Formation Continue du Supérieur

By Georg Krücken. Higher education systems in Europe are currently undergoing profound transformations. At the macro-level of society we can see an increasing inclusion of persons, subjects of study and university missions. The second level where we can find changes is at the level of university governance.
New Public Management reforms have put into question the traditional mode of governance that was based on the interplay of strong state regulation and academic self-governance. In this process, new actors like accreditation and evaluation bodies or boards of trustees are emerging. A third level where profound changes can be observed is at the university level itself. The university as an organisation is transforming into an organisational actor, that is, an integrated, goal-oriented and competitive entity in which management and leadership play an ever-more important role.
Americanisation?
Should these trends be labelled as the ‘Americanisation’ of European universities? Universities cannot be seen as isolated entities confined within national boundaries. At least since the early 19th century intensive exchange processes can be observed and several factors have accelerated these processes over time – from the withering charisma of the nation-state as a source of meaning and identity to the facilitating role of information and communication technologies in the exchange of ideas.
These factors seem to play an ever-increasing role. The rapid circulation of transnational trends and models in contemporary societies can at least in part be traced back to them and one could further investigate the distinct cultural and organisational aspects of the formation of a common transnational frame of meaning in higher education.
Following the three aspects and levels of change outlined – inclusion at the macro-societal level, new forms of university governance, and universities as organisations – we cannot only identify common trends, but we can also establish that these trends occur in some countries earlier, and in some countries later. It is obvious that the United States is in many regards a forerunner in terms of what we currently observe in Europe. This holds true for all three dimensions.
‘Inclusion’ has certainly been a general feature of American higher education since the 19th century. American higher education has been much more open to different subjects, formats and missions as compared to the Europe of the past. The same holds true with regard to the level of governance. Boards of trustees, whose very existence still sparks a lot of controversy in Europe, first appeared at Harvard University in 1642 and can now be found at literally every American university, be they private or public.
Likewise, actors such as accreditation agencies and competition as a governance mechanism could be found much earlier historically in American higher education than in Europe. American universities were a forerunner also regarding the common trend of conceptualising universities as organisational actors – at least in theory if not always in practice.
Therefore, there is ample evidence to see current changes in Europe as being triggered by American models and some European observers criticise the mega-trend as representing the ‘Americanisation’ of higher education. However, I doubt whether this is really the case. On the one hand, the United States and its universities are not just an ‘independent variable’ with regard to the changes we are currently witnessing. They are, rather, also a ‘dependent variable’ when it comes to changes that are mostly global in character and that are not confined to one national system.
On the other hand, even if one assumes American universities are the forerunners in terms of trends that eventually took stock in Europe, it is striking to see that some very central aspects of American universities and the overall system do not resonate in Europe at all. College education is still a very particular feature of the American university system that does not have a lot in common with most European university concepts.
One might think of the newly created bachelor programmes in Europe as a good example of Americanisation and of a move by European higher education toward the American model of college education. But bachelor programmes in Europe typically focus on one subject of study and, at least in theory, often advocate the international exchange of students. This is very different from the American model of college education with its emphasis on a broad, liberal arts-based education and no student exchange at all at the undergraduate level.
Other aspects of American universities have also barely diffused. Team sports and the related competitive leagues that have such an enormous relevance in the American system and for the individual university budget do not have any counterpart in Europe – the Champions League is for professional soccer and the annual Oxford and Cambridge Boat Race is a local phenomenon with its own history.
There are also more profound and systematic differences between Europe and the United States that relate to the role of public and private institutions as well as to aspects of higher education funding and financing. A strong public university sector is by and large taken for granted in Europe, while private universities play a much more limited role. Private universities in Europe are mainly focusing on teaching, not on research. Typically only few subjects are taught and a lot of private universities are rather small entities located in particular niches (business and law schools, for example). As such, they do not compare to the highly prestigious, comprehensive and research-oriented non-for-profit private universities in the US among the category ‘doctoral-research universities-extensive’.
Furthermore, private for-profit higher education institutions that currently see a steep increase in enrolment in the US play only a modest role in Europe. In addition, the dramatically decreasing role of state funding of public higher education in the US does not compare to most EU member states. In Germany nearly 70% of the university budget comes from basic state funding, while at the University of California, Berkeley, it is only about 10%.
In addition, new funding opportunities arise at the national level for many European states that emphasise research excellence and the European Union through its 7th Framework Programme for research and technology has become an important funding source (CREST 2009).
Diffusion versus creative deviation
But I think it is not only empirically shortsighted to see the different trends as indicating the Americanisation of European universities. Conceptually, one should also go further than the diffusion model that is implied when speaking of ‘Americanisation’.
Diffusion, as we understand from chemistry, implies that cultural and structural patterns diffuse through space like a gas, beginning with regions of high concentration of its molecules; eventually the gas molecules are equally distributed in space, provided the process does not encounter obstacles. This ‘top down’ model implies a clear distinction between the ‘sender’ and the ‘receiver’; likewise, certain practices are supposed to be adopted or not.
We can certainly observe the increasing discursive diffusion of models, ideas and idealisations that refer to images of American higher education. One has, however, to distinguish between practices and images. While powerful images rapidly diffuse, practices do not, as they can only be understood within a particular context.
More specifically, the culture and historicity of different national settings – including very different academic labour markets – are not taken fully into account by straightforward diffusion models. Rather, the so-called ‘travel of ideas’ and their enactment create complex situations full of contradictions through which new patterns emerge that cut across the alternatives of adoption and non-adoption.
The universalisation of dominant principles remains incomplete because of creative deviation on the receiver side. Complete universalisation typically fails as elements of transnational and national models merge and give way to creative deviation from a given path. In this I see a major, yet rather unexplored, source of institutional innovation. Historically, the invention of the American research university is a good example as it is the result of such overlapping processes, in particular of English and German influences that were contextualised in the ‘new world’.
But not only national contexts shape global and local adaptation processes of transnational trends. Although in most comparative research national differences are stressed, one should not underestimate differences that occur at the organisational level.
History also matters for organisations. I assume that universities, which in their past showed a high degree of openness toward their social environments, will incorporate new institutional elements that circulate at a transnational level easier than those whose organisational history was mainly defined by concern with purity and a sense of elitism. Former technical institutes and universities founded in an era of mass education, for example, will differ strongly from the proverbial ‘ivory tower’. Hence, different organisational formats as well as their historical trajectories further complicate the picture.
Comparative research across national boundaries might show that distinct cross-national types of universities also have to be taken into consideration when exploring the enactment of larger, transnational trends. Although the construction of images of American higher education will certainly continue to accompany higher education reforms in Europe, when focusing on the concrete enactment of these images I do not see a convergence toward a new and unequivocally accepted model.
Instead, increasing heterogeneity and differentiation will result from the specific national and organisational enactment of the three large-scale transnational trends toward inclusion, new forms of governance, and organisational actorhood. Universities all over the world devise diverse solutions in the face of transnational trends that may appear standard, but that are never standardised in their effects as they are adapted, incorporated or resisted by universities that are ultimately rooted in particular times and places.
Here, a broad agenda unfolds for cross-national research on transnational trends and their national and organisational contextualisations, images and practices, discursive formations and institutional innovations.
* Professor Georg Krücken is based in the International Center for Higher Education Research (INCHER) at the University of Kassel in Germany. His full paper, “A European Perspective on New Modes of University Governance and Actorhood”, is published by the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley.

By Brendan O'Malley. Given the great importance that most governments in Europe attribute to student and academic mobility in public statements, and the 1.5 million non-Europeans now studying in the region, it is remarkable how few have comprehensive and systematic mobility policies, a just-released study for the European Commission has found.
“With few exceptions, countries vaguely endorse mobility as a desirable activity and adopt a ‘the more the merrier’ approach,” the report says.
Mapping Mobility in the European Higher Area was released by the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA) last week, although submitted to the European Commission last June. It says Europe attracts far more foreign degree-seeking students than any other part of the world. Europe's global market share has even increased in the past decade, despite growing competition worldwide. Increasingly, foreign students in Europe come from other world regions.
But the striking differences that exist between individual European countries with regard to student mobility flows demand careful consideration when designing European-level mobility policies and instruments, the report argues. The study looks at mobility into, out of and between 32 European countries – the 27 European Union members, plus four European Free Trade Area countries and Turkey.
The number of European nationals from the 32 countries enrolled outside their country of nationality is considerably lower than those of foreign nationals studying in the Europe 32 zone. The total number of study abroad students in 2006-07 was 673,000, which is less than half the 1,507,000 foreign nationals studying in the Europe 32 countries during the same period. Study abroad by European grew between 1998-99 and 2006-07, but at 37.1% it is considerably below the proportion of foreign nationals studying in Europe.
In 2006-07, for every 1,000 students enrolled in their country of nationality, there were 33 nationals from that country studying abroad. But this average hides very important differences between countries. The extremes are Cyprus, where the majority of its citizens are enrolled abroad (1,380 abroad for every 1,000 at home), and the UK (12 abroad for every 1,000 in at home), where study abroad is a rare phenomenon.
Within countries the focus of policy statements is either on outgoing temporary mobility (19 countries), or on incoming diploma mobility (18). But outgoing degree mobility and incoming credit mobility play no role at all, the report says. Although the setting of quantitative targets is becoming more widespread, numerical targets are often still a little-understood concept and indicators are rarely precisely defined, the study says. Levels of mobility ambition vary strongly across Europe.
In terms of regional orientation, the EU-EEA is deemed the highest priority for most countries, especially those with a focus on temporary outgoing mobility. Neighbouring regions and parts of the world with old ties are also often mentioned, as are increasingly emerging countries such as Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRICs).
Graduate students are the favoured target group in incoming mobility. For outgoing mobility, the policies remain vague in terms of level of study. A wide range of measures is mentioned to facilitate and boost mobility, for example scholarship programmes, English-taught programmes, information and encouragement measures, marketing and promotion, recognition procedures and student services. But most countries remain somewhat vague on their reasons for wanting mobility, the report says.
Those with more palpable motivations mention an increase in the quality of education and in graduate employability. For incoming degree mobility ‘knowledge gains’ and related, economic reasons figure high. Skilled migration, internationalisation at home through more foreign students, development aid and foreign cultural policy are further rationales. The share of study abroad students in the Europe 32 area has even increased since 1998-99, from 82.2% to 85.5%.
But there is a lack of comparable data on the mobility of academic staff and researchers and even lack of agreement on the definition of who these people are. The study recommends improved collection of data on mobile scholars; doctoral awards; visits, exchanges and sabbaticals; and retrospective information on international mobility in the course of careers.
Among the obstacles to mobility cited by the report are:
* Lack of information on mobility opportunities.
* Low motivation levels or little interest in being mobile.
* Inadequate financial support.
* Foreign language skills deficiencies.
* Insufficient time or opportunity for international studies within the framework of an established curriculum or programme of study.
* Concerns about the quality of mobility experiences.
* Legal barriers (particularly relating to visas, immigration regulations, and work permits).
* Problems in gaining recognition for academic work completed abroad.
Incentives for mobility include:
* Financial support (mostly in the form of more money for individuals and-or mobility programmes).
* Curricular support through a variety of technical mechanisms (such as the implementation of the Diploma Supplement and ECTS) and innovative programming (including ‘mobility windows’).
* Personal support, especially in the form of guidance and counselling, to convince a wider range of individuals to take part and more consistently ensure a high quality mobility experience.
The study, having been commissioned by the European Commission, focuses its recommendations on action to be taken at the European level. But it warns that “given the very different aims of member states in mobility and the very different mobility levels and patterns in single countries – the main arena for intervention is the national level”.
For incoming degree mobility the ACA report recommends that a European-level target should be set of one in 10 students being incoming degree students. But it also recommends setting differentiated country growth targets.
“These growth targets would be higher for countries with currently low shares of incoming students, and lower for destinations with already high shares,” the report says.
On outgoing temporary – and mainly intra-European – student mobility, the study recommends continuing the present Erasmus programme relatively unchanged, by keeping it inclusive and open to all subject areas and levels of study and maintaining the emphasis on temporary mobility.
But Erasmus should be strengthened and funded to prioritise the creation of mobility windows and the application of robust recognition procedures. There should also be a quantitative target for outgoing temporary mobility in line with the Bologna target, but a definition of mobility must be applied that ensures serious minimum standards of duration and activity abroad.
Degree mobility should not count towards this target, but could be counted separately. Better support should be provided to encourage the temporary study of European students at selected high-class institutions in selected non-European countries, such as the BRICs.
The study was commissioned by the directorate general for education and culture, and conducted between October 2009 and June 2011. ACA coordinated the work, in close cooperation with Ulrich Teichler from INCHER-Kassel, two ACA member organisations (CampusFrance and DAAD) and the Hanover-based social science research institute Hochschul-Informations-System. The editors are Ulrich Teichler, Irina Ferencz and Bernd Wächter.

By Jiang Xueqin. You may have seen him on campus. He's a Chinese student who aced his SAT's, but once enrolled as a freshman he sits quietly by himself either in the library cubicle or at the back of the class. He has only Chinese friends, and thinks sports and parties are beneath him. Day by day, he misses China, and is uninterested in America. And year by year he multiplies on American campuses.
He's in America because he wants a college degree, and because his American college wants his money. But in this marriage of convenience, both parties suffer.
Much of the problem lies in how American admissions officers use hard numbers (standardized test scores) to evaluate Chinese students, and discount soft skills. The hard numbers may determine if a Chinese will excel as a student, but it's the soft skills that will determine if he or she thrives as a member of your campus community.
I have been working in and studying Chinese education since 1999 when I graduated from Yale, and for the past three years I have been working as a curriculum director in two prestigious public high schools in China preparing Chinese students for study in America. Even though our students are some of the brightest in the country, they have struggled to adapt to the Western classroom as much as their peers from less elite schools. Initially, I thought the American college-admissions process could evaluate the Chinese students best suited for study in America, but I've slowly become disillusioned with how American admissions officers select students based almost exclusively on hard numbers. This practice, I believe, benefits mainly the rote learners who thrive in China's schools, and hurts the thoughtful students who have the potential to be transformed by a rigorous American liberal-arts education and who, in turn, may transform the lives of their fellow students and professors.
To be fair, American college recruiters in China feel overwhelmed by the proliferation of cheating, lying, and fraud: Study abroad is big business in China, and young Ivy League graduates write essays for Chinese applicants while many a Chinese public school fakes transcripts and recommendation letters. Amid such chaos, it's understandable why American colleges fall back on standardized tests. But these tests tell only half the story. To really judge a Chinese student's potential to thrive on campus, American colleges and universities could add depth to the admissions process by including an oral interview, one designed to challenge Chinese students with focused questions that test their empathy, imagination, and resilience. Those American colleges that choose to do so will discover that their new Chinese recruits, even though their test scores may suggest limited English, will quickly adapt to a culture of critical thinking and intellectual inquiry in a way they failed to adapt to the Chinese education system of obedience and conformity.
To better understand how this oral interview would work in the admissions process, let's look at David and Michael, two Chinese applicants who are composites of students I've taught and who are now studying in America. David has an average GPA, a B, scored about 2000 out of 2400 on his SAT Reasoning Test, and was editor of his school's newspaper for two years. Michael has the highest GPA in his ultracompetitive high school, scored around 2300 on the SAT, got a 5 on the English Advanced Placement examination, and started his own business.
Michael is a student many American campuses would love to have, and he's set on the Ivy League (Duke is his safety school). But ultimately it doesn't matter where he goes, because he'll take courses that will ensure him a 4.0 GPA and get into a good business school. He'll be shocked that not everyone shares his passion for grades, and he'll attribute that to American shallowness. He'll drop history class because he got an A- on his first paper, and after a month on campus he'll shelter himself in his small circle of Chinese friends. After four years, he'll leave the campus very much the way he arrived.
Unlike Michael, David won't be a straight-A student. He plans to be an architect because he loves drawing, but he'll also try history and literature classes. He'll struggle to keep pace in seminar discussions, but he'll replay class discussions in his head, and one or two comments may linger with him for days. And one day he'll surprise his classmates and professors with a comment that will linger with them for days. Over the dinner-table he'll pepper his classmates with questions, and he won't graduate from college with his life all planned out like Michael. What he will graduate with is a lot of questions about himself and life, and his four years on campus he'll remember forever as a time of his intellectual blossoming.
If Michael happens to be the ideal, then American colleges and universities are in luck because Michaels abound in China. But David is much less common because the three traits he possesses empathy, imagination, and resilience are strangled at a young age in China.
That's why the toughest question you can ask a Chinese student is also the easiest you can ask an American: "What do you think?" Many Chinese students don't know what they think because their parents and teachers just order them about. Their education alienates them from one another, from the world in which they live, and ultimately from themselves. Unable to construct a self-narrative, they may live comfortably in their bubble but have problems overcoming new challenges. In short, a Chinese education does not prepare most students to study abroad.
And it's easy to figure this out in a 30-minute interview, which must become a mandatory part of the application process if American colleges and universities are to recruit Chinese students who will thrive on campus.
Here's how to conduct the interview. First, it ought to be focused, detailed, and deliberate. Here are some examples of good interview questions that look for empathy, imagination, and resilience:
* Pick a novel or a movie, and discuss the characters. Which character did you identify with? Why? Which part of the book or movie made you sad? Made you angry? Why? What experiences have you had that remind you of events in the book or movie?
* Pick a memorable experience, and explain why it was so memorable. Tell the story. Explain your feelings during the experience. Why did you have these feelings? Do you know anyone either real or fictional who has had a similar experience? Did they behave the same as you did? Do you think their feelings were the same as yours?
* When was the last time you were angry or sad? What made you angry or sad? How did you get over your anger or sadness? What do you think will happen the next time you encounter the same situation?
Persist in asking "why?" Look for sincerity, for logic, and for clarity of thought.
In English class, my Chinese students and I read English novels together, and I use these lines of questioning in class. What's frustrating is that while I'm trying to get them to look into themselves, they're always trying to "read" me for the "right" answer. I persist because teaching these students to relate themselves to the text is crucial in the reconstruction of their lost selves, as well as a fundamental skill they'll need to thrive on the American campus.
As you may suspect, David is far more comfortable in my class than Michael.
In a 30-minute interview, David would talk about his experience editing the school's newspaper, how he was the last one out of the newsroom to make sure the papers got printed, how he had to prod his reporters to take on assignments, and how he had to think of ways to build team spirit among a group of high-achieving individuals.
Michael might talk fast and fluently about his business venture, but he wouldn't be clear and direct. Ask him which college he'd like to attend, and he couldn't give you a straight answer either. It'd be an uncomfortable interview because what he wants to say he can't: that he started his business to pad his résumé but that his real passions are increasing his GPA and SAT score; that he hasn't really thought about which college he'd like to attend because he plans to attend the most highly-ranked; that he's the one talking but it's really his parents who are pulling the strings.
An interview may not capture everything you want to know about these students. But it would be a start in the right direction, and that's exactly what American recruiting efforts in China need right now.
Jiang Xueqin is deputy principal of Peking University High School, and director of its international division.

By Libby A. Nelson. Obama higher education plan signals policy
After the applause faded from President Obama’s State of the Union address, a question lingered: Obama told colleges they were "on notice," but what does “on notice” mean, anyway?
Friday provided a few answers.
In a speech at the University of Michigan, the president laid out a plan for higher education that could be a key plank of his re-election campaign this year. Obama proposed using campus-based financial aid programs to reward colleges that keep net price low and punish those that  do not. Two new competitions, modeled on the administration’s “Race to the Top” program for elementary and secondary education, would reward states that invest in higher education and colleges and nonprofit groups that improve productivity. A host of new disclosure forms would give students more information on price and financial aid.
On one level, the plan is  an election year crowd-pleaser, an appeal to middle-class voters who feel college for their children is increasingly out of reach. But it also signals a shift in the administration’s higher education policy, which until now has focused on reining in for-profit colleges and increasing financial aid for low-income students.
The plan calls for linking federal aid not only to net price increases but to whether colleges provide “good value” to students -- a “quality education and training that prepares graduates to obtain employment and repay their loans,” the White House wrote.
If that sounds familiar, it’s for good reason. A similar philosophy guided the Education Department’s controversial and much-protested "gainful employment" rule, which judges the value of for-profit colleges and vocational programs based on on whether they prepare their students for “gainful employment” by looking at student loan repayment rates.
The real message in “on notice”: Increased scrutiny and regulation aren’t just for for-profit colleges anymore.
“They’re sending a strong signal about where the second Obama administration, if we have one, is likely to go,” said Kevin Carey, policy director at Education Sector, a think tank. “They’re not going to just keep putting millions of dollars into the Pell Grant Program and letting the chips fall where they may.”
The president’s higher education plan appears poised to become a major feature of his re-election campaign, alongside support for manufacturing, clean energy and other ideas intended to help shore up the troubled economy.
The plan’s central feature is a change to the campus-based Perkins Loan Program, which provides funds to institutions to lend to their students. The White House has proposed expanding the program to $10 billion per year and revamping the formula for distributing both Perkins loans and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. Money would be directed to colleges that do well on three criteria: setting a “responsible tuition policy,” providing “good value” to students, and enrolling and graduating relatively large numbers of low-income students. Colleges that do not meet those standards could see their funding for campus-based programs cut.
The plan also would create a $1 billion “Race to the Top” competition for college affordability and completion. The money would serve as an incentive for states to maintain funding on higher education, the administration said. A second competition, called “First in the World,” would provide up to $55 million for colleges or nonprofit organizations to improve productivity.
“If you can find new ways to bring down the cost of college and make it easier for more students to graduate, we’ll help you do it,” Obama said, referring to the states, in his speech at Michigan.
Many higher education experts and college groups were skeptical of Obama’s plan when it was first proposed, in broad strokes, during the State of the Union address Tuesday night. Reactions from the major higher education associations after his speech Friday were tempered. Most praised the president for his proposals to expand work-study programs and Perkins loans: “If approved by Congress, it would provide an enormous amount of money to help students and families,” Molly Corbett Broad, president of the American Council on Education, said in a statement. “Colleges and universities stand ready to do everything they can to help enhance student access and completion.”
But they also pushed back strongly on additional federal involvement, especially in measuring the value of a college education or trying to force universities to keep prices low: “Colleges, states, and the federal government must work together in a climate of mutual trust and collaboration,” David Warren, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, said in a statement. “The answer is not going to come from more federal controls on colleges or states, or by telling families to judge the value of an education by the amount young graduates earn in the first few years after they graduate.”
(Responses from individual college presidents were less measured. Michael Young, president of the University of Washington, called Obama’s plan “nonsense on stilts” and “political theater of the worst sort,” according to the Associated Press.)
All noted that important questions remained. For public universities, state support is key: so far, it’s unclear how the Race to the Top competition would function, and whether it would be enough of a reward to spur states into increasing support. Tuition increases at public colleges and universities have been driven largely by declining state support, which Obama noted in his speech Friday and many higher education leaders reiterated.
“I think it’ll be very hard to sustain holding tuition to inflation if the states can’t keep their side of the bargain,” M. Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, said in an interview. “Affordability for publics is fundamentally a question of state appropriations.”
The Race to the Top for elementary and secondary education required states to make policy changes before they could even be eligible to enter the competition. But whether the competition for higher education will work that way, and what changes might be required, is unclear, said Andrew Kelly, a research fellow in education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
“It sounds like what they’re getting at is a maintenance of effort,” Kelly said, referring to requirements to keep funding above certain levels to remain eligible for federal funds. But maintenance of effort requirements, including some related to higher education, have foundered in the past because the amount of federal funding at risk pales in comparison to state budget shortfalls. “What would the prerequisites even look like?” Kelly said. “I don’t think anybody knows.”
Education Department officials said more details will be released with the budget request for fiscal year 2013, which will provide information on how the administration plans to pay for the expanded Perkins loans, the two competitions and other factors of the plan. Obama has called on Congress to act on other parts of his higher education agenda immediately, including stopping the interest rate on subsidized student loans from doubling in July. The Democratic-led Congress cut the interest rate in half in 2007, with the knowledge that it would reset to the higher 6.8 percent rate without action (and available funds) to stop it, as Republican critics of Obama's new plan have been quick to note.
Still, given the Congressional deadlock, it’s unclear whether any part of the plan will face a vote in the near future. And some provisions, especially the proposal to measure the “value” of degree programs, might require additional legislation, Kelly said. The regulation of for-profit colleges hinged on a brief phrase in the Higher Education Act: for-profit colleges, and programs not in the liberal arts, must prepare students for “gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” There is no such basis for regulating traditional degree programs.
In a way, using similar criteria makes sense, Carey said: after all, even students studying art history or philosophy are attending college because they hope to get a job. “The president has kind of taken on the lenders and the for-profits and won significant victories, and he’s now turning his attention to the traditional sector,” Carey said. “They’ve been treating the symptoms of rising college prices, but they haven’t really tackled it as a problem.”
But some critics said that shift in focus takes away from what was seen as the administration’s primary goal: enrolling and graduating more low-income students. Further expansions to the Pell Grant Program would do more to make college accessible, said Sara Goldrick-Rab, an associate professor of higher education policy at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.
“I don’t have high hopes for [the new plan] being very effective in helping him achieve what I thought his goal was, which is getting more students from low-income families to be college graduates,” Goldrick-Rab said, describing the plan as “a little all over the place.”
“This is going to cause problems for the institutions that have the least resources to begin with.”
Goldrick-Rab said she saw the plan largely as an election-year attempt to appeal to the middle class. But given the unlikelihood of major change this year -- and the fact that a second Obama term would also include the 2013 scheduled reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, an anticipated vehicle for many of the new policy proposals -- its ramifications are likely to linger long beyond 2012.
“This is setting a new agenda, and I think it’s easy to underestimate that this is an important shift in the dialogue,” Kelly said. The new conversation is about using incentives to force colleges to change, rather than just funding grants for low-income students, he said. “That’s a fundamentally different agenda than we’ve had in the past, even within this administration.”
Open Letter to the President
Robert Sternberg offers 10 suggestions to the Obama administration as it pursues higher education reform -- including patience and respecting institutional differences.

By Jan Petter Myklebust. Belarus’ bid to join the European Higher Education Area should be turned down, according to the high-level group following up the Bologna process. The country is not living up to the principles and values of the Bologna process, which created the EHEA, and its inclusion therefore cannot be recommended, the Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) has decided.
Belarus remains the only country of the 48 in greater Europe outside the EHEA. It applied for official membership in November last year, but the BFUG meeting in Copenhagen on 18-19 January, chaired by Denmark and Azerbaijan, decided against any recommendation that ministers of the 47 countries accept Belarus at the present time.
According to the group, the country does not follow the Bologna process principles and values of academic freedom, institutional autonomy and student democracy. Supporting the recommendation Morten Østergaard, Denmark’s minister for science, innovation and higher education, said: “It is our wish that Belarus should be included [in the Bologna process], but only when academic freedom is secured, and the country has made university reforms and secured the basic rights of students.”
In the meantime, there were other ways to support students, the academic environment and Belarusian society.
“Denmark is and will continue to be an active supporter of the Open Europe Scholarship Scheme, giving students from Belarus grants to European universities,” he said.
The European Students Union (ESU) welcomed decision on the grounds that Belarus should make reforms before being admitted.
“We agree with these conclusions, as we have repeatedly spoken out against EHEA membership of Belarus and have asked for reform first,” said Allan Päll, ESU chair.
“We absolutely support that Belarusian repressed civil society must have every opportunity to build contacts in Europe. While we are doing our part by establishing contacts ourselves, we think that to let Belarus join the Bologna process would only be used for government propaganda, while doing little to improve fundamental issues for students and academics such as freedom of research and study.”
The ministers of the 47 member countries are expected to follow the advice of the BFUG when they meet in Bucharest in April. The group said Belarus must adopt all principles and values of the Bologna process, such as academic freedom, institutional autonomy and student participation in higher education governance before being admitted.
Päll said: “If Belarus wants to show its willingness to join the Bologna Process, it must allow students who have escaped the country and have been forced to study elsewhere in Europe to return to study free of any fear of repression while their academic freedom and right to association is guaranteed. That would be a great start.”
Last month in Belarus Digest, a Washington DC-based newsletter published by a group of independent international analysts, Yauheni Preiherman argued that Belarus needed a comprehensive transformation of its education system to become a generic part of the European education region. He suggested that the country’s accession to the Bologna process should take place in three stages and be based on the ‘road map for reforms’ suggested by the Belarusian Independent Bologna Committee.
The first would involve de-politicising and eliminating state control over higher education, and reintroducing transparent and fair elections of university rectors. The second would provide a legal framework for reform. The third would include technical improvements such as the completion of degree and qualification reform, the completion of quality assurance reform, and the establishment of a national system for supporting mobility.  This month the Belarus Digest reported an increasing braindrain to Russia of young Belarusians – often students – because the European Union is closed to them.
It said the European Union should become more open and offer more education and work experience opportunities for Belarusian youth if it wanted to see a democratic and pro-European Belarus in the future and to balance Russia's influence.
Volha Charnysh, executive editor of the Digest and a PhD student in government at Harvard, told University World News: “By refusing Belarus admission to the Bologna process, Europe is giving up a potential channel of influence in the already closed and isolated country.
“It is true that there is no academic freedom in Belarus, but the country is not that different from several other Bologna members in the post-Soviet space. However, the decision to exclude the country from the Bologna process will hurt Belarusian youth rather than the regime.”
She said the decision would decrease the likelihood of European values ever reaching Belarusian students by preventing deeper cooperation with European universities.
“Criticising Belarus but not declining its membership would have been a much more efficient strategy, not only for influencing education policy in the country but also for reaching future generations of Belarus leaders.”
The heart of the matter, as reported by University World News in December, is the continuous breach of human rights by the Belarusian government of Alexander Lukashenko, notably towards university students. On 19 December 2011 Catherine Ashton, high representative of the European Union, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a joint statement on the human rights situation in Belarus, in which they referred to the “brutal crackdown by the Belarus government on civil society, political opposition and independent media”.
They expressed grave concern over “new laws that will further restrict citizens' fundamental freedoms of assembly, association and expression and that target support to civil society”.

C'est un rapport qui tombe à pic dans le débat sur l'autonomie des universités. Quand, à droite, la loi relative aux libertés et responsabilités des universités (LRU) est désignée comme l'une des plus grandes réussites du quinquennat, et que, à gauche, François Hollande veut la modifier par une « loi-cadre » afin de donner « une réelle autonomie ». Quand, depuis plusieurs mois, la polémique monte sur la réalité de l'autonomie des établissements face, entre autres, au coup de frein sur les budgets.
Le comité de suivi de la LRU rend public aujourd'hui son rapport annuel 2011, que « Les Echos » se sont procuré. Il devrait être lu avec attention. Il souligne tout d'abord la «  dynamique » engagée et des « acquis » : « les efforts de structuration des établissements et des sites, de rationalisation de la gestion, d'amélioration de la politique des recrutements ». Il relève aussi que les aspects législatifs ont été « menés à bien » : toutes les universités sauf trois sont autonomes depuis le 1er janvier 2012...

Montpellier 1. Ce rapport est de novembre 2011. Dans la partie Stratégie en matière de formation, il y a une partie III, spécifique Formation Continue:
III – Formation continue
Cette mission est assurée par un service commun de l’université (DIDERIS) qui s’appuie sur les composantes sauf pour la médecine. Les composantes assurent la responsabilité de la conception et de l’organisation de l’offre pédagogique. Le service de formation continue vient en appui pour partie ou pour l’intégralité de l’organisation matérielle, depuis la recherche de financement jusqu’au suivi des stagiaires ou aux bilans des formations. Cette activité concerne principalement les formations diplômantes professionnalisantes, mais tend à s’ouvrir vers des formations non diplômantes pour le monde professionnel. Seule la fonction de validation des acquis de l’expérience bénéficie d’un demi-équivalent temps plein sur le budget de l’université. Les 17 autres équivalents temps plein sont des emplois CDD autofinancés par les actions de la formation continue. Pour la validation des acquis de l’expérience, le dossier est commun aux trois universités. Pour les candidats, il y a un guichet unique, des réunions d’information collectives, un entretien individuel et un avis sur le projet par un des responsables de la formation pédagogique envisagée avant constitution du dossier qui est soumis à un jury. La médecine possède son propre service de formation continue: celui-ci est agréé pour les trois domaines de la formation médicale: libéral, salarié et hospitalier.
I – Pilotage de l’offre de formation
Le pilotage s’appuie sur le service central de la DEVE, qui abrite ou interagit avec plusieurs services communs ou généraux: la direction des systèmes d’information (DSI), la formation continue et apprentissage (DIDERIS), le service commun de la documentation (SCD), le service commun universitaire d’information et d’orientation - insertion professionnelle (SCUIO-IP).
II – Relations avec les collectivités territoriales et les milieux socio-économiques
L’agglomération de Montpellier mène une politique de valorisation de la recherche avec des incubateurs et des pépinières d’entreprises à laquelle elle associe l’université. Celle-ci est également associée à la définition des priorités du contrat de plan État-Région. De plus, l’UM1 est aidée pour ses investissements immobiliers relatifs à la réhabilitation du Jardin des Plantes et au financement de la formation continue.
3 - Stratégie en matière de formation
La formation continue universitaire est bien développée, mais le CHU lui-même y est statutairement peu impliqué.
Télécharger le Rapport d'évaluation de l'Université de Montpellier 1.
Montpellier 2. Ce rapport est de novembre 2011. Dans la partie Stratégie en matière de formation, il y a une partie VI, spécifique Formation Continue:
VI – La stratégie en matière de formation continue
Pendant plus de dix ans, la formation continue (FC) à l’UM2 a fonctionné comme une boîte noire, à l’intérieur d’un service appelé centre régional universitaire de formation permanente (CREUFOP) Le conseil d’orientation ne se réunissait pas. Aucune trace de règles ou de procédures, notamment en matière de tarifs et de reversements ne semble exister. Le déséquilibre entre le poids des effectifs (donc de la masse salariale) par rapport au volume d’action était important, en raison notamment du fait que la FC a eu recours en majorité à des CDI pour fonctionner.
Le nombre déclaré de stagiaires en FC, 650 stagiaires par an (dont 250 sur financement du conseil régional (CR) qui donne une subvention d’un montant prévisionnel de 750 k€ pour l’accueil des stagiaires de la FC, hors validation des acquis de l’expérience - VAE), apparaît extrêmement faible au regard de la taille de l’université et des moyens du CREUFOP. Une des rares indications disponibles indique une moyenne de 489 stagiaires par an de 2005 à 2008. Une restructuration du service, rattaché à DE, est en cours depuis octobre 2009, mais la situation actuelle ne semble toujours pas satisfaisante et l’héritage continue à peser sur le service et sa crédibilité. Il comprend actuellement 19 personnes (dont deux fonctionnaires).
Les efforts développés par le nouveau directeur ne semblent pas donner la priorité à l’assainissement de la situation au niveau de la gouvernance. Il est regrettable que depuis son arrivée, le CA n’ait toujours pas été réuni et qu’un budget n’ait pas été élaboré. Il semble que les outils soient mis en place avant qu’aient été réunies les conditions nécessaires au fonctionnement du service et définis clairement les objectifs.
Parmi les principales faiblesses identifiées, les plus alarmantes sont l’absence: d’objectifs globaux clairs, de statistiques (pas de données sur les candidats et les stagiaires), de procédures communes, de recensement et de mutualisation des compétences et des informations, d’étude de marché, de données sur le coût des formations, de politique de tarification. Le dispositif de VAE dépendant du CREUFOP présente les mêmes lacunes que celles relevées pour la FC. Concernant le manque de règles et de procédures, il faut noter l’absence de charte du processus de validation et l’absence d’informations sur la composition des jurys.
Bien que les composantes se soient déclarées mécontentes de la situation de la FC, il n’a pas été fait mention de discussions en cours entre le CREUFOP et ces dernières pour lever les désaccords et résoudre les blocages. La FC dispose d’atouts: des moyens humains importants au sein du CREUFOP; le large panel des compétences de l’UM2 dans lesquelles la FC peut puiser pour offrir des formations; le soutien du CR. Le CFA ayant fonctionné indépendamment du CREUFOP, l’apprentissage n’a pas hérité du même passif que la FC. Il est bien structuré et fonctionne aujourd’hui en collaboration avec le CREUFOP rénové.
Conclusion et recommandations
Cependant, le pilotage de l’offre de formation par le CEVU reste faible, compte tenu de la place très forte des composantes dérogatoires. Cette absence de pilotage est particulièrement marquée et dommageable pour l’épanouissement de la formation continue, au niveau central.
II – Points faibles
* Défaillance du service central de la formation continue et méconnaissance des activités des composantes en la matière.
Télécharger le Rapport d'évaluation de l'Université de Montpellier 2.
Montpellier 3. Ce rapport est de novembre 2011. Il n'y a pas de partie consacrée à la formation continue. Voici les passages où elle figure:
III – Une solide, ancienne et originale prise en compte de la dimension professionnelle dans une université “littéraire”
L’apprentissage constitue une réelle originalité de l’UPV qui a augmenté le nombre de ses apprentis par des diplômes plus nombreux depuis 2008 (une formation ouverte par an), soutenue par la Région qui souhaiterait ouvrir un CFA unique pour toutes les universités de Montpellier.
Concernant la formation continue (FC), l’UPV veut augmenter le nombre de stagiaires en renforçant ses liens avec les milieux socio-économiques. Si l’ensemble des formations est ouvert à la FC, les étudiants se dirigent logiquement vers les professionnalisantes: 1330 stagiaires soit 325 159 heures stagiaires et un chiffre d’affaires de 1 164 217 euros en 2008.
La validation des acquis VAP et VAE est pilotée par un IGE depuis la rentrée 2009. Les résultats sont encore limités mais devraient progresser. La procédure de VAE est élaborée en commun avec les universités de la région Languedoc-Roussillon. Il existe une convention inter-universitaire pluri-annuelle avec la Région qui a permis aux demandeurs d’emploi pris en charge dans ce cadre de doubler en deux ans (2008-9). Dans le même domaine, l’UPV est très fière d’un partenariat avec la DRAC, courant ailleurs en France dans ce type d’université littéraire.
3 - Les relations avec le monde professionnel
L’opinion prévaut toutefois que les UFR ne font pas assez d’efforts pour adapter leur offre de formation à la formation continue, notamment dans le domaine des langues et dans celui de la philosophie pour la formation des cadres.
Télécharger le Rapport d'évaluation de l'Université de Montpellier 3.

Ce rapport est de novembre 2011. Dans la partie Stratégie en matière de formation, il y a une partie VIII, spécifique Formation Continue:
VIII – Une offre de formation continue (FC) à construire
La FC est très peu développée dans la mesure où cette dernière était gérée jusqu’en 2008-2009 par l’université de Montpellier II. Cette ligne budgétaire fait donc apparaître des déficits qui devraient être comblés par le reversement, de la part de l’université de Montpellier 2, des sommes générées par les activités de FC de l’UNÎMES des années passées et l’augmentation de l’offre de FC.
Le bilan de l’activité du service “Université de Nîmes formation permanente”, après un an d’exercice, ne comptabilise que 45 stagiaires en 2009-2010 dans les formations initiales et 31 inscrits dans les diplômes d’université.
Le chargé de mission est conscient de l’aspect prioritaire du développement de cet axe. Il est indispensable pour une université à vocation professionnelle de développer la FC en déployant tous ses aspects (validation des acquis de l’expérience, alternance, apprentissage) et en privilégiant la coordination des offres dans le contexte régional.
II – La plus petite des universités
En 2013, un nouveau site d’enseignement, le site d’Hoche devrait accueillir les formations professionnelles et la formation continue.
Télécharger le Rapport d'évaluation de l'Université de Nîmes.