By Jan Petter Myklebust. The European Alliance for the Social Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA) has rejected the European Commission’s view that social sciences and humanities are adequately covered in the European Union’s proposed Horizon 2020 research programme.
It calls for an added dimension to be established on "understanding Europe in a global context – transitions towards innovative and inclusive societies".
Europe’s research ministers have already argued that social sciences and humanities should be given a more prominent role in Horizon 2020, the next European Union framework programme for 2014-20. Commission plans would make Horizon 2020 the world’s largest publicly financed research programme with a proposed budget of €80 billion (US$105 billion).
ALLEA, which comprises 53 national academies of sciences, social sciences and humanities in 40 European countries and aims to represent the voice of social sciences and humanities in Europe, met in Amsterdam on 27-28 March to discuss the EU Commission’s proposal to include social science and humanities in Horizon 2020 as 'horizontal' or 'transversal' elements in separate programmes. ALLEA said that this is not enough to meet the demands of the 25,000 scientists who have signed a petition for giving these disciplines a separate programme in Horizon 2020.
Rüdiger Klein, executive director of ALLEA, told University World News that Horizon 2020 had to include a clear budget commitment for the social sciences and humanities components in an extra ‘societal challenge’ – addressing specific research needs in social, economic and cultural domains – and a transparent mechanism for including social sciences and humanities expertise into the other scientific ‘challenges’.
Christina Bitterberg of the German Aerospace Centre, spokesperson for the Net4Society project team that produced the open letter and collected the signatures, said:
“The open letter, signed by the 25,000 supporters, calls for an independent social sciences and humanities-centred programme (‘Challenge’) within Horizon 2020, that focuses on important societal and economic transformations, in areas as diverse as education, gender, identity, intercultural dialogue, media, security, social innovation, to name but a few.
“In addition, the letter promotes the implementation of social sciences and humanities research in all other challenges of Horizon 2020. It is certainly not sufficient to treat social sciences and humanities research only as a horizontal or transversal element.”
Pekka Sulkunen, president of the European Sociological Association (ESA)and a professor at Helsinki University, told University World News: “The exclusion of social sciences and humanities from Horizon 2020 is not only bad for the scientists in this area. Most significantly, it indicates a basic mistake in the EU understanding of science in society in general.
“The ESA has stressed in its several communications on Horizon 2020 and the European Research Area that seeing science only as an instrument of innovation is fatal both to science and innovation policy.
“Knowledge society requires above all a sound and strong educational and research basis – innovations are only a part of this wider whole.”
In February EU research commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn responded to ministers' concerns by pledging that the social sciences and humanities would have a “vitally important role in all challenges in Horizon 2020”.
She said. “They will be embedded as an integral part of all activities, working beyond ‘the silos of distinct discipline.”
However, Sulkunen warned that the narrow idea of a linear continuum from basic to applied research to innovation to development to market results from competition between national governments for research resources, where EU funding is seen as a cost, not as an instrument in itself, created excessive expectations of the "usefulness" and added value of EU research input.
He said it was wrong to believe that the social sciences and humanities operated on a small scale that did not require EU-level funding. Key issues in European societies require efficient and sufficient resources for comparative studies that can only be met by common funding sources.
The reassurance that the disciplines will be included transversally means in practice that there will be no social sciences and humanities expertise to set priorities and design research programmes in the commission. This results in an immense need for lobbying on a daily basis, which would sap the resources of scientists, especially of scientific associations such as the ESA and similar learned societies, Sulkunen added.
“Europe is passing right now one of the most historic windows of what many believe to be its last opportunity to become a truly transnational society,” Sulkunen said. “Innovation policy based on a false idea of knowledge in society is not adequate to respond to this challenge.”
At a meeting at the British Academy in London on 10 November 2011, Geoghegan-Quinn confirmed that “future funding at the European level will provide significant space for social sciences and humanities research”.
She said Horizon 2020 would be structured around three pillars: "excellence in the science base", "creating industrial leadership and competitive frameworks" and "tackling societal challenges".
Klein said the Brussels meeting of the alliance agreed it was important to overcome the fragmentation of the social sciences and humanities communities and provide a collective voice.
Related Links : Research ministers demand key role for social sciences in Horizon 2020. Social sciences research role backed.

By Claudia Reyes and Pedro Rosso. Over the past few decades, particularly during the 1980s and 1990s, most university systems in the developing world underwent an impressive transformation – with several-fold increases in the number of students enrolled and the opening of many new, mostly private, universities. One of the consequences of this expansive change has been a marked increase in the heterogeneity of the institutions comprising the various systems.
Beyond its academic dimensions, heterogeneity poses serious problems to systems attempting to classify the universities for research, ranking or public policy purposes. Chile is a good example. The first attempt to classify national universities – based on selectivity, size, prestige and nature (public or private) – resulted in eight categories. Despite some of its merits, this classification was criticised on conceptual and practical grounds, including the fact that the categories were not exclusive ones.
Other observers have tried to classify Chilean universities, using selectivity and annual publications as primary criteria, and the number of students and the years of accreditation granted to the institution as secondary criteria. They described seven categories of institutions – some improvements over the previous ones. However, this classification was also flawed on several accounts, including the use of selectivity as a main criterion. For example, one category listed selective research universities, while another group was described as non-selective, teaching, large-size and low-accreditation institutions.
A recent approach faced the challenge of classifying Chilean universities – using as main criteria the existence and number of accredited doctoral programmes and the annual number of internationally indexed publications. Applying the first criterion, the universities were divided into two groups: (1) without accredited doctoral programmes; and (2) with doctoral programmes. Then, the former were further divided, according to the number of publications, into two categories: (1a) with fewer than 20 annual publications; and (1b) with 20 or more annual publications.
The first category (1a) was named ‘teaching university’ and comprised 23 institutions. The second, called ‘teaching university with limited research’ (1b), included 11 universities. In turn, the universities with accredited PhD programmes were divided into two categories: (2a) those with up to five programmes, and (2b) those with more than five doctoral programmes.
The first category (2a) was called ‘university with research and doctoral programmes in selected areas’, and 11 institutions met this criterion. The second (2b) was named ‘research and doctoral programmes university’ and comprised six universities. As expected, the four categories had marked differences in the mean values of the variables used as ‘primary classification criteria’.
Thus, the teaching university group (1a) averaged four publications per year; the teaching university with research projection group (1b) averaged 41 publications per year; the ‘university with research and doctoral programmes in selected areas’ group (2a) averaged 94 annual publications; and the ‘research and doctoral programmes university’ group (2b) averaged 636 publications per year.
In turn, while the average number of doctoral programmes was 2.2 in the group of ‘university with research and doctoral programmes in selected areas’ (2a), it averaged 18.5 in the group of ‘research and doctoral programmes university’ (2b). Consequently, the primary classification criteria had successfully grouped Chilean universities in markedly different categories.
Particularly striking was the tenfold difference in the number of publications observed, between the two ‘teaching universities’ categories – indicating that in this aspect the category ‘teaching university’ (1a) is indeed quite different from its ‘teaching university with research projection’ (1b) partner. On the other hand, this difference implies that in approximately 30% of the Chilean universities practically no research is conducted.
The four categories were also compared in terms of the values of institutional size and academic performance (accreditation) – unrelated to the publications and doctoral programmes indicators used to define the four categories. The statistical significance of variations in mean values between categories was tested using a one-way analysis of variance. This test provides a method to establish whether or not the means of several groups are statistically different.
The analysis of variance test was complemented with post hoc tests, which do establish more specifically means that were significantly different from each other. Results indicated a major diversity in mean values in most of the indicators explored, including: number of students, number of faculties, percentage of faculties with advanced degrees, number of faculties per study programme, percentage of accredited study programmes and years of institutional accreditation. The main differentiations were found between the ‘teaching university’ (1a) and the ‘research and doctoral programmes university’ (2b) categories, with mean values of the other two categories falling in between.
The categories defined by the new classification are associated with basic institutional characteristics and academic performances. Thus, for comparison purposes the institutions included within a given category could be considered to be ‘academic peers’. The latter seems a relevant point, since most of the available comparative studies – including national and international university rankings – generally overlook this aspect. From this perspective, it is unfortunate that the research universities, especially those considered to be ‘world class’, have become the paradigm of academic quality. While recognising the need for any country to have a ‘critical mass’ of those institutions, from the standpoint of diversity and their intrinsic value, the only paradigm that a university should have is the best institution within its own category. The new classification used for Chilean universities can be applied in other countries, with some adaptation to local realities. For example, other cut-off points for annual publications or number of doctoral programmes accredited by a national agency could be used.
The new classification might also provide an overall diagnosis of a system, in terms of the percentage of teaching and research institutions present. In university systems diversity represents a value in itself, since it implies, both for the students and the faculty, more options to decide where to study or work. When classifying and comparing universities, particularly in developing systems, all classifications do freeze in time what are essentially dynamic situations. In the future, many institutions will reform their category, as research activities expand and new postgraduate programmes are created. By the same token, faithful to their missions, many other universities will remain in the same category, while improving their academic performance.
Ultimately, in the academic world what really counts is coherence between mission, human and financial resources and the will to achieve the highest possible quality standards. Thus, it is crucial to classify universities properly.
* Claudia Reyes is executive director of Red Universitaria Cruz del Sur in Santiago, Chile; Pedro Rosso is rector emeritus and professor of paediatrics at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, in Santiago, Chile. email: Claudia Reyes and Pedro Rosso: barriga@uc.cl. This is an edited version of the article “A New Approach for Classifying Chilean Universities” published in International Higher Education, No 67, Spring, 2012. http://www.bc.edu/research/cihe/.

By Tony Chan. The recent European University Association annual conference was much concerned with Europe's economic crisis, but much of what will affect it in the future is happening outside the continent. It should pay more attention.
When I was invited by Nigel Thrift, the vice-chancellor of Warwick, to be a plenary speaker at the European University Association’s annual conference, I had never before heard of the EUA. But I immediately grasped the importance of the occasion, with 400 heads of higher education institutions in Europe attending, and the opportunity to find out what is going on in European higher education, as well as meeting many of its leaders. I was not disappointed.
EUA is a formidable organisation. It has over 800 member universities all over Europe and more than 50 staff headquartered in Brussels It organises many activities and publishes reports on issues related to higher education. For example, at the conference I picked up a recent report it published on the effect of global university rankings, an almost taboo subject, and I look forward to reading it. This conference is also the occasion for the transition from the current chair, Jean-Marc Rapp of Switzerland, to Marie Helena Nazaré of Portugal. It is notable that I was the only participant from Asia and one of only four from outside Europe.
I learned a lot at the conference. Apparently, European higher education is in turmoil. Much of the challenge has to do with money, or the lack of it. England is drastically changing its funding model for higher education, moving more of the financial burden from the state to the students (the tuition cap has moved up from almost nothing to £9,000 [US$14,000] over the last few years), who are eligible for loans which they only have to repay after graduation and receiving income above £21,000. David Willetts, minister of universities and science, explained at the conference that the UK government, in this "era of austerity”, has only a few choices: cut the number of students, or cut the support per student or have the student pay part of the cost.
Speakers from Austria and Finland also talked about political turmoil caused by charging tuition in their countries. With my background in the US and Hong Kong, this came as a cultural surprise to me. But in Europe the issue of tuition seems to go deeper than just finance and politics – it goes to the heart of whether a free university education is a civil right or a subsidised social service, whether it is for individual gain or for the public good, and whether students are customers or recipients of societal investment.
I also learned that many European countries are experiencing budget cuts for education, some quite severe (eg 50% in Latvia). A panellist predicted that even those countries that have been spared so far (for example, France) will get cuts soon. The mood was gloomy.
But there is also some good news. The Bologna process for promoting compatibility and mobility of students across Europe seems to be well embraced. The new European Research Council seems to be well loved. Even in the UK, no universities have gone into the red so far. I learned about examples of thriving academic-industry interaction, for example, the Warwick manufacturing group with over 1,000 international companies, over 450 staff and an annual budget of £120 million. Europe is also justifiably proud to have given the world the original model of a university (Bologna) and the modern idea of a research university (Von Humboldt).
Research funding seems to fare better than education funding in Europe, primarily driven by economic competitiveness motivations. However, there is concern about tilting the emphasis more towards applied research at the expense of curiosity-driven research and the humanities subjects. Anne Glover, science advisor to the EU president, challenged the universities to take more risk, to 'educate' rather than 'train' students, to produce graduates with better communication skills and to make maximum use of human capital by providing a better working environment for women.
One thing that did strike me was the almost exclusive focus on European issues. Towards the end of the first day of the conference, someone commented that no speaker had mentioned China, India or even the US. Well, I did talk about China and the US in my speech, but that was during the very last panel on the second day. But I did get the feeling that European academia is currently a bit more inward-looking and consumed by internal issues. I’d argue that the really big changes in higher education are happening outside Europe, especially in the developing world and what happens there will have significant impact on European universities in the future. Europe should take heed.
*Professor Tony Chan is the President of the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. He was formerly dean of physical science at UCLA and assistant director of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate at the US National Science Foundation.
The European University Association annual conference took place at the University of Warwick, UK, 22-23 March, 2012.

By Philip G Altbach and Iván F Pacheco. There have been few global comparisons of academic salaries around the world, but new research paints a picture of a profession that, in many countries, is not valued as a key to the knowledge economy.
Salaries and the terms of faculty appointments and promotion are central to the wellbeing of the academic profession and its contributions to the university. If salaries are inadequate, the ‘best and brightest’ will not be attracted to academe, and those who do teach will be obliged to moonlight, diverting their attention and dedication from their academic work. Additionally, without appropriate contracts and appointments, there is a limited guarantee of academic freedom or expectation of either a stable or satisfying career. Furthermore, in a globalised world, salaries in one country affect academe elsewhere, as professors are tempted to move where remuneration and working conditions are best.
Yet only limited research is available about these issues, within a specific country or comparatively. Comparative studies on academics in many countries are complex, as data are often difficult to obtain; and exchange rates and the standard of living vary across countries. Our research has provided data using purchasing power parity, which permits more realistic salary comparisons. It reveals key trends in 28 diverse countries on all continents.
Significant variations
Not surprisingly, it found significant variations in academic salaries worldwide. As a general rule, salaries were best in wealthier countries, although there are significant variations among them, with the English-speaking academic systems generally paying more than those in continental Europe. Russia and the former Soviet states pay quite low salaries, even when their economies are relatively prosperous.
There were a few surprises. India ranks comparatively high in salaries. China, on the other hand, has invested heavily in its higher education system, particularly in its research universities; yet average academic salaries rank at the bottom.
The research also showed that, in many countries, salary alone does not convey a complete picture of compensation. Academics also depend on other payments and subsidies, from their universities and other sources, to make up the total remuneration package. Chinese universities, for example, provide a complex set of fringe benefits and extra payments to their academic staff for publishing articles, evaluating extra examinations, and for other campus work. In North America and Western Europe, salaries are the main academic income – while elsewhere this does not seem to be the case.
Low salaries and moonlighting
In many countries, salaries are too low to support a middle-class lifestyle locally, and other income is needed. In many of these places, moonlighting is common. Many academics teach at more than one institution. Indeed, the burgeoning private higher education sector in many countries depends on professors from the public universities to teach most classes.
The terms and conditions of academic appointments and subsequent opportunities for advancement available to the academic profession are also of central importance. Among the group of 28 countries, few offer formal tenure to the academic profession, thus perhaps weakening guarantees of academic freedom and providing less job security.
Tenure arrangements, awarded to academics after a careful evaluation of performance, seem largely limited to the United States, Canada, Australia, The Netherlands and South Africa in the study. In one country, Saudi Arabia, local academic staff are given permanent appointments at the time of hiring. Some continental European countries provide civil service status to academics in the public universities, and this also provides significant job security. In fact, in most countries, few are fired and few are seriously evaluated. There is a kind of de facto tenure that provides long-term employment for most, without either a guarantee or any means of careful evaluation.
A number of important variations exist in requirements to enter the profession or (when available) to qualify for a tenured-like position. In many countries, a doctoral degree is requisite to become a university professor. In certain European countries (Czech Republic, France, Germany, Russia) a habilitation – similar to a doctoral dissertation – is needed, in addition to the doctoral degree, to achieve the rank of professor. In other countries, a simple bachelor degree is sufficient to be hired as a university teacher. In countries where a PhD is not required, there is a trend to demand higher qualifications; and the masters degree is becoming the minimum requirement, even if it is not mandatory by law.
Migration of talent
Among the countries that pay the best salaries there are some that benefit from an inflow of academics from less wealthy countries. Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and the United States benefit the most from the migration of academic talent. In contrast, many of the countries paying the lowest salaries are considered ‘sender’ countries and some (Armenia, Ethiopia, Israel and Nigeria) have implemented programmes in which better salaries and working conditions are part of the strategy to attract or retain national and international scholars.
In their quest to build world-class education systems, China and Saudi Arabia are aggressively pursuing international faculty, mostly from English-speaking countries, as well as their own expatriates.
In the Chinese case, it has resulted in a big gap between the salary of local professors and international or repatriated ones. Finally, there are countries that are both ‘senders’ and ‘receivers’. For example, South Africa attracts professors from other African nations, but at the same time it frequently suffers brain drain to English-speaking countries – such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States.
Our research shows a range of realities for the academic profession. Some countries offer reasonable salaries and secure and transparent career structures for academics. The English-speaking countries included in this research – Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, to some extent South Africa, and the United States – fall into this category. Western European countries that offer civil service status to academics typically provide decent working conditions and compensation. But even in these nations, the professoriate is inadequately compensated when compared with other highly educated professionals. For the rest, and this includes Russia and the former Soviet Union, China, Latin America (except Brazil) and Nigeria, salaries are low and contracts often lack transparency. India offers reasonably good salaries.
A global comparison presents an array of realities – few of them extraordinarily attractive – for the professoriate. This situation, at least for the 28 countries examined in this research, is certainly problematical for countries at the centre of the global knowledge economy. For academics in those countries with quite low salaries – such as China, Russia, Armenia or Ethiopia – the academic profession faces a crisis. In general, it seems that professors are not considered the elite in the knowledge economy. Rather, they tend to be seen as a part of the skilled labour force that such economy requires.
* Philip G Altbach is Monan University professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College. Iván F Pacheco is research assistant at the CIHE. This article is the first in a series on academic pay based on Paying the Professoriate: A global comparison of compensation and contracts, edited by Philip G Altbach, Liz Reisberg, Maria Yudkevich, Gregory Androushchak and Iván F Pacheco (New York: Routledge, 2012). Additional data can be found on the project website. This research resulted from a collaboration between the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College and the Laboratory of Institutional Analysis at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia.

L’alternance est une formation ayant pour objet d'acquérir une qualification professionnelle. Elle associe un enseignement théorique dans un établissement d'enseignement ou de formation à un stage pratique en entreprise. Elle peut prendre la forme d'un contrat d'apprentissage, ou d'un contrat de professionnalisation. Études et enquêtes sur l'alternance. Témoignages.
Le contrat d’apprentissage vise à apprendre un métier en alternant formation en entreprise et enseignement professionnel. Destiné aux jeunes de 16 à 25 ans, il est sanctionné par un diplôme, un titre à finalité professionnelle enregistré au Répertoire national des certifications professionnelles (RNCP). Ce dispositif associe l’intervention de l’Etat responsable de la formation initiale, et les Conseils régionaux qui en ont la compétence au niveau régional. A noter : la rémunération dépend de l’âge et du niveau de qualification.
Apparu en 2004, le contrat de professionnalisation a pour vocation de permettre d'acquérir une qualification professionnelle. Il vise des formations plus courtes, plus opérationnelles et favorisant l’insertion ou la réinsertion professionnelle des jeunes et des demandeurs d’emploi. La qualification peut être de trois sortes : elle peut être enregistrée dans le Répertoire national des certifications professionnelles (RNCP), ou reconnue dans les classifications d’une convention collective nationale de branche, ou ouvrant droit à un Certificat de qualification professionnelle (CQP). Le contrat de professionnalisation est un contrat de travail en alternance à durée déterminée ou indéterminée avec une action de professionnalisation. Il permet au salarié d’acquérir une formation doublée d’une expérience en milieu professionnel. Qu’il soit en période de travail effectif ou en formation, le salarié touchera une rémunération. Celle-ci dépend de l’âge et du niveau de qualification.
En Ile-de-France, 94 952 contrats en alternance ont été signés en 2010. 94,1% d’entre eux concernent des jeunes de moins de 26 ans. 60,4% sont des contrats d’apprentissage et 39,6% des contrats de professionnalisation. Les entreprises de 20 à 250 salariés utilisent moins l’alternance. Près de 2/3 des personnes en alternance travaillent dans des entreprises de moins de 10 salariés ou de plus de 250 salariés.Les entreprises de moins de 10 salariés recourant à l’alternance ont des caractéristiques différentes selon la nature du contrat utilisé:
Quel que soit le secteur, les petites entreprises font toutes appel à l’apprentissage;

La validation des acquis de l’expérience (VAE) est un droit individuel inscrit dans le livre IX du code du travail et dans le code de l’éducation par la loi de modernisation sociale votée le 17 Janvier 2002. C’est une voie d’accès à tout ou partie d’un diplôme à finalité professionnelle, un titre ou une certification professionnelle figurant sur une liste validée par la commission nationale des certifications professionnelles (CNCP): le répertoire national des certifications professionnelles (RNCP).
Vous trouverez ci-dessous de plus amples informations sur la VAE et le public concerné.
S’informer et agir
Comprendre la VAE  Vae: de quoi parle t-on ?
La VAE est une voie d’accès à la certification professionnelle. Elle marque la reconnaissance par la loi que l’activité produit des compétences professionnelles. Elle permet l’obtention d’une certification professionnelle (diplôme, titre professionnel ou certificat de qualification professionnelle – CQP), de même que par la voie scolaire, par la voie universitaire, par la formation professionnelle continue ou par l’apprentissage. Depuis 2002, toute personne engagée dans la vie active depuis au moins 3 ans peut faire reconnaître son expérience professionnelle et les compétences développées dans son activité, dans le but d’obtenir tout ou partie d’une certification à visée professionnelle, en correspondance avec son activité.
Qui peut en bénéficier ?
Toute personne, quel que soit son statut, son niveau d’études, sa qualification, peut bénéficier de la VAE. Il lui faudra justifier d’au moins 3 années d’expérience professionnelle en rapport avec la certification visée, que les activités aient été exercées de manière continue ou discontinue, à temps plein ou à temps partiel, en France ou à l’étranger. De même, il n’y a pas de condition concernant le statut sous lequel elles ont eu lieu: salarié, travailleur indépendant, intérimaire, bénévole, artisan, profession libérale. De même, un demandeur d’emploi pourra demander la validation d’une expérience professionnelle antérieure. Toutes les expériences peuvent être prises en compte, à condition d’en apporter la preuve. La durée totale d’activité est calculée par cumul du nombre d’heures travaillées. Ne sont pas pris en compte: les périodes de formation initiale ou continue, quel que soit le statut de la personne, ainsi que les stages et les périodes de formation en milieu professionnel, effectués dans le cadre de la préparation d’un diplôme ou d’un titre de l’enseignement professionnel.
A noter
La VAE est une procédure qui combine, à la fois la vérification et évaluation et attestation des acquis et des compétences du candidat, par un jury indépendant et incluant des professionnels. Il est possible de présenter plusieurs demandes par année civile (un maximum de trois) pour des certifications différentes, mais un bénéficiaire ne peut entamer qu’une seule demande par certification.
Les diplômes et certifications visés doivent figurer dans le répertoire national des certifications professionnelles (RNCP) qui recense les certifications à finalité professionnelle (titres, diplômes) reconnues par l’Etat et les partenaires sociaux. Accessible depuis le site de la commission nationale de la certification professionnelle (CNCP), le RNCP permet d’obtenir des résumés descriptifs des certifications, ces dernières étant classées par domaine d’activité et/ou par niveau.
Une initiative strictement personnelle
La validation est un droit individuel. Elle ne peut pas être imposée par l’entreprise car la demande de validation ne peut être faite que par la personne elle même. Des clauses de protection du travailleur sont prévues, en particulier sur la confidentialité des informations communiquées dans le cadre de la demande de validation des acquis. De plus, les professionnels membres du jury ne peuvent appartenir à l’entreprise ou à l’organisme de la personne demandant la validation.
Préparer le parcours Construire son projet VAE
La VAE est une procédure qui demande un fort investissement personnel et une réelle motivation. En effet, la durée moyenne d’un parcours est comprise entre 9 et 12 mois. Pour aider chaque francilien à préparer son parcours, le Conseil régional d’Ile-de-France finance l’information et le conseil en VAE à travers le Pôle régional d’information-conseil en VAE et ses 10 Antennes spécialisées.
Etape 1 : l’information sur la VAE
En Ile-de-France, depuis 2008, l’information de premier niveau sur la VAE est diffusée en priorité par les structures d’accueil d’information et d’orientation (AIO) du service public de l’emploi, telles que les ANPE, Missions locales, CIO, Maisons de l’emploi, antennes FONGECIF… Les bénéficiaires y reçoivent des informations générales sur la VAE et son cadre législatif, le public visé, les étapes du parcours, les différentes certifications, le déroulement du passage devant jury, etc.
Ces structures d’information et d’orientation sont professionnalisées par le Pôle régional d'information-conseil en VAE qui garantit la qualité des informations données.
Ces informations générales sur la VAE peuvent également être obtenues auprès des Antennes d’information-conseil en VAE.
Etape 2 : définir son projet et bénéficier de conseils.
Les 10 antennes d’information-conseil en VAE apportent au public un conseil personnalisé, sous forme d’entretien individuel, neutre et gratuit pour:
- déterminer si l’obtention d’une certification professionnelle est nécessaire à la réalisation du projet de la personne,
- repérer la (ou les) certification(s) la (les) plus adaptée(s) à son projet et explorer les voies pouvant faciliter sa stratégie d’accès à cette (ces) certification(s),
- établir la pertinence d’entamer une démarche de VAE en fonction du but à atteindre et de l’histoire professionnelle de la personne,
- mieux s’orienter vers le ou les services valideurs qui assureront la procédure de validation
- informer sur les coûts d’une VAE, envisager les différents modes de financements et les mesures existantes d’accompagnement.

La démarche La Vae, étape par étape
L’étape de recevabilité
Après avoir choisi la certification qui correspond le mieux à son projet, le candidat à la VAE rencontre l’organisme valideur (qui propose la certification visée et valide les acquis de l’expérience). Il prend connaissance des modalités de validation (propres à ce valideur) et retire un dossier de candidature appelé « livret de recevabilité » qu’il devra compléter et déposer selon le calendrier prédéfini. L’organisme valideur procède ensuite à l’examen du dossier de recevabilité et des justificatifs d’identité, d’activités salariées, libérales ou bénévoles et prononce la décision de recevabilité (positive ou non).
L’étape de validation
Si la demande est déclarée recevable, le candidat entre dans la phase de validation, constitue son dossier de VAE dans lequel il aura à écrire sur son expérience selon les consignes du valideur. Attention, la décision de recevabilité ne préjuge en aucun cas de l’étendue de la validation, qui ne peut être prononcée que par le jury de validation.
Le dossier de validation
Une fois la demande de recevabilité obtenue, commence alors la rédaction du dossier de validation des acquis de l’expérience. Chaque valideur a constitué son propre dossier : l’objectif de celui-ci est de permettre au candidat d’apporter la preuve que son expérience professionnelle lui a permis d’acquérir des compétences équivalentes à celles qu’il aurait pu obtenir par la formation.
L’accompagnement
Le candidat qui le souhaite peut bénéficier d’un accompagnement pour acquérir une méthode de travail et de questionnement afin d’identifier les activités, les analyser et les décrire en détail. Cet accompagnement peut également comprendre la préparation à l’entretien avec le jury. L’accompagnement est une mesure facultative qui permet au candidat d’être assisté dans sa démarche de VAE; il est recommandé car il lui offre des chances supplémentaires d’aller jusqu’au bout de la démarche et d’obtenir de meilleurs résultats.
L’accompagnement peut être assuré par tout organisme de formation (public ou privé, ayant un numéro de déclaration d’existence).
Le jury de validation des acquis de l’expérience
Selon les valideurs, c’est le jury du diplôme ou un jury spécialement composé et comprenant obligatoirement des professionnels, qui effectue l’évaluation après un entretien avec le candidat.
La décision du jury : trois éventualités.
Premier cas, à l’issue de la démarche, le candidat peut obtenir la certification complète: le document officiel délivré ne portera pas mention du mode d’obtention. Deuxième possibilité, la validation obtenue, peut être partielle. Le candidat a alors cinq ans pour réunir les composantes manquantes, sauf, pour les diplômes de l’enseignement supérieur, dont les unités validées sont définitivement acquises. Enfin, il se peut que le jury n’attribue aucune validation.
En cas de validation partielle, pour obtenir la certification le candidat pourra: soit, suivre une formation complémentaire (et la faire valider), soit, tenter une nouvelle demande de VAE après avoir complété son expérience, ou réalisé le travail complémentaire demandé par le jury.