America and the Bologna Process

The European process of harmonisation of degree structures is also causing discussions on the other side of the Atlantic. The participating countries have implemented (or are implementing) a three tier degree structure (Bachelor, Master, PhD). In most countries, the undergraduate phase will take three years. In my opinion, one reason for this rather short duration, is the fact that many countries - like the Netherlands - saw their previous 4 year degrees (doctorandus, licentiaat, magister and what have you) as equivalent to a Master's degree. And because governments did not want Bologna to lead to extra funding, they needed to stuff the Bachelor and Master into 4 years.

But what if you plan to do a Master's degree in the US, after your European three-year bachelor? According to Daniel Denecke of the US Council of Graduate Studies, resistance to recognizing three-year degrees at American graduate schools is rampant, although there were some trends toward acceptance of the new European model:

29 percent said they did not accept three-year undergraduate year degrees in 2005; that number dropped to 18 percent in 2006. In 2005, 9 percent said they’d offer provisional acceptance to applicants with three-year degrees, a number that fell to 4 percent in 2006. The percentage of universities that indicated they’d evaluate the degree for its equivalence rose from 40 to 49 percent in the year, while the percentage of institutions that consider a student’s competency on an individual basis increased from 22 to 29 percent.

"What we’re seeing is a trend line toward greater acceptance of three-year degrees and greater nuance as to how universities are able to establish the suitability of that student to succeed in a university."

But, as Inside HigherEd reports, in Europe academics are also debating the preparatory value of the three-year degree in itself. David Crosier, program director for the European University Association:

"Although things are changing quickly, there’s still a sense among many, that everyone in a university who gets a bachelor’s should go on and get a master’s as well. This is maybe a problematic issue, given that the master’s was developed to be a specific cycle with its own goals, and that those goals should be built around the labor market so that people will have sufficient skills to move out of higher education if they want to"

It touches a few fundamental issues. First of all, is three years of higher education enough to enter the labor market? Like Crosier said and other surveys have shown, both employers and students in Europe still see the four (3+1) year master's degree as the standard. This actually reduces the Bologna reform to some extra flexibility in the last year. On the other hand, such changes need time...

The other question it brings forward: is a three year European Bachelor's degree equivalent to a four year US Bachelor's degree? European programmes are usually specialised from the beginning, while the US degrees provide more general education. In a comment on an earlier Inside HigherEd article on this issue, someone (from the US) claims:

"Our college students in their freshman year typically not only have to focus on the general education they didn’t receive in high school, but on the basic language and study skills they never received at all."

That's probably overstated, but it is true that US students receive more general education in their university studies. Whether this is necessary to 'catch up' or whether this means that US students will have a broader body of knowledge, I don't know. Most probably it depends very much on the college that they attend (and the high school they attended before that). At the same time, it is an illusion to think that with the harmonisation of degrees, the degrees in all European countries and all European universities will be of the same standard.

Bologna in London

The Fifth Ministerial Conference on the Bologna Process - a bi-annual event where the progress of the Bologna Process is monitored and new actions are decided upon - took place in London last week. This basically means a bombardment of papers, reports and speeches about what's been going on and what needs to be done, coming from everyone that is somehow related to higher education. All this has culminated in the London Communique (pdf).

I haven't had the time to go through all the documents yet, but the Communique does'nt seem to hold many surprises (which is not surprising of course for an inter-governmental document set up by over 40 countries). I did however read about an interesting option by Franck Vandenbroucke (in Dutch), Flemish minister of education and host for the Sixth Conference in 2009. He argues that the difference between the late and early adopters of the Bologna principles is too wide and that it is better for the early staters to explore the next frontiers for European cooperation, instead of waiting for the rest to catch up.

Euractiv has an article about the different perspectives on the outcome of the 5th Ministerial Conference. Here's my interpretation:

The European Union:

We want universities to be liberated from the shackles of state domination (you'll be better of with us)!

European Students:

It's all about us so you better take us seriously! Or else...

European Universities:

If you give us more freedom and more money we will give you whatever you want (and pay for)

European Business:

Actually, we have no clue what we want so we'll just repeat that we want your graduates to be interdisciplinary, process oriented and adaptable problem solvers that can work in teams. You figure it out...

The Brits:

We should all adopt similar standards... preferably the British ones

Thou Shalt Compete

The Economist gives a short review of the Bologna process and explains how it will inevitably increase competition in Europe. But for 'Old Europe' (as the Economist likes to call it) this requires more than just some structural changes:

"The more hidebound European universities must be wondering what on earth they have started. Self-interest has prodded them to think about students as customers: both wealthy foreign ones, and bright locals tempted to finish their studies overseas. Governments have realised they could save money if their universities made students study a bit more briskly, gaining degrees and entering the workforce earlier. Universities are beginning to compete for the brightest and best European exchange students too. But that's the problem with trying to become competitive. Before you know it, you may find yourself having to compete."

Read the full article here

EIT and Policy Research

A few weeks ago, I discussed a study of Luc Soete and Peter Tindemans on the feasibility of the European Institute of Technology. On the basis of a comprehensive analysis, they concluded that the decentralized EIT that has been proposed by the Commission was not feasible. It is too dispersed; it would not increase significantly the research output in a field; it cannot match a top tier university in providing an environment for training graduates; and a dispersed institute cannot adequately organize technology transfer. As an alternative, they suggested a clustered model for an EIT. Food for thought, you would think...

In the last weekend of April, EU competitiveness ministers backed a German EU presidency initiative on gradual progress towards a European Institute of Technology. In a public hearingCommissioner Figel said that it was time for the initial EIT plans to reach a conclusion. He claimed that there is a positive momentum now: "either we get it now or it's lost".

Obviously I was surprised to read nothing about the Soete/Tindemans study in the report of the hearing. As far as I could see, the design and organisation of the EIT presented in the hearing was exactly the same as the one suggested by the Commission before the study was published. This is all the more surprising considering that the research was conducted for a committee of the European Parliament. Of course government bodies are not obliged to follow the recommendations of reports that they have commissioned. But you would expect that it would at least be taken into consideration, especially since the authors are well known and respected researchers in this field.

This seems to be a typical example of the political (ab)use of policy research and policy analysis. If the results and recommendations are politically opportune and correspond with the politicians objectives they are praised and heralded as ground breaking landmark studies. If not, let's just neglect them and get on with what we planned.

You would at least hope that decision makers on research policies in Europe would take research seriously...

Yet Another EIT (or EITs)?

A study team led by Peter Tindemans (former Chair of the OECD Megascience Forum) and Luc Soete, Director of UNU-MERIT, a joint research and training centre of United Nations University and Maastricht University in the Netherlands) has proposed yet another structure for the European Institute of technology.

Originally proposed by Commission President José Manuel Barroso as part of the relaunched Lisbon Agenda, the aim of the EIT is to strengthen the European 'knowledge-triangle' of research, education and technology. The European Commission first expressed a preference for the EIT as a single institution. After a consultation of a wide range of stakeholders it proposed (pdf) a decentralised network structure in October 2006.

This EIT is organised around six Knowledge and Innovation Communities (KICs). These KIC's should be seen as joint-ventures of partner organisations representing universities, research organisations and businesses which are intended to form an integrated partnership in response to calls for proposals from the EIT.

Tindemans and Soete find that the decentralized EIT that has been proposed by the Commission is found to be not feasible. It is too dispersed; it would not increase significantly the research output in a field; it cannot match a top tier university in providing an environment for training graduates; and a dispersed institute cannot adequately organize technology transfer. Instead of the decentralised model, they propose a clustered model. One of the major implications seems to be that there will be multiple EITs and that they will be more geared towards the regional context.

While they acknowledge that the underlying rationale for setting up the EIT is critical, they caution against making blanket assumptions about Europe’s inability to convert knowledge into commerce, to organize critical mass, or to reward entrepreneurship and excellence in research and education. The study team cites evidence from the latest European Commission Innovation Scoreboard, which found that several of the smaller European countries and Germany perform significantly better than, or as well as the US and Japan (see below). Not all EU countries, regions and institutions have problems with converting knowledge into commerce and critical mass, rewarding entrepreneurship and excellence in research and education. The authors warn that ignoring this fact might result in assuming too easily that a European level institutional solution is necessary in cases where national or regional approaches might be more appropriate.

(click to enlarge)

The report proposes an alternative that does support existing local strongholds in research, education and innovation. This so-called Cluster EIT would see ambitious and successful regions and universities compete to create strong institutes of several hundred staff at or linked to a strong university, and working closely with industry on problems that determine long-term industrial development. In the case of the US such institutes too are concentrated around elite institutions such as Massachusetts, Stanford, Austin and San Diego.

Another interesting point made by Soete:

“Nobody in the US would think of establishing an AIT (American Institute of Technology) so if we think of creating a European Institute of Technology it should recognize the present strongholds in research, in graduate training and in innovation. Otherwise, it will represent little more than what the French call ‘un saupoudrage’ of undoubtedly substantial additional research monies but which spread over such a wide number of research centres will barely make an impact.”

In their report (pdf) they further explain their recommendation for a 'cluster EIT' and also provide the financial aspects of this organisational form (see also the news item from Euractive). I only had a quick look at the report but at first glance I think they make some good points. It seems that the role of the Commission would become more distant in this proposal, while the regions would become more involved in the development of the EITs. I wonder how the Commission will react to these suggestions. A public hearing on the EIT takes place in the European Parliament on 8 May this year.

Reality TV enters Academia

A cross between 'University Challenge' and 'The Apprentice'. That's how The Times describes a new TV show in India: Scholar Hunt - Destination UK. In the show, students will compete for full scholarhips to the universities of Leeds, Warwick, Cardiff, Sheffield and Middlesex. They will follow the students going through the exams, interviews and other tests for the scholarships. Each of the British universities will award one scholarship for a 3 year degree worth 45000 Pounds.

Arun Thapar, the show’s producer and presenter:

“It’s survival of the fittest, but hopefully this will provide someone with a life-changing opportunity. “We’ll be doing things that will be very engaging. The drama — the laughter and the tears — will be a key part of it.”

Mr Thapar also added that the universities would choose the questions and would not compromise their usual admission standards. The show, which will begin transmitting in India in July, combines the Indian craze for studying overseas with the growing popularity of reality TV. It also reflects the ambitions of British universities to recruit more Indian students in the face of cheaper competition from other Western countries.

According to The Times, NDTV is expecting tens of thousands of students to apply when registration starts via an online test on their website later this month. The top 2,000 applicants will then be filmed sitting exams and the top 200 will be interviewed on camera by a panel including university representatives. The top 100 will enter a studio quiz to select the 20 finalists. Finally, a second studio quiz will choose the five winners.

I tried to have a look at their website. But...it didn't work. Too popular perhaps?

Brussels vs. Brussels

In a letter of formal notice, the Commission has recently 'ordered' the Austrian and Belgian governments to change their entry requirements for other EU students(*). The Commission argued that the caps and quotas that have been put in place by these governments are in breach of Article 12 of the EU Treaty ("Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited").

A law introduced last year was intended to cut the number of non-Belgians accepted on certain courses like physiotherapy and verterinary medicine by implementing a cap of 30%. Before this law, as many as 80% of the places on these and other courses linked to medicine were filled by French students who did not meet the access requirements in their own country. The Belgian Government argues that this puts undue strain on universities and colleges and undermines its domestic goals in educating medical professionals. This very much resembles the fierce reaction of Austrian chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer.

According to the Times HE Supplement, the Belgian Minister for Higher Education, Marie-Dominique Simonet, is ready to take up the battle with the Commission:

Simonet argues that this is simply the beginning of a process that will allow the Government to show that its system is not discriminatory. She is ready to resort to legal avenues. "It is not for the Commission but for the European Court of Justice to say if the 30 per cent limit is against European law," she said. In 2005, the court found that a broader limit in Austria was disproportionate rather than unjustified.

Instead of abolishing the quota, Simonet even intends to tighten the regulations for future foreign EU students. She has proposed measures to close a loophole whereby residency can be earned by working for six months in Belgium. She plans to extend the requirement to 15 months, making it even harder for foreign EU students to gain access to these programmes.

The Austrian and Belgian governments had until 24 March to respond to the letter of formal notice. I haven't seen any of the reactions yet. I'll keep you posted on this issue.

(*) See the posts on Europeanisation by stealth, Higher education and Europe, More Europeanisation and Austria versus Brussels for past developments in these cases. See also this post on European integration in higher education.

Debunking EU Myths?

Andrew Moravcsik, Professor of Politics at Princeton University comes to the defence of Europe. Moravcsik is probably one of the most influential contemporary writers on European Politics and introduced a liberal inter-governmentalist approach to the study of European Integration (see for instance this book). On the occasion of the EU's 50th birthday he writes an article in Newsweek - The Golden Moment - debunking the myths of Europe's allegedly sclerotic economies, labour markets and politics. Europe is not a continental-size museum dropping into the dustbin of history...on the contrary.

Economically, Europe is doing a lot better than is often claimed by 'the pundits'. Even though Italy and France may be lagging a bit, Britain is booming and so are the Nordic countries. Central and Eastern European countries are showing even higher growth rates than the US. Slovakia, Estonia and Latvia are even growing at 10 percent or more annually. And this can even be done with a stable welfare state:

Despite nearly 50 percent tax rates and cradle-to-grave welfare benefits, Northern European social democracies like Denmark, Sweden and Finland grab half of the top slots in the World Economic Forum's ranking of the world's most competitive economies. "Nordic social democracy remains robust," says Anthony Giddens, former head of the London School of Economics—"not because it has resisted reform, but because it embraced it." (...) Remember those six to eight weeks of vacation every European is assured? Most Americans say they would make the same trade-off—if only their employers would permit it.

He also addresses Europe's demographic challenges and explains why immigration can be a feasible solution for this, despite the recent problems with Muslim integration/assimilation in some countries. He argues that the greater diversity of future immigrant groups (because of the current selective policies) will solve those problems:

In the end, the specter of restive immigrant populations unsettling Europe, let alone undermining its culture, is overblown to the point of unreality.

Final point is Europe's role in global politics. He is very clear here: the world is bipolar, and the other pole is Europe.

Consider how the EU began, 50 years ago, as a parochial Franco-German entente. Today, it's the model for a continent. The EU expansion, subsuming a dozen former communist states, has been the surest exercise in democracy promotion since the end of the cold war.(...) It has extended the reach of democracy and free markets within and beyond its borders—in a way that American neocons can only dream about—and is becoming a model to the developing world. It is the "quiet superpower."

Europe's tools go well beyond EU enlargement. The EU is the largest trading and investment partner of every nation in the Middle East. The EU provides 70 percent of the foreign aid and humanitarian assistance in the world today. Almost all the world's peacekeeping and policing forces, outside of Iraq, are staffed or funded primarily by Europeans—Lebanon, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, Afghanistan.

True or not, it's significant that 50 years after the EU's march to unity began, it is now Europe, not the United States, that's held up as a new lamp unto nations.

I too think that the European Union has achieved a lot in its 50 years, possibly more than optimists held possible at the signing of the Treaty of Rome in 1957. I also think that a 50 year old sometimes needs some innovative ideas and a good overhaul in order to face the future. Yes...many arguments can be brought forward against the optimism of Moravcsik. But why would you do that to someone that just turned 50 years old?

Update: I guess I was right about the arguments against Moravcsik's optimism. Here are a few, with a rejoinder of Moravcsik. And here on bloggingheads.tv is an interesting discussion about the article (and the EU in general) between Henry Farrell and Daniel Drezner.

Legrain on immigrants

Tonight I attended a lecture (in the Sydney Ideas Series) from Philippe Legrain on his latest book: Immigrants: your country needs them. It was also the occasion of his Sydney book launch but luckily - in this open world - I ordered the book a month ago from the UK (and thereby avoided the high Australian book prices).

Legrain's lecture will be available on the University of Sydney podcasts site, but here's a short impression of both book and lecture. In short, Legrain's message is: Let them in! Because it's better for 'Us' and it's better for 'Them' and for the countries where 'They' come from. Being trained as an economist at LSE in London, it's not surprising that this message is very much based on economic rationales.

Many countries already have accepted the belief that allowing highly skilled migrants to enter the country is a necessity in order to survive in the current global knowledge economy. Legrain first of all argues that rigid and bureacratic assessment systems - like used in Australia - don't make any sense since governments simply don't know what the labour market needs will be in the future. Furthermore, innovation can not be attributed to specific types of people, but requires diversity and creativity.

What is more provacative is Legrain's compelling case for immigration of low skilled workers. Because 'we' not just need managers, but also cleaners and taxi drivers and since 'We' don't want to do these jobs anymore, and 'They' do, we should let 'Them' in. And of course there are plenty of humanitarian reasons to do so as well.

Obviously, the immigrants themselves will benefit if western countries open their borders to legal immigration. But so do the countries where they come from, both through the skills that the immigrants return if they go back and through the remittances they send home. These remittances make up between 200 and 600 billion US$ and end up right in the pockets of the people that need it most. Compare this with the 80 billion US$ in development assistance, which might end up in the wrong pockets (or Swiss bank accounts).

While reading the book I frequently agreed with Legrain's economic arguments, but I kept asking myself: what about the friction between the 'Us' and the 'Them' after 'They' immigrate, so apparent especially after 9/11. In the last few chapters Legrain does address the issue, especially for the cases of the Latinos in the US and the Muslims in Europe (he especially addresses the problems in France, Germany and the Netherlands).

I often had the feeling that I was not the one that needed convincing; the people in inner city London, Amsterdam, New York or Sydney are not the ones that needed convincing. And I am afraid that the ones he has to convince are not very receptive to these arguments. I think I agree with Roy Williams' conclusion in The Australian:

"These are lofty ideals, yet most people in the West remain old-fashioned nationalists. They love their country viscerally and as it is, or as it was when they were younger. Rightly or wrongly, they view immigration with caution, even regret."

I hope that Legrain's book will at least make people think twice about all the myths (and political rhetoric?) surrounding the issue of immigration. The book is definitely worth a read!

Austria vs. Brussels

The case of the Austrian Europeanisation by stealth and the European Commissions' (EC) recent letter of formal notice continues... The Austrian chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer thinks that the EC not only affects the Austrian higher education policies but also jeopardizes the Austrian health system. He has said he will resist Brussels' push for equal access of all EU students to Austria's medical faculties.

"Vienna and Berlin have been and are still in agreement on the quotas scheme, and it is preposturous that some doctrinaires describe something as discriminatory which is not being perceived as discriminatory at all by the governments concerned," he added.

"It is a fact that more than 90 percent of German medical students at our universities return to Germany. It can't be the task of the EU to jeopardize our health care. Those doctrinaires who are pushing for free educational access should broaden their perspective and take into account the effects on health care."

"This is none of the commission's business," Mr Gusenbauer indicated, according to Germany's Die Welt. "It should meanwhile ask itself whether it is not itself contributing to European citizens increasingly turning away from the institutions. Boundaries are being crossed here which should not be crossed."

Germany and Austria agree with each other. However, the European Commission seems to think just a bit more 'European' than the Germans and the Austrians. It might be 'none of the commissions business' as Gusenbauer says, but let's wait and see how the Commission and the European Court of Justice will respond.

Greek resistance

More than six thousand students and academics marched through the centre of Athens last night to oppose government plans to reform the country's higher education system and allow private universities to operate in Greece.

The protests reflect the rising tension over the reforms proposed by government, which would break a major taboo in Greece by allowing private universities to operate under state supervision and to issue state-recognized degrees. Academic staff began a three-day strike Wednesday, and have threatened open-ended strikes from next week. State primary and secondary school teachers held a sympathy work stoppage. The protest has become a weekly march to the Greek parliament against the planned reform. The protesters vowed to keep coming back until the bill was scrapped.

The Australian reports:

The protests have crippled the country's tertiary education system, with more than 300 university departments closed due to student sit-in protests against the bill before the busy February exam period. "I do not care if I miss my exams because of these protests," student Marina Iosifidou said. "There is a higher goal here and that is to keep state education in public hands and cost free."

Maybe this student and her fellow protestors should think twice before rejecting the option of allowing private universities to operate in Greece. After all...they need them!

(click here to enlarge)

Greek higher education is very dependent on the UK higher education system, having over 20,000 students in the UK (see table above). Here, students pay (high) tuition fees to be able to attend higher education, which they cannot get in their own country. In addition, Greece sends about 20,000 students to other countries in the EU, making it the largest importer of higher education in Europe. Maybe allowing other (private) universities in the country isn't such a bad idea after all...

More Europeanisation

On the 24th of January, a so-called 'letter of formal notice' has been sent by the European Commission to the governments of Austria and Belgium. The letter concerns the 'Europeanisation by stealth' that I have addressed before here for the case of Austria and here for the case of Belgium. These governments thought they found a solution for the high influx of foreign students (respectively German and French) in some of their universities.

European law - Article 12 of the EC Treaty - prohibits discrimination on the basis of nationality. In Austria, they thought they found a way to circumvent European law by discriminating not on the basis of nationality (which was addressed by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in July 2005) but on the basis of the location where students obtained their secondary education. Now it seems that the Commission considers that Austria has still not complied with the ECJ's ruling:

"In the case of Austria, this is a follow-up to the judgement of the European Court of Justice in July 2005. The Austrian legislation had required that the holders of secondary education diplomas from other Member States had to prove that they have met conditions governing access to the higher education in their home country (e.g. passing the entrance exams). The Court held that Austria's legislation discriminated against holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in another Member State, since they could not gain access to Austrian higher education under the same conditions as holders of the equivalent Austrian diploma (Article 12, 149, 150 of the EC Treaty). As regards a possible justification of such discrimination, the ECJ stated in particular that Austria "failed to demonstrate that ... the existence of the Austrian education system in general and the safeguarding of the homogeneity of higher education in particular would be jeopardized”, in the absence of restrictive measures, by the number of students coming from other countries, mainly Germany.

Following the Court's decision, Austria provisionally amended the relevant Universities Act twice, firstly in July 2005 to abide the Court's decision then, in June 2006, to re-establish restrictions to the access. The latter amendment specified that, for some studies, 75 % of the study places could be reserved to applicants with a secondary education diploma acquired in Austria (and 20 % to other EU students, the remaining 5% to third-countries students). A subsequent decree stipulated that these quotas were to be introduced for medicine and dental studies till the end of 2007.

Today's letter of formal notice – based on Article 228 of the Treaties (i.e. non-application of an ECJ ruling)- indicates that the Commission, having analysed the justifications put forward so far by the Austrian authorities, considers at this stage that Austria has still not complied with the ECJ's ruling and invites accordingly Austria to submit its observations."

Reforms in Belgium (the Wallonian part) last year restricted the number of foreign students in particular degrees like veterinary science and physiotherapy. Many French students studied in Belgium because they are required to go through entrance exams in France. While writing about that case in March last year, I already predicted that this might constitute a breach of Article 12. In their letter, the Commission seems to agree:

"With today's letter of formal notice, the European Commission indicates – for similar reasons as in the Austrian case – that this system has discriminatory effect on the EU nationals not residing in Belgium and that Belgium failed to justify the introduction of this system."

Both Member States have now 2 months to respond to the letter of formal notice of the Commission. A letter of formal notice has no direct legal consequences but it is considered the first step of infringement proceedings which could lead to cases before the ECJ.

Most likely there will be more similar cases like this in the near future. The EU Observer for instance addresses the Denmark case:

"Meanwhile Denmark - which has many Swedish students in its universities - is looking at what Copenhagen may do to stop the influx from across the Oresund strait."We have to find a solution at the EU [level]," Danish science minister Helge Sander said in July 2006, after it emerged that one third of students accepted in Danish medical faculties that year were Swedish."

So why do I keep coming back to this issue? The cases in themselves of course do have a significant local impact. But it is more about the bigger picture: the loss of national sovereignty over an issue that has always been firmly within the authority of national governments. To what extent can a 'non discrimination' principle function in a service that is still seen as very important for the advancement of national society, national culture and the national economy.

Here, it could be interesting to make a comparison with the United States. In the US, discrimination on the basis of the 'state of origin' is a normal practice. Some public universities (the State Universities) have a clear mandate to recruit a certain part of their student population from their own region (some states or university systems set caps on the proportion of students that can be enrolled from other states) and are allowed to charge higher tuition to out-of-state students. One could conclude that higher education in the United states of Europe is more integrated than in the United States of America...

The pressure from the Commission and the rulings of the ECJ can especially have an important impact upon policies regulating student fees. If selection on the basis of nationality is no longer possible, it will become unsustainable to provide free education in some countries. After all, this is likely to create an influx of foreign students from other EU member countries (for which the tax payers in the host country are probably unwilling to pay). As we have seen in the cases above, not only tuition fees, but also other barriers to access might cause such an outflux.

In the ScienceGuide I read the reaction of the chairman of the National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), Koen Geven. He says that the letter of the Commission came too late and is too soft. Nevertheless, they are happy the Commission is finally taking action, because these two countries (Belgium and Austria) have been neglecting one of the most fundamental principles in the European Union - non discrimination - for too long.

I would think that the ultimate consequences of this increased Europeanisation of higher education might turn out to be very much contradictory to the guiding principles of some national student unions (for instance with regards to tuition fees and other financial issues, like providing financial student support to - national - students). I wonder what the Austrian and Belgium members of the ESIB think of the Commissions letter! Geven also says that the countries where the students come from should reconsider their regulations with respect to access to higher education. Indirectly that would mean - in this case - that Germany and France should harmonise their policies towards 'a European standard', leading to further convergence in the field and threatening the - so much treasured - diversity in European higher education.

I think the Commission is well aware of the senstivity of the issue on the longer term. It clearly shows that in the press release:

"The Commission recognises the sensitivity of the issue of access to universities in various Member States. While pursuing its role as guardian of the Treaties, it remains open to continue the dialogue with both the Austrian and Belgian authorities."

I'll keep a close eye on further developments in this case.

The Ivy League Liga: Round 2

2006 has been somewhat of a revolutionary year for German higher education. The system where all universities were considered of equal quality and therefore were subjected to equal treatment by the government, experienced quite a stir.

German Minister of Research and Education Annette Schavan announced in October last year that the Ludwig-Maximilian University (Munchen) and the Technical University of Munchen and the University of Karlsruhe became Germany's first 'elite universities'. The three institutions are the biggest winners in Germany's 'excellence initiative'. This was established to improve the country's chronically under-funded universities (and its decreasing reputation abroad), by encouraging high level research and competition. The three universities will receive around 120 million euros each in federal and state funds over the next five years.

This week, the finalists for the second round were announced. Being one of the winners is crucial considering that getting designated 'elite' will mean enjoying a piece of the 1.9 billion euros pie, made available from 2007 to 2011. This time the result seems less skewed towards technology, and less towards the southern part of Germany than the first round. The finalists include two institutes of higher education in Berlin, the Free University and the Humboldt University. The others are the RWTH Aachen and the universities of Bochum, Freiburg, Gottingen, Heidelberg and Constance.

The final decision on which of these eight will be designated 'elite' will be made in October.

Some interesting views from the German academic community on the excellence initiative can be heard in this radio interview (from NPR; 4:26 in english):

Listen to the interview in Realplayer

Listen to the interview in Windows Media Player

.

Whose European Higher Education?

Last Month, the Dutch Central Planning Agency (CPB; international name: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis) published a report on the role of Europe in higher education: "Higher education: Time for coordination on a European level?" (in English). More specifically, they asked the question whether there are valid reasons for more European (as opposed to national) coordination of higher education. Their final conclusion is NO: there is little empirical data that supports a shift towards European coordination of higher education. The authors claim that neither economies of scale, nor the existence of external spill-overs substantially justify an increased European role.

However, looking at European developments in the last few decades, I do see that there is a shift from national coordination towards European coordination. Question then is of course: why does this happen? And who pushes for increased Europeanisation if there are no justified reasons for nation states to do so? Clearly, many other parties do have a steak in further Europeanisation of HE:

1. Students, Employers and Professions. Student mobility in Europe will have (indirect) consequences for national policies. Increased mobility will demand increased coordination and standardisation at the European level. One of the consequences here has been the European Credit Transfer System, standardising the credit systems in European systems. In the future, the principle of non-discrimination might well pose severe obstacles for the discretionary capacity of states to offer free higher education for their nationals. The CPB report shows that most students aren't very mobile and are not willing to go abroad to find quality education, but usually start their higher education close at home. I think however that - in due time - the European BaMa structure will lead to a substantial increase in mobility in the Masters stage, especially if the (financial) benefits of a prestigious 'foreign' Masters degree becomes more visible. With the increase in mobility of professionals there will also be more demand for standardisation and transparency in degrees and qualifications from the side of employers and of professional organisations (lawyers, medicine, accountants, etc). Simply said: increased movement and mobility leads to the necessity of coordination and facilitation of these flows. Be it flows of telephone calls or gigabytes or of students, academics, credits, services.

2. European Institutions. Many European rules have been created to coordinate and facilitate these flows. These rules were not at all related to higher education. Rulings of the European Court of Justice however, have had a substantial effect on the authority of national governments over their 'own' national higher education systems. In many instances, European law - that was not created to regulate higher education - indirectly affected higher education. Several ECJ cases in the 70s and 80s were related to education, revolving around issues like access to education for non-nationals in member states and eligibility for particular provisions and the relation with the principles of non-discrimination (for an excellent analysis, see Verbruggen, 2002, in Dutch). One of the best known examples of this was the Gravier Case.

Two points in the Court's ruling of the Gravier Case were relevant to the European Community's competencies in higher education. First, the ruling stated that a non-national student cannot be charged an additional fee as a condition of access if nationals of the host state do not pay the same fee. Secondly, by stating that higher education could be seen as vocational, the Court defacto extended the competencies of the Community, since vocational training was already part of the Treaty and related provisions now could also apply to (parts of) higher education.

The principle of non-discrimination together with the rules on the free mobility of persons, workers and services increasingly impact higher education even though they were not created to do so. The growing role of the ECJ in this 'Europeanisation by stealth' is illustrated by a recent example: the German medicine students in Austria. In this case, substantial national reforms can be traced back to ECJ rulings. Other national regulations on access to programmes might be proven to be counter to European law, like the case of French students applying for Belgian programmes in veterinary science and physiotherapy.

3. Universities. Universities will strategically try to lift coordination to the European level whenever they see benefits for themselves; in other cases they will ally with their national governments. The 'European level' creates an extra avenue for universities in which to operate. As a response they have created a dense network of relations with other universities in order to exploit - politically or financially - their European opportunities. With more financial resources spent on European initiatives, especially fuelled by the European Lisbon Agenda promoting innovation, universities will operate and cooperate more on a European scale in order to gain access to the financial and political resources. This lifts coordination up to a European scale directly as well as indirectly. Directly through the inter-organisational coordination of activities among universities. Indirectly through the emergence of an ever denser European policy community, existing of universities, university networks, intermediary bodies, resource providers and official EU institutions.

4. The European policy community in HE. The emergence of this European policy community in higher education has become a self-reinforcing process. The informal and formal networks and the numerous European organisations active in the field of higher education have all gained a vested interest in ongoing European integration. This is clear for official European institutions like the Commission, Parliament and ECJ, but it also goes for networks and organisations like the European University Association (EUA), National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), European Association for International Education (EAIE), Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE), the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), etc. or inter-university networks like Coimbra Group, ECIU, LERU, the Santander Group, UNICA, etc., etc., etc.

The CPB might have found that there are not many reasons for increased European coordination. I think that this will not stop the Europenisation process. All in all, I think an increasing role of 'Europe' in national higher education is inevitable. The big question however is: who is 'Europe'. Will the Commission and the ECJ take on the role previously performed by nation states in the coordination of higher education? Will it be an outcome of the interplay between universities, students, professions and employers? Or will it still be the member states, that are becoming more and more 'Europeanised' themselves. A mixture probably.

So, is it "time for coordination on a European level?" I think the question assumes too much agency, especially at the side of national governments. Whether it is time or not, it is happening. And it is not likely to stop.

Renaissance or Decay?

In the Financial Times, Richard Lambert proposes six steps to revitalise Europe's higher education (thanks to Biz Deans Talk for pointing me to the article). I'm glad that Lambert first of all points to the fact that there are differences within and between countries in Europe on this issue.

Countries such as the Netherlands, Austria and Denmark have in recent years greatly improved the way their universities are run. The UK has some of the best research universities in the world. But European institutions are not well placed to compete in what has become a global competition for talent. In countries such as Italy, France and Germany, there is a kind of drab uniformity across a sector that is struggling.

Higher Education across Europe is crying out for reform. Not surprisingly (from a former FT Editor), these reforms mainly mean a shift away from state control. His six steps, although not revolutionary new, make a lot of sense:

1. Governance. Universities that are an emanation of the state, as is in effect the case in France and Italy, have very little control over their resources and are unable to set relevant academic priorities. The best universities in the world all have the autonomy needed to manage their own affairs in an efficient fashion.

True! But beware that autonomy usually also brings the need for accountability. This is fine. However, governments tend to create a lot of red tape in order to make their universities accountable.

2. Funding. Higher education needs to be properly funded, meaning a figure near to 2% of GDP (while it is around 1.2% now). Lambert claims that public funding in the US is basically the same as in Europe and is appr. 1%.

This is more or less correct, although the percentage in the Scandinavian countries is much higher (see also this graph from my previous post on an OECD report). The big difference is in private funding, which is around 1.4% in the US and around 0.1% in Europe. According to Lambert, "all the big countries in Europe will sooner or later have to introduce tuition fees. The UK has started the process and Germany is moving in the same direction." In the Netherlands, tuition fees have been introduced in the 1980s and recently also in Austria. However tuition is still very modest compared to the US or UK fees. Lambert concludes that for the introduction of tuition fees "the political challenge in France will be enormous". I think that's even an understatement..

I think the US model is not the only model that is worth considering here. High public spending in Denmark, Sweden and Finland have led to high quality and accessible higher education systems in these countries. I think that, if this high public spending is combined with a modest tuition fee (giving students more power to demand quality), the quality of education is or can become on par with many of the prestigious US and UK universities.

Also, US universities operate in a very different tax environment. The US universities are not just dependent on tuition fees but also on the generosity of alumni and of private companies and foundations. Since European taxes are considerably higher than in the US, it remains to be seen whether European professionals and companies (readers of the FT?) will ever be as generous to universities as their American counterparts.

Another issue that can be related to the private funding in education is the income inequality in countries. Due to the high level of income inequality in the US - compared to for instance Scandinavian countries - the return of investment that US students get from their higher education is relatively much higher than in Europe. US students will therefore be more willing to pay for their higher education. Does that mean Europe has to increase its income inequality...?

3. Selectivity. European countries are going to have to become much more selective in the way they allocate resources. There are nearly 2000 universities in the EU, most of which aspire to conduct research and offer postgraduate degrees. By contrast, fewer than 250 US universities award postgraduate degrees and fewer than 100 are recognised as research intensive. No wonder the US dominates the league tables of the world's best research universities, given this concentration of resources.

I can agree with this to some extent. Lambert's argument however starts from the assumption that more concentration is better, and I am not sure whether that assumption is necessarily valid. The US might lead the world's top 200 of Universities but surely, Europe should not base its policies on the basis of league tables. Maybe there are 1500 universities in the top 2000 of the world's best universities and only 200 American ones? Would that be a bad thing? In general I don't think so, although there is the risk of Europe losing some of their top brains to the prestigeous institutions in the US.

Even if we want more institutional diversity (in terms of quality), this is not a change that governments or 'Europe' will decide upon. They can implement funding schemes that channel the available resources to the best researchers. Actually, they're already doing that in many/most European countries. What does Lambert want? Considering his 'liberal' attitude, I guess he does not want to implement measures for the compulsory relocation of researchers.

Take the Netherlands as an example. The 14 Dutch universities are generally seen as equal in quality. Students make their choices on the bases of the programmes these universities offer, and then probably on the basis of the attractiveness or vicinity of the city in which the university is located. Not so much on institutional quality or prestige! Much of the research funding is on a competitive basis, but - to my knowledge - there are no specific winner or loser institutions in this resource allocation process. That's simply because most of the 'top'-academics (as well as the mediocre ones) are dispersed over the 14 universities as well. Who then is going to make the selection of universities and on the basis of what? If 'the market' needs to do this, it won't happen overnight!

Lambert then continues on the issue of student selection. "Selectivity is also important when it comes to accepting students. World-class universities have to be free to pick their own talent rather than to take what comes - as happens now in large parts of Europe."

For continental Europe we need to ask ourselves again: who are these world-class universities? In principle I see no wrong in selection. Although I think that the greatest quality of the world's most prestigious institutions (the Harvards, MITs, and the Oxbridges) is not so much that a student benefits from their quality of teaching (since the first-class teachers usually will have their minds elsewhere than on undergraduate teaching), but that they benefit from the challenging interaction with their fellow students.

On the other hand, selection in European universities is not something you can just implement overnight, as was experienced by Leiden University. They experimented with selection on the basis of high school grades. After a year they concluded that this would exclude too many students that turned out to perform very well in university (even though they might have had low grades in high school).

I think selection is simply not as easy as it sounds. First of all, students have to be able to choose (see step 4, below). Second, it brings along a culture of competition which might not (yet) be fully compatible with the European higher education 'culture'. What is also often overlooked here is that a lot of selection does take place within Europe, but usually in the earlier phases, through a differentiation in high schools.

4. Diversity. Europe needs to develop a much more diverse system of higher education. Rather than attempting to make them all equal, the aim should be to create a rich mix of institutions - some offering world-class teaching and research, others concentrating on regional or local needs. Germany recognises this challenge with its plans to fund a small group of elite institutions.

This of course relates to the issue of selectivity again. Again, my question to Lambert would be: how can we achieve this? I don't know about the Germany initiative that he writes about, but how does that work? If they are already elite institutions, the diversity does already exist. If they become elite because of the selective government funding, on the basis of what were they chosen and more important, by whom? Most of Lamberts suggestions start from a market prespective. Closing down universities or privileging some universities over others does not really fit within this framework.

5. Curriculum reform. This is already under way in more than 40 countries across the Continent, through what is known as the Bologna process. It is essential that universities manage this change efficiently - and that employers recognise the value of bachelor degrees, rather than insisting that recruits should spend five or six years in higher education.

I think Lambert touches upon an important issue here: how will the labour market value the European bachelor degrees. My impression is that many students and many employers will see the former degrees (such as Licentiate, Doctorandus degree, Magister degree, and what have you) as roughly equivalent to the new Master degree. I think universities really need to design the BA/BSc in such a way that it does respond to the demands of the labour markets and that they need to convince students and future employers of this. On the other hand, universities probably want to retain their BA/BSc students and try to convince them to do a postgraduate degree. After all: more students = more money...

6. Avoid top-down initiatives. Europe needs to avoid the temptation of top-down initiatives, which invariably turn out to be expensive distractions. The European Institute of Technology proposed by José Manuel Barroso, European Commission president, is a classic of this type. Much better to devote any extra funding to the new European Research Council, which will allocate its money solely on the basis of peer-reviewed excellence.

I tend to agree with this. Central planning simply does not mix very well with innovation. But the same goes for the selection of elite universities which is necessary for a more diversified system (step 4 and 5). Institutional diversity from the bottum-up is something that gradually needs to evolve out of competitive selection. This however is a process that will take a long time and needs more than just a change in funding mechanisms. It also requires a cultural switch in the mindset of many universities and education ministries, and also in the mindsets of students and employers.

Higher Education in Europe is changing. In some countries these changes have been more radical than in others. Some countries - in their desire to create their own Harvards or MITs - follow blindly what the 'experts' say. In other countries, minor changes cause major disturbances, paralysing their higher education systems. Reforms are necessary, but these reforms need to be compatible with the wider political, cultural and economic environment in Europe. Creating a European MIT sounds flashy, but starting from your own strengths sounds more realistic.

The article in the FT was based on a report of the Centre for European Reform, co-authored by Richard Lambert: The Future of European Universities: Renaissance or decay?

Pardon my French, but...

Because of globalisation, national governments face more difficulties in collecting sufficient taxes to keep their countries going. Alain Lamassoure, a French member of the European Parliament has found the answer:

"The economic value of today's globalisation lies in information through transactions in the form of international communication. Why don't we levy taxes on this value?"

"A small tax on an SMS from Paris to another French city could be allocated to the French government, but taxes on emails or SMS messages from Paris to Rome could be dedicated to the EU budget. In France an SMS costs 15 cents. We could tax it by 1.5 cents, or less."

"For email, the rate could be as little as 0.00001 Euro. This is peanuts, but given the billions of transactions every day, this could still raise an immense income."

No wonder the French voted 'no' on Europe... On the other hand, it might significantly reduce the amount of spam.

I guess some other Eurpean problems would deserve more urgent French attention, but... that would cost the French government a lot of money.

...and keep your tray table and seat in the full upright position

For my flight to the United States I took some news articles that might be of interest and on which I might post later on. Here's a list of what I thought might be worthwile:

An article on the risks that Australian universities are taking by focusing so (too?) heavily on the international student market. Universities are risking their academic reputation by rushing into dubious offshore ventures and are leaving themselves financially exposed as the boom in overseas students tapers off. A report from NSW Auditor-General Bob Sendt finds universities have become too reliant on overseas students and need to find other sources of revenue:

• Foreign risks for universities (The Australian)

And in Europe, the Commission recently came up with some recommendations on how to improve higher education and make it more responsive. Or in other words, the present some thoughts on:

• why European higher education systems must be modernised? (EC Memo)
  

Although the Commission does not have any substantial authority in the field of higher education, they more and more try to incorporate higher ed. in their Lisbon Strategy. Often, they prefer to do that by using the power of exaggeration. The European Commissioner for Education has a stark warning:

• Get a grip or be 'beautiful museums' (Times HE Supplement / subscription)

But the universities themselves have some toughts about this issue as well. The League of European Research Universities (Leru), said: "We welcome the recent EU acknowledgement that universities play a key role in society, but there must be much more emphasis on the diversity of universities, and funding must be based on the excellence of their particular outputs." Read about it here:

• Europe's top 20 demand action (Times HE Supplement / subscription)

And then on a more general topic.. While global competition intensifies, governments devise strategies to protect jobs, industries and reputation. The Yale Center for the Study of Globalization analyzes contrasting approaches to managing globalization that have emerged in Europe, one from France and the other from Denmark.

• Europe Faces Globalization-Part I
• Europe Faces Globalization-Part II

But of course there's also a fully loaded iPod [lots of songs and some podcasts, among which the podcasts of the ongoing Key Concepts Public Lecture Series of the Research Institute of the Humanities and Social Sciences of the University of Sydney], and a good book. Hopefully that's enough to get me from SYD, over the ocean to SFO and via ORD to RDU.

The costs of free education?

Higher Education in 'Old Europe' has had some pretty bad exposure again. Examples from Germany and France show that free education can be pretty costly. The Dutch ScienceGuide has a small item on an awkward German issue. Roughly translated and summarised:

Five lecturers for 3000 students in German Linguistics was not sufficient at Paderborn University. "One professor had been ill for a long time and another lectureship was discontinued" the students complained and they took matters in their own hands. They collected money and recruited a lecturer from Bielefeld. She responded: "Of course I can only do this because it is only a onetime solution and because I'm very flexible due to my half-time position in Bielefeld." The executive board of the university has to check whether this complies with the university regulations. After the introduction of tuition fees next year (which was a controversial issue) both the university and the students hope for a more permanent solution.

This of course is a unique situation. The New York Times however, reports on the Nanterre campus of the University of Paris to illustrate the general situation in French higher education (except for the Grand Ecoles). Read for yourself and you'll conclude that it's not a pretty picture. In my view, the following passage best illustrates the cost of free education:

A second-year student in law and history complained about the lack of courses in English for students of international law. But asked whether he would be willing to pay a higher fee for better services, he replied: "The university is a public service. The state must pay." A poster that hangs throughout the campus halls echoed that sentiment: "To study is a right, not a privilege."

Of course, education is (to some extent) a 'right' that should be accessible regardless of class or status. But if free education can't be sustained, high quality education seems to become a privilege for the few.

ASEAN (and the EU)

The foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) are meeting in the beautiful mountain resort of Ubud in Bali this week. An editorial in the Jakarta Post calls for renewed action in the association:

"ASEAN risks becoming irrelevant if it does not respond to the huge challenges it faces today, nearly 40 years after it was first formed. The foreign ministers have the task of convincing the international community that the regional grouping continues to be relevant by taking strong action against any members who threaten the existence of the association.

Established with a grand vision, ASEAN is increasingly seen as ineffectual. Apart from becoming a never-ending talking circuit -- it sometimes seems not a day passes without a meeting linked to ASEAN -- it has done very little in the way of practical action."

The editorial links ASEAN's lack of action mainly to the Myanmar issue. Myanmar's inclusion into ASEAN has until now not led to any significant changes. On the other hand, the adjourning of diplomatic relations by other countries have also not led to any results. Besides, it wouldn't be fair to judge ASEAN's actions solely on the basis of the Myanmar issue.

Compared with many other regional groupings, ASEAN has performed fairly well. Although it started (in August 1967) mainly as cooperation for security reasons, it has launched an ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) in the 1990s and it now covers a wide range of other issues, ranging from telecommunications to education.

Last year, an 'Eminent Persons Group', consisting of former political leaders from the 10 countries, was established to think about ASEAN's way forward and the drawing up of a charter.

"Members of the Eminent Persons Group are close to agreeing on means to strengthen the role of the ASEAN secretary-general and effecting a sanction mechanism for recalcitrant members. The 10 members also want more involvement of citizens of ASEAN countries in the decision-making process to ensure the grouping is not seen merely as an exclusive club for government officials and civil servants. They also agreed that the present ASEAN approach to decision-making through consensus has to be revised."

"To make ASEAN more people-oriented, an ASEAN Consultative Assembly, consisting of members of parliaments and representatives of civil society, could provide advice, feedback and oversight. Decision making needs to be redefined and redesigned, when consensus is required and when voting can be used. In the case of voting, what should be seen as adequate: 50 + 1, two-thirds, or three-quarters?"

At the same time, the Jakarta-based ASEAN Institute for Strategic and International Studies (ASEAN-ISIS) proposed the establishment of an ASEAN Court of Justice which should serve as an independent body.

"The Court of Justice would ensure the timely resolution of any regional disputes that arise based on agreed rules and obligations and the norms and principles of international law. The ASEAN Court of Justice, according to the proposal, should be given jurisdiction over economic agreements, interstate disputes and ASEAN agreements."

These new developments - a Charter, a Court of Justice, an Assembly including civil society actors, a shift away from decision-making by unanimity - show a great deal of similarity with European developments. The question therefore comes up: will ASEAN become like the EU? Former Secretary General Severino addressed this question five years ago. His answer?

"Most likely not. At least not exactly. As the EU itself acknowledges, it is unique as a regional organization and will probably remain so. But we can expect domestic and external forces, the logic of globalization, and the imperatives of regionalism to move ASEAN to resemble the EU more closely than it does today, and as ASEAN evolves, more closely than we can foresee today."

(Jakarta Post quotes are from its 18 and 19 April editions. They are not directly linked because the JP does not use stable links.)

Around the World in 1 Post

I haven't had the time to write many posts this week. Besides, I did not come across any news items of real urgency this week. However, a few items caught my attention.

***

First, there was an interesting statement of Australia's Minister of Education Julie Bishop. She claims that uniform degree structures, a diploma supplement and international recognition of qualifications are among radical changes Australia needs to adopt to meet competition from a powerful higher education bloc forming in Europe. She warns that if Australia does not align itself with the changes taking place in 45 European countries under the Bologna Declaration, it will be left out of the tent. The risk is that students will no longer want to study here and those who graduate from Australian universities will find it harder to have their qualifications recognised overseas.

"The Bologna process seems likely to have a profound effect on the development of higher education globally," the paper says, acknowledging that other continents are considering it. "Lack of movement on Bologna compatibility will make it harder for Australia to demonstrate to the Europeans its bona fides in this area."

Julie Bishop expressed her concerns at a meeting of 30 education ministers from the Asia Pacific in Brisbane where they discussed their response to the challenges posed by the European Bologna Process. I have heard some people in Southeast Asia also expressing an interest in joining the process or starting a similar regional process in the region.

***

A second item is not really new, but worthwhile to read. The US News & World Report has an article on 'Blogging your way to academe'. It's about the perils and promises of academics that maintain a weblog that is somehow related to their academic activities. Some time ago the Chronicle published a few letters by 'Ivan Tribble' about the risks of blogging and especially, academic bloggers using their own names.

I haven't read much about this issue in Europe or Australia. Australia has some respected academics that maintain a weblog. Some examples from political science and economics are John Quiggen from the University of Queensland and the group blog 'Larvatus Prodeo' maintained by Mark Bahnisch of Griffith University. Some in Australia even argue that academics should blog or be damned (but obviously his arguments are rather weak and one-sided). And of course there are the Sydney Uni students blogging their way through campus life.

In the Netherlands I have not yet come across many academic bloggers. I think some members of the popular group blog Sargasso are academics. One of their new members, a female scientists that goes by the name of Akufu, keeps an individual academic weblog as well. If anyone is aware of any other Dutch academic bloggers, let me know!

***

A final thing that caught my attention is not so much a current issue but is something that has astonished me for some time now. For my own research I keep track of the news related to higher education and science in Southeast Asia and especially Malaysia and Indonesia. What amazes me about the mainstream media in Malaysia is their extensive coverage of higher education related issues. Higher education (and education in general) takes in such an important position in Malaysian society and politics that issues related to the quality of their universities are widely reported. The issue about university rankings for instance was widely discussed in the Star. The recent resignation of the Vice Chancellor of the University of Malaya and the s