Formation Continue du Supérieur

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.

Par D. P. Le Président de l'AFPA a démissionné, l'Afpa au bord du gouffre, le gouvernement à la rescousse, Les Echos 8 juin 2012.
Lâché par Dexia, le premier organisme de formation du pays est à court de trésorerie. Son président a claqué la porte mercredi. Le ministère du Travail promet un plan de sauvetage.
Crise ouverte à l'Association pour la formation professionnelle des adultes (Afpa). En proie à d'importantes difficultés de trésorerie, l'association, premier organisme de formation en France, est désormais suivie par le Comité interministériel chargé d'aider les entreprises en difficulté (Ciri), a indiqué hier son directeur général, Philippe Caïla. Une obligation qui fait suite à la décision de la banque Dexia de quitter le pool bancaire qui soutient l'Afpa, ce qui place cette dernière face à un risque de cessation de paiements dès le mois de juillet.
Depuis 2009, l'Afpa n'est plus subventionnée par l'Etat et doit répondre à des appels d'offres comme tous les opérateurs de la formation. Son activité d'orientation des demandeurs d'emploi a été transférée à Pôle emploi, celle de formation des personnes handicapées a été transférée à l'Agefiph. Les syndicats dénoncent depuis trois ans le «  démantèlement » de cette association née en 1949, gérée par le patronat, les syndicats et l'Etat, et qui emploie 9.150 salariés. Le chiffre d'affaires a chuté de 1,04 milliard en 2008 à 865 millions d'euros en 2011.
« C'est un échec »
Mercredi, son président, Jean-Luc Vergne, a démissionné, claquant la porte afin de « provoquer un choc » dans l'espoir de « décisions rapides » pour sauver l'institution. « C'est un échec pour l'Etat, qui n'a pas su accompagner son désengagement trop rapide. C'est un échec pour la direction générale, qui n'a pas su gérer le changement. Et c'est un échec dans la gouvernance, et donc de moi-même, dont je tire les conséquences », explique-t-il aux « Echos ». Sa démission est aussi l'issue d'un long bras de fer, perdu avec son directeur général, les deux hommes s'opposant sur l'évolution du fonctionnement de l'Afpa. Les syndicats ont demandé hier à l'Etat, qui a « plus que jamais besoin de son savoir-faire » (CGT) en matière de formation des chômeurs, de «  sauver l'Afpa  » (CFDT). Le gouvernement se veut rassurant. « L'Etat et les régions sont résolus à travailler ensemble » pour que l'Afpa joue « un rôle essentiel pour la qualification des demandeurs d'emploi », ont réagi, hier, le ministre du Travail, Michel Sapin, et le président de l'Association des régions de France (ARF), Jean-Paul Denanot, dans un communiqué commun. Ils s'engagent de façon urgente à « sécuriser l'accès aux financements » de l'association. Et assurent qu'un « nouveau cadre stratégique » sera défini pour l'Afpa afin « d'assurer la pérennité de son modèle économique », écrivent-ils en étrillant « les choix désastreux effectués par les gouvernements successifs depuis 2004 ».

This year, Member States begin to implement the European Credit system for Vocational Education and Training. The system aims to allow all vocational students to have their learning recognised across the European Union. At the third annual forum, held on 31 May – 1 June in Brussels, Cedefop makes the case for setting up communities of practice in each country, to ensure smooth implementation and wide participation.
The forum is co-organised by the European Commission and Cedefop with the support of the ECVET network and involves 220 policy makers, training providers, and social partners. As the foremost gathering of all parties interested in the credit system, it will provide an opportunity to develop the ECVET community as a vivid space for exchange and innovation.
The forum will discuss the challenges related to ECVET implementation and reflect upon the the roles and resources of the system's stakeholders. The forum is expected to lead to a shared vision of how to consolidate and implement ECVET throughout Europe.
Links
    Booklet: Necessary conditions for ECVET implementation .
    Third annual ECVET Forum: background papers and agenda .