Search News


Browse Archives

News

Wake-Up Call for American Higher Ed

May 21, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The "Bologna Process," under which Europe's higher education systems are trying to "harmonize" their colleges and universities, has for years now been attracting the attention of some American higher education leaders. Those involved in, for example, the admission of graduate students from outside the United States have considered how to consider applications from European nations under the new system.

But the latest jeremiad from Clifford Adelman -- known for his ahead-of-the-curve and politically challenging analyses of higher ed -- argues that all of higher education in the United States needs to start paying attention to Bologna and to adopting some of its features.

Specifically, Adelman cites evidence that the European countries' efforts to define what degrees and credits mean are already being embraced not only in Europe, but in the rest of the world. If American colleges don't get involved, they risk finding that the entire world defines some of the key features of higher education in different ways, and American higher ed risks being passed by.

Adelman argues that Bologna may push colleges much further toward defining learning outcomes than the Spellings Commission ever tried. While the education secretary's panel urged colleges to adopt systems to measure outcomes, the emphasis of Bologna -- both in defining degrees and credits -- is focused on specific outcomes. A bachelor's degree in engineering should mean that a graduate possesses specific skills X, Y and Z, and so forth.

The vision set out in "The Bologna Club: What U.S. Higher Education Can Learn From European Reconstruction," is sure to be controversial. As Adelman explains it, the European model for making higher education harmonized should lead to similar efforts in the United States, with states taking the place of countries, and pushing colleges for agreements on what a bachelor's degree truly represents in various fields. In plenty of states, where flagships, regional publics, community colleges and private institutions compete for students and funds -- with a range of philosophies -- that would appear easier said than done. But it is worth noting that Adelman -- who spent years at the Education Department before joining the Institute for Higher Education Policy -- has a track record of putting issues in play. The institute issued the report, which was supported by the Lumina Foundation for Education.

In an interview Tuesday, Adelman discussed several parts of Bologna that he believes pose particular challenges for American higher education. In terms of degrees, the European system is moving toward the use of "qualifications frameworks" across types of institutions and disciplines.

"It's not a wish list of things, like 'graduates will have critical thinking skills,' but a warranty statement -- it means that if you can't do those things, you aren't getting a degree," he said. And there is agreement within countries on degrees and standards, even across research universities and polytechnics, he said. There is also a clear progression of degrees, from the equivalent of an associate degree up through a doctorate. While there is a "pan-European qualification system," individual countries are permitted some customization. From country to country, "they are singing in the same key, but not necessarily the same tune," Adelman said.

Over time, Adelman said, the various countries are likely to become more closely aligned as certain nations' specific definitions for various programs attract more students or employers seeking to hire graduates.

With regard to academic credits, Adelman said that the big change being pushed in Europe is a shift from defining credits based on student contact hours with professors (the American way) to one in which the difficulty of a course is measured and defined, based on student work -- in and out of class -- and the rigor of instruction. "In the United States, we give three credits for intro to sports and three credits for econometrics," he said. In the new European system, the latter course might be worth eight credits.

Of course the obvious question is why states in the U.S. would seek to undertake a similar effort. "This will be the dominant world paradigm by 2025," Adelman said. "We can sit here and behave the same way, and if we want to be isolated and drift away from world credentialing, that's fine," he said. But in an increasingly international labor market, that will hurt both students and institutions, he added.

Adelman's report stresses that in many areas, the European emphasis on learning outcomes has led to positive policy changes that deal directly with problems facing institutions in the United States as well. For example, he said that government and institutional policy about part-time students is seriously flawed in the United States. "We either don't count them at all or mix them in with everyone else," Adelman said, and lawmakers blast community colleges when many of their part-time students take a while to graduate or earn a certificate.

The European emphasis on specific skills for a degree makes much more sense, he said. If a part-timer takes longer to learn, so what? The degree is still the same. And an emphasis on actual learning, he said, will lead to creative ideas. For example, he noted a special category of student in Sweden, in which only one course at a time is taken. It takes longer the graduate, but students learn and complete the program. "It's about student learning," Adelman said. "If all we focus on is long it takes someone to do something, you will get shallow learning out of it."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Wake-Up Call for American Higher Ed

  • Caveat emptor?
  • Posted by Abbott Katz on May 21, 2008 at 7:00am EDT
  • Whether American higher education will - or can - mediate between the prerogatives of classroom academic freedom and the quality control espoused Bologna is key. In most industries some measure of product standardization is the norm, and, if played properly, redounds to the consumer's benefit; after all, don't you want to know what you're buying? But that view doesn't resonate in the academy.

  • Wake-up -- at the start
  • Posted by Frank on May 21, 2008 at 7:00am EDT
  • IMO -- the "wake-up call" needs to be on ENTRANCE, not on exit.

    That is: fully disclose history of tuition increases, history of graduation rates as function of SAT score and high school GPA, and range of projected loan-burden on graduation. Then have student and parent/guardian sign disclosure form.

    The students and their families deserve the facts (a.k.a., the "truth." Not more marketing. It will also reduce the amount of after-enrollment hassles.

  • Beyond Student Outcomes
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on May 21, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • It would be a grave error to view the Bologna process only in terms of student outcomes, or 3 year degrees.

    Preparation is underway for the evaluation of the "newly established European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies as well" (2009).

    How ironic that the US still relies upon guild-like structures for the "quality assurance" of its institutions (i.e., regional accreditors) -- something that the centralized governments of Europe would find unacceptable once they learn more about our antiquidated system.

    But this international, outside "observation" of how we do things has had important internal consequences as well.

    Although it took decades to put in place, one of the first "lists" of accredited graduate schools in the US that was drawn up came in partial response to the University of Berlin -- when it asked the AAU what institutions were acceptable.

    As I recall, the AAU waffled, and Berlin went ahead anyway, and adopted its membership list.

    Adelman also forgets that student learning outcomes were just one of the "minimum standards" included in the HEA Amendments of 1992, which were dropped after the higher ed community and the accrediting guilds forced Congress to defund the SPREs.

    Papers are now being prepared for the international community that revisit this episode, as well as the recent defeat of the modest Spellings reforms of higher ed accreditation. Will our accreditation tradition stand up to international scrutiny?

  • Bologna Standards
  • Posted by Bill Jacobks , Instructor at Muskegon Community College on May 21, 2008 at 8:20am EDT
  • If this potential movement is to be anything more than another statistical attempt to show that American education is corporatizing, then the model of higher ed. teaching must change.
    1.A separation of those who teach and those who research will be needed together with the ability to shift back and forth between the two.
    2.Colleges classes will need to emphasize learning. Learning means the ability to critically and thoughtfully read, write, and create. This can only be done in a socratic style teaching model and that means smaller classes and more interaction between students and professors.
    3.The public perception of higher education must change from credentially to achieving wisdom. While abilities must be gtd.(a B.A. must mean the ability to self-teach), skills without reflective thought are useless and can be replaced by much less expensive cd's that employers could buy, and will buy.
    4.College students must move from education as a rite of passage to college education as a process of learning to learn.

    I doubt seriously that the Bologna movement and its US supporters really have any of this in mind. I suspect that the goal is simply standardized reporting that is ultimately meaningless in higher education.
    Bill Jacobks.

  • Student Learning
  • Posted by Henry on May 21, 2008 at 8:40am EDT
  • The Europeans really get it--student learning is what really counts. Employers no longer respect your "great tradition and heritage as a world-class research or liberal arts institution." They only respect what your graduates can do and the persons they are. It has nothing to do with entrance and everything to do with value added to students who have entered.

    Our degrees will continue to be meaningless paper (when is the last time you saw any sheepskin?) until we develop cultures of evidence. Our reactionary stance against Spellings do not bode well in the face of true progress. Just what is it that we are afraid of, anyway? Perhaps the rest of the world will accomplish much more than what Margaret was attempting, which was to get us to SHOW that our students are learniing.

  • Posted by Humanities Graduate Student on May 21, 2008 at 9:00am EDT
  • To add to what Frank and Bill have noted, it seems to me that a "warranty" of basic skills and abilities is a good idea for some degrees and fields. As someone who has experience in both classroom instruction and corporate hiring, I agree that a job candidate who holds a BA in the humanities, social sciences, or had sciences should be expected to be able to do X, Y, and Z.

    But for other students, like myself, who are pursuing terminal degrees, I work under the assumption that the job market itself will have those expectations. For example, with my PhD in literature, any potential academic employer expects that I will be able to teach the surveys and seminars, advise students, research and publish, serve on committees, and do all of it for almost no money and no free time. Here's an instance where new grad students should know just what they're getting into before filing an application. But at the end of that training, my PhD assures employers that I am ready and able to work as a junior faculty member. My friends in med school and law school have the same experience.

    My question, then, is what value do the European standards offer to graduate or professional students seeking terminal degrees? Why isn't the market a better arbiter of degree standards?

  • Credit hours
  • Posted by Ollie , Professor on May 21, 2008 at 9:20am EDT
  • We have had this "functional fixation" for far too long. For instance, all course are 3 semester credit hours, with a related lab an extra credit hour. Years ago I suggested [with some specific recommendations] instituting varied credit hours, 2 for some material that was diluted at 3; and 4 or 5 for some material that was forcibly jammed into 3. The idea immediately died when an administrator said, "How would you make sure everyone's teaching load was the same. It simply cannot be done."

    So, we continue with the unequal workload among and between 3 credit hour courses. Sigh!

  • looking ahead
  • Posted by christopher sharrock on May 21, 2008 at 9:30am EDT
  • Yet another very fine article from insidehighered.com. I was aware (from previous readings) that US HE seems a little wary of the Bologna Process for a number of reasons. Those of us in HE are right to be sceptical about many things that pop up as ‘reforms’ but I believe the Bologna Process (and other similar proposed structures) need careful consideration. Remember, the Bologna Process was a bottom-up development: the fact that it has been so widely adopted is an indication of its popularity, not the strength of government dictat.

    If you are involved in international admissions then you really ought to be adapting/adopting the Bologna processes if you want to keep your flow of international students (and not just from the EU). A major plank of the agreement on quality, frameworks and credits is to enable easy student mobility within the 46 countries signed up to the Bologna Process. The European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) was designed to improve the quality of European higher education and to promote greater student mobility. It was devised by the E4 Group- the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), the European Students Union (ESU), the European University Association (EUA) and the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE). The inclusion of the ESU highlights that this is not just about having a common framework but also a move away from what Professors want to teach towards what students need to learn.

    In addition, Europe, like the UK (and Japan right now) is looking to a demographic time bomb around 2010 when there may be a shortfall of 19 year olds to attend its universities and colleges. Traditionally the comparative lack of places in HE in Europe has meant many students study abroad (in the US and UK). The EQAR will be one way in which they try to hang on to their students. Plus a more flexible way of studying will enable the increasingly large portion of the population approaching 50 to access education.

    It’s not just the EU that is looking at regional agreements on quality and standards. Malaysia- in the past a great exporter of students as well as an importer of foreign HEIs has, through the Malaysian Qualifications Agency (MQA), set up the Malaysian Qualifications Register (MQR). This is a list of all HEIs (public and for profit) that have been accredited by the MQA. It is one of the ways the Malaysian Ministry of Education is trying to improve the international competitiveness of its HEIs, faced as it is with rising competition from China, Singapore and India. (Recently a senior figure in the Malaysian government complained that the importing of his country’s students by the UK was far too much a one-way process and there ought to be more students coming to Malaysia to study.)

    Also, the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation (SAARC) plans to establish South Asia’s first multi-country institution, the South Asia University. This is to be modelled on the great US Ivy League universities and it is intended to become an international ‘centre of excellence’ for students across the region. National governments of the individual SAARC members (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives and Sri Lanka) are to be approached to arrange multi-country visas to enable easy student mobility.

    Australian HEIs are aligning themselves to Bologna and the Chinese are said to be taking a healthy interest in it, since it may inform the way in which they manage their provision.

    The UK is, strangely, less keen on it than might be expected. The three year Bachelors degree is pretty well-embedded here but the Postgraduate programmes have shrunk from two years to one, primarily due to funding problems rather than any academic rationale. There was even (at the Royal College of Art) a three year MA programme until several years ago when, for a number of reasons, money included no doubt (their funding changed) it became a two year MA. University bosses are reluctant to move to a two year MA as they simply can’t see how to fund it and nor can students, unless it’s part-time.

    At the risk of offending many US readers I have to say that the four year degree is not seen as sacrosanct or special over here (except in Scottish art schools- but that is under review). In my area of practice (art and design) when we take US students on transfer, we usually put them in the year below that which they are enrolled on at home. I don’t know if there is much point in clinging to four years. After all, we could go back to Joshua Reynolds’ Academy School model where you could spend six of your seven years drawing from plaster casts before you got to draw a real naked human being in the life room if the tutor didn’t think you were good enough. These days we expect someone who has studied for six years to have an MA. What has happened? Where they sloppy and slow in those days? Are our students so much better and smarter than those stupid idiots like Turner and Constable? Are we all, tutors and students, so much smarter?

    I think we have changed what we teach and how we teach, especially in UK art schools. We don’t teach techniques, we develop the individual. This is where the learning outcomes have helped. They lay down broad guidelines of what students ought to be exploring and developing but they leave it to the individual Course or Programme manager to devise how the student is introduced to the areas and how the student demonstrates they have learned. I revalidated the undergraduate programme at my college a year ago so that all eleven of the undergraduate courses had common learning outcomes. I did it to make the student experience better (and it seems to be working).

    I would recommend wary or doubting US academics to look at the excellent work being done in Australian HEIs. As an example, just type ‘Sydney College of the Arts: Contextualised Graduate Attributes’ into your search engine and see how they do things.

  • Ahead of what curve?
  • Posted by Metric Joe on May 21, 2008 at 9:40am EDT
  • And while we're at it, let's change all our highway speed and distance signs to kilometers, or is it kilometres?

  • Bologna process for languages
  • Posted by Éric , Professeur de FLE at Alliance Française on May 21, 2008 at 10:05am EDT
  • As an American who teaches languages (French, English) abroad, the use and adoption of the CECRL (Cadre Européen Commun de Référence en Langues) would make greater sense. There are "exit exams" for each of the 6 levels already in place for each language : A1 and A2 (Beginner low @ 65-125 hrs, and high @ 130-250 hours of language), B1 and B2 (Intermediate low @ 300-450 hrs, and high @ 600-750 hours), and C1 and C2 (Advanced low @ 900 hrs, and high @ 1000+ hours).
    I personally have taken the B2 and C2 exams and can say that the C2 level exam is as intense in French as what I went through for my MA Comps (1hr prep and 30 min exam for the oral portion and 3h30m exam for the written portion).
    I have had an introduction to evaluating CECRL exams during a couple of inservice and teacher training sessions and can say that it is definitely what we need in the US for evaluating language ability. That way, your/your students' level can be determined when looking for a job inside and outside of the US requiring language skills. I have since begun to employ the leveling criteria for each level into my class exams and modeling my exams to prepare my students for the appropriate next-level exams.
    As a person who has taken the exams and has my two language diplomas (valid lifelong, much as a Bachelors, Masters or Doctoral diploma), there is definitely merit to the system of the Bologna process. It also testifies not just to my abilities and aptitudes for languages, but also to the work of my middle school, high school, college and graduate school French teachers and professors who prepared me to be able to teach French for the Alliance Française.
    I cannot attest to the other areas, but in languages the CECRL is definitely where the US should have been a long time ago.
    Some of what I have learned in my additional teacher training has indicated to me that for French (at least), the Europeans are not only starting to catch up on language learning in theory but also to pass the US on language learning and instruction in practice.
    I feel that the US colleges and universities should really, and I mean really, either adopt the Bologna process soon or develop and adopt even sooner a similar process. For 5 years the CECRL has been published and implemented and it makes transference of credits much easier to evaluate, thus potentially bringing down some of the cost of education for students who transfer from school to school or who take classes abroad and want to have the classes accepted towards their degrees.

  • The Author Responds
  • Posted by Cliff Adelman on May 21, 2008 at 10:30am EDT
  • I love InsideHighered commentaries! Everybody has their own agenda and experience with which the issues are assessed. New dimensions come into the discussion. It's a good thermometer.

    But do yourselves a favor: click on the link, and read at least the Exec Summ. For the rest of it, you will need your hiking boots, but you will learn a lot---I promise!

    As for the Spellings Commission: they didn't begin to understand what either accountability or learning outcomes mean. They didn't bother to look beyond their own borders to see how others have wrestled with these issues---to greater or lesser success. You don't learn unless you do your homework, and the Commission didn't. . .

  • Wow... Cliff
  • Posted by Steve Brody on May 21, 2008 at 11:05am EDT
  • Sour grapes much?

  • The Europeans have always been outcomes oriented
  • Posted by Kim@cs.pomona.edu on May 21, 2008 at 1:40pm EDT
  • Something that is worth thinking about is that the general European style of university teaching is to provide a series of lectures throughout the year with little or no intermediate assignments, exams, or feedback. At the end of the year, students are given a series of high stakes exams which essentially determine their grades. A high percentage of students fail and then continue attempting the exams until they pass.

    Students often do little work ahead of the exams, creating a culture in which much attempted learning is crammed into the last few weeks before the exam. Most American faculty members see this as a very ineffective way of teaching. Yet one could see how this system would make it easier to move to one based on learning outcomes (they were mainly there already).

    For those of us that believe the American style of college teaching is more effective, the fact that the Europeans have moved this way as part of the Bologna process is neither surprising nor compelling (in spite of the other good things that the Bologna process have brought about).

  • One world order - NOT
  • Posted by EC on May 21, 2008 at 2:10pm EDT
  • How about we allow the Europeans to do it their way and allow Americans to do it our way? If students want to study in Europe - deal with the requirements. The same should apply to Europeans wanting to study in America. Those highly educated Italians who have demonstrated mastery of the learning outcomes detailed by their brilliant system of higher education and who cannot remove the garbage off their streets may want to revisit their learning outcomes. We enjoy enough challenges in America without the teach-to-the-test approach touted by Secretary Spellings and the rest of the bureaucrats. And while we're at it, let us try selling American families the idea of seven-year undergraduate degrees based on the opinion of some genius art professor. Good luck.

  • Sounds Better Than It Is award
  • Posted by Rod Bell , Adjunct Professor at College of DuPage on May 21, 2008 at 2:35pm EDT
  • There's no question that we could use better information about the content and quality of degrees, courses, and other education metrics. The current education market is a volatile mess, and it's easy to feel like the sky is falling. --And, yes, the EU types tend to respond to such situations with well reasoned and earnestly pursued projects aimed at bringing order and transparency. But more often than not, the market stampedes ahead toward an invisible goal, trampling these attempts to impose order.

    Anyone with a passing familiarity with the problem of computer networking protocols--finding some standards for networking different kinds of computers and peripheral devices--may have encountered the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) protocol, a valiant attempt to bring order to the welter of protocols in the 1970s and 80s. It was cool; it made a lot of sense. And it was blown away by market-driven technological advances. Sometimes market forces may have hindered development (MicroSoft has certainly been accused in this connection), but overall, it can hardly be disputed, the business and consumer appetite for IT has driven competition among providers toward astonishing progress.

    Of all human undertakings, surely "education" seeks to provide results that derive from a constantly evolving process, the quest for knowledge, that can never be standardized for long. When world demand for a degree from out top institutions starts to dry up, I don't think it will be a result of our failure to standardize our degrees. I think it will be a result of our universities' failing to push the knowledge envelope (and maybe the teaching envelope as well) as far as foreign universities have. We've got enough problems just dealing with special interest groups who demand numerical equity (when it suits them) in our top research and teaching institutions, without adding levels of government or NGO controls in the name of improving the education market.

  • re: Sports versus Economics
  • Posted by Peter C. Herman , Prof. at SDSU on May 21, 2008 at 3:10pm EDT
  • “In the United States, we give three credits for intro to sports and three credits for econometrics,” he said. In the new European system, the latter course might be worth eight credits.

    Perhaps, or perhaps not. Yesterday, readers of IHE learned that the president of Georgia State University did not believe that GSU is a "real university" because it did not have a football team.

  • In Lieu of Grades
  • Posted by Jonathan Dresner on May 21, 2008 at 3:10pm EDT
  • I like the idea of adjusting credits for rigor (though the meetings at which that's hashed out are going to be loud and vicious) and I like the idea of focusing on outcomes instead of the process-oriented grade system we currently use.

    I see three immediate effects: the obliteration of sports programs, the creation of exit exams both for general knowledge and in specific fields, and (I hope) a much greater emphasis on pedagogy (and decreased emphasis on student satisfaction surveys).

  • Contra Adelman
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on May 21, 2008 at 10:40pm EDT
  • It is quite beside the point that "...the Spellings Commission ... didn’t begin to understand what either accountability or learning outcomes mean. They didn’t bother to look beyond their own borders to see how others have wrestled with these issues" --

    because just bringing up the issue has made folks like Ward and Crow apoplectic!

    When Spellings spoke, colleges and universities, and their accreditors, circled their wagons and sent out the general alarm to the troops -- just like in 1992.

    This prior history continues today -- and dictates institution-wide reponses to the "threat against autonomy" -- thus stifling discussion about real reform.

    Sure, the NCA had a flurry of suggestive papers on accountability measures, but it remains to be seen if this will amount to anything that can be compared to the Bologna process.

  • Adelman and Ward Apologist
  • Posted by B at UW-Madison on May 22, 2008 at 5:10am EDT
  • Glen,

    You say, "When Spellings spoke, colleges and universities, and their accreditors, circled their wagons and sent out the general alarm to the troops — just like in 1992" as though it were a bad thing.

    Consider the ACE & Co. response as a lesson learned from NCLB. Remember, the American "system" of PSE is vastly larger and more decentralized than the EU. Add in the unfortunate reality that the Secretary is 1 part educator and 4 parts politician. Sure, its a political system, but Colleges and Universities would be remiss not to protect themselves.

    Any meaningful and comparable measures of assessment are going to be from a collaborative effort (like the NASULGC VSA)and most likely driven by market forces, not from the bully pulpit.

  • update on bologna- UK response
  • Posted by chrsitopher sharrock on May 22, 2008 at 9:20am EDT
  • The UK Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) have, this morning, published a report about the possible threat to UK recruitment of international students as a result of developments in the Bologna Process.
    http://www.hepi.ac.uk/pubdetail.asp?ID=251&DOC=reports

  • Posted by Ralph deLaubenfels on May 22, 2008 at 11:30am EDT
  • Degrees have to have some standardization or they're meaningless. My wife learned much more math getting a bachelor's degree at Berkeley than many master's degree (to be precise, what is called a master's degree--this sometimes means nothing more than taking some undergraduate classes) holders, but is barred from applying for any of the numerous teaching jobs that require a master's degree.

    Without some sort of external control, degrees are going to rapidly get more meaningless. The growing number of schools that exist to sell degrees are offering a better deal, to people who only want a degree, by decreasing the amount of learning required to get a degree; for a certain cynical sort of ``customer,'' knowledge acquired is the cost that needs to be minimized.

    Whatever measurement is made, to determine what constitutes a degree, it needs to be made by a different institution than the one providing instruction. For an analogy, imagine driving tests and licenses being given by driving schools. To make their instruction more valuable, the schools would be strongly tempted to give driver's licenses to people who completed their instruction but weren't qualified to drive safely; there's an automatic conflict of interest.

  • A&W Apologist Redux
  • Posted by B at UW-Madison on May 22, 2008 at 12:05pm EDT
  • Ralph,

    You really think we need some sort of standardization to know that a Berkeley Degree in Mathematics is held in a higher esteem than one from SE Maine Ag & Tech College?

  • Re: A&W apologist redux
  • Posted by Ralph deLaubenfels on May 22, 2008 at 1:50pm EDT
  • Employers don't know, or profess to not know, that a bachelor's degree from Berkeley means more than many master's degrees. Many, probably the vast majority, of colleges require a master's degree, without specifying where the degree is from.
    When looking for work, students can be severely penalized for going to a good school, by having, for the same effort and achievements, a bachelor's degree instead of (what is fraudulently labelled as) a master's degree from a bad school.

    Then there's the much broader category of schools where most people, including employers, may not know which ones are better. What a degree should do is communicate, unambiguously, what has been
    learned, without having to apply as many inflation factors as there are schools.

  • Re: Re: A&W Redux
  • Posted by B at UW-Madison on May 22, 2008 at 2:25pm EDT
  • I give a bit more credit to employers, but point taken.

    So, is the result of your standardized degree system an elevation of the "other" institutions or a dumbing down of the Berkeley Baccalaureate?

  • Posted by Ralph deLaubenfels on May 22, 2008 at 5:35pm EDT
  • In my ideal world, what would be more important than elevating or ``dumbing down'' (choice depending on the school) material covered would be more accurate evaluations of what has been learned. For example, a degree obtained purely by taking undergraduate classes should be an undergraduate degree rather than a master's degree. A class that spends more time on algebra than calculus should be called an algebra class, or, at best, ``algebra with introduction to calculus,'' rather than being called a calculus class.

  • Australia's reponse to Bologna
  • Posted by Genevieve Hassall on May 22, 2008 at 10:30pm EDT
  • Just to clarify Australia's reponse to Bologna. Australia is not aiming to align itself with the Bologna Process but it is monitoring Bologna developments closely.

    During 2006, DEST led a national consultation process to explore the implications of the Bologna Process for Australian higher education. A discussion paper was released in April 2006 to stimulate discussion and submissions were invited. Key issues to emerge from responses to the discussion paper included:
    the need for a unified and a national approach to exploring the issues;
    oan early consideration of potential funding implications;
    othe need for involvement of Australia’s Asia-Pacific education partners; and
    othe importance of maintaining the diversity and flexibility offered by Australia’s current system.

    In the consultations conducted on Bologna there was consistent support for progressing a diploma supplement. This is seen as an important way to enhance mobility and provide greater transparency in relation to the nature, structure and quality assurance mechanisms of Australian degrees.

    The government commissioned project on developing a national diploma supplement has recently been finalised and can be found at http://www.une.edu.au/pdal/research/chemp/projects/dipsup/index.php

  • Australia and BP
  • Posted by christopher sharrock on May 23, 2008 at 6:55am EDT
  • It's a while since I read the discussion paper (Bologna Process and Australia:next steps)and I was actually quoting opinions I got from some senior academics at a couple of Australian universities.

    On revisiting the discussion paper it seems I was wrong- but not alone. Subsequent follow-up presentations on this paper accept it seemed to (wrongly)imply alignment. I stand corrected ;-)

    Now maybe I can try and remember how to spell my own name....

  • metircs for defining a credit?
  • Posted by Connie Tzenis at University of Minnesota on May 23, 2008 at 3:20pm EDT
  • I'd like to learn more about the metrics this plan proposes for determining a credit unit. Can anything lead me to this information? Thanks!

    tzeni001@umn.edu

  • Wake-up Call
  • Posted by Eugene Stelzig , Distinguished Tchg. Professor at SUNY Geneseo on May 24, 2008 at 9:25am EDT
  • The European higher ed (Bologna) model currently being implemented sounds, as described, as if it's focused mostly on the techne side of knowledge: specific skills or skill sets associated with a particular degree and level: "This degree is a warranty that the holder is possessed of the following skills and knowledge." While in some ways this is laudable as a sort of quality control that assures a minimal level of verifiable and certified qualification in a particular field--as an English professor, for instance, I'm appalled to see English majors graduate who can't write correct and grammatical English--in other ways it clearly runs counter to the basic idea of "liberal arts": critical and creative thinking skills that can't easily be quantified or certified.
    The "Bologna" model would work better for accountants, engineers, and lab technicians than it would for liberal arts majors. That is, unless one wishes to make the English or Philosophy major uniform in terms of requirements and coverage across the board, in institutions both small and large, public and private: a frightening thought.

  • re: metrics for defining credit
  • Posted by christopher sharrock on May 25, 2008 at 8:25am EDT
  • I am not sure if this is exactly what you are looking for, but if you click on the 'Bologna Club' link in the fifth paragraph of the original article above, you can download the whole report. Section 4 deals with how we (and others in Europe) deal with learning outcomes and credits.

  • One small step toward "harmonization"
  • Posted by Mike Offerman on May 28, 2008 at 3:35pm EDT
  • On page XV of the Executive Summary of Mr. Adelman’s publication, the following statement is made: “Student “success” does not mean merely that you have been awarded a degree, but that you have learned something substantial along the way and that the world knows what you have learned, what skills you have mastered, and that you have the momentum to meet the rising knowledge content of the global economy.”

    Several colleges and universities in this country that serve adult students at a distance have taken this approach to heart and are engaged in sorting out how to clearly articulate intended learning outcomes, measure them, and make aggregate results public. To lay out the knowledge, skills and abilities a student should have when completing a particular degree program and how well each institution is delivering on the intended outcomes. Our effort is known as Transparency by Design and, while what we are doing does not approach the work of the European institutions, we would hope that the work we are doing might lead to the kind of “harmonization” Mr. Adelman cites. See http://www.theother85percent.com for more on this effort.

    And thanks to Mr. Adelman for another fine piece of writing.