University Association Conference: ‘Innovative Strategies for Higher Education in Latin America and Europe’ (Sao Paulo, Brazil, 11-14 November 2012)
EUA is pleased to announce the opening of registrations for the first major bi-regional conference of university associations and their members from Latin America and Europe. Part of the ALFA PUENTES project, this event will take place in Sao Paulo, Brazil, from 11 to 14 November 2012. The event will focus on a wide range of issues including the changing role of universities in society, higher education modernisation and strategic priorities for HE collaboration between and within both regions.
The conference is hosted by Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), in conjunction with Universidade Federal Sao Carlos, Universidade Estadual de Campinas and Universidade Sao Paulo (USP). It is organised by EUA, the coordinator of the ALFA PUENTES project, and the Association of Universities ‘Grupo Montevideo’, the project lead of the Mercosur region. It is also supported by the rectors’ conferences of Germany (HRK), Spain (CRUE), Poland (CRASP), France (CPU) and Portugal (CRUP), which are project partners.
Targeting in particular university leadership (rectors and vice-rectors) and the leadership of national rectors’ conferences, the event aims to welcome approximately 175 to 200 participants from Latin America and Europe.
Several side events are being organised on a pre-registration basis, such as visits to the Paulista universities, and a meeting for secretary generals and presidents of rectors’ conferences in both regions.
More information can be found on the official conference website.
To express your interest in participating and to register, please contact: alfapuentes@eua.be.
The ALFA PUENTES project, launched in 2011 and supported by the European Commission, aims at building capacity at the level of university associations in Latin America and Europe as important drivers in the internationalisation and regional integration agendas. It is led by the European University Association in close cooperation with its member associations, the national rectors’ associations of Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and Poland, and with 17 national and regional university associations in Latin America, the EU-Latin America Observatory (OBREAL) and the Santander Group of Universities (AGS).

Following last week’s agreement between EU ministers for research on an overall framework for the proposed Horizon 2020 research and innovation funding programme (2014-2020), EUA participated on behalf of its members on Wednesday in an important Horizon 2020 hearing organised by the European People's Party (EPP Group) in the European Parliament.
The EPP hearing included key figures from the European Parliament, including MEPs Christian Ehler, Rapporteur for the Rules for the Participation in 'Horizon 2020', and Maria da Graça Carvalho, Rapporteur on the Specific Programme of Horizon 2020. EUA Deputy Secretary General, Dr John Smith, was invited to present on EUA’s viewpoint on the Horizon 2020 proposals in relation to simplification. In particular, it was an opportunity to underline the importance of preserving the universities’ financial sustainability over the long term, one of the key elements of EUA’s recent input on the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation.
Dr Smith welcomed the fact that the proposed rules foresee 100% reimbursement of direct costs. However, he highlighted that the European Commission’s proposal for a single reimbursement rate (100% of direct costs and a flat rate of 20%), does not achieve the necessary balance between reducing complexity and responding to the real needs of different actors. He told the audience that the 20% flat rate was too low, as it does not sufficiently cover actual indirect project costs. This would lead to two undesirable effects: it would discourage universities that have already implemented full costing from participating in the programme, and would hinder the further development of full costing methodologies in the sector.
Dr Smith also highlighted that the declaration of the full costs incurred should be the general rule for those universities who are able to identify their costs through an appropriate costing methodology, as this would foster transparency and accountability of public spending. For those universities that are not able to identify their indirect costs, the rules should retain the possibility to apply for a flat rate high enough to cover their indirect costs. A 100% / 40% model would provide an acceptable level of reimbursement while also giving an incentive for the further development of full costing methodologies, he added. He also stressed that it was crucial to have a clear definition of ineligible costs, improved clarity in terminology, as well as an improvement in management and control processes.
The hearing took place at an important time in the Horizon 2020 negotiation process. Ministers attending the Council of EU (Competiveness Council) meeting last week reached an agreement on an overall framework for the Horizon 2020 programme but did not broach the issue of the budget for the programme, which will be debated in the framework of the ongoing negotiations on the EU multiannual financial framework. The European Parliament, meanwhile, is expected to reach a position on the Horizon 2020 legislative package in October.

Around 130 university leaders and senior management, national and European policy makers, companies and other higher education representatives gathered in Copenhagen earlier this week for the Tracking the Higher Education Student Lifecycle Conference.
The event, at the Aarhus University Copenhagen Campus, brought together a wide range of stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of initiatives for tracking students and graduates (during their studies and into the labour market) for a presentation and discussion of the preliminary findings of the TRACKIT project. This two-year project, led by EUA, has undertaken a study to provide an overview of tracking procedures in 31 countries. This has been based on a qualitative survey, a series of focus groups, and site visits to 23 European universities in 11 countries. The survey has been well supported by EUA members, in particular the national rectors’ conferences.
Presenting the project findings in Copenhagen, Michael Gaebel (EUA) told the audience that the number of tracking initiatives being developed in Europe (either at the institutional or national levels) appeared to be increasing. This trend has been driven by a number of factors such as the moves towards student-centred learning and rising participation rates, which also means that access, retention, but also employability and entry into the labour market are increasingly used as criteria to measure higher education provision. At the same time, growing use of data in public policy making,  and enhanced technical possibilities for data collection have also driven the development of tracking.
The preliminary results of the TRACKIT study suggest that while some countries appear to prioritise the surveying of graduates, others focus almost entirely on student progress. Generally, there seems to be a trend towards combining both goals, which is already the case in some countries. The conference clearly proved that despite the fact that national frameworks for tracking differ considerably, regarding drivers and use, there is a strong demand for exchange of experience and sharing of good practice between institutions.
Participants in Copenhagen also discussed the advantages and disadvantages of centralised (national) approaches to tracking but also heard how ‘shared’ approaches, where universities participate in the design and implementation of centrally-led approaches, are becoming increasingly common.
Overall, the study and the event both highlighted that universities are generally very positive about tracking initiatives, as it enables them for example to have a better understanding of the overall student experience, what contributes to success, drop-out rates and the development of student support and career services. Tracking has also helped for example, to create better awareness of teaching results, and to contribute to the overall strategic development of universities.
Nevertheless institutions have also pointed to a number of challenges with tracking such as problems related to ‘survey fatigue’, or difficulties with following up on the information they have collected.
Following this event EUA will now be drafting a detailed report on the outcomes of this project that is due to be published in September 2012.
Presentations from the conference will also be posted shortly on the event website.
The TRACKIT project is co-organised with the Irish Universities Association/UCD Geary Institute, Hochschul-Informations-System GmBH (HIS), Lund University, University of the Peloponnese/Centre for Social and Educational Policy Studies and Aarhus University, and supported by the European Commission’s Lifelong Learning Programme. More information on the project is available here.

Most of the major rankings tend to be dominated by large research intensive institutions, and they also tend to be some of the older institutions in their respective countries. In order to examine what is going on with the newer institutions, Times Higher Education launched today a new ranking – calling it the “100 under 50″. In many ways this formulation somehow reminds of lists of young promising entrepreneurs, and one could perhaps argue that this resemblance in formulation is not completely coincidental.
In the complementary THE magazine these institutions are presented as having upward trajectories, little institutional baggage and opportunities for rapid response to societal needs – they are presented as somehow different and “doing their own thing“. Knowing the one Norwegian institution on  that list – University of Tromsø – this “being different” motto was quite prominent during its establishment, and they were reffered to as a regional experiment during their establishment in 1968.
However, as the magazine also points out, this newness can also provide its challenges – where research cultures might not be established quite yet and the institution needs to finds its place in the local and global higher education landscape.  Overall, it was well under half of these young universities, in fact only 19 of them, that rank amongst the top 200 in the world (according to World University Rankings). So – does this imply that when building a world class institution – age matters?
Another aspect is that this group includes institutions from 30 countries, with 20 of them coming from the UK. Depending on whether one counts Turkey as a part of Europe or not, there is 50 or 51 institutions that are from Europe. Australia can congratulate themselves with 14 institutions in this category, whereas the US only has 9 – a quite different image of the more general rankings where institutions from the US dominate. So – at least when examining the up and coming institutions, Europe is definitely not lagging behind. However, it is Asia who is the big winner overall, with the best institution on the list (Postech in Republic of Korea) and six institutions in top 20.
However, one should also bear in mind that this to an extent also says something about national policy landscape and the types of structural reforms higher education systems have gone through.  In some smaller countries the higher education systems and number of institutions has been well established, leaving little space for new institutions. This is for example the case with Switzerland where it was only one institution that made it to the list.
Another factor to be considered when looking at this list is that it uses the same 13 indicators that are used for the general ranking – perhaps implying that it does not quite capture the innovative nature of the new institutions, and the measurement goes on the lines of institutions that do well on the same scale as the “old ones”. You can view a number of articles on the topic on the THE magazine that can be viewed here and a pdf table with the whole list can be viewed here.
See also World's top 100 universities under the age of 50: ranked by Times Higher Education.

Plate-forme de dialogue entre les principaux acteurs académiques franco-chinois.
Manifestation retour du 1er Forum franco-chinois de l’enseignement supérieur, organisé en octobre 2010 dans le cadre du salon CEE et de l’Exposition Universelle de Shanghai.
Co-organisé par CampusFrance et le CEAIE (China Education Association for International Education), en partenariat avec les ministères de tutelle et les Conférences d’établissements, cette opération, plate-forme de dialogue entre les principaux acteurs académiques franco-chinois, a permis de déterminer un certain nombre d’objectifs, dont l’amélioration du parcours de mobilité individuelle des étudiants, grâce à la mise en place du « catalogue Chine ».
2ème Forum franco-chinois de l’Enseignement Supérieur
Collège de France - Paris - 21 juin 2012 - Programme prévisionnel
9h00-9h30        Accueil et inscription des participants
9h30-10h00      Mots de bienvenue par M. Pierre Corvol, Administrateur du Collège de France et par le Directeur de Campus France
10h00-10h30    Inauguration par les ministres français et chinois de l’Enseignement supérieur
10h30-12h00    Session 1 : La mobilité des étudiants, présidée par Pierre Tapie, Président de la CGE
Les 2 intervenants côté français:
> Cyrille Van Effenterre, Président du PRES ParisTech
> Bertrand Monthubert, Président de l’Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III
12h00-13h30     Déjeuner
13h30-15h00     Session 2 : La formation professionnelle, présidée par Christian Lerminiaux, Président de la CDEFI
Les 2 intervenants côté français:
> Xavier Cornu, Directeur de l’Enseignement de la CCIP
> Jean-François Girard, Président de Sorbonne Paris Cité
15h00-16h30     Session 3 : L’évaluation au service de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, présidée par Louis Vogel, Président de la CPU
Les 2 intervenants côté français:
> Didier Houssin, Président de l’AERES
> Jean-Pierre Gesson, Président de la Commission Relations Internationales et Européennes de la CPU
Eléments liés: programme_forum_franco-chinois.
Contact : Mathilde MALLET, Campus France Paris, France, Adresse électronique; Bun-Tieng UNG, Campus France Paris, France, Adresse électronique.