The Bologna Process: Advancing Trans-Atlantic Collaboration

in a Changing Higher Education Landscape

A joint symposium of NAFSA and EAIE

Symposium Summary

For two days, March 22-23, 2007, 16 European and 16 North American
international educators met in Amsterdam to explore the current state and
direction of the Bologna Process. Designed as a dialogue among colleagues, the
symposium is part of NAFSA’s ongoing effort in 2007 to provide useful, practical
information that policymakers on campuses can use to respond to the rapidly
changing landscape in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).

Rather than focusing on the details of the Bologna Process, the symposium focused
on the state of Bologna and what to expect in the coming years, commonalities and
differences in systems on both sides of the Atlantic, Bologna’s role in advancing
international mobility, the tools to promote transparency, and the status of
implementation. How would this changing landscape affect trans-Atlantic
cooperation in international higher education?

This summary is written for those who already have a grasp of the basics of the
Bologna Process, but want to know more of its context and what its relationship is
to North American higher education and graduate education in particular. [To
learn more about the elements of the Bologna Process before reading this
summary, we recommend reviewing the information you can find at
www.nafsa.org/bologna. A succinct overview is also available from the European
Universities Association1.]

The summary is presented in two parts:

 Introduction & Overview, which provides an overview of some of the major

themes and “messages” which came out of the two days, and
 Session Notes, which were prepared by Diego Sammartino of the European
Commission. We are grateful to Diego for allowing us to use his material,
which has been edited slightly for this report.

As one of the participants at the Symposium wrote, “the relevance, variety and
quality of the presentations and discussions made it a remarkable event.” We trust
this report will capture, at least in part, the enthusiasm of the event itself.

http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/EUA_Bologna_brochure_nov06_
v2l.pdf
 Co-Hosts of the Symposium:
Diana Carlin, Dean of the Graduate School and International
Programs, University of Kansas and Chair, NAFSA’s
Bologna Task Force
Fiona Hunter, International Director, Universitá Carlo Cattaneo
(LIUC)
and President, EAIE

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007

2
 Symposium Participants
Bjørn Einar Aas
International Advisor
University of Bergen
Tim Birtwistle
Professor of Law & Policy
of Higher Education, Jean
Monnet Chair
Leeds Metropolitan
University, School of Law
Diana B. Carlin
Dean of the Graduate School
& Intl. Programs
University of Kansas
Antoinette Charon
Wauters
Director International
Relations
Université de Lausanne
Robert J. Coelen
Vice President
International
Leiden University
Jeremy Cooper
(Observer)
Deputy Managing
Director
Hobsons UK
James P. Cross
Vice Provost for
International Affairs
Clemson University
Hans de Wit
Dean
Windesheim Honours
College
Everett Egginton
Dean, International and
Border Programs
New Mexico State
University
Sebastian Fohrbeck
Director
Deutscher Akademischer
Austauschdienst (DAAD)
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007
James Frey (Observer)
Member of the EAIE
Board of Directors
Rolf Hoffmann
Executive Director
The German-American
Fulbright Commission
Fiona Hunter
International Director
Universitario Carlo Cattaneo
LIUC
Marlene M. Johnson
Executive Director and
CEO
NAFSA: Association of
International Educators
Heather Kelly
Director of Student
Services
School of Graduate
Studies
University of Toronto
Maria Kelo
Senior Officer
Academic Cooperation
Association
A. Douglas Kincaid
Vice Provost for
International Studies
Florida International
University
Eric Kronenwetter
Task Force Writer
David Larsen
Vice President
Arcadia University
Center for Education
Abroad
JoAnn McCarthy
Assistant Provost for
International Affairs
Office of International
Programs
University of Pennsylvania
3
Alex Olde Kalter
Director
European Association for
International Education
(EAIE)
Patricia J. Parker
Assistant Director
Admissions
Iowa State University
Admissions
John E. Reilly
Director
UK Socrates-Erasmus
Council
John V. Richardson, Jr.
Associate Dean, Graduate
Division
University of California at
Los Angeles
Diego Sammaritano
Programme Manager
European Commission
Directorate General for
Education and Culture
Prof Giancarlo Spinelli
Rector's Delegate for
International Relations
Politecnico di Milano
University
Robert L. Stableski
Deputy Executive
Director
Professional
Development Services
NAFSA: Association of
Intl. Educators
Christian Tauch
Policy Officer
European Commission
Directorate General for
Education & Culture
Linda Tobash
Director
Institute of International
Education

Leonard van der Hout

Head International Office
Hogeschool van
Amsterdam

Robert Watkins
Assistant Director of
Admissions
Graduate and
International Admissions
University of Texas-
Austin

John J. Wood
Associate Vice Provost
for International
Education
University at Buffalo
The State University of
New York

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007

4
 Introduction & Overview

When 16 North American and 16 European international educators meet to discuss

the Bologna Process, there is no lack of topics to explore. This symposium, by
design, focused more on the implications of the Bologna Process, and less on the
specifics of credential evaluation and admissions. 2 In this introduction and
overview, we present some of the major themes that recurred throughout the
discussion. The second part of this report, the Session Notes, provides an
overview of specific topics presented and comments from the extensive discussions
participants had at the end of each presentation. In addition, the two co-hosts,
Diana Carlin and Fiona Hunter, provided daily wrap-up comments that captured
much of the spirit of the day.

Bologna is a Process, not a Product

Despite the fact that we use the words “Bologna process,” the tendency among
U.S.3 international educators is to try to find the Bologna product. Participants
soon realized a need to dispel some common myths of Bologna. For example, there
is often an operating assumption that there is a “Bologna degree”; there are
Bologna-compliant degrees, but not Bologna degrees. Three cycles culminate in
bachelor, master and doctorate degrees—but one should not jump to the
conclusion, despite the similarity in names, that they are the same as North
American degrees.

Participants noted that there is often an assumption that the Bologna process will
result in a single set of structures for first and second degrees; to the contrary, U.S.
institutions can continue to expect to see 3+2, 4+1, 4+2 bachelor/master
structures emerge. Predominant models reported by DAAD in 2005, for example
were 3+1 in the UK and the Netherlands; 3+2 in Germany and France; and 4+2 in
Spain. European participants made the point that there will not be “one European
system”; rather, there will continue to be national systems within the larger
framework of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).

The closest thing to a Bologna “product” are the “tools of transparency,” designed
to allow first those in the 45 countries in the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA)4 to understand each others’ systems and specific courses of study. This
2
In November, 2007, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers (AACRAO) held a seminar on The Impact of Bologna and Three-Year Degrees on
U.S. Admissions. The report of that seminar is available at www.aacrao.org/publications.
3
Our symposium included one Canadian participant, and many of the statements—but not
all—could be applied to the broader North American higher education system. We have
used U.S. rather than North American in the remainder of the report.
4
Refer to
http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/EUA_Bologna_brochure_nov06_
v2l.pdf for a listing of EHEA countries and a map.

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview 5

developing toolkit includes the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and the
diploma supplement (which describes the actual course of study and competencies
achieved). As Europeans develop these for each other, North Americans will need
to learn this new language of higher education in the EHEA. (See Session
Summary 4 for further discussion of these tools.)

A Uniquely European Approach

It also becomes clear during a trans-Atlantic dialogue that we don’t all understand
the broader context of the Bologna process in the same way. Fiona Hunter
describes the situation: “The first image that comes to my mind is that when we
speak of building the European Higher Education Area it is not a multi-story tower
that we can see going up in front of us story by story so we can see exactly which
stage we are at in the construction. Rather we are building an enormous European
mosaic–there are many tiny pieces being assembled and the picture is emerging
progressively, some parts already more visible than others, some gaps still appear.
And there are many different players involved all responsible for fitting in some of
the pieces. The Bologna Process brings about change at all levels and it is the
sheer size, speed, breadth and depth of this reform that is so striking.”

Those very characteristics often confound U.S. international educators. The

assumption that there will be a Bologna “system” that will be consistent and easy
to follow is not accurate. Diana Carlin reported in her summary of the first day’s
discussion, “Bologna is about complexity not conformity. European higher
education is not monolithic among and within signatory countries. The same is true
of the U.S. system as a result of decentralized universities. Thus, it is impossible to
establish a set of guidelines or policies to propose that U.S. universities should
use.”
Instead, European participants suggested, U.S. colleagues must, at least for now,
rely on individual exchange partners to inform them about individual institution’s
progress in adopting Bologna. Indeed European participants urged U.S. colleagues
to impress on their counterparts the importance of adopting the tools to facilitate
transparency and allow U.S. institutions to properly evaluate the new degrees.

It Will Take Time: The Gap between Legislation and Implementation

While the tools for transparency exist, they are not yet used uniformly. Even
within countries, institutions are still experimenting with diploma supplements,
adopting sometimes the prescribed format, and sometimes choosing to adapt the
format to their needs—not the intention, but an example of the bottom-up
approach Bologna is taking. As Fiona Hunter stated it, “While the legal structures
for change are now in place in most countries, the messiness of policy making
becomes evident as different countries and institutions interpret and implement
the reforms in response to local needs and perceptions.”

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview 6

Leonard van der Hout, one of the Dutch Bologna Promoters 5 noted that even within
The Netherlands, which is on the forefront of adopting the Bologna Process,
individual universities had adapted the diploma supplement to their own needs,
deleting some sections, using various sections differently, and generally rendering
the diploma supplement less useful. Through work with the Dutch Bologna
Promoters, those inconsistencies are being addressed—even at this level, an
ongoing education process is needed to properly implement the reforms.

Quality assurance is one of the elements of the Bologna process, and national
systems (or, as one presenter informed us, multiple systems such as in Germany)
are being created. Again, it is key to remember that Bologna is not an EU
program; it is a program of the national states, supported by the European
Commission but not directed by it. Legislation is national and implementation
requires institutional adoption.

As one U.S. participant said, “Let me be a stereotypically American and ask, when
will this be done!?” The response was varied among Europeans—but two things
are clear: it will be “done” in different countries at different rates; and 2010, the
date set out as the goal for implementation, means that no new students will enter
old programs in 2010, not that all programs will be Bologna-compliant by that
date. As one European said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, “it will be a generation
before all the reforms already announced are fully in place.”

Compliance will take time, but Europeans emphasized that the curve of adoption is
rising sharply, even exponentially, to where a critical mass will soon be reached.
The Bologna Process is real, it is here, and it is happening. (See Sessions 1 and 4.)

Bologna is about New Opportunities

There is a tendency to focus on the challenges that the Bologna Process has
brought to the field. As those at the symposium learned, the change is massive,
uneven, and hard to inventory or quantify at this point. This creates challenges
within Europe, but also for those outside of Europe who must translate the
changes for their institutions and faculty.

One part of the symposium focused on the promise of Bologna. True, it is perhaps
too early the measure any effect that the Bologna Process has had on mobility—
though if the development over time mirror the Erasmus program, we will all see a
significant increase. (See Session 3 for further information on this topic.)

From the point of view of the symposium participants, joint and dual degrees in
particular should be stimulated. (See Session 2 for more discussion on this topic).
Diana Carlin writes, “Bologna should be viewed as an opportunity for cooperation
rather than competition. Atlantis/FIPSE is a good example of how both sides can
5
There are over 200 Bologna Promoters in the 45 EHEA countries, selected by their national
authorities to support implementation of the Bologna Process aims at the national level. They are
made up of teams of experts from the university management, academic authorities, specialists in the
field of higher education and students. The aim of the national teams' activities is the support of the
realization of Bologna Process principles in the universities according to the priorities laid down at
the national level.

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview 7

benefit. The same is true with J-1 scholars to work in U.S. research labs or
research programs for undergraduates in Europe.”

Some would even maintain that there is a gradual movement from general
education to more professional degrees in the U.S., while in the EU the tendency is
to complete specialist studies with more soft skills studies. (See Session 5.)

Europeans emphasized that U.S. participants can look to Europe for new program
opportunities during this time of change, and should not focus solely on the
developments in Asia for innovation. As Fiona Hunter pointed out in one of her
summary comments, “While countries cooperate in setting the goals [for the
Bologna Process], opportunities emerge for institutions to differentiate themselves
and to position themselves in different markets.” As in any marketplace, the
“buyers” need to be aware that the “sellers” are not all the same—on either side of
the Atlantic.

Practical Messages for Our Colleagues

At the end of the symposium, working groups crafted “key messages” to their
colleagues who did not experience the symposium. The lists are “first draft,” but
express even in its raw form the gist of the conversation.

 Bologna: it’s big…it’s here…it’s significant for you.

 Bologna has implications on a global scale. It’s part of a worldwide trend. U.S.
educators can learn much from the Bologna process.
 For campus policy-makers, the competitive aspect of Europe in a “Bologna-
mode” may catch our attention—but the need to quickly realize the
opportunities is where institutions will benefit. Joint/dual degrees are easier
and should be stimulated by Bologna and greater information may ease the
creation of joint degrees.
 For U.S. campus policy-makers, don’t look at a transcript in terms of years but
look at the student’s overall preparation, including secondary education.
 Showcase success stories of dual/joint degree programs, partnerships
 Campus practitioners must be creative and seek to understand the new
paradigms and affiliations.
o Take a look at U.S. and partner institutional mission when evaluating
credentials.
o Use your comparable European partner institutions to assist you in your
evaluation of other European institutions, as the intra-Europe information
base is being built slowly.
o Don’t look at years, but content/prep for admissions.
o Obtain curriculum outlines (programs of study) with ECTS credits from a
variety of partner schools and have faculty review.
o Translate ECTS credits to U.S. semester conversion is a consultative
process--it is not exact and not consistent between schools/faculty etc.
 In Europe, understand goals, needs, types of study abroad the U.S. wants—and
vice versa.
 In Europe, data collection is critical; there is a pressing need for a European
version of “Open Doors.”

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview 8

 In Europe, send the message to the U.S. not to overlook Europe and clearly
market opportunities (in light of, for example, Simon Award scholarships which
will be targeted at non-traditional destinations)
 In Europe, remember the diversity of the U.S. academic institutions and the
lack of central control. Rely on negotiations with individuals partners =
creative solutions.

A Dynamic Context for Reform

Our symposium was directed toward opportunities. There are, to be sure, both
Europeans and U.S. international educators who are less enthusiastic about the
Bologna Process. As can be seen from this symposium, implementation is
proceeding at different rates, data and information is not always available (even
within Europe about European institutions), and fiercely independent campus
structures can thwart progress in the process.

But as a U.S. participant, one cannot help but be impressed by the enthusiasm of
our European colleagues for the Bologna process, not just as higher education
reform, but in a larger context of a new Europe. If one stops to think about it, the
degree of transformation since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is stunning. In
the overall scheme of European history, the intervening 20 years between then and
2010 are a whirlwind of activity. The Bologna Process is reflective of the social and
economic transformation, and should not be seen separate from this larger
context. Those who are working to make positive contributions in this sea of
change are proud of their efforts and accomplishments, and passionate about the
bright future that can be achieved. It is in that context that our work to advance
trans-Atlantic collaboration in a changing higher education landscape is framed.

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview 9

 Session Notes

We are grateful to Diego Sammartino, Program Manager in the European

Commission’s Directorate General for Education and Culture and Linda Tobash,
Director of University Placement Programs at IIE, for providing their notes from
the five major sessions of the meeting. Their summaries have been edited slightly
for this report.

Session 1: State of Bologna Today.....................................................................8

Speaker: Christian Tauch, European Commission
Respondent: John Richardson, UCLA

Session 2: Commonalities and Differences in Systems..................................9

Speaker: Linda Tobash, IIE
Respondent: John Reilly, UK Socrates-Erasmus Council

Session 3: Bologna’s Role in Advancing International Mobility.................11

Speaker: Maria Kelo, ACA
Respondent: Everett Egginton, New Mexico State University

Session 4: Tools to Promote Transparency/

Understanding of Students’ Educational Experiences..................................12
Speaker: Antoinette Charon Wauters, University of Lausanne

Session 5: Status of Implementation..............................................................14

Speaker: Sebastian Fohrbeck, DAAD
Respondent: Diana Carlin, University of Kansas

N.B. You will find references to ministerial meetings, documents, and projects
(such as the Tuning Project) which are not annotated in this version. In a
subsequent publication later this fall, any such references will be included.

EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes

10
 Session 1: State of Bologna Today
Presenters Christian Tauch and John Richardson
Bologna, as an ongoing process, is
today into a “homework mode”. Many
new objectives and initiatives were
introduced in the past through
biennial ministerial meetings. At the
forthcoming ministerial meeting in
London in May 2007, we can expect to
see further developments in
stocktaking reports on national
progress, quality assurance
frameworks, and external dimensions
related to the attractiveness of the
European Higher Education to
international students both within
Europe and into Europe.
We can also expect to see Montenegro
added as the 46th signatory country.
Further expansion will probably soon
come to an end as there are not many
eligible countries left based on the
current criterion that to be eligible to
join the EHEA a country must be a
signatory to the 1954 European
cultural convention of the Council of
Europe. This criterion affects four
new membership applicants: Kosovo,
Northern Cyprus (not a state) and
Israel and Kyrgyzstan (not in Europe).
However, other practical solutions
may be found to associate non-
European countries to the Bologna
Process as it is possible that requests
from countries outside Europe might
continue to grow.
With regard to the progress achieved
so far, access to the next cycle,
student involvement in quality
assurance, and external quality
assurance systems are among the
most prominent areas. However,
more effort is still needed in National
Qualification frameworks and in
recognition of prior learning.
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
11
Increasing attention is being paid to
Qualification Frameworks (QF). A QF
can be seen as a tool to define the set
of knowledge and skills that a student
should possess in order to obtain an
undergraduate or graduate degree.
There are two pan-European
qualification frameworks. The EHEA
Qualification Framework (EHEA QF)
is based on the Dublin descriptors
with a primary focus on higher
education. As part of another
initiative, the European Commission
has proposed a European
Qualification Framework (EQF) to
cover the whole spectrum of life long
learning. There are some unresolved
questions about the EQF such as:
What is the relationship between
national QF with EQF? What is the
level of detail of the QF? What is the
risk of standardization in content of
degrees? What is the impact of
national and European QF on
university autonomy?
On the external dimension of Bologna,
ministers at the 2005 meeting in
Bergen stated that EHEA should
stimulate balanced student and staff
exchange and cooperation between
higher education institutions (HEIs)
and set up a working group to
elaborate a strategy. The issues
currently on the agenda for external
dimension strategy development are:
1) improving information on Bologna
and the EHEA, 2) enhancing world-
wide attractiveness and
competitiveness of European HE, 3)
strengthening cooperation based on
partnership, 4) intensifying policy
dialogue, and 5) furthering
recognition of qualifications.

One of the participants commenting
on the new EQF expressed strong
disappointment over the fact that the
descriptors chosen by the European
Commission for higher education (HE)
in the EQF were not the Dublin
descriptors already agreed upon in
the EHEA QF. There appeared to be a
prevailing sentiment that the EQF
should adopt or align the
qualifications being identified for
higher education with the EHEA
qualifications as it is not advisable to
have two different pan-European
qualifications frameworks describing
competencies for that educational
level.
Bologna is a huge but very young
reform process. It started just eight
years ago but has changed the
landscape of HE in Europe more than
national initiatives have done in
decades. Bologna is a typically
European process i.e. bottom up. It is
not controlled by the European Union.
It is a complex process with moving
targets and it is not surprising that
there are discrepancies, gaps and
sometimes contradictions in
implementation at the national level.
It was noted that U.S. higher
education institutions depend on
foreign students especially for the
graduate and PhD degrees and
distinctly so in STEM studies (science,
technology, engineering and
mathematics) where the majority of
graduates at some institutions tend to
be non-U.S. citizens. It is felt that
today, the U.S. is looking mainly to
Asia as a source of foreign students.
While the Mediterranean Sea was the
sea of the 19th century and the
Atlantic was the ocean of the 20th
century, we are now in the “Pacific
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
12
century”. The U.S. is more and more
working in partnership with Asia.
From the U.S. perspective, Bologna is
still not well known by many U.S.
higher education institutions,
especially among faculty. However,
awareness of Bologna is increasing
and the sense is that the more U.S.
HEIs know about Bologna, the more
there will be an understanding of the
characteristics of the Bologna-
complaint degree, especially three-
year bachelor degrees that pose a
challenge to many U.S. HEIs.
There has been progress over the past
few years, in recognition of the three-
year Bologna-compliant degrees. A
survey by the Council of Graduate
Studies (CGS) shows that between
2005 and 2006 the percentage of
respondent HEIs who said that three-
year degree was “not an issue” rose
from 41% to 56%.
The message from Europe to U.S.
HEIs is that acceptance of three-year
bachelor degree should not be based
merely on the number of years but
rather on the content of the degree
and the level of
performance/preparation of the
applicant student. This is true also for
HEIs in Europe for which Bologna has
not produced automatic recognition of
undergraduate degrees from one
European country for admission to a
Master degree in another country.
The Bologna Process does not
promote equivalency of degrees.
Rather it provides a system and tools
to make assessment easier through
transcripts and Diploma Supplements.
Bologna helps HEIs to make an
informed assessment on admission to
graduate programs.
As to the employability of three-year
degree holders, there are no sufficient
data on responses from the labor
markets. However, a general
consideration can be made that entry
into the labor market for bachelor
degree holders is really linked to the
level of the economy and overall
Session 2 – Commonalities and differences in systems
presenters Linda Tobash, and John Reilly
Among the many commonalities in the
U.S. and European HE systems of
particular interest for international
cooperation in a global context is the
fact that both systems recognize
education as a global commodity. Both
systems need to attract increasing
number of students especially in
science and engineering.
There is also a widespread desire on
the two sides to work cooperatively
and support mobility schemes and
joint/dual degrees. The
Commission/FIPSE Atlantis program
was mentioned as an example of a
cooperation model that could be
extended to bilateral cooperation.
There are also distinct differences
between the two systems. In the U.S.
governance of HE is firmly in the
hands of HEIs. Autonomy of
universities is pursued to its highest
degree. There is no federal or central
government overseeing or
coordinating the system. Individual
institutions establish policy and
management structures with varying
degrees of oversight at the state level,
with public institutions experiencing
more regulation at the state level.
U.S. HEIs operate in a highly
competitive environment and believe
that healthy competition at the
institutional level, rather than through
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
13
employment. A situation of high
employment rates will push
companies to recruit more and more
BAs. In regions or during periods of
low employment students will tend to
stay longer in HE and get an MA
degree due to the difficulty of finding
quality jobs.
central, national planning, leads to
the best quality for HEIs and for
students. U.S. HEIs generally act on
their own and not under national or
state banners. An example of this
mind set can be seen at annual
conferences and meetings. At NAFSA
conferences one can see country
pavilions from for example from
Germany, Switzerland, or Japan, but
one does not see a U.S. national
pavilions at EAIE or other
international conferences or
meetings.
In the U.S., access to higher education
is seen as a right rather than a
privilege for people; provision for
equal opportunity is pursued and
social mobility is encouraged. With
70% of the adult U.S. population
having some higher education
experience, it can be seen that access
to and support for HE is seen as a
public good. While tuition and fees
are levied at almost all institutions
and can be quite steep at some, a
large number of undergraduate
receive some funding from the federal
government, based on family income,
and are eligible to receive merit-
based awards from HEIs on the basis
of their preparedness and
performance.
Diversity in the number and types of
U.S. HEIs is promoted. It is believed
that such diversity better meets the
different educational needs of the
student population as well as work
force needs of the community and
nation. It is not only by chance that
there has been a dramatic expansion
of community colleges in recent years,
which can be seen as a labor market
driven development in U.S. HE.
Another important distinction is that
the U.S. system is deeply rooted in the
liberal arts tradition. Undergraduate
students spend a portion of their first
year, and frequently their second year,
in general education coursework,
consolidating their knowledge in
humanities and soft skills and
advancing their critical thinking skills.
Depending on the institution and the
field, anywhere from 25 to 65 percent
of the undergraduate curriculum
might consist of liberal arts or general
education courses. This is an
important difference with the EU
system where undergraduate students
are generally immersed fully in
specialist studies from day one of
their undergraduate studies and even
more so at the Master level.
In terms of bridging differences, one
can look at strategies that Europe has
employed to advance mobility,
including pan-European discussions
on quality assurance and qualification
frameworks. ‘Tuning’ projects
involving 135 different institutions in
27 European countries across nine
disciplines—business administration,
chemistry, education sciences,
European studies, history,
geology/earth sciences, mathematics,
nursing, and physics—were
exceptional models that lead to
greater transparency in those fields
and eased barriers to mobility. Also,
the success of Socrates and Erasmus
programs, emphasizing exchange,
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
14
mobility, and joint degrees, have
played a huge role in facilitating
student and faculty mobility,
preparing students for workplace
mobility, and to a large extent have
been precursors to the Bologna
Process.
On dual and joint degrees, several
issues were raised by both European
and U.S. participants as to differences
between joint and dual degrees and
the degree of difficulty in creating
such degrees trans-Atlantic. A joint
degree is defined as a single degree
issued and owned by two institutions
jointly. It corresponds to a single
diploma with the logo and signatures
of the two institutions. A dual degree
translates into two degrees issued by
two institutions in relation to the
same common study program. In both
cases the student attends part of the
courses in one institution and part in
the other one. The common element
between a joint and a dual degree is
that they both refer to a coherent
program of study shared between the
two institutions.
However, joint degrees usually
require prior approval by national
accreditation authorities. In several
EU countries and in the U.S.,
legislation does not automatically
allow joint degrees. In these cases the
institutions administering the
common study program can only offer
dual degrees. In the U.S. the joint
degree would need to be formally
vetted and approved through the
governance structures within the
institution and those mandated by
each state. It was stressed that this
takes a great amount of time and that
it is important when arranging for
dual or joint degree exchanges that
they key policy-makers be consulted
early on in the process.

Some speakers stressed the need for
more information on the definition
and the practice of joint and dual
degrees. Some participants observed
that a dual degree could require
additional workload compared to a
standard degree. The point was made
that the overall duration of a joint or
dual degree should not be longer than
Session 3 – Bologna’s role in advancing international mobility
presenters: Maria Kelo and Everett Egginton
Two clear messages emerged from
this session. The first message is that
there is not enough data to measure
the impact that Bologna has had on
mobility so far. This is true for
different types of student mobility:
intra-EU, EU/rest of the world,
horizontal Erasmus-like mobility, and
vertical/degree mobility. There is
therefore a clear need for collecting
and disseminating statistics on HE
mobility at all levels. In this respect it
was suggested that Europe should
collect comprehensive mobility data
comparable to the Open Doors’ series
published by IIE.
The second message is that Bologna
reform of degree structures and
subsequent increases in transparency,
readability and rationalization of
study programs is bound to bring
more mobility within the EU and
between the EU and the U.S. There
are 97 million students enrolled in
higher education institutions
worldwide. In 2000, 1.7 million
crossed borders to study with an
anticipated 8 million projected to do
so by 2025.
Recent statistics indicate that there
are 27,000 degree-mobile U.S.
students studying in the European
Union. To facilitate cross-border
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
15
(or at least it should be as close as
possible to) the duration of the
original single degree. In order to
reach this goal proper planning and
full recognition of the courses and
exams undertaken at the partner
institution in the framework of the
agreed common study program is
essential.
exchange and student mobility,
integration, transparency, and greater
regional cooperation are seen as key,
all of which is facilitated by the
Bologna Process.
Some participants voiced the concern
that Bologna may affect negatively
horizontal mobility. Before Bologna
the average student spent five, six or
seven years getting a university
degree. Students had plenty of time to
participate in study abroad even
without full recognition of the work.
In the Bologna system, students have
to attend a packed three-year
bachelor’s degree immediately
followed in most cases by an equally
packed two-year master’s, and will
find it more difficult to go for a
semester abroad. This is being
addressed in some programs by
carefully planned and integrated
study program, and with full
recognition of work is ensured so that
mobility does not delay time to
graduation.
The above concern is one reason why
there is a growing interest in
joint/dual degrees providing for
structured mobility within highly
integrated joint study programs
delivered by two or more institutions
in different countries. The market for
transatlantic joint/dual degrees at the
bachelor’s level is enormous. The
Atlantis Program facilitates the
development of transatlantic dual
degrees and encourages U.S. students
to go to Europe for one year of study.
In most cases, courses attended in
Europe by U.S. students are
conducted in English; however, a
language component is generally built
into the study program for U.S.
students. This gives U.S. students the
unique opportunity to learn a
European language and earn credits.
There is the tendency in the U.S. to
favor short-term mobility
opportunities like summer schools or
short two to four week experiences.
From a European perspective, this is
the result of insufficient recognition of
study abroad periods. However, it can
be argued that the advantages of
international education are not linear.
If one doubles the duration of the
study abroad the advantages for the
students in terms of international
skills, adaptability, understanding,
cross-cultural awareness, self-
confidence, are frequently more than
doubled. Hence there is a need to
promote longer study abroad, ideally
of at least one academic semester.
One of the major obstacles to study
abroad for the U.S. students can be
parents who might be afraid to send
their children to European countries
other than the traditional UK, Italy,
France and Spain. In addition, some
parents do not like the idea of sending
their students to Europe for periods
for which they must pay very
expensive fees to the U.S. institution
while the European may charge no
tuition or if a fee is charged it is
comparatively very low. This is further
linked to a perceived risk that the
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
16
study period abroad may not be fully
recognized with the consequence that
the students upon their return to the
U.S. would need to take extra courses
and pay extra fees to obtain their U.S.
degree.
A majority of participants was
convinced that Bologna will promote
vertical mobility, that is to say
mobility of students with an
undergraduate degree obtained in a
given country enrolling in a master
course in a different country, as well
as horizontal mobility, via greater
study abroad opportunities within a
degree program. The Erasmus
program with its more than 1.5
million exchange students has been
undeniably the success story of the
European Union in the last twenty
years with implications and benefits
well beyond higher education.
(“Erasmus has shifted cultures as
nothing else” - J. Reilly). The EU has
set the target of 3 million mobile
students by 2013 and that the target
is within reach.
As to the impact of Bologna on
acceptance in the U.S. of three-year
undergraduate degrees for admission
to U.S. master programs, as
mentioned earlier a survey by the
Council of Graduate Schools (CGS)
revealed that acceptance is increasing
hand in hand with more awareness of
Bologna. The percentage of U.S.
institutions that do not accept three-
year Bologna-compliant degrees went
down from 29% in 2005 to 18% in
2006 and 80% of respondents do not
see Bologna degree structure as an
obstacle to admission to U.S.
graduated schools.
It was observed that most of the
incoming mobility in European
countries is from other European
countries and that most of the
outgoing mobility from Europe to non-
European countries is directed to the
U.S. With Bologna, it was suggested
that in the long run there may well be
more and more European students in
U.S. master degrees but that it is
unlikely that Europe will attract more
Session 4 – Tools to promote transparency/understanding of students'
educational experiences (presenter: Antoniette Charon Wauters )
ECTS (European Credit Transfer
System), the ECTS Grade
Implementation Scheme, and the
Diploma Supplement are the most
important tools that have been
adopted across the EHEA to promote
greater transparency. While
implementation can be a bit spotty in
certain countries, especially Diploma
Supplement implementation, it
appears there is quick movement to a
‘critical mass’ of institutions using
these tools more consistently.
ECTS has been a key feature of the
reform process in Europe for a
number of years. First introduced as a
pilot scheme in the Erasmus Program
in 1989, it is now widely used across
the EU and beyond. In 1999, the
signatory states in the Bologna
Process identified ECTS as a proper
means of promoting the most
widespread student mobility.
According to the official definition
“ECTS is a student-centered system
based on student workload required
to achieve the objectives of a program
of study. These objectives should be
preferably specified in terms of
learning outcomes and competencies
to be acquired. The workload of a full-
time student during one academic
year is 60 ECTS credits. It amounts
to around 1500-1800 hours per year,
which corresponds to 25-30 students
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
17
U.S. students at that level. At the
same time Bologna will make
European higher education more
attractive world wide with an
expectation that there will be more
and more students form other parts of
the worlds coming to Europe for
undergraduate or graduate studies.
work hours per credit." Student
workload consists of the time required
to complete all planned learning
activities. Credits are supposed to be
allocated to all educational
components of a study program and
reflect the quality of the work each
component requires to achieve its
specific objectives or learning
outcomes in relation to the total
quantity of work necessary to
complete a full year of study
successfully. Credits can only be
obtained after successful completion
of the work required and appropriate
assessment of the learning outcomes
achieved.
Based on the key characteristics
described above, the majority of
“Bologna” countries have adopted
country legislation on the ECTS.
However, while there is agreement on
key ECTS characteristics, there can
be disagreements on implementation.
Beyond the official language, it was
observed that the link between credits
and leaning outcome was not clear for
both the staff and for the students.
The need for fine-tuning or re-tuning
of ECTS and its implementation by
HEIs was stressed, but changing
ECTS is quite difficult as it would be
necessary to change legislation in
each member country.
Documents for all learners and
potential exchange students on ECTS
can be found in course catalogs, ECTS
learning agreements, student
application forms, and ECTS
transcript of records. It was raised
that another point requiring action by
HEIs is the need to update course
catalogue and other informational
pieces with English translations as
this would greatly facilitate quality
assessment of the educational offer by
students and by admission
departments in U.S. institutions.
A new credit system for vocational
and lifelong training (ECVET) is being
developed by the European
Commission. Some participants
criticized the fact that ECVET has not
been integrated into the ECTS and
that insufficient analysis and
consultations with stakeholders was
made. Some argued that a separate
credit system is not necessary as
ECTS can handle the needs of
vocational training.
While the ECTS Grade
Implementation Scheme (EGIS) is not
mandated, it is recommended. ECTS
grades carry credit and are awarded
to students passing the assessments
as follows:
10% ECTS A grade
25% ECTS B grade
30% ECTS C grade
25% ECTS D grade
10% ECTS E grade
FX (fail – some work required
to
pass)
F (fail – considerable work
required to pass)
Generally, in exchanges grades are
not transferred, only credits transfer.
Symposium participants noted that
the percentage of successful students
in the course is also an important
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
18
piece of information that would be
quite useful.
The European University Association
Trend V Report provides information
on the growth over the past four years
in institutions having an articulated
credit transfer and/or accumulation
system at both the BA and MA levels.
The Diploma Supplement, another
fundamental transparency tool
promoted by the European
Commission, is a direct product of the
Council of Europe/UNESCO’s
“Convention on the Recognition of
Qualification Concerning Higher
Education in the European Region”
adopted in the Lisbon in 1997. It is a
key tool for facilitating admission of
European undergraduate students to
graduate degrees in other countries
including in the U.S.
A Diploma Supplement provides
information essential to make a valid
judgment about any qualification and
includes:
 Information identifying the holder
of the qualification;
 Information identifying the
qualification;
 Information on the level of the
qualification;
 Information on the contents and
results gained;
 Information on the function of the
qualification;
 Additional information; and,
 Certification on the national higher
education system.
While the Diploma Supplement is a
critical tool, it is not an automatic
system that guarantees recognition or
a substitute for the original
qualifications or transcript.
To date, implementation of the
diploma supplement in different
European countries is uneven; work is
needed to maximize consistency and
transparency. For example, not all
institutions follow the required layout,
translation into another European
language is not always available, and
Session 5 – Status of implementation
presenter: Sebastian Forhbeck, Diana Carlin
This session featured a general
presentation on Bologna and its status
of implementation. As it had been
mentioned in an earlier session, the
concept of Bologna as an ongoing
process was stressed.
On the U.S. side, the high degree of
autonomy, decentralization and
heterogeneity of HEIs and degrees
was stressed. The work of the
Spellings' Commission was mentioned
with its emphasis on outcomes and
accountability. Internationalization is
receiving more emphasis than ever
before with more faculty involved in
international collaborations. The
recommendations of the Lincoln
Commission calling for an increase
from 200,000 to 1 million in the
number of American post-secondary
students studying abroad a year by
2010 also raised much interest. It
remains to be seen however to what
extent the proposed study abroad
program will be funded by the federal
government and other sources.
One observation was that it appears
there is a gradual move in the U.S.
from general education to more
professional degrees, while in the EU
the tendency is to complete specialist
studies with more soft skills studies.
This can be seen as a converging
trend that increases the scope of
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
19
the national grading scale is not
always explicitly described. Further,
the national usefulness of the Diploma
Supplement to students and
employers has yet to be proved. That
said, it remains an extremely useful
tool for determining the nature of the
qualification.
transatlantic cooperation at the
undergraduate level.
Awareness in the U.S. about the
Bologna process is increasing. As
mentioned earlier, a growing portion
of U.S. HEIs does not consider three-
year Bologna degrees as an issue for
their admission decisions to U.S.
master’s programs. Bologna is a
regular topic at Graduate Deans' and
other meetings of university
administrators. Bologna is also a
regular topic at NAFSA and other
international association meetings.
Credential evaluators provide regular
workshops, and there is a growing
number of opportunities to bring
Europeans and Americans together
for discussion. However, more
information, analysis and dialogues is
necessary. Participants brought
forward the idea of a conference on
Bologna and other reforms in EU and
U.S. higher education gathering
Europeans and American together.