Round Table

Processing the Bologna

Process: Current Losses
and Future Gains

5-6 March 2010

The Conference Hall of the Rectorate, University of Zagreb
Trg maršala Tita 14, Zagreb

SESSION SUMMARY
“SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS”
Teo Matković, University of Zagreb, Croatia

Format: Document
Duration: 30 min
Date: Saturday, 6 March 2010
Session: Session 3, “Social and Economic Aspects of the Bologna Process”
The final, third session of the Round Table “Processing the Bologna Process: Current Losses
and Future Gains”, organized by the University of Zagreb’s UNESCO Chair of Governance and
Management of Higher Education on 5 – 6 March 2010, which took place in the morning of
Saturday, 6 March 2010, was devoted to Social and Economic Aspects of the Bologna Process,
and was moderated by prof. Vlasta Vizek-Vidović of the University of Zagreb, Faculty of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Croatia.

The first presentation “(Changing) Framework Conditions for Bologna Reforms: the
University of Vienna Case (30 min)”, delivered by Arthur Mettinger, Vice-Rector of
University of Vienna, delivered a detailed briefing on strategic choices of Bologna
implementation at the University of Vienna and actors involved.

The Bologna round of reform was done with gradual pace, faster in some fields,
while slower in others (legal, teacher training, theology). The process involved senate,
professors, junior faculty students and senate, and rectorate (that has asy with respect
to affordability). But there were no alumni or labor market input.

As of 2010 university of Vienna had set up 52 BA courses, leading to 108

specialized MA courses. Only 7 diploma programs remained (in regulated professions),
while PhDs are organized within 8 broad fields. At BA level, apart from single-subject
courses (180 ECTS), mostly present in sciences, there is a major-minor scheme
(120+60) that includes mini curricula in some field for non-specialists (at the moment,
72 of those are active).

According to legal framework, the University has great freedom in conceiving

the programs and organization, but no autonomy to select students or set up tuition
fees and exemptions (all set up by state). Everyone with BA can go on to chosen
Master course.

A major organizational change is separation of faculties (total 15) as research-

oriented units from study programs (total 35) which have separate administrators and
are no more embedded in departments but provided at the level of university.

Classroom implementation, outdated didactics and examination turned out to be

the weakest chain in the current reform, leading to substantive tensions. As of 2007,
Austria is about average with respect to drop-out rate (29% vs. OECD 31%), yet cohort
completion in tertiary education is way lower (22% vs. OECD 39%). Investment growth
 is not as fast as enrolment growth and various budgeting modes (per capita vs. global
funding) are being debated.

The second presentation, “Bologna Process: Social Impacts and Side-Effects”, was
delivered by prof. Nada Čikeš, University of Zagreb, Medical School.

Two strands of social impact were debated, as social dimension is constituent

part of EHEA. Equal opportunity to enter, carry out and complete the tertiary education
was stressed in 2009 ministerial meeting as important element.

On the one hand, social dimensions in the home country, such as measures
equal fostering opportunities, widening access and development of environment. There
is need for academic and social services, student participation in governance, data on
width of access (participation, certain groups), mechanisms for fostering student
income, tax relief and student benefits, as well as proactive focus on employability
(accentuated with transition from elite to mass university model).

With respect to mobility, there is clear lack of measures in Croatia, as well as

lack structural preconditions for mobility (embededness of mobility in teaching
process). Third cycle is contributing to synergy between European Higher Education
Area and European research area, but this potential for development and growth is not
realized in Croatia since its structural position remains unresolved.

In third presentation Mile Dželalija (University of Zadar) discussed on Social and

Economic Aspects of the Bologna Process form the Croatian Qualification
Framework view.

Croatian Qualification Framework (as a part of European Qualification Framework

project) and Bologna reforms share social inclusion as their main goal – in form of
sustained employability and mobility. Both are stimulating transparency, access,
quality and reliability assurance. Though, EQF is more explicit and broader (relevant to
all levels and modes of education).

The presentation explained the roadmap, organizational structure, present

status and key features of CROQF implementation in Croatia.
Fourth presentation, “More than a Market: The European Higher Education Area’s
Political Potential”, was delivered by Anne Corbett, London School of Economics
and Political Science.

There is great demand in opening up of academic spaces (echoed in ministerial

communications), happening at a critical moment when Bologna was developed, as
50% of cohort participated in tertiary education (unlike 5% half a century ago). Model
of Research University was not adequate for that mission anymore, and higher
education had to be further conceived as public good (COE). This includes great
transformative political through implementation of mobility.

There is a very complex institutional and relational picture emerging with

respect to EHEA, that exceeds traditional intergovernmental mode (as OECD or COE),
with plenty of agents involved at different levels, including several DG's, EUA, ESU (as
new organizations), RNS, professional associations and like. There is plenty of
networking involved at and between all levels (stakeholders, agencies, universities).
And nobody is getting things sorted their own way, with several university groupings
and hierarchies emerging. Though, the "added value" of Europe is not explicit yet.

The future cooperation should be going beyond quality assessment and

qualification framework. It should be addressing the epistemological issues about both
modes of knowledge production and knowledge management.

The final presentation was delivered by Darko Polšek, University of Zagreb, Faculty
of Humanities and Social Sciences, debating the Responsibility of Departments and
Schools in Realization of Bologna Process.

Darko Polšek dissected the current loses and future gains of Bologna process
implementation in Croatia, mostly focusing on what went wrong in most, but not all the
Croatian HEIs.

SUMMARY

As the national Decrees and rules of implementation of Bologna were very vague,
with respect of financing of programs, coordination of programs, coherence of degrees, result
was to be expected to be very chaotic and frustrating. This was intensified by administrative
push in order to rapidly create "bologna" courses without foot-dragging delays on part of HEI.
Academics copied and stretched existing programs. One year after the decree requiring new
programs was issued; almost 100% of submitted programs got accredited. Push in order to
avoid long delays. Responsibilities were shifted upwards, as higher levels only signed over
what lover level institutions asked for.

Prime target of managers in public higher education institutions was growth: of

students, tuition revenues (even specializations/modules), doctoral studies. This led to
proliferation instead of consolidation and enormous financial burden (public and private).
Such a growth could be conceived as educational bubble, and it risks bursting. Quality
assurance is very important element of higher education, yet with no selectivity and clear and
credible competences associated with credentials, the entire system might collapse. BA level
does not make anybody employable (or their skills transferable) as programs conceived in
2005 did not aim at making them employable, resulting in dissatisfaction demonstrated
among all the sides involved.

The discussion focused on the issues raised by the last presentation, leaving the
social and economic issues on the sidelines and continuing the line started in the session one,
day one. The entire session used social and economic issues at best as a pretext, while
focusing on organizational and implementation issues of the Bologna process itself.