, the Faculty of Engineering has
gone through a consistent amount of students going on Erasmus despite the increase
of 86.67% in the amount of applicants applying for Erasmus during the academic years
2007-2008 to 2009-2010.
The average annual percentage of students going on Erasmus between the academic
years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 has been 1.28% higher than that between the academic
years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. The latter being 33.95% of the students that got
accepted to go on Erasmus, actually going.
In the Faculty of Engineering, all the students who have ever applied to go on Erasmus,
during the academic years taken into consideration have been accepted.
Figure 6: Total number of the Faculty of Engineering students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that most students drop out after they have been
accepted (an annual average of 65.41%) due to problems with matching the credits
2322
18
15
19
28
2322
18
15
19
28
78
76
7 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
20
offered at the University of Malta with those at the host university. Additionally, some
foreign languages impose a barrier for the local students to participate. The Erasmus
Focus Group added that most students will be willing to take up the Erasmus
experience only if they are chosen at their first preference. For this reason, if accepted
at their second or third preference the students will not consider going on Erasmus.
3.3.6 Faculty of Health Sciences
The percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to those students who got
accepted is relatively high when compared to other faculties. The average annual
percentage of students going on Erasmus is 73.05%.
During the 2005-2006 academic year, a remarkable percentage of 90.91% of the
students, who got accepted to go on Erasmus ended up going on Erasmus. This was the
highest percentage increase registered for this Faculty (that of 35.81% when compared
to the previous year).
From the academic year 2006-2007, a steady increase in the amount of students going
on Erasmus has been noted.
Figure 7: Total number of the Faculty of Health Sciences students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
49
55
50
5456
85
49
55
50
5456
84
27
50
32
41
46
59
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
21
During the 2009-2010 academic year, there has been the highest number of accepted
applicants with an increase of 50% from the previous year. The percentage of students
who went on Erasmus to the students who got accepted was 70.24%. This year has
marked the highest amount of students going on Erasmus for the academic years taken
into consideration. This year included both studies and placements, whereby 55.93% of
the students who went on Erasmus were on a placement.
The annual average percentage during the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 has
increased by 6.10% from that during the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007.
The Erasmus Focus Group has commented on the immense support the students
receive from the Dean of this Faculty.
3.3.7 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology
The Faculty of ICT has undergone a number of variations in the number of students
applying for Erasmus as well as those actually going on this mobility programme.
Figure 8: Total number of the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology students that
applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year
2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
8
2
4
9
11
88
2 2
9
11
6
1 1 1
5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
22
During the academic year 2007-2008, the percentage of students going on Erasmus
compared to the number of students accepted to go on this exchange was that of
55.56%. During the previous two years, 50% of the students accepted went on
Erasmus. During these 2 academic years, the number of students who went on Erasmus
was very low compared to other years as well as other faculties, and therefore the 50%
translates to only 1 student.
During the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, no student went on Erasmus
despite the fact that during the 2008-2009 academic year, the highest number of
students applied to go on Erasmus was registered who ended up all being accepted.
This is also a result of the fact that the study-units at the University of Malta do not
match with those of the foreign universities which the University of Malta have a
bilateral agreement with.
3.3.8 Faculty of Laws
Figure 9: Total number of the Faculty of Laws students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus –
from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
67
47 46
32
39
46
67
47 46
32
38
46
51
35
1517
25 24
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
23
During the 2004-2005 academic year, a percentage of 76.12% of the students accepted
to go on Erasmus have actually gone. This was the highest percentage registered in the
academic years taken into consideration and it also resulted in the highest number of
students that went on Erasmus.
A decrease of 43.51% was experienced from the academic year 2004-2005 to 2006-
2007, where the percentage of students going on Erasmus has decreased to 32.61%.
After this year, an increase in the number of students going on Erasmus can be
identified though an overall decrease can be noted in the number of applicants for the
Erasmus Programme.
The annual average percentage of students going on Erasmus has decreased in the past
3 academic years by 4.04%. This percentage is not proportional to the decrease in the
number of students which applied and got accepted to go on Erasmus, whereby during
the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007, the total accepted students was 160
while during the academic year 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the total accepted students
was 116. Therefore, a percentage decrease in the number of accepted applicants of
27.50% was registered.
3.3.9 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery
During the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the students have gone on
Erasmus for placements.
Except for the academic year 2005-2006, the percentage of students who went on an
Erasmus Programme has been that of over 50% of the students accepted to go on
Erasmus. The highest percentage is during the academic year 2009-2010, where 85% of
the students who got accepted actually ending up going. During this same year, the
highest amount of students who applied for Erasmus can be noted.
During the 2006-2007 academic year, the percentage of students who went on
Erasmus was 77.78% of the students who got accepted. This is the highest percentage
for Studies opportunity in this Faculty between the academic years taken into
consideration.
24
Figure 10: Total number of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students that applied, got accepted and
went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
3.3.10 Faculty of Science
A very limited amount of students have had the opportunity to go on Erasmus in the
Faculty of Science.
No students went on Erasmus in the 2004-2005 academic year despite the fact that it
was the year with the second highest amount of applicants during the years this
analysis has been based upon. The only students who went on Erasmus was during the
academic years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 and during the academic year 2009-2010.
During these four academic years, a total of eleven students have gone on Erasmus out
of a total of forty-four applicants.
During the academic year 2009-2010, the students that have undergone the Erasmus
experience were on a placement. This year has marked the highest percentage of
students going on Erasmus from the students accepted to go.
During the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the percentage of students going
on Erasmus from the students that got accepted has decreased from 21.43% to 15%,
though retaining the same amount of students actually going on Erasmus. During the
following academic year (2007-2008), this same percentage has increased to 40%.
13
15
18
15
12
20
13
15
18
13
11
20
7
14
9
7
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
25
Nevertheless, the amount of students going on Erasmus has decreased to two students
after a drastic decrease in the number of applicants by 77.27% from the previous
academic year (2006-2007).
Figure 11: Total number of the Faculty of Science students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The annual average percentage of students who went on Erasmus when compared to
the students accepted to go on Erasmus has more than doubled from the academic
years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 to the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. The
latter three years having a percentage of 33.33%, that is 21.19% higher than the
percentage of the 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 academic years.
3.3.11 Faculty of Theology
Out of the six academic years the analysis is carried upon, it was only during the
academic years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 that students applied to go on
Erasmus.
17
14
22
5 5 5
17
14
20
54
5
3 32
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies or Placements
26
During the year 2005-2006 and the year 2008-2009, all the students who applied got
accepted and actually went on Erasmus.
Figure 12: Total number of the Faculty of Theology students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that because of the nature of the course, only a
few students can go on Erasmus since those students who are also members of the
Seminary are not allowed to go and therefore do not apply.
3.3.12 Institute of Criminology
During the academic years 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, the Institute of Criminology has
had no students participating in the Erasmus Programme.
During the academic year 2009-2010, 75% of the students who got accepted to go on
Erasmus actually participated. These were the first students from this Institute that
went on an exchange period through the Erasmus Programme.
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that it was a student from the Institute who took
up the initiative to go on Erasmus since this experience was not really an option before
since there were no bi-lateral agreements signed with this Institute before.
2
1 1
2
1 1
2
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
27
Figure 13: Total number of the Institute of Criminology students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
3.3.13 Institute of Earth Systems
Figure 14: Total number of the Institute of Earth Systems students that applied, got accepted and went
on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4 4
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
1 11 11
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
28
During the academic years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, no students have applied to go on
Erasmus. During the subsequent two years, one student applied during each academic
year with one of the students taking up this exchange programme in the 2008-2009
academic year.
3.3.14 Institute of Linguistics
Figure 15: Total number of the Institute of Linguistics students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
During the academic year 2004-2005, one student was accepted to go on Erasmus.
Subsequently, during the 2007-2008 academic year, two students have shown interest
in the Erasmus Programme but as had happened 3 years before, these did not take up
this exchange despite the fact that they were accepted. The only student who has
been on Erasmus from the Institute of Linguistics was during the academic year 2006-
2007.
3.3.15 Mediterranean Institute
During the 2004-2005 academic year, no student from the Mediterranean Institute
actually went on Erasmus.
During the academic years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, the percentage of students going
on Erasmus compared to the students who got accepted to go on Erasmus has
increased at every alternate year starting from the 2005-2006 academic year. The
1
2 2
1
2 2
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
29
highest percentage was registered during the 2009-2010 academic year where 66.67%
of the students who got accepted to go on Erasmus actually went. However, the
highest amount of students going on Erasmus was during the 2006-2007 academic year
where 9 students have gone on this exchange programme. This academic year has also
marked the highest number of students that applied to go on an Erasmus Programme.
It is also worth noting that all the students who have applied to go on Erasmus that
were studying at the Mediterranean Institute have been accepted.
Figure 16: Total number of the Mediterranean Institute students that applied, got accepted and went on
Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
In comparison, during the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the average annual
percentage of students going on Erasmus to the students who got accepted to go on
Erasmus has increased by 20.56% when compared to the first three academic years this
analysis is based on.
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that it is an unfortunate situation to have the
amount of students applying to go on Erasmus decreasing despite the fact that
4
5
17
8
11
9
4
5
17
8
11
9
3
9
5 5
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
30
travelling and communication is made easier. It was also mentioned that the figures
were not that negative when considering the size of the Institute.
3.3.16 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture
Figure 17: Total number of the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The highest figures in the Institute for Tourism, Travel & Culture can be seen in the
2004-2005 academic year. During this period, the highest amount of applicants,
accepted students and students going on Erasmus can be noted. During this academic
year, the highest number of rejected students has also been registered.
The figures have decreased drastically until the 2006-2007 academic year where only
one out of every four students who applied in 2004-2005 period applied in the 2006-
2007 academic year.
During the following academic year (2007-2008), no students went on Erasmus.
However, in the subsequent academic year (2008-2009), 71.43% of students accepted
to go on Erasmus actually went. This year has marked the highest percentage between
the academic years taken into consideration in this study.
12
7
3
2
7
2
10
7
3
2
7
2
6
2 2
5
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
31
During the 2009-2010 academic year, 50% of the students who got accepted have
actually went on Erasmus. This percentage translates to only one student.
3.3.17 Centre for Communication Technology
Figure 18: Total number of the Centre for Communication Technology students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
There have been various shifts in the percentage of students going on Erasmus during
the six years of this analysis in the Centre for Communication Technology.
During the 2004-2005 academic year, the percentage of students going on Erasmus
compared to those students who got accepted has been that of 44.44%. This is the
highest percentage in the six years of this analysis. During the following two years, this
percentage has decreased to 6.25% and 11.11% respectively resulting in only one
student going on Erasmus per academic year.
The 2005-2006 academic year, which resulted in the lowest percentage of students
going on Erasmus, had the highest amount of applicants accepted together with the
2008-2009 academic year. During this period (2008-2009), the percentage of students
11
16
9
8
17
7
9
16
9
8
16
7
4
1 1
3
7
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
32
going on Erasmus compared to the students who got accepted increased to 43.75%.
This academic year also resulted in the highest amount of students actually going on
Erasmus. The 2009-2010 academic year registered the lowest amount of accepted
applicants.
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that the majority of the students are being
accepted to go on Erasmus but they opt not to go.
3.3.18 European Documentation and Research Centre
Figure 19: Total number of the European Documentation and Research Centre students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
During the 2004-2005 academic year, the lowest percentage of students who went on
Erasmus compared to the students who got accepted can be noted. This percentage
increased by 12.61% in the following year. The highest percentage that has been
registered was during the 2006-2007 academic year, where 50% of the student
accepted actually went on Erasmus. Despite the highest percentage registered, this
academic year has also marked the least amount of students who got accepted
resulting also in the least amount of students going on Erasmus in these five academic
years.
7
17
8
13
10
18
7
17
6
12
9
17
2
7
3
5
4
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
33
During the 2009-2010 academic year, the highest amount of students have applied to
go on Erasmus. They have almost all been accepted and the highest amount of
students went on Erasmus.
In comparison, during the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, an increase of
3.60% can be noted in the percentage of students who went on Erasmus to the
students who got accepted to go Erasmus, to the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-
2007.
The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that this centre has achieved good results in the
amount of students going on Erasmus. Nevertheless, it was expected to have higher
amounts of students to take-up this opportunity as the Centre in question continuously
encourages students to go on Erasmus.
3.3.19 Centre for Conservation and Restoration
Figure 20: Total number of the Centre for Conservation and Restoration students that applied, got
accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The maximum amount of Conservation and Restoration students that have ever gone
on Erasmus per academic year is that of one student. During the academic years 2005-
2006, 2006-2007 and 2009-2010, all the students that applied to go on Erasmus have
2
1 1
3
1
2
1 1
3
11 1 1 1 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies
34
actually went. During the academic year 2008-2009, no student had applied to go on
this exchange.
3.4 Comparison between the number of students going on Erasmus between the
different Faculties, Institutes and Centres
Throughout the academic years 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, the Faculties, Institutes and
Centres have each progressed in different manners as it can be seen from the table
below.
If one is to compare the average annual percentage of students who go on Erasmus to
the students who get accepted to go on Erasmus between the academic years 2004-
2005 to the academic years 2006-2007 to the average annual percentage of students
between the academic years 2007-2008 to the academic year 2009-2010, out of the
seventeen institutions taken into consideration, eight institutions have gone through
an increase in this percentage. Therefore 47.06% of the Faculties, Institutes or Centres
have increased the percentage of students going on Erasmus.
Table 1: Percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to the students accepted to go on Erasmus
per Faculty, Institute and Centre for the 2004/2005-2006/2007 and 2007/2008-2009/2010 academic
years
Faculty, Institute or Centre 2004/2005 -
2006/2007
2007/2008-
2009/2010
Faculty of Arts 48.79 36.51
Faculty for the Built Environment 25.41 41.43
Faculty of Economics, Management
and Accountancy 0.85 35.42
Faculty of Education 35.23 15.40
Faculty of Engineering 35.23 33.95
Faculty of Health Sciences 70.00 76.10
Faculty of Information and
Communication Technology 37.50 18.52
Faculty of Laws 61.07 57.03
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery 43.87 72.62
Faculty of Science 12.14 33.33
Faculty of Theology 33.33 33.33
Institute of Criminology* 0.00 25.00
35
Institute of Earth Systems* 0.00 33.33
Institute of Linguistics 16.67 0.00
Mediterranean Institute 37.65 58.21
Institute for Tourism, Travel &
Culture 51.75 40.84
Centre of Communication
Technology 20.60 36.61
European Documentation and
Research Centre 39.92 43.52
Centre for Conservation and
Restoration 83.33 44.44
* Not included in the above analysis
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Table 2: Amount of students who went on Erasmus per Faculty, Institute and Centre for the 2004/2005-
2006/2007 and 2007/2008-2009/2010 academic years
Faculty, Institute or Centre 2004/2005 -
2006/2007
2007/2008-
2009/2010
Faculty of Arts 58 44
Faculty for the Built Environment 9 25
Faculty of Economics, Management
and Accountancy 1 11
Faculty of Education 32 10
Faculty of Engineering 22 20
Faculty of Health Sciences 109 146
Faculty of Information and
Communication Technology 3 5
Faculty of Laws 101 66
Faculty of Medicine and Surgery 21 33
Faculty of Science 6 5
Faculty of Theology 2 1
Institute of Criminology* 0 3
Institute of Earth Systems* 0 1
36
* Not included in the analysis below Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
If one had to compare the total number of students that went on Erasmus between the
academic years 2004-2005 to the academic years 2006-2007, out of seventeen
institutions taken into consideration, eight of the Faculties, Institutes or Centres have
increased the amount of students going on Erasmus.
3.5 Comparison of Malta’s situation when compared to the other countries
participating in the Erasmus Programme
As it can be seen from the chart below, Malta is one of the restrained number of
countries that participate in the Erasmus Programme that exceed the European
average share of 0.92% of Erasmus students in the student population. This is an
exceptionally good situation considering the fact that the Maltese students have a
rather limited possibility of mobility. Other countries can have intra mobility which may
serve as a substitute to the Erasmus Programme. Nonetheless, the 1.54% of Maltese
students that go on Erasmus in relation to the University of Malta student population
has to be increased. There is still quite a lot of potential for this to be done when one
considers the large number of students that drop their Erasmus application.
Institute of Linguistics 1 0
Mediterranean Institute 12 16
Institute for Tourism, Travel &
Culture 10 6
Centre of Communication
Technology 6 12
European Documentation and
Research Centre 12 17
Centre for Conservation and
Restoration 3 2
37
Figure 21: Outgoing Erasmus students in 2008-2009 as a share of student population by country
Source: The data was obtained from a Eurostat research found at http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc920_en.htm (accessed 05-10-2010).
38
3.6 Chapter Conclusion
As one can see from the above analysis, the number of students that go on Erasmus
has been on the increase for the last couple of academic years. One must note this
number is far less than the number of students that apply and those who are accepted
to go on Erasmus. There are some students who drop out because of reasons related to
their respective course (the study-units not matching up with those offered locally,
compulsory study-units that have to be done during the Erasmus semester, etc.) while
others decide not to go for other reasons. Such reasons need to be tackled in order to
increase the take-up of this programme in order to continue increase the percentage of
Erasmus students in the University of Malta student population.
39
4. Analysis of the Universities and Placements
4.1 Chapter Introduction
This chapter analyses the universities and placements available for the University of
Malta students to go on Erasmus at. This is essential in order to assess whether the
demand from the students applying to go on Erasmus is met by a wide choice from
which to choose.
The first part of the chapter focuses on a general overview of the general perception of
the standard of the universities which the University of Malta has an agreement with.
This is done by means of the feedback received from the Erasmus Focus Group
participants.
A more specific analysis follows with the list of all the agreements and number of
places available for the academic year 2009-2010 for each Faculty, Institute and Centre.
Other aspects will also be tackled such as the number of places available per applicant
for each Faculty, Institute and Centre and statistics with the number of places available
for the last for academic years (i.e. 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010).
In this way, one can better assess whether there was an improvement in the number of
places available for the academic years taken into consideration. The feedback received
from the Erasmus Focus Group participants will also be mentioned during this specific
analysis.
The last part of this chapter will feature the concluding remarks arising out of the
analysis done before. Thus, this will result in a clear and concise picture of the standard
and number of universities and placements available.
4.2 General Overview
The Erasmus Focus Group participants discussed the general perception they have of
the standard of the universities which the University of Malta has an agreement with.
The majority of the participants agreed that the perception of the level of the majority
of the host universities is that they are of a lower academic standard than that of the
University of Malta especially because they are considered to have easier courses than
the ones offered locally. Moreover, some universities that are offered by particular
Faculties are not good enough mainly because the credits do not match (the content of
the credits are different).
40
Even though many students believe that the host university plays a significant role in
the Erasmus experience, one should not limit the Erasmus programme simply to the
academic part. Many students believe that a university is a good university so long as it
does not make it difficult for the students to go study there.
Nevertheless, the Erasmus Focus Group concluded that one should not generalise as
each university has its positive and negative aspects for the Erasmus students who
choose to attend its courses.
The participants of this Erasmus Focus Group agreed that even though they are not
aware of the majority of universities available that have a bilateral agreement with the
University of Malta, many students go on Erasmus for the experience. Thus, they said
that one gets to check the level of the host university at a later stage.
Moreover, the participants mentioned that there are a number of universities which
shouldn’t have an agreement with the University of Malta. The reasons that were
mentioned, amongst others, were the huge language barriers associated with some
host universities in particular countries and the fact that some of the universities may
not be of the highest level. However, they noted that there are also a very large
number of good bilateral agreements to the benefit of the local students wishing to go
on Erasmus.
Contrary to some other participants of the Erasmus Focus Group, some representatives
argued that the possibility to go on Erasmus does depend on the university. It is also
their perception that most universities which the University of Malta has a bilateral
agreement with are of the same standard as the Maltese ones.
Finally, it was also pointed out that the bilateral agreements between the foreign
universities and the University of Malta change from year to year so each Faculty,
Institute and Centre have to be monitored differently and individually every year to
constantly assess the level of the universities being offered to the local students.
4.3 Specific Analysis
4.3.1 Faculty of Arts
As one can see from the table below, the Faculty of Arts had 125 bi-lateral agreements
with different universities catering for its various departments during the academic
year 2009-2010. These give the possibility to 260 Arts students to go Erasmus each
year.
41
Moreover, one can notice that there are a number of agreements for each department.
Thus, all the students studying the various subject areas that wish to go on Erasmus
have a good choice of universities to choose from. The subject areas with the widest
choice of bi-lateral agreements are History, Languages and Archaeology.
The Erasmus Focus Group Arts participant noted that the department of English within
the Faculty of Arts seems to have chosen universities whose study-units match those
offered in Malta and where students seem to have consistent good experiences. It
must be said that this opinion is solely based on experience from the Department of
English since the participant is not aware of the situation in the other departments
within the same Faculty.
Table 3: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Arts students wishing to go on Erasmus for the
2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number
of Students
Czech Republic
Masaryk University Aesthetics 1
France Université Rennes 2 - Haute Bretagne Archaeology 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria Archaeology 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Siena Archaeology 2
United Kingdom
The Queens University of Belfast Archaeology 2
United Kingdom
University of Leicester Archaeology 2
United Kingdom
Bournemouth University Archaeology 2
United Kingdom
University of Southampton Archaeology 2
Italy Accademia di Belle Arti di Brera Art/ Design 3
Greece University of Peloponnese Classical Philology 3
Lithuania Vilnius University Classical Philology 1
Netherlands Utrecht University Communication/ Art and Design
3
Italy Università degli Studi di Macerata Comparative Literature
2
Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Comparative Studies of Civilisations/ Philosophy
2
42
Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria Contemporary Italian Literature
2
France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Foreign Languages 2
France Université Nancy 2 General/ Comparative Literature
1
Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari General/ Comparative Literature
2
Austria Karl Franzens Universität Graz History 1
Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen History 2
Bulgaria Sofiyski Universitet 'Sveti Kliment Ohridski'
History 2
France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis History 1
France Univeristé Paris Diderot- Paris 7 History 1
Greece National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
History 2
Greece Aristotle University of Thessaloniki History 2
Hungary University of Szeged History 1
Italy Università di Catania History 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Padova History 2
Italy University of Pisa History 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona History 3
Spain Universidad de Cantabria History 3
Spain Universidad de Valencia History 2
United Kingdom
University of Essex History 1
United Kingdom
University of Leicester History 2
United Kingdom
University of Southampton History 2
France Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3
History of Art 2
France Université Rennes 2 - Haute Bretagne History of Art 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria History of Art 2
Italy Accademia belle Arti di Macerata History of Art 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza"
History of Art 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"
History of Art 2
43
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona History of Art 2
France Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3
Humanities 2
Ireland National University of Ireland Humanities 2
Netherlands Universiteit Van Amsterdam Humanities 2
Italy University of Pisa International Relations
2
Slovakia University of Economics in Bratislava International Relations
2
Slovenia University of Ljubljana International Relations
1
Germany Universität Rostock Language 3
Belgium Université de Liege Languages 2
Belgium Université de Mons Hainaut Languages 2
France Université du Havre Languages 4
France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis Languages 1
Germany Otto- Friedrich Universität Bamberg Languages 2
Germany Universität Hildesheim Languages 2
Ireland National University of Ireland Languages 2
Ireland University of Limerick Languages 6
Italy Università degli Studi di Cagliari Languages 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Milano Languages 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Salerno Languages 2
Austria Universität Wien Languages & Philological Sciences
4
France Université d Picardie Jules Verne Languages/ Philology 1
France Université d`Angers Languages/ Philology 2
France Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3
Languages/ Philology 3
France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Languages/ Philology 2
France Institut Catholique d'Etudes Superieures
Languages/ Philology 1
France Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne
Languages/ Philology 2
Germany University of Bremen Languages/ Philology 2
Germany Universität Konstanz Languages/ Philology 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Pavia Languages/ Philology 2
Italy Università per stranieri di Perugia Languages/ Philology 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Languages/ Philology 4
44
Italy Libera Università degli Studi di Roma Pio V
Languages/ Philology 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Siena Languages/ Philology 3
Italy University of Udine Languages/ Philology 3
Italy Università Ca Foscari di Venezia Languages/ Philology 2
Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Languages/ Philology 2
Poland Nicolaus Copernicus University Languages/ Philology 1
Romania Universitatea din Craiova Languages/ Philology 2
Spain Universidad Pontifica Comillas Languages/ Philology 2
Spain Universidad de Oviedo Languages/ Philology 2
Spain Universidad de Sevilla Languages/ Philology 2
Spain Universidad de Valencia Languages/ Philology 2
United Kingdom
Abersytwyth University Library Science 2
France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Literature 2
France Université Rennes 2 - Haute Bretagne Literature 1
France Université Jean Monnet - Saint Etienne Literature 2
France Université Blaise Pascal II Modern EU Languages
2
France Université Jean Monnet - Saint Etienne Modern EU Languages
2
Germany Ruprecht- Karls Universität Heidelberg Modern EU Languages
3
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Modern EU Languages
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Modern EU Languages
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Modern EU Languages
4
Austria Leopold-Franzens Universität Innsbruck Modern Languages 2
France Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 Modern Literature 1
France Université Jean Moulin Lyon III Modern Literature 1
Austria Universität Wien Non-EU Languages 2
Denmark IT University of Copenhagen Other Art/ Design 2
Ireland Milltown Institute Philosophy 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Philosophy 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Philosophy 2
Poland Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubeljski Jana Pawla II
Philosophy 2
United Kingdom
Heythrop College Philosophy 3
45
United Kingdom
University of Central Lancashire Philosophy 4
Czech Republic
Charles University in Prague Social Gerontology 2
France Université Paris Diderot- Paris 7 Social Science 1
Germany Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Social Science 2
Hungary Police College Social Science 4
Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Social Science 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Social Science 1
Italy Università per stranieri di Perugia Social Science 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tre Social Science 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Teramo Social Science 2
Lithuania Kaunas University of Technology Social Science 2
Austria Universität Wien Sociology 4
Cyprus Cyprus College Sociology 2
France Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille
Sociology 2
Germany Johann Wolfgang Goethe - Universität Frankfurt am Main
Sociology 1
Ireland University College Dublin Sociology 2
Poland Adam Mickiewicz University Sociology 2
Switzerland University of Geneve Sociology 1
Belgium Haute Ecole Leonard de Vinci Translation 2
Belgium Université de Mons Hainaut Translation 2
Belgium Lessius Hogeschool Translation/ Interpretation
3
Italy University of Udine Translation/ Interpretation
3
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
This large number of bi-lateral agreements was not reflected in the number of Arts
students that applied to go on Erasmus. There were only thirty-eight students who
applied during the academic year 2009-2010. Thus, there were almost seven places
(6.8) for each student applying. The figure would have been worse if it was calculated
on the number of students that actually went on Erasmus.
The table below shows a breakdown of the number of available places for the Arts
students. As one can easily note, there has been an increase in all the academic years.
This highlights the willingness of both the Faculty of Arts officials and the University of
46
Malta International and EU Office to offer the widest choice possible for the Arts
students to choose from.
Table 4: Number of available places for the Faculty of Arts students wishing to go on Erasmus for the
2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 196
2007-2008 203
2008-2009 250
2009-2010 260 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment
The situation of the Faculty for the Built Environment is somewhat different from that
in the Faculty of Arts. There are quite a number of bi-lateral agreements signed with
various universities that total to twenty-nine places available for the academic year
2009-2010. If we consider the amount of students applying to go on Erasmus, we can
notice that there were twenty-eight applicants which results in 1.04 places per
applicant. This situation can be considered exceptional since from this particular
academic year, both third and fourth years could apply to go on Erasmus. Thus, the
number of applicants increased rapidly leading to the need to sign further bi-lateral
agreements for the benefit of Built Environment students.
The Faculty for the Built Environment representative within the Erasmus Focus Group
mentioned it is usually the same universities who accept to host the Maltese students
to go on Erasmus. She also pointed out that the host university she was accepted in
had less of a choice than the University of Malta. She continued that this situation
negatively impacted her experience especially since if given the choice, she would have
followed different subjects than those she was forced to choose from.
Table 5: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty for the Built Environment students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Denmark Nordjyllands Erhversakademi Architecture 2
Italy Università Politecnica delle Marche Architecture 4
Italy Politecnico di Bari Architecture 1
Italy Università di Bologna Architecture 4
47
Italy Politecnico di Milano Architecture 2
Italy Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli
Architecture 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza"
Architecture 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Architecture 6
Cyprus Cyprus University of Technology Architecture and Civil Engineering
1
Germany Hochschule Bremen Architecture and Civil Engineering
2
Italy Politecnico di Milano Urban Architecture and Regional Planning
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Urbino Urban Architecture and Regional Planning
1
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Table 6: Number of available places for the Faculty for the Built Environment students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 20
2007-2008 8
2008-2009 16
2009-2010 29 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The number of places available for the Faculty for the Built Environment have never
been consistent with a sharp decline in places available registered for the2007-2008
academic year while sharp increases were registered the following two academic years
(2008-2009 and 2009-2010). We believe that more bi-lateral should be signed in order
to give a wide choice for the students reading for a degree at this Faculty. It would be a
pity if a student would be refrained from going on Erasmus just because there were no
places available.
48
4.3.3 Faculty of Dental Surgery
The Faculty of Dental Surgery is an exceptional case with regards to the Erasmus
Programme. There were no bi-lateral agreements signed during the academic year
2009-2010.
The students which KSU has spoken with have said that they cannot go on Erasmus
because they have to do a number of dental fillings per year. In our opinion, this is not
a sufficient reason for not going on Erasmus since such practical assignments can be
done abroad with the same value of those done in Malta.
4.3.4 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy
Being one of the largest Faculties at the University of Malta, the Faculty of Economics,
Management and Accountancy is expected to have the largest amount of bi-lateral
agreements signed when compared to the other Faculties, Institutes and Centres. On
the other hand, one can see that there are only thirty-seven agreements with seventy-
four places available for the students to go on Erasmus at. Furthermore, there are
subjects which do not have the possibility to go on Erasmus (or their possibilities are
rather limited) such as those studying Accounts with only one place available in Greece
and Social Work with four placed in all.
Table 7: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Greece Athens University of Economics and Business
Accountancy 1
Liechtenstein Hochschule Liechtenstein Business Administration
2
France Groupe sup de Co Amiens Picardie
Business Administration/ Management Science
2
Denmark Aalborg University Business Studies 2
Denmark Neils Brock Copenhagen Business Studies 2
France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Business Studies 2
France ESCEM - Ecole Superieure de Commerce et de Management
Business Studies 1
Germany Hochschule Bremen Business Studies 2
49
Greece Athens University of Economics and Business
Business Studies 1
Italy Università degli studi di Calabria Business Studies 1
Slovenia University of Primorska Business Studies 2
United Kingdom
Canterbury Christ Church University Business Studies 2
France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Business Studies/ Management Science
2
Italy Università di Bologna Business Studies/ Management Science
1
Italy Università degli studi kore di Enna Business Studies/ Management Science
4
Latvia Stockholm School of Economics in Riga Business Studies/ Management Science
2
Slovakia University of Economics in Bratislava Business Studies/ Management Science
2
Denmark VIA, University College Business Studies/ Technology
2
Denmark University of Southern Denmark Business/ Management Studies
3
France Université du Havre Economics 2
France University of Rennes 1 Economics 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Economics 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Economics 2
Lithuania Vilnius University Economics 1
Spain Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Economics 3
United Kingdom
University of Essex Economics 1
France Université du Havre Management 1
France Université Jean Monnet - Saint Etienne
Management/ Marketing
2
Denmark VIA, University College Marketing/ Management
2
France Université du Havre Marketing/ Trade 2
50
France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Political Science 4
Italy Università di Bologna Political Science 3
Italy Università degli studi di Calabria Political Science 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Political Science 2
Poland Uniwersytet Warszawski/ University of Warsaw
Political Science 2
Denmark West Jutland University College Social Work 2
United Kingdom
University of Strathclyde Social Work 2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
One must note that there is a low amount of students that apply to go on Erasmus. In
fact, for the seventy-four places available, there were twenty applicants during the
academic year 2009-2010. Thus, there were around four places (3.7) for each applicant.
The numbers of places available have also been fluctuating from one academic year to
another with slight increases and decreases being registered. However, the range of
available places remains in the same region: that of around sixty-five to eight places.
Table 8: Number of available places for the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 72
2007-2008 80
2008-2009 67
2009-2010 74 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.5 Faculty of Education
As one can see from the table below, the students enrolled within the Faculty of
Education have a good choice of universities to go on Erasmus in. These vary from
lectures for the prospective teachers, teaching practice, pedagogy and psychology
(since this subject falls within this Faculty). There were eighty-eight places available
during the 2009-2010 academic year with thirty-four applications received. Thus, there
were around 2.6 places available for each applicant.
The Faculty of Education participant in the Erasmus Focus Group pointed out that the
university she went to study at was very helpful. She added that the fact that she went
51
to a good university contributed to her positive experience while studying abroad.
Moreover, she mentioned that the Erasmus Co-ordinator within the Faculty of
Education directed her to choose the right host university.
Table 9: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Education students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Belgium Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen Education 2
Finland Joensuun Yliopisto Education 2
Germany Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Education 2
Greece Panepistimio Kritis Education 1
Ireland Mater Dei Institute of Education Education 2
Ireland Dublin Institute of Technology Education 2
Italy Università degli studi di Cagliari Education 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Education 2
Italy Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie
Education 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tre Education 2
Netherlands Hogeschool Van Arnhem En Nijmegen Education 2
Norway Bergen University College Education 3
Sweden Uppsala Universitet Education 2
Switzerland University of Zurich Education 1
United Kingdom
Stranmillis University College Education 4
Italy Università degli Studi di Padova Education/ Foreign Language Education
2
Netherlands Stenden University Education/ Teacher Training
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Educational Psychology
2
Greece Harakopio University
Environmental Education/ Home Economics/ Nutrition
1
Denmark SUHR'S University College Home Economics 2
Ireland Saint Angela's College Home Economics 2
Lithuania Vilinus Pedagoginis Universitetas Home Economics 2
Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Pedagogy 2
Latvia Latvia University of Agriculture Pedagogy/ 2
52
Counselling
France Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne
Primary/ Secondary Education
2
France Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2 Psychology 2
France Université de Caen Basse-Normandie Psychology 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Padova Psychology 2
Netherlands Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Psychology 1
Spain Universidad Pontifica Comillas Psychology 2
Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Psychology 2
United Kingdom
University of Westminister Psychology 2
United Kingdom
University of Stirling Psychology 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Palermo Psychology/ Behavioural Science
2
Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Social Education 2
Finland University of Turku Social/ Behavioural Science
2
Germany Universität Hildesheim Teacher Education 2
Austria Universität Wien Teacher Training 2
Austria Padagogische Hochschule Wien Teacher Training 2
Germany The University of Tubingen Teacher Training 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Teacher Training 2
Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Teacher Training 2
Finland University of Helsinki Teacher Training/ Education Science
2
Netherlands Hogeschool Leiden Teacher Training/ Education Science
2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Table 10: Number of available places for the Faculty of Education students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 68
2007-2008 73
2008-2009 70
2009-2010 88 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
53
There has been a general increase in places available throughout the last academic
years. The only decrease in places available was registered for the 2008-2009 academic
year with three places less than the previous year. The increase was quite substantial
during the last academic year (2009-2010) with eighteen more places available.
4.3.6 Faculty of Engineering
The situation within this Faculty is quite similar to the Faculty of Education one with the
number of places available that double the amount of applicants to go on Erasmus. In
fact, there were twenty-eight applicants for the sixty-nine places available for the
academic year 2009-2010. This leads to around 2.5 places for each applicant who
wishes to go on Erasmus. Nonetheless, there are limited places available (two) for the
students who want to study Civil Engineering abroad since there are only two places
available in Norway.
The Faculty of Engineering representative in the Erasmus Focus Group said that a
positive thing about the universities which have a bilateral agreement with this Faculty
is that they have good connections with the local lecturers. Thus, the engineering
students who are interested in going at a particular host university will get to speak to
these lecturers in order to obtain more information. Moreover, the level of such host
universities is good especially since they also cover a number of subjects which are not
available for the University of Malta engineering students.
Table 11: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Engineering students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Netherlands Technische Universiteit Delft Biomedical Engineering 1
Norway Hogskolen I sor Trondelag Civil Engineering 2
Romania Universitatea Tehnica 'GH. ASACHI' IASI
Electrical Engineering 2
United Kingdom
The University of Nottingham Electrical Engineering 2
Germany Fachhochschule Nordhausen Electrical/ Environmental/ Mechanical Engineering
3
Poland Politechnika Warszawska Electronic Engineering 2
54
Slovenia University of Ljubljana Electronic Engineering 2
Austria Vienna University of Technology Electronic Engineering/ Telecommunications
4
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Electronic Engineering/ Telecommunications
2
Austria The Upper Austria University of Applied Siences
Engineering 2
Czech Republic
Brno University of Technology Engineering 3
Denmark VIA, University College Engineering 2
France Université de Technologie De Compiegne
Engineering 3
France Université de Technologie Troyes Engineering 2
Germany Hochschule Munchen Engineering 2
Germany University of Stuttgart Engineering 2
Poland Politechnika Gdanska Engineering 1
Poland Politechnika Warszawska Engineering 2
United Kingdom
University of Sheffield Engineering 2
Spain EUSS - Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
Engineering/ Technology
2
France Université du Havre Engineering/ Technology
1
France Université Henri Poincare Engineering/ Technology
2
Germany HAWK, University of Applied Sciences and Arts
Engineering/ Technology
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Engineering/ Technology
2
Turkey Sakarya University Engineering/ Technology
2
United Kingdom
University of Surrey Engineering/ Technology
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Bergamo Manufacturing Science 1
Italy Politecnico di Milano Mechanical Engineering 2
Spain Universidad de Valladolid Mechanical Engineering 1
55
United Kingdom
Cranfield University Mechanical Engineering 2
United Kingdom
University of Strathclyde Mechanical Engineering 6
Spain Universidad de Valladolid Other Areas - Energy Technology
1
Spain Universidad de Valladolid Other Engineering Technology
2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The number of places available has been constantly increasing as from the 2006-2007
academic year onwards. The largest increase in places available was registered during
the 2007-2008 academic year where there were twelve more places than the previous
academic year.
Table 12: Number of available places for the Faculty of Engineering students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 50
2007-2008 62
2008-2009 65
2009-2010 69 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.7 Faculty of Health Sciences
As one can easily notice, the Faculty of Health Sciences offers a wide range of places for
its students to go on Erasmus at though these places are not distributed throughout all
the departments. In fact, there are a large number of places available for the students
studying in the Nursing, Physiotherapy and Radiography departments while there are
limited places available for the students studying in the Biomedical, Midwifery,
Occupational Therapy and Communication Therapy departments.
The large number of places being offered to the students to go on Erasmus (one
hundred and twenty-nine places) was met by eighty five applicants during for the
academic year 2009-2010. Thus, there are 1.5 places available for each applicant from
this Faculty. This figure does not cater for the specific situation of the departments
56
which have a limited amount of places available since the figure of places per applicant
would be lower.
The Erasmus Focus Group participant on behalf of the Faculty of Health Sciences noted
that there were only two universities which she could apply for due to the afore
mentioned reasons. Regarding the level of the universities, she pointed out that the
standard was way below that of the University of Malta as they consider the course as
a diploma instead of a degree.
Table 13: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Health Sciences students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Finland Pirkanmaan Polytechnic Biomedical Laboratory
2
Ireland University College Dublin Diagnostic Imaging 2
Finland Turku University of Applied Science Diagnostic Radiography
2
Sweden Lunds Universitet Diagnostic Radiography
2
Finland University of Turku Logopaedics 2
Netherlands Hogeschool Inholland Medical Technology/ Radiography
2
Finland Savonia University of Applied Sciences Midwifery 2
United Kingdom
University of Glamorgan Midwifery 2
Belgium Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen Nursing 2
Czech Republic
University of Pardubice Nursing 2
Finland Savonia University of Applied Sciences Nursing 2
Finland Satakunta University of Applied Sciences
Nursing 2
Finland Pirkanmaan Polytechnic Nursing 2
Ireland University College Dublin Nursing 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Nursing 2
Lithuania Klaipeda University Nursing 2
Portugal Escola Superior de Enfermagem do Porto
Nursing 3
Spain Universitat de Lleida Nursing 2
Sweden Karolinska Institutet Nursing 2
57
United Kingdom
Middlesex University Nursing 2
United Kingdom
University of Manchester Nursing 2
United Kingdom
The University of Nottingham Nursing 2
United Kingdom
University of Glamorgan Nursing 2
United Kingdom
University of Central Lancashire Nursing 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Nursing/ Midwifery 2
Denmark CVU Lillebaelt Occupational Therapy
2
Denmark University College Lille Baelt Occupational Therapy
2
Finland Arcada Polytechnic Occupational Therapy
2
Sweden Karolinska Institutet Occupational Therapy
2
United Kingdom
Cardiff University Occupational Therapy
2
Finland University of Oulu Other Medical Sciences
2
Belgium Artevelde University College Physiotherapy 2
Denmark CVU Lillebaelt Physiotherapy 2
Denmark University College Sjaelland Physiotherapy 2
Denmark University College Lille Baelt Physiotherapy 2
Denmark CVU Syd Sygeplejeskolen I Stroms Amt Physiotherapy 2
Finland Arcada Polytechnic Physiotherapy 2
Finland Lahti University of Applied Sciences Physiotherapy 2
Finland Pirkanmaan Polytechnic Physiotherapy 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Physiotherapy 2
Netherlands Hogeschool Utrecht, University of Applied Science
Physiotherapy 2
Sweden Karolinska Institutet Physiotherapy 2
Sweden Uppsala Universitet Physiotherapy 2
Denmark CVU Lillebaelt Radiography 2
Denmark University College Lille Baelt Radiography 2
Estonia Tartu Health College Radiography 2
Norway Bergen University College Radiography 3
58
Portugal Instituto Politecnico de Coimbra Radiography 2
Portugal Universidade do Algarve Radiography 2
Portugal Instituto Politecnico do Porto Radiography 2
Sweden Karolinska Institutet Radiography 2
United Kingdom
University Campus Suffolk Radiography 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Radiology/ Medical Lab
4
Belgium Lessius Hogeschool Speech and Language Therapy
4
Belgium Katholieke Hogeschool Brugge Oostende
Speech Therapy 2
Belgium Haute Ecole Leonard de Vinci Speech Therapy 2
Spain EUSS - Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona
Speech Therapy 8
Belgium Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Speech Therapy and Audiology
3
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Table 14: Number of available places for the Faculty of Health Sciences students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 72
2007-2008 110
2008-2009 117
2009-2010 129 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The situation of the number of available places for the Health Sciences students to go
on Erasmus has been increasing throughout all the academic years taken into
consideration (similar to the case of other Faculties). In fact, a steep increase of places
was registered between the 2006-2007 and the 2007-2008 academic years where
thirty-eight more places were made available.
4.3.8 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology
This Faculty has various bi-lateral agreements in place which cover a number of
departments within the Faculty. In fact, the students studying Computer Science and
Communications & Computer Engineering have quite a number of places to choose
59
from. On the other hand, there are limited or no places available for the other
departments such as Microelectronics & Nanoelectronics.
Table 15: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Sweden Malmo University Communication/ Information Science
2
Germany Universität des Saarlandes Computational Linguistics
1
Spain Universidad de Castilla La Mancha Computer Engineering
3
Estonia Tallin University Computer Science 2
Finland Joensuun Yliopisto Computer Science 2
France Unviersité Paul Verlaine - Metz Computer Science 2
Poland Warsaw University of Technology Computer Science 2
United Kingdom
University of Kent Computer Science 3
Czech Republic
Tomas Bata University in Zlin Computing 1
Czech Republic
Charles University in Prague Informatics 1
Denmark IT University of Copenhagen Informatics/ Computer Science
2
France Université Nancy 2 Informatics/ Computer Science
1
Ireland National University of Ireland Informatics/ Computer Science
2
Sweden Goteborg University Informatics/ Computer Science
2
France Université du Havre Information Communication
1
Italy Università degli Studi di Trieste Information Technology
2
Italy Libera Università di Bolzano Mathematics/ Informatics/ Computer Science
1
60
Denmark IT University of Copenhagen Other Communication/ Computer Science
2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
During the academic year 2009-2010, there were thirty-two places available for the
students studying within this Faculty to take-up. The low number of applicants (eight)
lead to have four places available each.
One must also mention the number of overall places per academic year as from the
2006-2007 one. The places have slightly risen constantly with a slight decrease being
registered for the 2009-2010 academic year. One must note that it seems that the
places available for the students studying within this Faculty have settled in the last
two academic years (i.e. around thirty to thirty-five places per academic year).
Table 16: Number of available places for the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology
students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 22
2007-2008 26
2008-2009 34
2009-2010 32 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.9 Faculty of Laws
Table 17: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Laws students wishing to go on Erasmus for the
2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject
Area Number of Students
Austria Universität Salzburg Law 2
Belgium Vrije Universiteit Brussel Law 2
Belgium Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Law 2
Czech Republic
Charles University in Prague Law 2
Denmark University of Copenhagen Law 3
France Université du Havre Law 2
France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Law 5
France Université Montpellier 1 Law 2
61
France University of Rennes 1 Law 3
Germany Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover
Law 3
Italy Università di Bologna Law 2
Italy Università degli studi di Calabria Law 1
Italy Università degli studi kore di Enna Law 4
Italy Università degli studi di Ferrara Law 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Law 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Law 2
Italy Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Law 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Parma Law 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Law 6
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata" Law 6
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tre Law 7
Italy Libera Università degli Studi di Roma Pio V Law 4
Italy Università degli Studi di Teramo Law 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Urbino Law 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Law 3
Netherlands Utrecht University Law 2
Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Law 2
Poland Lazarski School of Commercial Law Law 2
Slovakia Bratislava School of Law Law 2
Spain Universidad de Oviedo Law 2
Spain Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Law 3
Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Law 2
Sweden Goteborg University Law 2
United Kingdom
Abersytwyth University Law 2
United Kingdom
University of Essex Law 1
United Kingdom
University of Leicester Law 2
United Kingdom
University of Southampton Law 2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The Faculty of Laws is another Faculty which offers a wide range of places to its
students. These places cover various countries with Italy being the most popular. In
fact, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were ninety-six places being offered
62
for forty-six applicants. This means that there were around 2.1 places for each Law
student who applied to go on Erasmus.
As one can see from the table below, there was an increase throughout all the
academic years taken into consideration (apart for the academic year 2008-2009 which
registered a place less than the previous academic year). This decrease in places was
absorbed during the following academic year (2009-2010) since the number of places
available rose to a much larger extent than the decrease registered during the 2008-
2009 academic year.
Table 18: Number of available places for the Faculty of Laws students wishing to go on Erasmus for the
2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 77
2007-2008 89
2008-2009 88
2009-2010 96 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.10 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery
Even though one can notice that there are quite a large number of available places for
students who wish to go on Erasmus to take up, these available places are not spread
throughout all the departments within this Faculty. In fact, there are a large number of
available places for those students studying within the Pharmacy department while
there are no places for other departments such as those students who are focusing
their studies in Medicine, Psychiatry, Surgery and Anatomy amongst others.
If one takes a general picture, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were sixty-
seven places for the twenty applications received. Thus, there were 3.35 places for
each applicant from this Faculty. One must note that this large number was brought
about by the bi-lateral agreements catering for Pharmacy students.
Table 19: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Belgium Europese Hogeschool Brussel Medical Imaging 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Medical Science 2
63
United Kingdom
University of Aberdeen Medical Science 2
United Kingdom
University of Ulster Medical Technology
4
Italy Vita Salute San Raffaele University Medicine 2
Poland Akademia Medyczna Warszawie Medicine 2
Spain Universidad de Sevilla Medicine 1
United Kingdom
The Queens University of Belfast Pharmacology 2
Belgium Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pharmacy 2
Denmark University College Sjaelland Pharmacy 2
France Université Joseph Fourier Pharmacy 2
France Université du Droit et de la Sante de Lille
Pharmacy 2
France Université de Limoges Pharmacy 1
France Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 Pharmacy 2
France Université Montpellier 1 Pharmacy 4
France Université Rene' Descartes - Paris 5 Pharmacy 3
Germany University of Bonn Pharmacy 2
Germany Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nurnberg
Pharmacy 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria Pharmacy 3
Italy Università di Catania Pharmacy 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Cagliari Pharmacy 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Pharmacy 2
Italy University of Pisa Pharmacy 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza"
Pharmacy 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Urbino Pharmacy 2
Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Pharmacy 2
Spain Universidad de Alcalá Pharmacy 2
Spain Universidad Computense de Madrid Pharmacy 2
United Kingdom
Cardiff University Pharmacy 2
United Kingdom
Kings College London Pharmacy 2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
64
The places available for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students have changed
throughout the various academic years. In fact, a slight decrease in available places was
registered for the 2007-2008 academic year while there was a drastic increase in such
places during the following academic year, i.e. 2008-2009.
Table 20: Number of available places for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 53
2007-2008 47
2008-2009 66
2009-2010 67
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.11 Faculty of Science
There are a wide number of bi-lateral agreements signed to cater for the Faculty of
Science students that wish to go on Erasmus. These cover all the departments within
this Faculty with Chemistry and Mathematics registering the largest number of bi-
lateral agreements when compared to the other departments (Biology, Physics and
Statistics & Operations Research). One should point out that even though there are
such bi-lateral agreements, many of the students cannot go on Erasmus since these
agreements cover one field of study whereas the students have to choose two areas of
study. Thus, this situation limits them from going on Erasmus.
In fact, out of the fifty-seven available places during the 2009-2010 academic year,
there were only five applicants to go on Erasmus. This totals to 11.4 available places for
each application received.
Table 21: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Science students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
United Kingdom
The University of Oxford Astrophysics 1
Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen Chemistry 2
France Ecole Nationale Superieure de Chimie de Clermont Ferrand
Chemistry 2
65
Greece Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Chemistry 2
Italy Università di Camerino Chemistry 2
Italy Università di Catania Chemistry 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Chemistry 2
Italy Università degli Studi dell'Insubria Chemistry 2
United Kingdom
University of Sheffield Chemistry 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Teramo Communication/ Information Sciences
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Environmental Sciences/ Ecology
10
Czech Republic
Brno University of Technology Mathematics 1
Czech Republic
Tomas Bata University in Zlin Mathematics 1
Ireland National University of Ireland Mathematics 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Messina Mathematics 2
Portugal Universidad de Aveiro Mathematics 2
United Kingdom
University of Warwick Mathematics 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Mathematics/ Informatics
2
Belgium Plantijn Hogeschool University College
Microbiology/ Biotechnology
2
Poland Politechnika Gdanska Natural Science 2
Poland Panstwowa Wyzsza Szkola Zawodowa Natural Science 2
United Kingdom
University of Plymouth Natural Science 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Palermo Other Areas Energy Technology
1
United Kingdom
Loughborough University Other Areas Energy Technology
2
Germany Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nurnberg
Others Natural Sciences
1
Italy Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca
Physics 2
Germany Fachhochschule Nordhausen Renewable Energy/ Other Areas Energy Technology
3
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
66
The same upward trend of places available was registered during the academic years
taken into consideration. The only academic year which registered a slight decrease in
places available was the 2008-2009 academic year. In fact, there were two places less
than the previous academic year.
Table 22: Number of available places for the Faculty of Science students wishing to go on Erasmus for the
2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 36
2007-2008 42
2008-2009 40
2009-2010 57 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.12 Faculty of Theology
Table 23: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Theology students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Czech Republic
St. Cyril and Methodius Theological Faculty Theology 2
Germany Universität Rostock Theology 2
Ireland Mater Dei Institute of Education Theology 2
Ireland Milltown Institute Theology 2
Poland Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubeljski Jana Pawla II Theology 2
United Kingdom
Heythrop College Theology 3
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
When one considers that a large percentage of the students studying at the Faculty of
Theology cannot go on Erasmus due to their vocation, the number of places available
for such students to go on Erasmus is a good one. In fact, during the academic year
2009-2010, there were six bi-lateral agreements that lead to thirteen places available.
On the other hand, there were no applications received during this academic year
which lead to the ‘wasting’ of such places.
67
Table 24: Number of available places for the Faculty of Theology students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 2
2007-2008 2
2008-2009 12
2009-2010 13 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
As one can see from the table above, there was an increase in available places between
the first two academic years taken into consideration (2006-2007 and 2007-2008) and
the following two academic years (2008-2009 and 2009-2010) with the number of
places available places increasing drastically. One must notice that the number of
students applying to go on Erasmus did not follow the same trend.
4.3.13 Institute of Criminology
The experience of the Institute of Criminology in relation to the Erasmus Programme
has been quite recent. In fact, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were only
two bi-lateral agreements in place that catered for seven Criminology students. There
were four applications received which lead to 1.75 places available per applicant.
The Institute of Criminology representative in the Erasmus Focus Group explained that
her case was different from the other students that went on Erasmus since the
university she went to was not as formal as the University of Malta. Nonetheless, she
pointed out that she liked the system they used: to host the Erasmus students at the
college itself with English speaking lecturers all throughout the semester.
Table 25: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Criminology students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Hungary Police College Criminology 4
United Kingdom University of Sheffield Criminology 3 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Moreover, the 2009-2010 academic year was the first year where there were bi-lateral
agreements signed with foreign universities. Thus, one cannot successfully compare the
change of available places throughout the various academic years taken into
68
consideration or assess whether the number of places available are enough in relation
to the number of received applications since the data available is still recent and thus,
it is highly subject to change.
Table 26: Number of available places for the Institute of Criminology students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 0
2007-2008 0
2008-2009 0
2009-2010 7
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.14 The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development of Thinking
Table 27: List of bi-lateral agreements for The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development
and Thinking students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Germany Fachhochschule Brandenburg
Creative Thinking/ Business Studies
2
Germany University of Potsdam Creativity/ Innovation/ Entrepreneurship
2
United Kingdom
University of Teesside Creativity/ Innovation/ Entrepreneurship
1
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
There were three bi-lateral agreements in place for the Edward De Bono Institute for
the Design and Development of Thinking students during the 2009-2010 academic year.
This meant five places available for the students to take up. There were no applications
received during this academic year which resulted in these places to get wasted.
Table 28: Number of available places for The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development
and Thinking students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 0
2007-2008 2
69
2008-2009 7
2009-2010 5 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The number of places available for students to go on Erasmus changed during every
academic year which was taken into consideration. Whereas there were no places
available during the 2006-2007 academic year, this increased to two and seven places
for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years respectively. There was also a
decrease of two places registered during the 2009-2010 academic year when compared
to the previous one.
4.3.15 Institute of Earth Systems
The Institute of Earth Systems has signed various bi-lateral agreements with foreign
universities the majority of whom are with Italian universities. This possible language
barrier can be one of the reasons why there was just one application to go on Erasmus
during the 2009-2010 academic year out of the eleven places available. Thus, it would
be opportune if other bi-lateral agreements are signed in order to cater for all the
students who study at this Institute.
Table 29: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Earth Systems students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Italy Università di Bologna Agricultural Science 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Agricultural Science 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Milano Agricultural Science 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Palermo Agricultural Science 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Agricultural Science 1
Spain Universidad de Santiago de Compostela
Agricultural Science 2
Italy University of Udine Agricultural Science/ Veterinary Medicine
2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
There have always been a good number of available places for the students willing to
go on Erasmus. Whereas an increase in available places was registered during the 2007-
2008 academic year, there was a decrease in places available for the rest of the
70
academic years taken into consideration, i.e. a place for the 2008-2009 academic year
and five places for the 2009-2010 academic year.
Table 30: Number of available places for the Institute of Earth Systems students wishing to go on
Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 13
2007-2008 17
2008-2009 16
2009-2010 11 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.16 Institute of Linguistics
Table 31: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Linguistics students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
France Université Nancy 2 Linguistics 1
Germany Otto- Friedrich Universität Bamberg
Linguistics 2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The Institute of Linguistics has always had a small number of bi-lateral agreements in
order for its students to have the possibility to go on Erasmus. As the Institute of Earth
Systems, the choice of universities have been in countries that might provide a
language barrier to the Maltese students wishing to go on Erasmus but are not able to
speak either French or German. This may be the reason why there was no one who
applied to go on Erasmus from this Institute.
Table 32: Number of available places for the Institute of Linguistics students wishing to go on Erasmus for
the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 3
2007-2008 4
2008-2009 2
2009-2010 3
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
71
The number of places available has been constant throughout the academic years
taken into consideration. In fact, the number of places ranged from two to four places
as it can be seen from the table above.
4.3.17 Mediterranean Institute
Table 33: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Mediterranean Institute students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis Anthropology 1
Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Anthropology 2
United Kingdom
University of Sussex Anthropology 3
United Kingdom
Durham University Anthropology 2
Czech Republic
Charles University in Prague Demography 2
Austria Leopold-Franzens Universität Innsbruck Geography 1
France Université de Limoges Geography 2
France Univeristé Paris Diderot- Paris 7 Geography 1
Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Geography 2
Sweden Lunds Universitet Geography 2
United Kingdom
University of Westminister Geography 2
United Kingdom
University of Portsmouth Geography 3
Germany Katholische Universität Eichstatt - Ingolstadt
Geography/ Geology
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia
Geography/ Geology
2
Italy Conservatorio Statale di Musica L Cherubini Firenze
Music 1
Italy Conservatorio Statale di Musica Alfredo Casella- L`Aquila
Music 2
Italy Conservatorio di Musica di Lecce- Tito Schipa
Music 1
Czech Republic
Ostravska Universita Music/ Musicology
2
72
Czech Republic
Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyne V Usti nad Labern
Music/ Musicology
2
Italy Conservatorio Antonio Sciortino, Trapani
Music/ Musicology
2
Italy University of Pisa Musical Studies/ Conservation
1
Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen Performing Arts 1
Czech Republic
Ostravska Universita Performing Arts 2
France Université de Paris 13 Performing Arts 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Performing Arts 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza"
Performing Arts 2
Slovenia University of Primorska Performing Arts 3
United Kingdom
University of Kent Performing Arts 3
Germany Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nurnberg
Theatre Studies 1
Poland Adam Mickiewicz University Theatre Studies 3 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
There are a large number of bi-lateral agreements signed for the benefit of the
Mediterranean Institute students. In fact, there are a good number of places available
in almost all the different departments that constitute the Mediterranean Institute. The
only department which do not have any agreement signed with a foreign university as
yet is the Dance Studies department.
The large number of places available does not coincide with the number of applications
received to go on Erasmus. In fact, there were ten applicants for the 2009-2010
academic year in relation to the fifty-seven available places for the same academic
year. Thus, there were 5.7 places available for each application received.
The Mediterranean Institute participant in the Erasmus Focus Group analysed that the
universities available for her course and Institute are not all ideal. There are a number
of good choices though which should be increased in order to attract more students
who are willing to go abroad on Erasmus.
73
Table 34: Number of available places for the Mediterranean Institute students wishing to go on Erasmus
for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 30
2007-2008 47
2008-2009 46
2009-2010 57
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
It is worth noting that both the Mediterranean Institute officials and the University of
Malta International and EU Office have managed to secure an increase in the places
available for the students studying at this Institute. The only academic year where a
decline was registered was during 2008-2009 with just one available place less than the
previous academic year.
4.3.18 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture
The Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture has various bi-lateral agreements with
universities hailing from different countries for the benefit of the students conversant
in English, Italian and German. Moreover, the number of places available during the
2009-2010 academic year was that of seventeen places which was way above the
number of applications received (one).
Table 35: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture students wishing
to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Finland Arcada Polytechnic Business/ Tourism 2
Germany Hochschule Bremen Tourism Studies 3
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Tourism Studies 4
United Kingdom
Canterbury Christ Church University Tourism Studies 4
Finland Haaga Helia University of Applied Science
Tourism/ Catering/ Hotel Management
2
Finland Savonia University of Applied Sciences Tourism/ Catering/ Hotel Management
2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
74
The number of places available for the Tourism students to go on Erasmus has been
constantly on the increase. In fact, there were three more places during the 2007-2008
academic year and seven more places during the 2008-2009 year. The only decline in
places that was registered was during the 2009-2010 academic year with a decrease of
five places when compared to the previous academic year.
Table 36: Number of available places for the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture students wishing to
go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 12
2007-2008 15
2008-2009 22
2009-2010 17
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.19 Centre for Communication Technology
As the case of the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture, the Centre for
Communication Technology has signed bi-lateral agreements with universities from a
number of different European countries. This wide choice of universities and places
(during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were twenty-one places available) was
met with a limited number of applications to go on Erasmus (a total of seven applicants
for the 2009-2010 academic year). Thus, there were three places for each application
received.
The Centre for Communication Technology representative in the Erasmus Focus Group
said that there are a number of good universities offered as a choice especially those
situated in the northern European countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the
Netherlands, Germany and France.
Table 37: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Centre for Communication Technology students wishing to
go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Denmark University of Copenhagen Communcation/ Information Sciences
1
Latvia University of Latvia Communcation/ Information Sciences
2
75
Italy University of Udine Communcation/ Information Sciences/ Cinema
2
Finland Univeristy of Jyvaskyla Communication 2
France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Communication 2
France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis Communication 2
United Kingdom
University of Westminister Communication 2
Germany Hochschule Bremen Communication/ Information Sciences
2
Germany Facchochschule Gelsenkirchen Journalism/ Public Relations
4
Sweden Lunds Universitet Media/ Communication Studies
2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Table 38: Number of available places for the Centre for Communication Technology students wishing to
go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 18
2007-2008 14
2008-2009 12
2009-2010 21
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The places available for the Communications students have varied from one academic
year to another. A decline was registered during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009
academic years while a sharp increase in the number of available places was seen
during the 2009-2010 academic year with more universities from a wider number of
countries being offered for the Communications students wishing to go on Erasmus.
4.3.20 European Documentation and Research Centre
The European Documentation and Research Centre’s lecturers are known for their
constant promotion with their students to go on Erasmus. In fact, they have managed
to secure twenty-six places during the 2009-2010 academic year. It is worth noting that
the number of applicants to go on Erasmus for the same academic year was that of
76
eighteen students. Thus, there were only 1.44 available places for the European Studies
students to take up. The number of applicants has soared during this academic year
due to the fact that it comprises both the second and third year students who applied
to go on Erasmus unlike the previous years which were limited just for the second year
students. Thus, the number of places per applicant was greatly affected by this
situation.
The European Documentation and Research Centre participant in the Erasmus Focus
Group noted that the standard of the universities being offered to the European
Studies students are good.
Table 39: List of bi-lateral agreements for the European Documentation and Research Centre students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students
Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia EC/ EU Law 2
France Université Paris 8 Vincennes- Saint Denes
European Studies 2
Hungary University of Szeged European Studies 2
Ireland University of Limerick European Studies 3
Italy Università di Bologna European Studies 7
Italy Università degli studi di Calabria European Studies 2
Poland Uniwersytet Warszawski/ University of Warsaw
European Studies 2
Italy Università degli Studi di Trieste International Relation/ European Studies
2
Germany Universität Konstanz Political Science 2
Germany University of Mannheim Political Science 2 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The number of places available for the European Studies students to go on Erasmus has
been on the rise during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years. There was a
slight decrease in places during the 2009-2010 academic years with two places less.
The fact that both the second and third year students can go on Erasmus means that
there is a need to increase the number of bi-lateral agreements for the benefit of all
the students enrolled with the European Documentation and Research Centre.
77
Table 40: Number of available places for the European Documentation and Research Centre students
wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 21
2007-2008 25
2008-2009 28
2009-2010 26
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
4.3.21 Others
This category comprises the Centre for Conservation and Restoration, the European
Centre for Gerontology and the Institute for Physical Education and Sport. As one can
see from the table below, there are a good number of places available for both the
Centre for Conservation and Restoration and the Institute for Physical Education and
Sport. In fact, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there was one applicant for the
twenty-two places available for the Conservation and Restoration students while there
were no applicants to take up the twelve places available within the Institute for
Physical Education and Sport. The European Centre for Gerontology had two places
available during the same academic year with no student deciding to apply for.
Table 41: List of bi-lateral agreements for the rest of the students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-
2010 academic year
Country of Origin
Name of Institution Subject Area Faculty/
Institute/ Centre
Number of
Students
Greece Technological Educational Institution of Athens
Conservation Centre for Conservation and Restoration
2
Italy Università di Bologna Conservation Centre for Conservation and Restoration
1
Italy Università di Catania Conservation Centre for Conservation and Restoration
1
Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen Conservation of Cultural Heritage
Centre for Conservation and Restoration
2
78
Belgium Artesis University College of Antwerp
Conservation/ Restoration
Centre for Conservation and Restoration
2
Denmark Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademi Konservtorskolen
Conservation/ Restoration
Centre for Conservation and Restoration
2
Finland Arcada Polytechnic Gerontology European Centre for Gerontology
2
Italy Università degli studi suor Orsola Benincasa
Heritage Centre for Conservation and Restoration
2
Italy Università Ca Foscari di Venezia
Masonry/ Construction Research
Centre for Conservation and Restoration
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"
Museum Studies/ Conservation
Centre for Conservation and Restoration
4
Sweden Goteborg University Museum Studies/ Conservation
Centre for Conservation and Restoration
4
France Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III
Physical Education
Institute for Physical Education and Sport
2
Germany Georg-August-Universität Gottingen
Physical Education
Institute for Physical Education and Sport
2
Italy Università degli Studi di Verona
Physical Education
Institute for Physical Education and Sport
2
Norway Telemark Unversity College Physical Education
Institute for Physical Education and Sport
2
Italy Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie
Physical Education/ Sport Science
Institute for Physical Education and Sport
2
79
United Kingdom
University of Gloucestershire
Physical Education/ Sport Science
Institute for Physical Education and Sport
2
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Table 42: Number of available places for the rest of the students wishing to go on Erasmus for the
2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year
Academic Year Number of Available Places
2006-2007 36
2007-2008 46
2008-2009 37
2009-2010 36
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
The number of places available has never been constant. A ten-place increase was
registered during the 2007-2008 academic year while a nine- and one-place decrease
was registered during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years respectively. One
must note that there are a large number of places available for such a limited number
of students that apply to go on Erasmus. It seems that the choice available for the
students is a wide one that comprises different aspects of their studies. Thus, an
increase in promotion is needed in order to have the students more aware of the
opportunities they have if they decide to go on Erasmus.
4.4 Chapter Conclusion
As one can see from the above analysis, there are different situations for the different
Faculties, Institutes and Centres. In some cases, some students do not have to
possibility to go on Erasmus such as the Faculty of Dental Surgery and the students in
some departments of Faculty of Medicine and Surgery since there are no bi-lateral
agreements signed as yet.
Other students in different Faculties have no possibilities to go on Erasmus even
though there are bi-lateral agreements signed with foreign universities. The Faculty of
Science is a case in point were the agreements do not address the fact that local
students chose two areas of studies and not just one while the universities which the
Faculty of Information and Communication Technology has an agreement with do not
80
match with the compulsory study-units being offered locally. Thus, a change in
universities which an agreement is signed is needed.
On the other hand, there are cases where there needs to be more promotion with the
students in order to take up the large number of places available. This is the case for
the Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Education, Faculty of Engineering, Mediterranean
Institute, the Centre for Conservation and Restoration and the Institute for Physical
Education and Sport amongst others.
Moreover, an increase in bi-lateral agreements is needed for the Faculty for the Built
Environment and the European Documentation and Research Centre in order to cater
for the increase in possible applicants to go on Erasmus as it was previously explained
in the above analysis.
81
5. Analysis of the Administrative Problems
5.1 Chapter Introduction
In order to complete the Erasmus Programme, the students have to be in contact with
a number of relevant offices at the University of Malta and at the host university. The
aim of this chapter is to identify the administrative problems encountered by the
students. The chapter is divided into 2 parts. The first part includes an analysis of the
data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire and the second part
includes an analysis of the data obtained through the feedback from the Erasmus Focus
Group representatives.
The Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire sheds light on what administrative
problems the students encounter at the University of Malta when they opt to go on
Erasmus. The main offices the students encounter are the International & EU Office as
well as their respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres. On the other hand, students
who did not go on Erasmus had the chance to comment about why they decided not to
go on Erasmus. One of the choices that were given was in relation to administrative
problems that they might have faced.
The Erasmus Focus Group was directed to identify any administrative problems at the
University of Malta during the whole process of Erasmus, as well as the administrative
problems at the host university, if any problems were encountered.
Before the analysis of the problems encountered, we decided to include a brief
description of the competences of the International and EU Office and those of the
various Faculties, Institutes and Centres in order to understand better what their
responsibilities are.
5.2 The University of Malta International & EU Office
5.2.1 Competences of the University of Malta International and EU Office - Outgoing
Students
The University of Malta International and EU Office is the office in charge of updating
the bi-lateral agreements to ensure that students have a choice of high level
universities to choose from for their Erasmus experience.
The International & EU Office act as a reference point for all the students interested in
going on Erasmus and therefore are responsible to answer any queries and difficulties
82
the students might encounter before, during and after the application process as well
as while the students are studying at the host university.
The International & EU Office issues a call for application forms in February to
encourage students to participate in this programme. They then receive all the
application forms of the students who are interested in participating in an Erasmus
Programme on studies or in the form of a placement. These application forms are then
assessed to check whether the students who applied are eligible to undergo such an
exchange programme.
The list of the eligible students is sent to the respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres
for approval. After this feedback is received, the ESGAC (Erasmus Selection/Grant
Allocation Committee) finalises the list of students eligible to go on Erasmus.
The International and EU Office is responsible to nominate the eligible students to the
host university. The host universities are in contact with the University of Malta
through the International and EU Office regarding the students accepted.
When students are accepted and decide to continue with their application, the
International and EU Office is responsible to meet up with them and explain to them
the process required for them to go on Erasmus.
The International and EU Office is also in charge of the logistics involved to give the
grants to the students going on Erasmus before going abroad and after in order to
receive the final percentage of the grant allocated to them.
Additionally, the International and EU Office is responsible to update their website
when necessary, i.e. when there are changes in the bi-lateral agreements signed with
the foreign universities.
5.2.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire
Kindly refer to Chapter 8 on page 107.
5.2.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group
The most recurring problem encountered by the students is the limited student hours
of the International and EU Office. 88.89% of the Erasmus Focus Group has commented
on this. The short slots available for students discourage the interested students to
83
continue with their application process or not even apply in the first place. This is due
to the fact that long queues are formed which prove that the student hours are not
sufficient. Some students have also shown disappointment that during student hours,
the staff at the International and EU Office is not fully dedicated to the queries the
students might have.
The majority of the participants of the Erasmus Focus Group has commented on the
fact that most often they received late replies to any queries they had. This lengthened
the process which could have easily been more efficient if the process was more
organised especially if one considers the fact that most queries can be resolved in a
short time or answered by email. Some students said that most of the time, they had to
phone, email or visit the International and EU Office for a long time until they received
a reply.
A number of the students forming part of the Erasmus Focus Group have commented
that a major contributor of this problem is the fact that the office is under-staffed. At
present, two employees are in charge of the Outgoing Erasmus Students. There might
be too much load on just two employees. For this reason, efficiency is lacking according
to these students.
Furthermore, in relation to correspondence, the Erasmus Focus Group has noted that
some students studying at the University of Malta are not notified that they have been
chosen to go on Erasmus and accepted at a host university. Some of these students get
to know that they were accepted because they receive emails of acceptance from the
host university or because the students take the initiative and specifically go and ask
the International and EU Office themselves at their office at the university. The
students who are not notified in due time or are not notified at all might miss out on
this opportunity. Furthermore, this shortcoming does not show credibility in the work
of the International and EU Office and can discourage the students.
The Erasmus Focus Group has stressed upon the fact that the students are engaging
themselves in a completely new experience and thus, it is vital to receive the necessary
support to encourage participation and facilitate mobility amongst students. In
addition, the Erasmus Focus Group has discussed the possibility for the employees at
the International and EU Office to provide more information than that which is
required with paperwork and registration at the host university.
In addition to this, many of the students forming part of the Erasmus Focus Group have
noted that some of the application forms/ papers required or learning agreements
have been lost sometime during the Erasmus application process. A student
84
commented on the fact that this situation is making the University of Malta appear
incompetent with the administration and the Erasmus Co-ordinator at the host
university.
Some members of the Erasmus Focus Group have also commented on the fact that the
International and EU Office should not be forceful about signing the Learning
Agreement from before the student goes abroad as most of the host universities are
much more available to changes and have different methods of registration. Most
students will change the credits they opted for when still in Malta anyway when they
arrive at their host university.
The Erasmus Focus Group has also considered the situation where grants were received
at a later date than agreed on the contract. This has caused problems while the
students were abroad, especially when the students came to pay accommodation
costs. Additionally, when such problems cropped up and the students were abroad,
correspondence with the International and EU Office was difficult. The International
and EU Office, though not the entity in charge of issuing the grants to the students, is
the entity which liaises with the students.
Some of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have also commented on the system
used to select the students to the different universities. This system was regarded as
doubtful from their experience. It was said that this was mainly due to the lack of
clarity and transparency given by the International and EU Office on this matter.
It has also been said that students on Erasmus are not allowed to extend their stay at
the host institutions over 2 semesters, as with other European students undergoing the
same programme. This led the students to come back to Malta even though there were
some places which were not taken up by the other local students. Thus, these available
places ended up wasted when they could have been used by such students.
5.3 The University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres
5.3.1 Competences of the University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres
The Faculties, Institutes and Centres should guide the students on what Erasmus
Semester/s is appropriate for the students in the respective courses as well as what
study-units should be chosen whilst on Erasmus. The Faculties, Institutes and Centres
give consent to go on Erasmus with the particular study-units and credits chosen as per
the Learning Agreement before the students go on Erasmus.
85
5.3.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire
Kindly refer to Chapter 8 on page 109.
5.3.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group
Only a third of the Erasmus Focus Group participants did not note any difficulties
encountered with their respective Faculties.
The majority of the Erasmus Focus Group members have found difficulty in matching
the credits of the host university with those at the University of Malta. For this reason,
it was hard to get approval for their Learning Agreement as this has to be signed by the
respective lecturers. Furthermore, this can be hard considering the fact that students
going on Erasmus during the first semester need to get the approval during the
summer recess, a period in which most lecturers will be on vacation.
A small number of the Erasmus Focus Group participants had problems because they
went over the sixty credits allocated to each student at the University of Malta per year
for a full-time course.
The Faculties, Institutes and Centres are not always clear with how the students should
proceed with regards to the subjects spread during two semesters or the compulsory
study-units. Some members of the Erasmus Focus Group have encountered this
problem. When it comes to compulsory study-units, it was noted that the Faculties,
Institutes and Centres should be clear on whether the student will have the
opportunity to sit for an exam when he/she comes back from abroad during a re-sit
session irrespective of the fact that they have not attended any lectures. In this case,
the re-sit session will act as a first sit for these students who have been on Erasmus.
Such arrangements should be done before students go on Erasmus and should be in
line with any registration procedures to avoid any unnecessary hassles with
accreditation and exam sessions when they get back.
5.4 Host University
5.4.1 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group
The majority of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have not encountered any
problems at their host university. The Erasmus Focus Group was pleased with the
efficiency at the host universities. One possible reason is the fact that the host
86
university has more staff. Additionally, at the host universities, the contact hours are
longer. Therefore, any queries or difficulties encountered can be solved in due time.
This also results in an overall feeling that the student is welcome at the host university
and that there is more time for the Erasmus students in general.
The overall Italian bureaucracy was also mentioned as a limiting factor by participants
of the Erasmus Focus Group.
The need to have to have an English speaking person in charge of the Erasmus students
in the host university was also mentioned. The Focus Group identified this as a means
to facilitate communication between the foreign student and the institution.
The Focus Group has also commented on the fact that more communication between
the University of Malta and the host university is vital. For instance, some students
have found problems to register for the amount of hours decided upon in Malta during
their placement.
5.5 Chapter Conclusion
As one can see from the above analysis, the students forming part of the Erasmus
Focus Group have encountered various administrative problems that were not
envisaged prior to their application to go on Erasmus. Moreover, from the information
emerged, some problems can be easily addressed. This is the case for the opening
hours of the International and EU Office that should be increased in order to
accommodate more students that wish to get more information on the Erasmus
Programme, to increase the staff working at the International and EU Office in order to
manage the large amount of work in an efficient and timely manner and to be more
efficient in the replies that are given to the students.
The students demand the International and EU Office to be more careful with their
application process and with the documentation they receive from the students since a
good number of the participants commented that they question the system used for
the application process and that some of their documentation have been lost during
this process.
It is worth noting that there were administrative problems related to the respective
Faculties, Institutes and Centres of the students wishing to go on Erasmus. We believe
that such students should be facilitated to go on Erasmus and not put extra burden on
them. The students wishing to go on Erasmus should be helped to overcome the
difficulties (such as in relation to the compulsory study-units while being on Erasmus).
87
If not, the number of students going on Erasmus will never be close to the desired level
of student mobility advocated by the EU.
Regarding the administrative problems in relation to the host universities, we believe
that these should be taken into consideration by the ones responsible for the signing of
the bi-lateral agreements with the foreign universities in order to address such
shortcomings from the administration of the host university.
88
6. Analysis of the Academic Problems
6.1 Chapter Introduction
This chapter deals with the academic aspects of the Erasmus Programme. An analysis
of the academic difficulties the students encounter was obtained through the Erasmus
Focus Group. The difficulties encountered have been grouped up into those difficulties
encountered during the exchange programme, and therefore at the host institution, as
well as those encountered after the students have gone on Erasmus, and therefore at
the University of Malta.
Additionally, an analysis regarding the Erasmus Semester has been compiled. The
Erasmus Assessment Report sheds light on whether students believe they have been
on Erasmus during the right semester and in some cases, they give reasons why the
Erasmus Semester was not appropriate.
6.2 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group
6.2.1 Academic difficulties encountered during the exchange programme
The majority of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have not encountered any
academic difficulties during their exchange programme even though some have
commented on the fact that the educational system was different to that at the
University of Malta.
A member of the Erasmus Focus Group has expressed concern with regards to the fact
that in case of the courses that have a subsidiary area, some host universities only
accept to have the majority of the credits in the subsidiary area rather than the main
area of studies.
Some other members of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have also experienced
difficulty to change the subjects they had previously chosen because they arrived at the
host institution up to 3 weeks after the semester started as these students were sitting
for exams at the University of Malta. For this reason, these students believe that it is
vital that the semester at the host institution corresponds to that at the University of
Malta.
Some students from the Erasmus Focus Group have also felt that they were not
prepared for the oral exams when studying in Italy, where all exams are oral ones.
89
Some of the members of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have experienced
difficulties during their exchange programme as some people could not communicate
well in English. This was felt mainly when they tried to follow lectures.
A number of participants in this Erasmus Focus Group have also expressed the fact
that, even though the host university was slightly harder than the University of Malta, it
was easy to adapt and keep up as the lecturers were very open to discussions and they
were efficient in answering emails and any queries they might have had. This enhanced
the Erasmus experience for these students whilst studying at the host university.
6.2.2 Academic difficulties encountered after the exchange programme
Some members of the Erasmus Focus Group commented on the fact that credits
spread over a year have to be partly done alone, as the students would have missed a
semester of lectures. This is hard for the student, though when one compares this to
the holistic Erasmus experience it results to be worth it. Furthermore, this also applies
to those students who have Synoptic Exams.
Moreover, one third of the participants have also commented on the fact that since
they were on Erasmus during the first semester, catching up and settling back at the
University of Malta was hard especially since some students return back some time
after the beginning of the second semester. Nevertheless, students knew of this
situation from beforehand.
A member of the Erasmus Focus Group has commented on the fact that when some
students arrive back to the University of Malta, they have to sit for compulsory exams
in September as a re-sit even though it would have been their first sit. Furthermore, in
most host institutions, the marking system is different to that at the University of
Malta. Thus, when the students get back from their host institution, the translation of
the marks is considered as being fair.
6.3 The Erasmus Semester
6.3.1 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Assessment Questionnaire
Kindly refer to Chapter 8 on page 105.
90
6.3.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Focus Group
Most of the academic difficulties encountered by the Erasmus Focus Group participants
can be traced to the Erasmus semester the students are entitled to go in. The Erasmus
Focus Group members were asked to comment on what factors would determine the
ideal Erasmus semester.
Up to two thirds of the participants in the Erasmus Focus Group have commented on
the credits at the University of Malta during their particular Erasmus semester. The
students believe that during that academic year, there should be no credits spread over
one year and if possible compulsory credits are to be minimised. Additionally, the
credits should be similar to those offered at the University of Malta. Nevertheless, the
Erasmus Focus Group agreed that the respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres
should be more flexible when students opt to choose their study-units at the host
institutions. It is not imperative to study the exact same study-units when on Erasmus,
due to the fact that this change is part of the experience. The Erasmus Focus Group
believes that this issue is discouraging most students to continue with their application.
A member of the Erasmus Focus Group commented that Erasmus semesters are
limiting the chance for students to go on Erasmus which is something that is not fair.
Moreover, some participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have also commented that
the Erasmus semester should not be during the last year of the course like in the case
of the Law course.
The Erasmus Focus Group participants believe that an extra effort should be made to
ensure that semester dates at the host institution correspond to those at the University
of Malta.
Finally, a number of students participating in the Erasmus Focus Group have also
commented on the fact that for some students, Erasmus might not be an option, or is
hard to experience, due to practical work which students need to do during their
course. Students should be given the opportunity to do such practical work at their
host institutions and not limit the units involving practical practice to the University of
Malta. This makes it hard for the students to go and study abroad.
6.4 Chapter Conclusion
As one can see from the above analysis, there are a number of academic difficulties
that the students going on Erasmus encounter. These have to be immediately
91
addressed in order not to have any issues related to this programme that might affect
the students going on Erasmus in academic terms. These students should be at the
same level of those that decide not to go. Thus, it is futile to discourage the students
from going on Erasmus if there is a possibility of solving the existing academic problems
that impede the same students from taking up this opportunity.
92
7. Analysis of the Financial Aspect of going on Erasmus
7.1 Chapter Introduction
At present, grants are allocated according to the host country a student is selected to
go on Erasmus in.
This chapter analyses the grants given to the students going on Erasmus vis-à-vis the
expenses the students incur during their stay abroad. Both the Erasmus Focus Group
and the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire gave their feedback on whether the
grant given is fair. The Erasmus Focus Group participants were also asked to suggest
alternative systems from the current one.
7.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire
Kindly refer to Chapter 8 on page 101.
7.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group
All the participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have agreed that the system used to
allocate the grants is fair. Nevertheless, there were a number of suggestions to the
system.
Some of the participants commented that the grant should ideally be allocated
according to the city one is studying at, rather than by the country since it is much
more expensive for a student studying in a metropolitan city (with higher costs such as
transport and accommodation) than a smaller city in the same country.
Other participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have also commented on the fact that
grants should be given differently according to the particular course one is studying.
This is due to the fact that some courses have more expenses than others such as the
students reading for degree in Architecture and Civil Engineering.
A number of participants have discussed the fact that when allocating grants,
importance should be given to the economic situation of the student.
One third of the Erasmus Focus Group participants think that a possible alternative
system would be to provide grants according to the expenses such as accommodation
93
and flights. For this reason, grants would not be generic but they would depend on the
expenses involved.
All the members of the Erasmus Focus Group commented on the fact that the amount
given in the form of grant is a financial aid given to the students deciding to go on
Erasmus. This grant is not enough to cover all the expenses. In some occasions, the
grant was not enough to cover accommodation costs. It is important for students to
know beforehand that the grant will not be enough and that it will not cover all the
expenses involved. The participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have also suggested
that the flights should be given as a voucher which would be part of the grant.
7.4 Analysis of the grants given per academic year per host country
The system of the grants has changed throughout the years. During the academic year
2004-2005, the system covered accommodation costs and an extra amount of 150 euro
was given to all students. During the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, a
constant amount of 300 euro and 442 euro respectively was given to all students
irrespective of the host country.
As from the academic year 2007-2008, the grants were allocated according to the host
country. During the academic year 2008-2009 and the academic year 2009-2010, a
capping system was introduced where the smallest sum given was that of €300 and the
largest sum was that of €500. You can find the full list of grants per year per host
country in the Table and Graph below.
Table 43: Grants given per country for the 2004/2005-2009/2010 academic years in Euro
2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
BE 150* 300 442 560 446.51 429
BG - - - - 300 275
CZ 150* 300 442 507 379.75 365.79
DK 150* 300 442 - 500 591.25
DE 150* 300 442 761 446.51 429
EE - - - - 354.11 341
GR - - - - 416.33 400.4
ES 150* 300 442 567 456.58 439.45
FR 150* 300 442 666 500 507.1
IE 150* 300 442 685 500 523.6
IT 150* 300 442 626 500 482.35
CY - - - - 408.1 392.15
LV - - - - 341.25 328.35
94
LT - - - - 337.66 324.5
LU - - - - 446.51 429
HU - - - - 339.5 326.7
MT 150* 300 442 - 403.55 388.3
NL 150* 300 442 614 491.4 472.45
AT - - - - 475.83 458.15
PL 150* 300 442 456 341.25 328.35
PT - - - - 409.94 394.35
RO - - - - 288.23 277.2
SI 150* 300 442 465 386.14 371.8
SK - - - - 392.52 377.85
FI 150* 300 442 659 500 501.05
SE 150* 300 442 629 500 492.8
UK 150* 300 442 805 500 597.3
IS - - - - 500 492.8
LI - - - - 500 515.35
NO 150* 300 442 786 500 597.3
TR 150* 300 442 468 333.03 520.1
* 150 + Rent for Accommodation Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
Figure 22: Graph of grant given per host country in Euro
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
BE CZ DE GR FR IT LV LU MT AT PT SI FI UK LI TR
Am
ou
nt
/ Eu
ro
Host County
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
2007/2008
2008/2009
2009/2010
95
7.3 Analysis of the grants given to the students at the University of Malta during the
academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010
The EU Commission establishes the maximum rate per month a student who is going
on Erasmus can have. The monthly rate given to the student is decided upon according
to the budget allocated for Life Long Learning to Malta and the amount of students
who opt to go on Erasmus per year.
Table 44: Grants given to the students during the academic year 2009-2010 in Euro
Host Country
MAX RATE/
MONTH
STUDIES PLACEMENT
55% 45%
BG 500 275 225
CZ 665 365.75 299.25
DK 1075 591.25 483.75
DE 780 429 351
EE 620 341 279
GR 728 400.40 327.6
ES 799 439.45 359.55
FR 922 507.10 414.9
IE 952 523.60 428.4
IT 877 482.35 394.65
CY 713 392.15 320.85
LV 597 328.35 268.65
LT 590 324.50 265.5
LU 780 429 351
HU 594 326.70 267.3
MT 706 388.30 317.7
NL 859 472.45 386.55
AT 833 458.15 374.85
PL 597 328.35 268.65
PT 717 394.35 322.65
RO 504 277.20 226.8
SI 676 371.80 304.2
SK 687 377.85 309.15
FI 911 501.05 409.95
SE 896 492.80 403.2
UK 1086 597.30 488.7
IS 896 492.80 403.2
LI 937 515.35 421.65
NO 1086 597.30 488.7
TR 582 320.10 261.9
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
96
Table 45: Grants given to the students during the academic year 2008-2009 in Euro
4 months
3 month
5 months
Host Country
TOTAL 35% PER
MONTH CAPPING
TOTAL 35% PER
MONTH CAPPING
TOTAL 35%
PER MONTH
CAPPING
BE 5103 1786.05 446.513
4323 1513.05 504.35 500
5883 2059.05 411.81
BG 3273 1145.55 286.388 300
2773 970.55 323.52
3773 1320.55 264.11 300
CZ 4340 1519 379.75
3675 1286.25 428.75
5005 1751.75 350.35
DK 7027 2459.45 614.863 500
5952 2083.2 694.40 500
8102 2835.7 567.14 500
DE 5103 1786.05 446.513
4323 1513.05 504.35 500
5883 2059.05 411.81
EE 4047 1416.45 354.113
3427 1199.45 399.82
4667 1633.45 326.69
EL 4758 1665.3 416.325
4030 1410.5 470.17
5486 1920.1 384.02
ES 5218 1826.3 456.575
4419 1546.65 515.55 500
6017 2105.95 421.19
FR 6023 2108.05 527.013 500
5101 1785.35 595.12 500
6945 2430.75 486.15
IE 6222 2177.7 544.425 500
5270 1844.5 614.83 500
7174 2510.9 502.18 500
IT 5730 2005.5 501.375 500
4853 1698.55 566.18 500
6607 2312.45 462.49
CY 4664 1632.4 408.1
3951 1382.85 460.95
5377 1881.95 376.39
LV 3900 1365 341.25
3303 1156.05 385.35
4497 1573.95 314.79
LT 3859 1350.65 337.663
3269 1144.15 381.38
4449 1557.15 311.43
LU 5103 1786.05 446.513
4323 1513.05 504.35 500
5883 2059.05 411.81
HU 3880 1358 339.5
3286 1150.1 383.37
4474 1565.9 313.18
MT 4612 1614.2 403.55
3906 1367.1 455.70
5318 1861.3 372.26
NL 5616 1965.6 491.4
4757 1664.95 554.98 500
6475 2266.25 453.25
AT 5438 1903.3 475.825
4605 1611.75 537.25 500
6271 2194.85 438.97
PL 3900 1365 341.25
3303 1156.05 385.35
4497 1573.95 314.79
PT 4685 1639.75 409.938
3968 1388.8 462.93
5402 1890.7 378.14
RO 3294 1152.9 288.225 300
2790 976.5 325.50
3798 1329.3 265.86 300
SI 4413 1544.55 386.138
3737 1307.95 435.98
5089 1781.15 356.23
SK 4486 1570.1 392.525
3799 1329.65 443.22
5173 1810.55 362.11
FI 5950 2082.5 520.625 500
5039 1763.65 587.88 500
6861 2401.35 480.27
SE 5856 2049.6 512.4 500
4960 1736 578.67 500
6752 2363.20 472.64
UK 7100 2485 621.25 500
6014 2104.9 701.63 500
8186 2865.1 573.02 500
IS 5856 2049.6 512.4 500
4960 1736 578.67 500
6752 2363.2 472.64
LI 6128 2144.8 536.2 500
5191 1816.85 605.62 500
7065 2472.75 494.55
NO 7100 2485 621.25 500
6014 2104.9 701.63 500
8186 2865.1 573.02 500
TR 3806 1332.1 333.025
3224 1128.4 376.13
4388 1535.8 307.16
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
97
7.5 Grants and Expenses
The Erasmus Focus Group has commented that the grants that were given were fair.
Nevertheless, it is clear that the grant does not cover all the expenses.
The average estimated cost was found per host country per month, for the academic
year 2009-2010, as can be seen in the table in the following page. The host countries
which do not have an average estimated cost are those were no students have been on
Erasmus or the final report was not given.
When the average estimated cost is compared to the grant, it was found that the grant
covers on average 71.9% of the expenses of the students on studies and 47.30% of the
expenses incurred by the students on placements.
The grant covered the least amount of expenses in the Czech Republic while the
highest amount in Sweden for studies. Those students going on placements, the grant
covered the least amount of expenses in the Czech Republic while the highest amount
in Denmark.
7.6 Chapter Conclusion
As one can see from the above analysis, the Erasmus Focus Group participants
considered the system whereby the grant is allocated as being fair. Moreover, some
members of the same Focus Group have suggested possible amendments of the
aforementioned grant that would be based on the city one goes on Erasmus in or
depending on the course since there are differences in expenses.
A breakdown of the grant given per host country was also given. Finally, the percentage
of the expenses cover by the grant was analysed. It emerged that the grant covers a
large percentage of the expenses involved in the case of students who go on Erasmus
to study while the grant does not cover half of the expenses in the case of students
who go on Erasmus for a placement.
98
Table 46: Estimated Expenses for the academic year 2009-2010 in Euro
Host Country
MAX RATE/
MONTH
STUDIES PLACEMENT
55% Average
Estimated Costs % of the estimated costs
covered by grants 45%
Average Estimated Costs
% of the estimated costs covered by grants
BE 780 429 - - 351 - -
BG 500 275 691.67 39.76 225 850 26.47
CZ 665 365.75 1000 36.58 299.25 - -
DK 1075 591.25 775 76.29 483.75 650 74.42
DE 780 429 600 71.50 351 600 58.50
EE 620 341 - - 279 - -
GR 728 400.40 475 84.29 327.6 - -
ES 799 439.45 662.5 66.33 359.55 800 44.94
FR 922 507.10 625 81.14 414.9 763 54.38
IE 952 523.60 731.25 71.60 428.4 - -
IT 877 482.35 842.26 57.27 394.65 566.67 69.64
CY 713 392.15 - - 320.85 - -
LV 597 328.35 - - 268.65 - -
LT 590 324.50 - - 265.5 - -
LU 780 429 - - 351 - -
HU 594 326.70 400 81.68 267.3 - -
MT 706 388.30 - - 317.7 - -
NL 859 472.45 800 59.06 386.55 740 52.24
AT 833 458.15 - - 374.85 - -
PL 597 328.35 450 72.97 268.65 - -
PT 717 394.35 - - 322.65 1250 25.81
RO 504 277.20 - - 226.8 - -
SI 676 371.80 - - 304.2 - -
SK 687 377.85 - - 309.15 - -
FI 911 501.05 656.25 76.35 409.95 - -
SE 896 492.80 500 98.56 403.2 825 48.87
UK 1086 597.30 658.06 90.77 488.7 751.57 65.02
IS 896 492.80 - - 403.2 - -
LI 937 515.35 - - 421.65 - -
NO 1086 597.30 - - 488.7 - -
TR 582 320.10 - - 261.9 - -
Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office
99
8. Analysis of the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire Results
8.1 Chapter Introduction
This chapter analyses the results obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report
Questionnaire. There were 519 respondents who completed this questionnaire which
catered for the different scenarios that the students could find themselves in: the
students that went on Erasmus, the students that got accepted to go on Erasmus and
decided not to go, the students who applied to go on Erasmus and were not accepted
and the students who never applied to go on Erasmus (either because they did not
have the opportunity to do so as yet or else because they do not want to go on
Erasmus).
This varied aspects arising out of the questionnaire will help us to get to know better
what the students think of the Erasmus process from the application phase to the other
process involved. This feedback will help us propose recommendation that will
ultimately improve the current situation of the Erasmus programme as seen by the
Maltese outgoing students.
8.2 Analysis of the Results
The first question that was asked to those students completing the Erasmus
Assessment Report Questionnaire was to rate their perception of the Erasmus
Programme. As one can see from Figure 23, 34.10% of the respondents have a neutral
perception of the Erasmus Programme while 33.53% of the students have a relatively
high perception of such programme. The remaining feedback that was received was
split as follows: 20.42% have a very high perception of the programme, 8.09% have a
relatively low perception of the programme while the remaining 3.85% have a very low
perception of the Erasmus programme.
The results that come out are important to get hold of the opinion of the respondents
vis-à-vis the Erasmus Programme. The fact that the absolute majority of the answers
were either neutral or positive indicates that the majority of the students do care
about the programme. This is essential since it would be futile to suggest
recommendations to improve the Maltese experience of this programme if the
students do not have a high consideration of it themselves.
100
Figure 23: Rating of the perception of the Erasmus programme
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
As expected, the absolute majority of the students completing this questionnaire have
never been on Erasmus (84.42% of the total respondents) while 15.58% of those
answering the questionnaire said that they have been on Erasmus. The majority of the
students currently enrolled at the University of Malta have never been on Erasmus
themselves. Thus, this result is in line with the overall situation present on campus. This
result also shows that it is a true representation of the perception and of the thoughts
of the University of Malta students in relation to the Erasmus Programme.
Figure 24: Have you ever been on Erasmus?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
3.85%
8.09%
34.10%
33.53%
20.42%
Very Low
Low
Neutral
High
Very High
15.58%
84.42%
Yes
No
101
Out of those who said that they have been on Erasmus, the absolute majority (55.70%)
answered that they would rate their experience as being extremely positive, 27.85%
consider their experience as being relatively positive while 11.39% of the respondents
were neutral of this experience. It was only 1.27% and 3.80% of the replies that said
that their Erasmus experience was relatively negative and extremely negative
respectively as it can be seen from Figure 25.
Figure 25: Rating of the Erasmus experience
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
This result shows that the Erasmus experience is a positive one. This enthusiasm in
relation to this programme can be another way how we can promote the take up of
much more students to decide to go on Erasmus. These students can answer the
queries and hesitations of the students that are still unsure whether to go on Erasmus
or not since they are the ones who can understand these students who are still in
doubt of what to do.
The fourth question revolved on the amount of money given in the form of a grant per
month (see Figure 26). 44.16% of the respondents said that they received a grant of
between €200 and €350, 38.96% of the respondents answered that they received a
3.80% 1.27%
11.39%
27.85%55.70%
Very Negative
Negative
Neutral
Positive
Very Positive
102
grant of between €351 and €500 whereas the remaining 16.88% said that they received
a grant of more that €501.
Figure 26: Amount of money received as a grant per month
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
The following question asked those that have been on Erasmus on the estimated costs
per month that they had while being abroad (Figure 27). 28.95% of the ones
completing the questionnaire said that the estimated costs ranged between €200 and
€500, 35.53% said that they spent between €501 and €750 a month and 30.26% said
that the costs were between €751 and €1000 a month. The rest of the respondents,
3.95% and 1.32%, said that their estimated costs per month were in the range of
€1001-€1500 and over €1501 respectively.
The last two charts show that the estimated costs are above the grant received. Thus, a
remedy has to be found in order to increase the take-up of this programme with the
students who cannot afford such an expense or with those students who are not willing
to spend such amount of money. It is important to highlight the positive feedback
received in relation to the Erasmus programme but such financial matters have also
been addressed in order to seriously address the low amount of students that decide to
go on Erasmus every year.
44.16%
38.96%
16.88%
€200 - €350
€351 - €500
€501+
103
Figure 27: Estimated costs per month
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
A somewhat unexpected result emerged when asked whether the grant was given
fairly or not. As it can be seen in Figure 28, 32.89% of the students said that they were
neutral about this situation whereas 21.05% considered the grant given as relatively
fair. On the other hand, 17.11% of the respondents believe that the grant given was
relatively not fair and extremely not fair. It was only the 11.84% of the total answers
that indicate that the grant given was extremely fair.
Figure 28: Was the grant fair?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
28.95%
35.53%
30.26%
3.95% 1.32%
How much were the estimated costs per month?
€200 - €500
€501 - €750
€751 - €1000
€1001 - €1500
€1501+
17.11%
17.11%
32.89%
21.05%
11.84%
Extremely not fair
Relatively not fair
Neutral
Relatively fair
Extremely fair
104
The seventh question of the Erasmus Assessment Report questionnaire was about the
comparison between the host university and the University of Malta in academic terms.
The largest percentage of the respondents (29.49%) said that they consider the host
university as being of a relatively higher standard than the University of Malta while
28.21% of the answers indicate that the host university was of a similar standard and a
much higher standard. The rest of the respondents (11.54% and 2.56%) answered that
the level of the host university was of a relatively lower standard and of a much lower
standard respectively.
Figure 29: Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in academic terms
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
This shows the importance of the Erasmus Programme since the students who
participate in it have the opportunity to experience another university which has a
similar or higher level than that of the University of Malta. This result contrasts with
the findings arising out of the Erasmus Focus Group since they considered the level of
the host universities as being of a lower academic level than the University of Malta.
Moreover, one must take not of those students who said that the host university was
of a low standard. These universities have to be pin pointed in order to terminate the
bilateral agreement in favour of other foreign universities which have a higher
academic standard.
2.56%
11.54%
28.21%
29.49%
28.21%Much lower standard
Relatively lower standard
Same standard
Relatively higher standard
Much higher standard
105
As it can be seen in Figure 30, the majority of the respondents consider the campus life
at the host university as being of a relatively higher standard (31.17%) and of a much
higher standard (38.96%) when compared to the University of Malta campus life.
16.88% of those answering this questionnaire considered the campus life at the host
university as being of a same standard with 11.69% and 1.30% saying that the campus
life was of a relatively lower standard and of a much lower standard respectively when
compared to that of the University of Malta.
Figure 30: Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in campus life terms
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
The result can further promote the take-up of this programme since every student is in
search of a better campus life. In Malta we are quite limited due to the fact of our small
size that gives us the opportunity to reside away from the University premises. Thus,
our life revolves around other places in our free time unlike what happens in foreign
universities. This situation can help to incentivise more students to apply and
eventually go on Erasmus.
The following question was related to whether the Erasmus semester was appropriate
or not. The absolute majority of the respondents (90.91%) answered that the Erasmus
semester was appropriate while the remaining 9.09% saying that it was not. It is worth
noting that the respondents that said that the Erasmus semester was not appropriate
hailed from the Faculty of Health Sciences (57.14%), the Faculty for the Built
Environment (28.57%) and the Mediterranean Institute (14.29%). Thus, one should
1.30%
11.69%
16.88%
31.17%
38.96%
Much lower standard
Relatively lower standard
Same standard
Relatively higher standard
Much higher standard
106
have a look at the situation in these Faculties and Institute in order to assess whether
the Erasmus semester should be changes or not.
Figure 31: Was the Erasmus semester appropriate?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Moreover, it is quite surprising that no Law student has said that the Erasmus semester
was not appropriate considering the fact that the vast majority of the students are not
happy with this situation. The reason might be that since the Law students go on
Erasmus during the sixth year, many Law students taking this questionnaire could not
answer this question.
The students who said that the Erasmus semester was not appropriate were asked to
explain their answer as can be seen in Figure 32. 22.22% of the respondents answered
that the Erasmus semester was not appropriate since they missed important study-
units. 11.11% of the answers indicated that it was due to the fact that they were not
prepared for the synoptic exams and that they were not prepared for the following
semester. The remaining 55.56% chose the ‘Others’ option to explain their reasons.
These included the fact that they went on Erasmus during summer (mentioning that
there were no students around while they were on Erasmus), the fact that they missed
the thesis preparation and orientation and the fact that most study-units are annual
and not being different for each semester.
90.91%
9.09%
Yes
No
107
Figure 32: Why wasn’t the Erasmus semester appropriate?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
When asked to rate the administration at the University of Malta International and EU
Office, the largest percentage of the respondents (29.87%) said that the administration
was of a relatively low standard. 22.08% of the answers mentioned that the
administration level was of a normal and relatively high standard. On the other hand,
12.99% of the respondents said that the International and EU Office is of a very high
standard and of a very low standard. The general perception arising out of these
answers is that the students believe that more can be done in relation to the standard
of the administration provided by the International and EU Office.
Figure 33: Rating of the University of Malta International and EU Office
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
22.22%
11.11%
11.11%
0.00%
55.56%
Important study-unit missed
Not prepared for synoptic exams
Not prepared for the following semester
Year of the Erasmus semester wasn't appropirateOther
12.99%
29.87%
22.08%
22.08%
12.99%
Very Low
Relatively Low
Normal
Relatively High
Very High
108
The ones completing this online questionnaire were also asked to mention whether
they had encountered any problems in relation to the University of Malta International
and EU Office. 24.03% of the respondents said that they had received late replies,
23.38% answered that there was a lack of information given by the International and
EU Office, 17.53% said that Outgoing Erasmus Office is under-staffed, 7.79% indicated
that any problems that were encountered were solved in due time and that there were
no problems at all, 7.14% of the respondents answered that the problems was because
of a limited number of bilateral agreements while 12.34% of those answering the
questionnaire indicated the ‘Others’ option. The other reasons mentioned by the
students completing this questionnaire included the fact that important documents
were lost, inefficiency, lack of adequate support, the grants being given late and the
fact that they received a late acknowledgement that they were chosen to participate in
this programme.
Figure 34: Problems encountered at the University of Malta International and EU Office (if applicable)
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
As one can see, there were various complaints that were addressed to the International
and EU Office. These issues have to be addressed immediately in order to encourage
other students to decide to go on Erasmus. Otherwise, the administrative problems
might hinder the take-up of this programme with other interested students.
23.38%
24.03%
7.14%
17.53%
7.79%
7.79%
12.34%Lack of information given
Late replies
Limited number of bilateral agrements
Under-staffed
Any problems were solved in due time
No problems at all
Other
109
The respondents were also asked about the support received from their respective
Faculties, Institutes and Centres. 28.57% of the respondents said that the support given
was a normal and a relatively high one. 20.78% answered that the support received
was very high with 14.29% and 7.79% saying that the support given was relatively low
and very low respectively.
Figure 35: Support received from the respective local Faculties, Institutes and Centres
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
The results arising out of this question show a marked difference from the ones related
to the University of Malta International and EU Office. One can note that there is more
support from the students respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres than from the
International and EU Office.
The students who went on Erasmus were asked whether they had experienced
problems with recognition when they came back to Malta (Figure 36). 38.04% of the
respondents said that they encountered no problems at all, 19.57% of the answers
indicating that the students had difficulties in obtaining the last part of the grant, 11.96
of the respondents answering that they had problems with credit recognition, 9.78%
saying that their marks were downgraded while 20.65% of the respondents indicated
that ‘Others’ option. The other reasons mentioned by the students completing this
questionnaire included that they encountered problems from their subsidiary area and
the delay in transcribing the results obtained abroad.
8%
14%
28%29%
21%
Very Low
Relatively Low
Normal
Relatively High
Very High
110
Figure 36: Problems encountered with recognition when back in Malta
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Various problems arose from this question regarding recognition. It is useless to
promote the take-up of Erasmus if they will end up having problems once they are
back. It is essential that these problems are tackled in order to avoid putting the
students going on Erasmus at a disadvantage when compared to their counterparts
that did not take this opportunity.
The respondents were also asked whether they would recommend the Erasmus
Programme to the other students from their course or not. The absolute majority of
the respondents (92.11%) said that they would recommend the take-up of such a
programme while the remaining 7.89% answering that they wouldn’t recommend it at
all.
11.96%
9.78%
19.57%
38.04%
20.65%Credit Recognition
Marks were downgraded
The last part of the grant was difficult to obtain
No problems at all
Other
111
Figure 37: Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from your course?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Figure 38: Why would you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from your course?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
As can be seen in Figure 38, out of those answering that they would recommend the
Erasmus Programme to the other students from their course, 29.82% replied that they
would do so because going on Erasmus is an enriching experience, 25.44% saying that it
is useful to become more independent, 19.74% answering that they would recommend
2%
30%
20%18%
25%
5%
Easier than Malta
Enriching experience
Fun Factor
Good fro my CV
To become more independentOther
112
it because of the fun factor, 17.98% saying that it would be good for their CV, 2.19%
replying that the academic life abroad is easier than Malta while 4.82% of the
respondents indicating the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned for the latter
option were that they would recommend this Erasmus Programme because it is a new
experience, because one gets to discover other countries, one can study topics not
covered in Malta and in order to broaden and change one’s perspective.
Out of those answering that they would not recommend the Erasmus Programme to
the other students from their course, 38.46% said that they would do so because of the
administration inefficiency, 30.77% saying that there are financial reasons not to go on
Erasmus while 15.38% of the respondents answering that there is a possibility of
getting marks obtained abroad downgraded and the ‘Others’ option. The reasons
mentioned in the ‘Others’ option were that summer was not ideal to go on Erasmus
and that it is difficult to live and study abroad when you are not granted any money at
all. The latter reason is quite of a concern since the delay in issuing the grants may
severely affect the students who are on Erasmus.
Figure 39: Why wouldn’t you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from your course?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
38.46%
30.77%
0.00%
15.38%
0.00%15.38% Administartion Efficiency
Financial Reasons
Language Barrier
Possibility of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded
It's difficult to integrate with foreign students
Other
113
Figure 40: Have you applied to go on Erasmus?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
The respondents who replied that they have never been on Erasmus were asked
whether that had ever applied to go on Erasmus before (Figure 40). 19.18% of the
replies indicated that the students answering the online questionnaire had applied to
go on Erasmus while the vast majority of the respondents (80.82%) saying that they
have never applied before.
Figure 41: Did you get accepted to go on Erasmus?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
19.18%
80.82%
Yes
No
76.19%
23.81%
Yes
No
114
The students who answered that they had applied to go on Erasmus before, were
asked whether they had been accepted or not (Figure 41). 76.19% of the respondents
replied that they had been accepted while the remaining 23.81% said that they were
not accepted to go on Erasmus.
The students who answered that they had applied to go on Erasmus before were also
asked to state the reasons why they didn’t end up going. 22.22% of the respondents
replied that it was due to the administration inefficiency, 14.81% was due to financial
reasons, 7.41% replied that the language barrier was their main reason for not going on
Erasmus, 6.17% said that it was due to the possibility of getting marks obtained abroad
downgraded, 4.94% replied that the main reasons was related to the unwillingness to
go on Erasmus in the university that the students were accepted at, 3.70% indicated
that it was due to the fact that they were not advised to go by those who had already
been on Erasmus while 40.74 of the respondents indicated the ‘Others’ option. The
reasons mentioned in the latter option were the logistics involved for the booking of
the accommodation, the fact that a number of the study-units done abroad would not
have counted in Malta and the fact that the students were accepted to go on another
exchange programme.
Figure 42: Why didn’t you go on Erasmus?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
22.22%
14.81%
7.41%
6.17%
3.70%
4.94%
40.74%
Administration Inefficiency
Financial Reasons
Language Barrier
Possibilty of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded
Not advised by those who went on Erasmus
I didn't want to go to the university I got accepted at
Other
115
Moreover, a flaw of this questionnaire if the fact that the students who have been
accepted to go on Erasmus in the following semester have been directed to this part of
the questionnaire since their situation was not catered for, as these students will be
going on a Direct Exchange rather than Erasmus. Thus, the large percentage of
respondents who chose this option was related to this flaw.
The students who replied that they were not accepted to go on Erasmus, were asked
whether they thought the selection process was transparent (Figure 43). The absolute
majority of the respondents (65%) answered that they thought the selection process
was not transparent while the remaining 35% said that they thought that the selection
process was transparent.
It is important to avoid any transparency issues related to this programme since it
would badly affect the eventual take-up in the following years. Thus, the clearer the
selection process is, the less suspicious the selection process will be viewed once a
student does not get accepted to go on Erasmus.
Figure 43: Transparency of the selection process
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
The respondents who said that they had applied to go on Erasmus but did not go were
asked whether they would consider applying again (Figure 44). 68.35% answered that
they would consider applying again while the remaining 31.65% said that they would
not consider this option for the future.
35.00%
65.00%
Yes
No
116
Figure 44: Would you consider applying again?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Figure 45: Why would you consider applying again?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Out of those answering that they would consider applying again in order to go on
Erasmus, 35.25% replied that they would do so because it is an enriching experience,
68.35%
31.65%
Yes
No
5.04%
35.25%
13.67%
20.14%
21.58%
4.32%
Easier than Malta
Enriching experience
Fun Factor
Good for my CV
To become more independent
Other
117
21.58% indicated that it was because it helps you to become more independent,
20.14% said that it would be good for their CV, 13.67% replied that it was because of
the fun factor involved, 5.04% said that it was because the academic aspect was easier
than Malta while 4.32% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned in the
latter option were the fact that the students understood that they made a mistake
when they decided not to go on Erasmus when they had the opportunity to do so, to
specialise in his/ her preferred subject, to meet new people and to live abroad.
The fact that some students recognised that they made a mistake when they decided
not to go on Erasmus indicates that more should be done with the students who can
still go on Erasmus in order for them not to lose this golden opportunity while they still
have the possibility to go on Erasmus.
Figure 46: Why wouldn’t you consider applying again?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Out of those answering that they would not consider applying again in order to go on
Erasmus (see Figure 46), 38.24% of the respondents replied that they had already
passed their Erasmus semester, 29.41% indicated that there are too many
administration inefficiencies in the process of going on Erasmus, 11.76% said that they
were not interested in taking up this opportunity while 20.59% indicated the ‘Others’
option. The reasons mentioned in the latter option were the fact that Erasmus is not
possible for the course some students were enrolled for (B. Commerce majoring in
Accountancy) since the study-units do not match. There were a number of students
that mentioned the specific problem related to those majoring in Accountancy. This
29.41%
38.24%
0.00%
11.76%
20.59%Administration Inefficiency
Passed my Erasmus semester
Not advisable by those who went on Erasmus
Not interested
Other
118
problem has to be analysed in order to give the possibility to go on Erasmus to all those
students wishing to do so.
The respondents who said that they have never applied to go on Erasmus were asked if
they would consider applying in the future. 55.93% replied that they are considering
applying to go on Erasmus while the remaining 44.07% said they would not consider
applying.
Figure 47: Do you intend applying?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Out of those answering that they would consider applying for the first time in order to
go on Erasmus (Figure 48 below), 37.65% said that they would do so because they
deem this programme as an enriching experience, 21.66% indicated that it is helpful in
order to become more independent, 19.23% replied that it would be good for their CV,
16.19% answered that they would do so because of the fun factor involved, 2.02% said
that they would consider applying because the academic aspect was easier than Malta
while 3.24% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned in the latter option
were related to the once in a lifetime experience that the Erasmus Programme is
associated with, to benefit academically from better foreign universities, to improve
one’s language skills and the opportunity to cover study-units which are not offered at
the University of Malta.
55.93%
44.07%
Yes
No
119
Figure 48: Why do you intend applying?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Out of those answering that they would not consider applying for the first time in order
to go on Erasmus (Figure 49 below), 21.18% said that they would do so because of
financial reasons, 11.46% replied that it was due to their lack of interest in the
programme, 10.42% mentioned that they do not have enough information to apply to
go on Erasmus, 9.72% indicated that it was because there was the possibility of getting
marks obtained abroad downgraded and due to the administration inefficiency, 8.33%
said that the course they are currently enrolled in does not have an Erasmus semester,
6.94% indicated that they were scared of feeling home sick, 5.56% mentioned the
language barrier aspect of going on Erasmus, 2.08% replied that they were not advised
by those who already went on Erasmus while 14.58% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The
reasons mentioned in the latter option were related to the fact that they were part of
student organisations, because of work commitments, because the courses of some
students are too demanding to cater for an Erasmus experience, the lack of possibility
to study two areas of studies in a foreign university (specifically related to the Faculty
of Science courses), the fact that the study-units offered abroad do not match with the
one offered locally (B. Commerce majoring in Accountancy), due to family reasons and
because some students went to study abroad on another exchange.
2.02%
37.65%
16.19%
19.23%
21.66%
3.24% Easier than Malta
Enriching experience
Fun Factor
Good fro my CV
To become more independent
Other
120
Figure 49: Why don’t you intend applying?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
The last question that was asked to those students who have not applied to go on
Erasmus was to state the reasons of what would have triggered them to apply. 21.08%
of the respondents mentioned that they would have considered going on Erasmus if
more funds were made available, 15.36% indicated that more information would have
led to take up this opportunity, 12.95% mentioned the possibility of having a wider
choice of universities, 12.35% said that they would have gone on Erasmus if there was a
more efficient administration, 12.05% indicated the possibility of having a more
appropriate Erasmus semester, 9.34% said that they would take this opportunity if they
had the actual possibility to go on Erasmus, 8.73 of the respondents argued that
positive advices by others who went on Erasmus would have the consider applying
while 8.13% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned in the latter option
were related to a shorter period of time of the Erasmus programme, the possibility of
experiencing campus life in another university in order to be more willing to go on
Erasmus, the delivery of funds before one goes on Erasmus and the possibility of going
with abroad with a friend.
9.72%
21.18%
5.56%
9.72%
10.42%
8.33%2.08%
11.46%
6.94%
14.58%
Administration Inefficiency
Financial Reasons
Language Barrier
Possibility of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded
Lack of Information]
No Erasmus Semester
Not advised by those who went on Erasmus
Not Interested
Scared of feeling homesick
Other
121
Figure 50: What would have triggered you to apply?
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
Figure 51: Gender distribution
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
9.34%
12.05%
12.35%
21.08%
15.36%
8.73%
12.95%
8.13%Actual possibility of going on Erasmus
More appropriate Erasmus semester
More efficient administration
More funds
More Information
Positive advices by others who went on Erasmus
Wider choice of universities
Other
36.04%
63.96%
Male
Female
122
As can be seen from Figure 51 above, the students who completed this Erasmus
Assessment Report Questionnaire were predominantly female (63.95%) while the
remaining respondents were male (36.04%). This predominance of female respondents
is also seen in the total number of University students and the total number of
graduates each year. Thus, this is another indication of the representative of this online
questionnaire.
Figure 52: Faculty, Institute and Centre distribution
Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire
123
The respondents of this online questionnaire represented almost all the Faculties,
Institutes and Centres present at the University of Malta and included students
studying in other national educational institutions and some foreign universities. The
percentage of respondents per Faculty, Institute and Centre is as follows: Faculty of
Arts – 10.73%; Faculty for the Built Environment – 8.90%; Faculty of Dental Surgery –
0%; Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy – 10.96%; Faculty of
Education – 5.94%; Faculty of Engineering – 5.71%; Faculty of Health Sciences –
10.27%; Faculty of Information and Communication Technology – 4.11%; Faculty of
Laws – 13.24%; Faculty of Medicine and Surgery – 5.48%; Faculty of Science – 7.08%;
Faculty of Theology – 0.46%; Institute of Criminology – 1.37%; The Edward De Bono
Institute for the Design and Development of Thinking – 0.46%; Institute of Earth
Systems – 0.23%; Institute of Linguistics – 0.46%; Mediterranean Institute – 4.11%;
Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture – 0.68%; Centre for Communication
Technology – 3.42%; Centre for Labour Studies – 0.23%; European Documentation and
Research Centre – 5.02%; G.F. Abela Junior College – 0.46%; MCAST – 0.23%, and;
Foreign University – 0.46%.
8.3 Chapter Conclusion
As one can see from the above analysis, there are a number of common features that
arose in different sections of the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire. A large
number of respondents consider going on Erasmus because they consider it as being an
enriching experience while the major aspect of the Erasmus process which is
considered as being a major setback is the administration inefficiency.
Moreover, a lot of students that completed this online questionnaire said that in they
would have gone on Erasmus if they had received more information and more funds.
Another point worth focusing on is the problems related to specific courses that do not
let the students go on Erasmus. One should come up with all the list of courses affected
so that the officials responsible for the signing of bi-lateral agreements can take the
specific requests of these courses into consideration when they are searching for
foreign universities to sign a bi-lateral agreement with.
124
9. Recommendations
9.1 Chapter Introduction
This Erasmus Assessment Report has been beneficial to provide everyone with a clear
picture on Malta’s experience in all the aspects of the Erasmus programme. We are
now in a position to suggest our own recommendations to be implemented by the
relevant authorities in order to improve the current situation. KSU is willing to do its
part in order to tackle such difficulties for the benefit of the University of Malta
students.
9.2 Recommendations in order to improve Malta’s experience in the Erasmus
Programme
The first thing that is easily noticeable from the analysis made in the previous chapters
is the large amount of students who decide to drop their application to go on Erasmus.
One needs to channel the reasons of such a phenomenon into different parts.
Some do not end up participating in this programme just because they do not have the
necessary information regarding this programme. This means that a more structured
promotional and informative campaign should be organised. This campaign should be
done in different ways in order to reach out to all the University of Malta students. A
high impact online campaign would help create more awareness on when the
applications to go on Erasmus are open.
Not all the students get to read their emails or are into social media so this campaign
should also specifically direct the students eligible to apply to go on Erasmus. This can
be done by going to the main lectures of every course to briefly speak about this
programme. Moreover, the ones that have already been on Erasmus can help in
sharing their experiences in order to attract and motivate more people to participate in
this life-changing experience. The post-secondary students should also be included in
this campaign. In this way, they can get to know what the Erasmus Programme is all
about from an early stage. Thus, they would have the necessary time to prepare for
such an experience from beforehand such as working during summer in order to have
the funds to go on Erasmus.
Other students are willing to go on Erasmus but have to resign their application due to
financial reasons. KSU believes in a welfare system that helps these students to have
the opportunity to go on Erasmus like other students. We have already proposed an
125
interest-free loan scheme (see Annex 5) that should be available to all those going on
Erasmus. In this way, we can incentivise the take up of this programme to a more
varied group of students. Moreover, the relevant authorities have to ensure that the
grant is given in due time since a large number of students rely on it in order to make
ends meet while being on Erasmus.
Some students cannot go on Erasmus because they do not have the possibility to do so
due to their course structure or due to the bilateral agreement which the University of
Malta has signed with foreign universities. Some courses require students to follow
certain practical units that at the moment have to be done in Malta such as the dental
fillings for the Faculty of Dental Surgery students. There are no reasons why these units
cannot be done abroad as long as they are done in the correct way. Thus, we believe
that the motives of such an impediment to go on Erasmus do not correspond to the
benefits of going on Erasmus. We recommend that the students willing to take up this
opportunity are given the possibility to do so at the host university. Moreover, there
are students that experience problems in matching up the study-units offered by their
Faculty, Institute or Centre with those offered by the host university. This applies to the
Faculty of Science students who focus on two different areas whereas the bilateral
agreements offer the possibility to focus on one of such areas and to the courses
offered by the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology and the B.
Commerce students majoring in Accountancy.
The officials responsible from signing the bilateral agreements with the foreign
universities should keep in mind these particular aspects of some courses in order to
offer host universities that are compatible with the specific needs of some Faculties,
Institutes and Centres. It is useless having thirty places for students to take up if they
cannot do so due to the course restrictions. Thus, it is imperative to do a research of
the particularities of each and every course in order to know what a good foreign
university needs to offer.
On the other hand, it is important that the officials of the Faculties, Institutes and
Centres concerned understand that letting their students to choose study-units that are
not offered at the University of Malta is a good thing as well. It helps the students to
broaden their mind on other aspects related to their course as long as these units do
not interfere with the overall structure of the course that is offered locally.
Apart from a change in the way bilateral agreements are signed (taking into
consideration the needs of specific courses), more bilateral agreements are needed to
specific courses. This is the case to those offered by the Faculty for the Environment
and the European Documentation and Research Centre. During the analysis of the
126
universities and placements, it was noted that there were 1.04 available places for each
applicant hailing from the Faculty for the Built Environment and 1.44 available places
for each applicant enrolled with the European Documentation and Research Centre for
the 2009-2010 academic year. This is due to the fact that there are two years where
students have the possibility to go on Erasmus. Thus, it might be the case that the
potential applicants exceed the number of places available and would lead students to
miss the possibility of going on Erasmus.
Some students have mentioned that the language barrier was a reason why they didn’t
go on Erasmus. Thus, the International and EU Office must ensure that a variety of host
universities are offered per course. It is obvious that the bilateral agreements signed
with non-English speaking universities are specific to a limited group of students. One
must ensure that the wide range of universities which have an agreement with the
University of Malta take into consideration the various language skills of all the
students.
The students encounter a large number of other administrative problems. The student
hours of the International and EU Office are too short in relation to the needs of the
students. This is felt mainly during specific times of the academic year such as when the
Erasmus applications are out. The queues that form outside of the office lead students
not to apply in the first place. Thus, we propose that the International and EU Office
student hours are increased for the benefit of all the students.
Many students have also commented that the International and EU Office are under-
staffed. In fact, there are only two officials for such a large number of work. It comes
natural that this office lack efficiency as they do not have the human resources to do
so. There has to be additions to this office in order to tackle such a recurring problem.
Moreover, many have argued that they had documents lost or did not receive timely
replies by the same officials. More care and a better organisation are needed in order
to offer the best service possible to the students seeking help from the International
and EU Office.
Other students have expressed their concerns on the way the students are chosen to
go to particular universities and the way the grant allocated to the students are made.
It is important for the International and EU Office to be as transparent as possible in
these aspects since many unnecessary suspicions may arise. KSU believes in the good
faith of the officials responsible for such selections. By being transparent and explaining
better the selection process and the way the grants are allocated, the students affected
can be of the same opinion.
127
There were also a number of suggestions on how the grant given to the students
should be calculated. If the city (and not the country) one goes on Erasmus in and the
course of the applicant are taken into consideration, a fairer grant system can be
devised which meets the needs of every student going on Erasmus. One could go away
with it if the funds allocated to the grants are increased. In the absence of this, this
system can provide the necessary aid to those who need the grant most especially
when one considers that the students tend to spend much more when they are abroad.
There are a number of academic difficulties that put an extra burden on those students
that go on Erasmus. A case in point is the yearly study-units during the academic year
where the students can go on Erasmus. These study-units have to be addressed and
possibly shifted in order to give the same opportunity to all the students reading for all
the different degrees offered by the University of Malta to go on Erasmus.
Regarding the Erasmus semester, many have expressed concern on the fact that some
courses give the possibility to their students to go on Erasmus during their last year.
This last year is usually the busiest one since the students have study-units and possibly
a research to conduct that might prevent them from going on Erasmus. Moreover,
some courses offer their students to go on Erasmus during the summer recess. Many
have expressed their view that these students do not get to experience the true spirit
of being on Erasmus especially since there would be no one on campus around during
that time of the year. The Erasmus semester is very important and thus, more care is
needed when devising the course structures to accommodate the students wishing to
go on Erasmus.
The absolute majority of the students who have been on Erasmus have expressed that
it was an extremely positive and enriching experience and that they would recommend
it to the students from their course. There are students who decide not to apply on
Erasmus because of a lack of knowledge related to the aforementioned experience.
Ways should be found in order to have the students experience the lifestyle and the
Erasmus way of life before they apply so as to encourage more students to apply and
eventually go on Erasmus.
9.3 Chapter Conclusion
As one can see from the above recommendations, there is much to do in relation to the
Erasmus programme. It is important to focus on the shortcomings in order to improve
the situation and to maintain the good things that have always been associated with
the Erasmus Programme.
128
KSU will be vigilant to see whether these recommendations are taken into
consideration. Moreover, we are willing to discuss them with all the relevant
authorities in order to avoid the current difficulties associated with the Erasmus
Programme for the benefit of all present and future University of Malta students.
129
10. Conclusion
This Erasmus Assessment Report has dealt with an analysis of all the aspects related to
Malta’s experience in the Erasmus Programme.
This study dealt with an analysis of the number of student that apply, get accepted and
eventually go on Erasmus, an analysis of the number and level of the universities and
placements that the local student can go to, a discussion on the academic and
administrative difficulties related to the Erasmus Programme, an analysis of the grants
allocated to the students, a discussion on the feedback obtained from the Erasmus
Assessment Report questionnaire and the Erasmus Focus Group and the
recommendation that KSU deems important to be introduced for the benefits of all the
University of Malta students.
The aim of the study was to assess whether the students are reaping the full benefits of
this programme. With the data collected and information obtained, we can say that the
majority of the students that go on Erasmus are having a very positive experience. It
was also noted that there are some constraints that are limiting such benefits to more
students. These include financial reasons, the administrative difficulties and the
academic problems that have to be solved as yet.
We believe in the good will of all the officials involved in the various processes of the
Erasmus Programme. Nonetheless, we are aware that this good will is not enough as
there is still a lot more to be done in order for the students to reap the full benefits of
this programme. This assessment is meant to make everyone aware of the current
shortcomings in order to be tackled in the best way possible. Thus, this report should
be seen as a motivation to further improve the system rather than a personal threat to
one’s work.
With the work of all those involved, we can get more students interested in this
programme. As many students have said, the Erasmus programme is an enriching
experience that everyone should have the possibility to do. Moreover, the increase in
numbers should also be related to the overall minimisation of the difficulties
encountered and to the maximisation of the benefits that this programme has to offer.
It is our duty to try and achieve this and this report is the first step in this direction.
Erasmus Assessment Report
KSU's International Office is working on Erasmus Assessment report whereby the
current situation of the Erasmus programme will be assessed. This report will help KSU
in understanding whether the students are reaping the full benefits of this programme.
This questionnaire is one of the tools that KSU's International Office will use in order to
assess the Erasmus programme. Anyone can do this survey: those that have applied
and went, those that have applied and didn't go and those who haven't applied as yet.
Make your voice heard on the Erasmus programme!
There are 37 questions in this survey
Erasmus Mobility Programme
1 [001] How would you rate your perception of the Erasmus Mobility Programme?*
Please choose only one of the following:
1
2
3
4
5
5 being the highest
2 [002] Have you ever been on erasmus?*
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
3 [003] Which University did you get accepted to?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please write your answer here:
input University Name & Country
4 [029] What was the academic year of your Erasmus Mobility Programme?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please write your answer here:
5 [004] How would you rate your experience?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
1
2
3
4
5
5 being the highest
6 [030] What was the amount of money given in the form of a grant per month?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please write your answer here:
7 [031]How much were the estimated costs per month?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please write your answer here:
8 [005] Was the grant fair?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
1
2
3
4
5
5 being the highest
9 [006] How would you compare academically the host university to the University of
Malta?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' or 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Much higher standard
Relatively higher standard
Same standard
Relatively lower standard
Much lower standard
10 [007] How would you compare the campus life at the host University with that at
the University of Malta?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Much higher standard
Relatively higher standard
Same standard
Relatively lower standard
Much lower standard
11 [008] Was the Erasmus semester appropriate?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' or 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
12 [009] Why wasn't the Erasmus semester appropriate?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer
was 'No' at question '11 [008]' (Was the Erasmus semester appropriate?)
Please choose all that apply:
Important Study-Units missed
Not prepared for synoptic exams
Not prepared for the following semester
Year of the Erasmus semester/s wasn't appropriate
Other:
13 [010] How would you rate the administration at the International & EU Office at
the University of Malta*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
1
2
3
4
5
5 being the highest
14 [011] Did you encounter any problems at the University of Malta International &
EU office if any?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose all that apply:
Lack of Information given
Late raplies
Limited number of bilateral agreements
Under-staffed
Any problems were solved in due time
No problems at all
Other:
15 [012] How would you rate the level of support that you received from your
respective local faculties/ Institutes/ Centres?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
1
2
3
4
5
5 being the highest
16 [013] Did you encounter any problems with recognition when you came back to
Malta?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose all that apply:
Credit recognition
Marks were downgraded
The Last part of the grant was difficult to obtain
No problems at all
Other:
17 [014] Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from
your course?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
18 [015] Why would you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from
your course?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer
was 'Yes' at question '17 [014]' (Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other
students from your course?)
Please choose all that apply:
Easier than Malta
Enriching experience
Fun factor
Good for my CV
To become more independent
Other:
19 [016] Why wouldn’t you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students
from your course?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer
was 'No' at question '17 [014]' (Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other
students from your course?)
Please choose all that apply:
Administration inefficiency
Financial reasons
Language barrier
Possibility of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded
Its difficult to integrate with foreign students
Other:
20 [017] Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'No' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
21 [018] Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'No' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer
was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
22 [019] Which University did you get accepted at?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '21 [018]' (Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?)
Please write your answer here:
Input University Name & Country
23 [020] Why didn't you go on Erasmus?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)
and Answer was 'Yes' at question '21 [018]' (Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?)
Please choose all that apply:
Administration inefficiency
Financial reasons
Language barrier
Possibility of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded
Not advised by who went on Erasmus
I didn't want to go to the University I got accepted at
Other:
24 [021] Do you think that the selection process was transparent?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)
and Answer was 'No' at question '21 [018]' (Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
25 [022] Would you consider applying again?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
26 [023] Why would you consider applying again?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)
and Answer was 'Yes' at question '25 [022]' (Would you consider applying again?)
Please choose all that apply:
Easier than Malta
Enriching experience
Fun factor
Good for my CV
To become more independent
Other:
27 [024] Why wouldn't you consider applying again?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)
and Answer was 'No' at question '25 [022]' (Would you consider applying again?)
Please choose all that apply:
Administration inefficiency
Passed my Erasmus semester
Not advisable by who went on Erasmus
Not interested
Other:
28 [025] Do you intend to apply?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'No' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer
was 'No' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)
Please choose only one of the following:
Yes
No
29 [026] Why do you intend to apply?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'Yes' at question '28 [025]' (Do you intend to apply?)
Please choose all that apply:
Easier than Malta
Enriching experience
Fun factor
Good for my CV
To become more independent
Other:
30 [027] Why don't you intend applying?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'No' at question '28 [025]' (Do you intend to apply?)
Please choose all that apply:
Administration inefficiency
Financial reasons
Language barrier
Possibility of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded
Lack of Information
No erasmus semester
Not advisable by who went on Erasmus
Not interested
Scared of feeling home sick
Other:
31 [028] What would have triggered you to apply?*
Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:
° Answer was 'No' at question '28 [025]' (Do you intend to apply?)
Please choose all that apply:
Actual possibility of going on Erasmus
More appropraite Erasmus semester
More efficient administartion
More funds
More information
Positive advices by others who went on Erasmus
Wider choice of Universities
Other:
Personal Details
32 [101] Input any other comments
Please write your answer here:
33 [102] Gender*
Please choose only one of the following:
Female
Male
34 [104] Date of Birth*
Please enter a date:
35 [103] Faculty / Centre / Institute*
Please write your answer here:
36 [105] Course*
Please write your answer here:
37 [106] Graduation Year
Please write your answer here:
If applicable
Submit your survey.
Thank you for completing this survey.
Erasmus Focus GroupSaturday, 11 September 2010
Erasmus
• What were your expectations before going on Erasmus?
• What was your opinion of the Erasmus programme after you came back? Were your expectations fulfilled?
Erasmus Statistics for 2004-2010
361
280
314
242
293
355357
278
307
234
284
347
130
153
125
108
126118
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010
Nu
mb
er o
f St
ud
ents
Academic Year
University of Malta
Total Students who Applied to go on Erasmus
Total Students who got accepted to go on Erasmus
Total Students who got went on Erasmus
Faculty of Arts
47
29
50
43 43
38
47
27
49
4142
38
1616
26
13
1516
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er o
f St
ud
ents
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Faculty for the Built Environment
2
13
11
10
15
28
2
13
11
10
15
28
4
5
4
3
18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Faculty of Education
48
25
45
16
26
34
48
25
45
15
23
34
7
20
5
34
3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Faculty of Engineering
23
22
18
15
19
28
23
22
18
15
19
28
7
8
7
6
7 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Faculty of Health Sciences
49
55
50
54
56
85
49
55
50
54
56
84
27
50
32
41
46
26
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er o
f St
ud
ents
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Faculty of Theology
2
1 1
2
1 1
2
1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
CCT
11
16
9
8
17
7
9
16
9
8
16
7
4
1 1
3
7
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
EDRC
7
17
8
13
10
18
7
17
6
12
9
18
2
7
3
5
4
8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Institute of Criminology
4 4
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Mediterranean Institute
4
5
17
8
11
9
4
5
17
8
11
9
3
9
5 5
6
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
Perception of the standard of universities
• What is your general perception of the standard of the universities with which the University of Malta has a bilateral agreement with?
• What is your perception of the standard of the universities with which your Faculty/ Centre/ Institute has a bilateral agreement with?
Scenario 1
Paul was the only one who got accepted to a relatively higher level University than the UoM from his course. He is undecided if he should go.. what would you do?
Scenario 2
Victoria got accepted to an Italian-speaking University. She can speak Italian but she is not that fluent in the language. The standard of the university is similar/higher to the UoM. What would you do?
Scenario 3
Andrew’s first preference university was the University of Liverpool. He got accepted to the University of University of Gdaosk in Poland instead which is of a relatively higher standard than the University of Liverpool. What would you do?
Local Administrative Problems
• Actual application to go on Erasmus
• Acceptance process
• Choosing study-units
• Recognition
• Grants
• Others
Administrative Problems
What were the administrative problems at the host University?
• Lack of efficiency in
changing study-units
• Others
Academic Difficulties
What were the academic difficulties encountered at the host university?
• Lectures
• Method of Assessment
• Others
Academic Difficulties
What were the academic difficulties encountered after you came back?
• Synoptic Exams
• Not prepared for the following academic year
• Recognition
• Others
Erasmus Semester/s
What factors should determine an appropriate Erasmus Semester/s?
Grant
What should the grant cover?
• Flights
• Accommodation
• Subsistence costs
• Internal transportation
Campus Life
How does the campus life at your host university compare to the University of Malta one?
Is the campus life in Malta good and how can it be improved?
Erasmus Experience
Once you have been on Erasmus, how do you rate the Erasmus experience in Malta for the incoming international students?
Erasmus Experience
What are your recommendations for a better Erasmus experience?
• Accommodation
• Administration
• Selection Process
• Grants
• Recognition
• Study-units
• Others
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 1_PERCEPTION & EXPECTATIONS
What was your perception of the Erasmus Mobility Program before you went on
exchange?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Did your Erasmus Experience meet your expectations?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 2_HOW MANY STUDENTS GO ON ERASMUS?
Comment on these results:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
What do you think is the situation in your faculty?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
University of Malta
Total Students who Applied to go on Erasmus
Total Students who got accepted to go on Erasmus
Total Students who got went on Erasmus
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 3_Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
Comment on the above results:
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
12
7
3
2
7
2
10
7
3
2
7
2
6
2 2
5
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
2004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-20092009-2010
Nu
mb
er
of
Stu
de
nts
Academic Year
No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies
No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 4_UNIVERSITIES
What is your perception of the level of universities which have an agreement with the
University of Malta, and therefore accept students from the University of Malta to go
for an exchange?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
What is your perception of the level of universities which have an agreement with the
University of Malta, and accept students from your faculty to go for an exchange?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 5_ADMINISTRATION
Did you encounter any administrative problems at the University of Malta during the
whole process?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Did you encounter any administrative problems at the host university during the
exchange?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 6_ACADEMIC
Did you encounter any academic difficulties during your exchange program?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Did you encounter any academic difficulties after you came back from the exchange
program?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 7 _ERASMUS SEMESTER
What factors determine an appropriate Erasmus Semester?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010
Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute
PART 8 _GRANTS
Grants are allocated according to the host country the students will be studying at. Do
you think this is a fair system?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Can you think of an alternate system of how the present system can be improved?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Do you think the grant given is fair?
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Outgoing Erasmus Students’ Interest-Free Loan Scheme
One of KSU’s aims is that all the University of Malta students have the opportunity to
go and study abroad through the Erasmus Programme. We believe that there should be
no barriers hindering student mobility especially since some University of Malta
Faculties, Institutes or Centres have only one Erasmus Semester that the students can
benefit from.
The present situation of the suspension of the Lifelong Learning (LLL) Programme,
amongst others, was a blow to the expectations and wishes of 453 students that
applied to go on Erasmus. The present government have set up emergency measures
to try and address this precarious situation but there is still more to be done. The fact
that around 100 students have not yet received confirmation from the university they
applied for is very worrying for KSU and we will do our best to try and solve this
problem.
The benefits of Erasmus have been shadowed by this situation. KSU hopes that the 27
per cent increase in Erasmus applications registered this year will not lose momentum
because of the suspension of the LLL programme. KSU also understands that this is not
the only situation that has stopped Maltese students from continuing their studies
abroad for a Semester. One case in point is the lack of sufficient resources to sustain
themselves during that Semester that they decide to go abroad. Even though the EUPA
grants, or the present Government ones, are essential to the students, many still have
to take loans in order to fund this important educational experience.
KSU believes that there should be no extra burdens for the students who decide to
benefit from the Erasmus Programme. The Parliamentary Secretariat for Youth and
Sport and the APS Bank have launched the Youth Specialisation Studies Scheme (YSSS)
that offers advantageous terms for the youth and students that decide to further their
studies abroad or follow distance learning courses under this scheme. This is an
excellent initiative that further shows the commitment of the Parliamentary Secretariat
for Youth and Sport towards the education of youths.
KSU would like to propose a similar scheme for those deciding to go on Erasmus. We
believe that it is unfair for the students taking a loan for this educational and personal
development experience to have to pay the interest rate on the amount borrowed. We
suggest that the Secretariat for Youth and Sports pays these interest rates on behalf of
the students. The students would start paying back the loan as soon as they come back
from abroad. For security reasons, the monthly instalments for the paying up of the
loan can be tied with the students’ stipend so that the bank concerned would be more
willing to participate in this scheme. Finally, unlike the YSSS, we do not think that there
should be any preference given to particular courses.
As you can see from the calculations below, the amount of students that go on Erasmus
every year and the amount of money they need to borrow are not high. We are sure
that the Parliamentary Secretariat for Youth and Sport can help these students by
offering interest-free loan schemes. It will be a scheme that will have a very limited
impact on the Secretariat’s budget but it will make a big difference to the students
taking such loans.
This initiative, complemented with our various activities in favour of student mobility,
such as the Erasmus Information Days organised by the KSU International Office, can
encourage more students to go on Erasmus. Such an initiative can also be extended to
students going on exchange programmes other than Erasmus. It is the country that
stands to benefit the most from this initiative in the long-term since the majority of the
students that come back from the Erasmus programme will ultimately join and enhance
Malta’s workforce by the experiences they have learnt when they had the opportunity
to study in a foreign university.
Estimated Costs of this Scheme based on the YSSS
1. A Fully Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €1000 paid over 3 years
Loan to be paid over 3 years €1,000.00
Amount to be paid by student per year €333.33 €33.33 per stipend
Fully Subsidised Interest Rate
4.10%
Year Amount Due Subsidised Interest
1 €1,000.00 €41.00
2 €666.67 €27.33
3 €333.33 €13.67
Total Interest per student
€82.00
Total Interest for 453 students
€37,146.00
2. A Fully Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €1500 paid over 4 years
Loan to be paid over 4 years €1,500.00
Amount to be paid by student per year €375.00 €37.50 per stipend
Fully Subsidised Interest Rate
4.10%
Year Amount Due Subsidised Interest
1 €1,500.00 €61.50
2 €1,125.00 €46.13
3 €750.00 €30.75
4 €375.00 €15.38
Total Interest per student
€153.75
Total Interest for 453 students
€69,648.75
3. A Fully Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €2000 paid over 5 years
Loan to be paid over 5 years €2,000.00
Amount to be paid by student per year €400.00 €40.00 per stipend
Fully Subsidised Interest Rate
4.10%
Year Amount Due Subsidised Interest
1 €2,000.00 €82.00
2 €1,600.00 €65.60
3 €1,200.00 €49.20
4 €800.00 €32.80
5 €400.00 €16.40
Total Interest per student
€246.00
Total Interest for 453 students
€111,438.00
4. A Partially Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €1000 paid over 3 years
Loan to be paid over 3 years €1,000.00
Amount to be paid by student per year €333.33 €33.33 per stipend
Partially Subsidised Interest Rate
3.10% 1.00%
Year Amount Due
Subsidised Interest
Interest to be paid by students
1 €1,000.00 €31.00 €10.00
2 €666.67 €20.67 €6.67
3 €333.33 €10.33 €3.33
Total Interest per student
€62.00 €20.00
Total Interest for 453 students
€28,086.00
5. A Partially Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €1500 paid over 4 years
Loan to be paid over 4 years €1,500.00
Amount to be paid by student per year €375.00 €37.50 per stipend
Partially Subsidised Interest Rate
3.10% 1.00%
Year Amount Due
Subsidised Interest
Interest to be paid by students
1 €1,500.00 €46.50 €15.00
2 €1,125.00 €34.88 €11.25
3 €750.00 €23.25 €7.50
4 €375.00 €11.63 €3.75
Total Interest per student
€116.25 €37.50
Total Interest for 453 students
€52,661.25
6. A Partially Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €2000 paid over 5 years
Loan to be paid over 5 years €2,000.00
Amount to be paid by student per year €400.00 €40.00 per stipend
Partially Subsidised Interest Rate
3.10% 1.00%
Year Amount Due
Subsidised Interest
Interest to be paid by students
1 €2,000.00 €62.00 €20.00
2 €1,600.00 €49.60 €16.00
3 €1,200.00 €37.20 €12.00
4 €800.00 €24.80 €8.00
5 €400.00 €12.40 €4.00
Total Subsidised Interest per student
€186.00 €60.00
Total Interest for 453 students
€84,258.00