That is the conclusion of a study published this week analysing means-tested support schemes at 52 UK universities. It was written by John Hills and Ben Richards of the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion at the London School of Economics.
Professor Hills, professor of social policy and director of the centre, and Mr Richards, a PhD student, conclude that there are several key weaknesses.
The systems on offer “vary in many different ways” between universities, they argue, not just in their treatments of different levels of parental income, but also in aspects such as what type of school an applicant attended.
“This makes comparison more complex than just looking at single prices,” the authors write.
In addition, they argue: “Given the ‘cliff edges’ at particular income levels, precise levels of parental income – about which an applicant may only have very fuzzy knowledge – can make a difference worth thousands of pounds: Oxford may have a slightly better offer for some students with incomes up to £16,000 than Cambridge, but at £16,500, the Cambridge offer can be £4,000 more valuable, for instance.”
The study notes criticism from the Browne review that the system of means-tested support was already complex.
“Yet the survey reported here implies not just further complexity, but also much higher stakes as both fees and means-tested support have increased,” Professor Hills and Mr Richards write.
They add: “A typical scheme from one of the more prestigious universities involves total support of around £6,000 for students from families with incomes up to £25,000, withdrawn if family income is above £43,000.
“Just by itself this implies an average withdrawal rate of 33 per cent of additional income but, given the cliff edges involved in most of the schemes we have examined, there are income ranges where the marginal rates are far higher.”

By Anamaria Dutceac Segesten for University of Venus, part of the Guardian higher education editorial network. Is starting a doctorate degree motivated by love for knowledge, dreams of joining the intellectual elite or financial gain?
It is very fashionable these days in the world of arts and entertainment to create prequels. As opposed to sequels that tell readers or viewers what happened next to their favourite characters or plots, prequels go back in time. I now find myself following this trend and writing a prequel to my post for Inside Higher Ed on how to avoid PhD drop-out. One of the comments on that post made me think that one of the best ways to minimize PhD drop-out rates is to select the best candidates in the first place. The next logical question is then: Why go for a PhD in the first place?
There are as many reasons as there are people, you might say, but perhaps their motivations can be grouped into some general categories. The disinterested reason most often given is that people start a PhD because of their thirst for knowledge. Simply put, PhD students are those with a high degree of personal motivation that stems from their natural curiosity and love of intellectual pursuits. It is expected that after they obtain their degree they will metamorphose into scholars for whom also the temptation of researching new and exciting subjects is irresistible, or at least preferable to all other choices. But is it really to satisfy the desire for deeper understanding that one enrols on a PhD programme? Are there no other avenues for the interested mind than university-based research programmes? Certainly there are other opportunities to drive research projects outside academia. Sometimes having obtained a PhD provides access to these research opportunities, but I would not claim this to be the absolute rule. Thinktanks and research institutes do hire capable minds with or without the diploma.
There are other reasons given for pursuing a PhD, let's call them the more pragmatic reasons. In this sense, the doctoral degree is not just a passport to a world of research and new knowledge, it is also a valuable asset that increases one's chances of earning higher paid in more satisfying jobs. It is an investment, a certificate of one's special abilities that can give them an advantage on the job market. While it is true that PhD holders do get higher salaries, the higher education market is not one of the most rewarding in terms of financial stability. There are few available jobs, there is a lot of tough competition and the salary of a professional is lower here than in the industry. So the PhD is valuable if its possessor is interested in the non-academic job market. However, how many Fortune 100 people hold a doctorate? Not many. On the contrary, there are numerous among these who are drop-outs (even before finishing a undergraduate course). So if you want to be really financially prosperous, then PhDs are not for you.
There are other reasons that motivate students to continue their education to PhD level. Harking back to a time when these diplomas were reserved for a minuscule segment of the population, the doctoral degree is a seen as a prestige marker, the recognition of one's exceptional talents and the certificate of belonging to the intellectual elite. The non-material rewards that a PhD is supposed to bring, at least theoretically, are connected to social standing; PhDs can be used as a vehicle for upwards social mobility, and for the fulfilment of personal and family ambitions. The prestige power of the PhD is however on the wane. With mass education, the number of doctorate holders has increased exponentially, so that the elite membership and the high social status that comes with it is weakened. Especially in connection with a decrease in salary size for university professionals, doctorate holders are perhaps now not seen as exceptional but quirky: why choose to specializes narrowly, work so many hours, and for so little pay when one could get a more lucrative employment elsewhere?
Lastly, there are those who out of necessity start a PhD. If the job market offers up nothing attractive, or if entry to the job market is prohibited because of one's immigration status, then pursuing the highest academic degree becomes a viable choice for students who under different circumstances would have opted for a life in the industry and not in research. Do other motivations come into play? Why did you choose to pursue a PhD, or perhaps decide against it?
Anamaria Dutceac Segesten writes from Lund, Sweden. She is one of the founding members of the editorial collective at University of Venus.

Social media has enabled more people to have a say – and that personal engagement is crucial when communicating large-scale projects, says Justin Shaw.
Whether it's the £200m acquisition of the College of Law (by Montagu Private Capital last month) or the merger of fully fledged universities (talked about, for example, among certain universities in Wales), higher education has traditionally been resilient to change.
But, in the current climate, I believe we'll see more mergers, acquisitions and alliances taking shape. These may not be full-blooded amalgamations (along the scale of north London and London Guildhall universities 10 years ago to form London Metropolitan University), but there will be synergistic absorptions pooling complementary talents and expertise (and offering great potential for commercial growth). Good examples of this – that we've been directly involved with – are Lancaster University's takeover of the Work Foundation and the merger of (the then) Henley Management School with the University of Reading (to form the now-called Henley Business School). Our role in both these examples has been to support the communications effort at these times of great change.
Communications during mergers is a tough challenge and never an easy ride. Culturally, most higher education institutions are reluctant to accommodate sudden and dramatic change. They also struggle with whole institution loyalty – with academic staff relating most strongly to their department, unit or peer subject group. So when you have a merger taking place – this throws up a whole new series of cultural challenges.
Of course, a major concern, is the clash between the legalities of the merger negotiations and due process (which requires complete discretion and heavily guarded communications), and the desire for openness and inclusion so that all those involved in the change feel engaged.
In the new world of digital access and online chromatography (where word spreads fast and views are hotly expressed) – those leading the change now need to adopt a much more accommodating mindset when it comes to communications about merger. All sorts of emotions and parent brand loyalties suddenly emerge (especially among alumni) – and you, as a leader or a communications manager, will never be able to win over all the people, all of the time.
I remember my time working in the communications department of the University of Hertfordshire – when the university was being formed from the Hatfield Polytechnic brand. Within a short period of time, there was a drive to absorb new subject areas by taking over specialist providers (in areas such as arts and design and healthcare/nursing).
This was the early 1990s – and social media channels (as we now know them) weren't around: so the whole communications approach (internally and externally) could be very carefully managed. It was also handled very personally – with only those deemed to be most in the "need to know" being briefed frequently.
The world has changed dramatically over the 22 years I've worked as a communicator in higher education. What used to be very closely guarded communications internally and externally can no longer operate in the same way. Word now gets out so easily – that's just the way it is – and actually: isn't this a good thing? The digital highway allows for great discussion, debate and engagement.
Sure, there will always be the rumour-mongers and the naysayers, but at least they now have an avenue to vent their thoughts and frustrations. This also provides the perfect opportunity for those leading the merger to put the case, explain the complexities, encourage support, make people feel part of the (often historical) event – and, of course, set people straight on inaccuracies.
In the mergers or large-scale change projects for education clients that I've been involved with – online engagement has also paved the way for personal engagement. People who may have stayed silent or never expressed an opinion can now participate. If they have particular points or concerns made online then merger leaders can use these as a lead into face-to-face encounters. What a great way to re-engage alumni, to more fully engage with existing students (who generally miss out on the bigger institutional picture during their time of study – with communications being pretty much transactional rather than visionary).
So the message is – when you are planning a merger or any kind of institutional alliance – seize the moment. This can become so much more than a dry, painful, secretive legal process – it's an opportunity to put mature, modern and forward-thinking communications to the test.
Justin Shaw is the managing director at Communications Management.

By Yojana Sharma. Degrees from Western universities have become so prized in China in recent years that degree mills and fake certificate producers have mushroomed, making the country one of the world’s major producers of bogus degrees – not just for customers in China, but across Asia and beyond.
With an ongoing crackdown by Chinese authorities and the ubiquity of genuine degrees from the US, UK and Australia among Chinese graduates, the shadowy industry appears to be moving into lucrative new areas – professional qualifications designed to smooth the way into coveted jobs.
“A foreign degree used to be seen as ‘gold plated’ in China. It’s no longer the same because now lot of Chinese students come back from universities in the US and UK,” said Ning Guan, strategic development manager at UK Naric, the National Recognition Information Centre, which specialises in identifying and tracking bogus degrees on behalf of UK universities and large companies recruiting internationally.
“China’s labour market has become more demanding. Before, you could go back [to China] and get a good job. Now you need a professional qualification to go with your foreign degree to get a decent job. So there is definitely a market opening up for this kind of qualification,” she told University World News.
The proliferation of private universities in China and the relaxation of degree-awarding rules to cover different types of qualifications, including online degrees and qualifications from the increasing number of branch campuses, has meant it is easy to offer bogus courses as ‘affiliate degrees’ of genuine institutions. Meanwhile, foreign degrees have become so common that universities and companies often do not check certificates. The authorities in China have become more vigilant about fake foreign degrees. But from small-scale print shops producing knock-off certificates sent by mail, the scams have become more ambitious.
“The fake agencies operate in the name of a branch office of a foreign university in China or claim they have authorised cooperation with foreign schools,” said Rao Mindang, an official with Beijing’s Haidian district procuratorate, speaking to official media.
High profile cases
In one of the highest profile cases recently, nine people went to trial in Beijing last month for their involvement in a racket that provided fake postgraduate degrees to some 30 people, including executives of major international corporations, described by the authorities as ‘Fortune 500 companies’.
Beijing court officials pointed to the lengths to which operators go, renting office buildings in Beijing’s Haidian district, close to major universities such as Tsinghua University, and recruiting lecturers from top universities for a minimum of CNY10,000 (US1,588) a lecture, in order to appear more genuine.
Officials of Beijing’s Haidian district procuratorate have said while there is no evidence to prove the lecturers knew they were part of an illegal operation, investigating officials had reason to believe the lecturers “knew exactly what they were doing”.
The Haidian procuratorate said another seven scams involving fake foreign degrees and training schemes were being investigated by the office, China Youth Daily reported.
Training centre scam
The Beijing trial attracted attention because many of the people buying the fake degrees were already in top jobs. But in a case involving many more people, Beijing police this month announced the arrest of 422 suspects for their involvement in illegal training centres delivering qualifications purporting to be endorsed by national ministries. The suspects stand accused of using a central government department’s name to enrol students from across the country, and may have conned victims out of more than CNY10 million (US$1.6 million), official media reported. In some cases, participants were led to believe the training was run by the building industry’s Beijing branch of the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade. In one example, the organisers claimed they could provide ‘advanced project manager’ certificates under the authority of the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security. Ministry endorsement is often required for professional qualifications.
“They claimed to be running classes in preparation for professional licensing exams and told applicants that they would be given official certificates authorised by the ministry,” Liu Chunjiang, a senior officer with Beijing’s Fengtai district police bureau, was quoted as saying. Police seized 500 fake documents, including training certificates for a number of professions including accountancy and medicine, as well as fake invoices.
Qingdao case
In another major case, in Qingdao in eastern Shandong province, police destroyed some 7,000 fake certificates in March, including forged certificates ordered by a construction company to give employees engineering credentials, to help the company qualify for government contracts. According to the Qingdao authorities, half of the seized forged certificates were for university degrees, but 30% were for specialist qualifications including professional and vocational titles. Although a large quantity, it was not just the overall number of the seized fake certificates that aroused interest – they appeared to indicate a new and lucrative avenue for fraudsters.
“We still see a lot of fake university qualifications from China and also the quality is quite good,” said Ning, who has been monitoring China closely for many years. But the move towards bogus qualifications that would lead to jobs in China “is a new trend”, she said.
With high graduate unemployment, even for those with degrees from the US, the UK and Australia, graduates need to distinguish themselves from their job-seeking peers in other ways.
“If you have a degree and a professional registration, it is more attractive,” Ning said, adding that a fake professional qualification could also be cheaper than obtaining a fake foreign degree.
The Qingdao swindlers provided professional accreditation certificates by government departments for CNY3,000 or more. A fake degree purporting to be from a US university can cost hundreds of thousands of yuan, and in some cases – such as a fake American MBA – applicants must also have several years' management experience in a big or medium-sized company, for it to be passed off as authentic.
More sophisticated schemes
Rao Mindang, of the Beijing Haidian procuratorate, said previous degree mill cases usually targeted students who had failed highly competitive college entrance exams and wanted a degree certificate. The more sophisticated schemes targeting the high end had emerged only recently. In particular, credentials that can lead to secure and prestigious jobs as government employees are sought after. “There are national examinations for government recruitment and many courses to prepare for them, and some are fraudulent,” said Ning.
Police said it was essential to catch those setting up the bogus organisations, with rising numbers of complaints. In many cases, students are completely unaware that they are attending a qualifications mill. Even if students are caught with bogus degrees, it is not easy to charge them. This month Wuhan University of Technology in Hubei province said it was investigating a case of more than 100 graduates suspected of obtaining a masters degree from the institution fraudulently, after it was found they had used fake bachelor degree certificates to gain admission, according to the Guangzhou-based New Express newspaper. The students are likely to escape punishment because it is the university that must verify certificates. Wang Shuli, vice-dean of the university’s school of economics, acknowledged in China Daily that the college was responsible for verifying, but said it was “not always easy” to carry out the checks.
"If the universities' stamps on the applicants' certificates appear genuine, they will pass the verification process," he said.
Admissions employees can often experience difficulties. "When we attempt to check the authenticity of diplomas issued by other universities, we are always rebuffed," he said.

By Geoff Maslen. A strategy for setting up world-class teaching universities, with an outline for evaluating teaching and learning quality, was formulated at an international conference on higher education held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, last month. The conference from 17-18 April was on the theme of “World-class teaching universities”.
Salim Al Malik, the conference supervisor and general director for international affairs at the Saudi Ministry of Higher Education, presented the strategic plan. Although teaching and service to society are just as central to the success of an education system as high-powered research, teaching universities have been largely under-evaluated in the contemporary rush toward academic excellence too often measured only by research productivity, the “Riyadh Statement” indicated.
In terms of the new strategy, the mission of teaching universities, which educate the majority of students and employ most of the academic profession, must be clearly articulated, the statement said. They must be fully committed to the teaching mission and, for the most part, must be discouraged from emphasising research at the expense of teaching. Quality teaching and learning within universities should be encouraged, as most academics are not trained to teach during their masters and doctoral studies, which focus on research.
The strategy suggests that academic institutions set up teaching and learning centres, to provide appropriate training to new staff. In-service teaching assistance for senior professors and others involved in teaching should be provided. Also, the development of teaching skills should be a compulsory component of all doctoral training. To assess the quality of the overall university experience, new non-controversial tools and techniques for measuring, assessing and evaluating what students learn in classrooms and laboratories should be developed. Every academic institution should establish a system for evaluating teaching quality using appropriate methodologies aligned to its mission. This is because evaluation is multifaceted and can vary depending on the subject and discipline as well as the academic culture and location.
“I wonder whether a teaching university's quality is not more determined by the quality of its faculty and its students than by monitoring and evaluation systems,” John Daly, a science and technology consultant and former director of the office of research at USAID, told University World News.
“Similarly, I think a major concern should be the role of the teaching university in preparing students for their roles in adult life – as workers, citizens, family members etc. I think therefore that university-community relations are very important."
Since higher education is expected to contribute to the development of individual talent in consideration of the future needs and possibilities of the labour market, the curriculum and teaching and learning should periodically be held up against the light of usefulness to the graduate. Quality education must reflect recognition that the labour market requires problem-solving ability, the capacity for effective teamwork, and creativity as well as professional knowledge. Universities should maintain ongoing communication with their graduates and use their feedback to revamp curricula and teaching methods. Teaching universities are central to the success of all countries, and the best among them must be considered world-class for their teaching achievements in the same way that their research-intensive counterparts are rewarded for contributions to knowledge generation.
“The roadmap, with its focus on teaching and learning, contributes in important ways to two of the critical features of an innovation system,” Richard Gold, an expert on innovation and development and a professor in the law faculty at McGill University in Canada, told University World News.
These include the presence of expertise in both the sciences and the social sciences and humanities, as well as social capital in the form of local networks through which to share and build knowledge, Gold explained.
"Most obviously, the roadmap builds a local base of talent.
"Through effective teaching, countries can foster an active learning environment in which students develop the critical analytical skills necessary to not only understand scientific and social developments but to improve upon them. Second, the emphasis on teamwork and communication contributes to the capacity to build social capital," Gold argued.
Speaking to University World News Hilmi Salem, an international higher education consultant and director general of applied sciences and engineering research centres at Palestine Technical University, said " There is no ready-made recipe for developing a world-class teaching university. This roadmap is only providing guidelines and general points."
This was indicated by the statement saying that one size does not fit all.
"Based on strengths and resources, local environment, institutional model and national developmental needs as well as future vision, each country must establish excellent teaching universities to meet the wide range of education and training needs and develop the human resources required, bearing in mind the best practices around the world,” Salem concluded.

By Daniel de Vise. Harvard and MIT jumped to the front of the free online education movement this week with edX, a $60 million partnership that promises online coursework to the masses from two leading academic brands.
The venture illustrates both the limits and limitlessness of online higher education. On the one hand, the collaboration looks like an unprecedented gesture of intellectual largesse — an “altruistic giveaway,” as Mary Carmichael put it in the Boston Globe. Or, as Harvard President Drew Faust noted in Wednesday’s news conference, “Anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world can have access.” The Chronicle of Higher Education termed it part of an “online education revival,” following the collapse of earlier efforts that proved financially untenable.
It remains to be seen how many citizens of edX’s vast global education community can walk away with credentials for completing a course, or what it might cost. The venture will create access, starting this fall, for literally hundreds of thousands of potential students to some of the greatest minds in academia. There will be no admission gateway — and that’s a significant point, considering how hard it is to get into either Harvard or MIT. (The new undertaking is actually an outgrowth of MITx, a free-to-the-masses online education initiative announced by MIT separately last year.)
But no one taking edX courses will gain access to a credential issued in the name of Harvard or MIT, and that, too, is significant; the online platform will not allow students back-door access to those prized brands. Online learners “who demonstrate mastery of subjects could earn a certificate of completion,” the universities said in a statement, “but such certificates would not be issued under the name Harvard or MIT.” Such credentials would also cost something — the exact sum is yet to be determined. And it’s not clear that every student who wants a certificate from edX will be able to get one.
Herein lies one of the key limitations of online higher education: when it comes to grading papers or tests, and to assessing whether a student has mastered a course, human graders typically must be involved, and suddenly, the universe of students who can be served shrinks to a finite and very modest number. University leaders say they will leverage the venture to spawn research on how students learn, and on how best to educate people online. These two schools and other national universities that have dabbled in online education tend to be picky about the online platforms they choose, and to differentiate — fairly or not — between the quality of their online coursework and everyone else’s.

By Karin Fischer, Washington. Higher education has become increasingly international: Millions of students leave their home countries to study each year, faculty are increasingly mobile, and academic research is not bound by national borders.
And that calls for a more global approach to educational cooperation and international exchange, to elevate its profile in economic- and foreign-policy discussions, agreed more than 30 high-level delegates from 15 countries who gathered for two days of talks here. Even so, national needs and domestic priorities can complicate efforts to find common ground, the meeting made clear. The International Education Summit on the Occasion of the G8 takes its mouthful of a name from the Group of 8, the forum for finance ministers of the world's largest economies. Now in its third year, the education summit has quickly become far more inclusive, and this year's conference drew representatives from countries including China, Indonesia, and Qatar.
"We're here to share challenges and opportunities, to talk about best practices, to learn from each other," said Allan E. Goodman, president of the Institute of International Education, the American international-exchange organization that played host to the meeting. "I think we're on the same page."
Indeed, the delegates, who come from government agencies and international-education groups, do share the same broad goals: They want to increase the movement of students across international borders, expand enrollment in postsecondary education generally, and produce graduates who are globally competent and culturally fluent. Yet, differences in practice and policy can hamper collaboration. For instance, representatives from countries like France and Brazil with low- or no-tuition models said they had trouble forming academic exchanges or sending students to study in high-tuition countries like the United States. Some participants objected to what they characterized as the increasing commercialization of international education, where the value of foreign students is measured by their economic impact. "This is just one vision of the world, and we are against this vision of world," said Béatrice Khaiat, deputy director of CampusFrance.
But Margaux Béland of the Canadian Bureau of International Education said it was critical to demonstrate the worth of international education to lawmakers and the general public to bring attention to the issue. "I can't say enough how the discourse in Canada has changed between us and our government now that we've been able to monetize it," said Ms. Béland, who is vice president for Canadian partnerships.
Even the vocabulary was a bit different. Countries that receive a lot of international students talked about "brain flow," but those that send many of their best and brightest abroad worried about "brain drain."
Soud Al-Tamimi from Hamad bin Khalifa University in Qatar said it's important to understand the goals of each country in globalizing its educational system. "Internationalization is not an objective," he said. "It's a way to achieve an objective."
Developing countries like his and Malaysia work with foreign universities to help build educational capacity they lack to meet pressing economic-development needs. Siti Hamisah Tapsir, deputy director general of the Malaysian Ministry of Education, said overseas partners can bring credibility and provide quality assurance. The effort, she said, is "nation building, talent building."
Meanwhile, countries such as the United States, Britain, and Australia are more likely to frame international exchange as a form of diplomacy and as a critical component of international trade. Still, differences aside, the tone of the summit, which ended Thursday, was collaborative, not contentious.
Yes, there are "different drivers for internationalization—different but compatible," said Xavier Prats Monné, deputy director-general for education and culture for the European Commission.
If higher education is increasingly global, then countries ought to work together to ensure its quality, he argued. "If we believe education is so important in the economic strategies in our countries, then there should be stronger effort to collaboratively manage it," he said.
In an interview, Mr. Prats Monné was quick to add he wasn't advocating creating a "humongous bureaucracy" but rather a more global effort to set common regulatory frameworks or to reach agreement on learning goals. He points to the European Union's decade-long work to synchronize its higher-education systems, known as the Bologna Process, as a possible model.
The value of the annual meeting of higher-education leaders, Mr. Prats Monné argues, is that it can make higher education more visible in national and international policy debates. Mr. Goodman of IIE agrees. He hopes that within a year or two the meeting can "grab the attention" of worldwide economic ministers. Meanwhile, he said he leaves this year's gathering with new ideas and strategies.

La CTI a signé le 24 avril une convention de partenariat avec l’APEC (Association pour l’emploi des cadres). Cette convention a pour objet de définir le cadre et les modalités par lesquels l’APEC et la CTI conviennent de collaborer dans leurs zones d’intérêt mutuel, toujours dans le périmètre de leurs missions et de leurs compétences respectives. Télécharger la Convention CTI APEC.
Article 1 - Objet
Durant ces dernières années, la CTI et l'APEC ont coopéré à plusieurs reprises, avec la participation de responsables de l'APEC à des réunions et des groupes de travail de la CTI, notamment lors du colloque annuel de la cn, qui a réuni le 8 février 2011 l'ensemble des directions d'écoles et leurs partenaires à l'occasion du lancement de la campagne d'habilitation des écoles de Paris, et l'atelier portant sur la relation école/formation/métier.
La CTI et l'APEC partagent en effet de nombreuses zones d'intérêt mutuel à l'egard des jeunes diplômés ingénieurs et des cadres diplômés ingénieurs, des métiers d'ingénieurs et de leurs évolutions, ainsi que des parcours professionnels pour ces populations:
- Pour la CTI, l'habilitation vise à satisfaire le marché avec les formations adéquates d'ingénieurs et, in fine, les besoins en compétences des organisations et des entreprises, et en assurer la promotion,
- Pour l'APEC, les missions d'accompagnement et de conseil visent à anticiper les besoins du marché en compétences via son observatoire et la diffusion d'offres d'emploi; et in fine, mettre en relation les demandeurs et les offreurs d'opportunités d'emploi, notamment d'ingénieurs.
Ces missions visent aussi à faire connaître aux clients et partenaires de l'APEC les métiers des cadres parle biais de fiches/référentiels métiers et d'informations sur le devenir des métiers, C'est bien dans ce contexte que la CTI et l'APEC souhaitent renforcer les collaborations et mieux travailler ensemble dans un intérêt mutuel et celui de leurs clients ou partenaires respectifs et/ou communs.
La présente convention a pour objet de définir le cadre et les modalités par lesquels l'APEC et la CTI conviennent de collaborer dans leurs zones: d'intérêt mutuel, toujours dans le cadre de leurs missions et de leurs compétences respectives.
Par exemple, la CTI et l'APEC pourraient convenir de réaliser chaque année une étude specifique portant sur la conjoncture dés métiers de l'ingénieur et l'évolution des besoins en compétences et/ou de réaliser des publications croisées sur leurs sites Web respectifs. La cn pourrait convenir de mettre à disposition de l'APEC et de son Département Etudes et Recherche son réseau d'experts à des fins de contacts éventuels dans le cadre de travaux d'études, notamment sur les métiers et leurs évolutions. Ou bienencore, la CTl et l'APEC pourraient contribuer aux groupes de travail mis en place par l'un ou l'autre des organismes ou contribuer aux événements publics qu'ils organisent. Télécharger la Convention CTI APEC.

Call for participants: DEHEMS conference on employability of graduates
The DEHEMS Consortium (‘Network for the Development of Higher Education Management Systems’) is holding a conference titled ‘Employability of Graduates & Higher Education Management Systems’. The conference will take place in Ljubljana (Slovenia), 27-28 September 2012.
At the conference, a number of international experts will present and discuss application of empirical employability data on key higher education developments. The speakers include prof. Ulrich Teichler (DE), prof. Robin Middlehurst (UK), prof. Wolfgang Mayrhofer (AT) and more than 20 others.
The topics covered include: Institutional higher educational management; Accreditation and re-accreditation of programmes; Career Centers; Enhancement of theory with practical work. The main aim is to explore: which factors determine a graduate’s early career success, and how higher education management systems take employability data and surveys into account, and how much are and should be evidence-driven.
The conference is free of charge, and you can register to the conference via online registration here.
You can download more information about the steering committee and keynote speakers here, and find more information on the conference website.

Par Jean-Hippolyte Feildel. La loi LRU (loi relative aux libertés et responsabilités des universités) du 10 août 2007 a eu l’effet d’un big-bang dans l’enseignement supérieur et la recherche. Ambitieuse, et suivant de près la loi de 2006 sur les Pôles de recherche et d’enseignement supérieur (PRES), elle pose les premières pierres d’une université française rénovée. Mais il faut aller bien plus loin que ce qui a été fait jusqu’à présent pour une réforme vraiment efficace de nos universités. Télécharger notre étude "Universités: premier bilan de l’autonomie".
Désormais, les universités gèrent leurs budgets, elles sont plus libres dans leurs recrutements et les portes ont été ouvertes vers le monde de l’entreprise. La gouvernance a été simplifiée, les conseils d’administration ne comptent que 30 membres au maximum contre 60 auparavant. Les enseignants-chercheurs ont vu leur statut se moderniser et l’immobilier universitaire est en voie de transfert aux établissements.
Mais cela reste un premier pas. En effet, la réforme n’est pas allée au fond du projet d’autonomie qu’elle portait. Il reste beaucoup à faire pour que le monde professionnel trouve véritablement sa place dans un monde fortement recroquevillé sur lui-même. Les personnalités extérieures, moins d’un tiers des membres des conseils d’administration, ne votent toujours pas pour élire les présidents. Les fondations sont encore anecdotiques, à peine 39 universités sur 80 en ont créé. Le statut des 59.400 enseignants-chercheurs est toujours aussi pénalisant, parce que l’évaluation n’est pas normalisée. La gouvernance simplifiée reste inefficace, d’autant que plusieurs niveaux de pouvoir se superposent désormais: PRES et universités.
Concernant les 18,6 millions de mètres carrés d’immobilier de l’enseignement supérieur, le principe de dévolution est acté sur le papier, mais, faute de volonté réelle, ne sera pas effectif avant longtemps. Quant aux financements de l’enseignement supérieur représentant plus de 25 milliards d’euros en 2011 dans le budget de l’État, leur attribution, leur gestion et la transparence qui les entourent restent chaotiques, comme en témoigne l’échec du dispositif de financement SYMPA.
Il est urgent de réagir car, pour l’instant, nous nous privons de l’excellence de notre enseignement supérieur et de nos chercheurs, condamnés à s’exiler ou à ne bâtir que des initiatives isolées. Dans un rapport publié en 2011, l’Association européenne des universités (EUA) pointe les insuffisances de la France en matière d’autonomie. La LRU a posé les premiers jalons, nous les avons passés au crible. Cet examen indispensable est le préalable pour une nouvelle réforme que nous esquisserons.
- Enseignants-chercheurs : la mutation inachevée
- Recherche : un pas vers l’excellence
- Une gouvernance simplifiée, mais encore largement perfectible
- Finances et immobilier : là où le chaos persiste…
- Nos propositions pour des universités
… solides et autonomes
… d’excellence
… ouvertes sur le monde
- Focus : la LRU à Paris – Les universités passées au crible. Télécharger notre étude "Universités: premier bilan de l’autonomie".
5 Conclusion - nos propositions
La loi LRU de 2007 est incontestablement un progrès qui a permis de libérer des énergies et de stimuler des initiatives au sein des universités françaises. La formation des PRES initiée en 2006 s’en est trouvée renforcée et facilitée. Les investissements d’avenir ont aussi contribué à ce « réveil » de l’enseignement supérieur, en plaçant au coeur des établissements le souci de l’excellence. Mais l’université française est encore loin, sur bien des plans, de ses concurrentes internationales. Il est donc indispensable désormais, de passer un second cap, d’adopter une LRU2. Trois axes de réformes nous apparaissent essentiels aujourd'hui: il faut d'abord continuer à solidifier et à rendre autonomes les universités, il faut ensuite mettre en place les conditions de l'excellence dans l'enseignement et la recherche, et enfin il faut ouvrir les universités sur leur environnement direct et sur le monde.
1- Pour des universités solides et autonomes
Redonner aux conseils d’administration leur place de stratège autonome: à la manière des grandes universités internationales, il doit être un organe de l’université parfaitement indépendant, fixant les objectifs et évaluant les résultats de l’université, pour dépasser une autogestion qui confond conseil d’administration et comité exécutif. Cela passera notamment dans un premier temps par une attribution proportionnelle des sièges pour les enseignants et une augmentation du nombre de sièges attribués aux personnalités extérieures. Il est nécessaire ensuite d’envisager très sérieusement une séparation entre les fonctions de stratège assumées par le conseil d’administration, des fonctions de direction et de gestion courantes assumées par un comité exécutif (ou de direction) rénové rassemblant les conseils étudiants et de la vie universitaire et les conseils paritaires. Le conseil scientifique pourra conserver sa place d’instance consultative et d’aide à la décision pour le conseil d’administration.
Revoir le système de dotation: confier son calcul aux rectorats et non au ministère, ce qui sera plus cohérent avec sa mission de tutelle. Ce renforcement de la déconcentration permettra une allocation des moyens plus juste et adaptée à chaque stratégie d’établissement. Il permettra aussi d’éviter les engorgements au niveau central, facteur d’une uniformité préjudiciable pour les universités.
Diversifier les sources de financements pour augmenter les ressources (la dotation de l’État représente parfois jusqu’à 90% des recettes de l’établissement): cela passe par l’autorisation de prélever des droits d’inscription. Ceux-ci permettront de renforcer l’implication de l’étudiant en le responsabilisant. Les universités pourront les fixer librement selon leur stratégie et les caractéristiques du domaine de formation. Il faudra parallèlement revaloriser les aides et les bourses sur critères sociaux, pour permettre aux étudiants défavorisés de continuer à pouvoir accéder à l’enseignement supérieur. Il importe par ailleurs aux fondations de prendre exemple sur leurs homologues de l’enseignement privé ou des grandes écoles en matière de fundraising.
Autonomie dans la création de diplômes, de formations et d’instituts : aujourd’hui, cette liberté pédagogique est sous le contrôle du ministère. Bien qu’affirmée dans les textes, elle est altérée et même considérablement réduite par des circulaires ministérielles définissant la manière d’organiser les cours, les formations, etc. Laissée aux universités, elle est l’une des clés de la différenciation, de l’excellence et de leur compétitivité internationale. C’est aussi le meilleur moyen de coordonner leur formation avec les besoins des entreprises, et donc de faciliter l’insertion des étudiants.
Le modèle des PRES qui semble s’imposer doit être consolidé : ils sont le meilleur moyen pour les universités d’atteindre une taille critique, gage de lisibilité et de visibilité internationale. Des expérimentations et des réflexions doivent ensuite être menées et poursuivies là où elles se font déjà, autour du modèle de gouvernance nouveau dont ils doivent se doter. Si le modèle de l’université confédérale (union mais avec forte autonomie des établissements constitutifs) émerge, il est nécessaire de mettre en lumière les différents composants qui peuvent être mutualisés aussi bien sur le plan administratif, que sur le plan pédagogique. Cet exercice se fera aussi par les PRES eux-mêmes conscients de leurs spécificités, et désireux de rendre cohérentes leur stratégie et organisation. Il ne peut en effet y avoir un modèle unique, le jury des Initiatives d’excellence l’a bien compris en récompensant des PRES aux profils très différents.
Rationaliser le ministère de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche: les établissements acquérant une autonomie croissante, de nombreuses missions ministérielles peuvent être réduites. De même, le rapprochement de la recherche publique et de l’enseignement supérieur dans les faits depuis la LRU et les investissements d’avenir, devrait induire un rapprochement similaire de la direction générale de l’Enseignement supérieur (DGESIP) et de la direction générale de la Recherche et de l’Innovation (DGRI). Par ailleurs, de nombreux services existent en doublons au sein même du ministère ou avec des instances extérieures. Il est impératif d’y remédier par des fusions ou des suppressions pures et simples.
Le renforcement de la déconcentration permettra une allocation des moyens plus juste et adaptée à chaque stratégie d’établissement.
2- Pour une recherche et un enseignement d’excellence
Le contrat de droit privé pour les enseignants-chercheurs: plus éthique car elle donne la possibilité à chacun de faire fructifier au mieux ses goûts et ses compétences, cette flexibilité est aussi le meilleur moyen de répondre aux exigences gestionnaires, aux missions et aux projets propres des universités et des chercheurs. L’évaluation des enseignants-chercheurs pourra du même coup impacter leur carrière et donner lieu à une véritable valorisation. En effet, si celle-ci n’est pas liée aux qualités et au travail réel des individus, alors elle est une injustice ou pire, de l’idéologie. Cette liberté dans l’embauche devrait par ailleurs permettre une politique de primes et une politique salariale attractive, meilleur moyen d’attirer les enseignants-chercheurs de haut niveau et d’envergure internationale.
L’évaluation des enseignants par les élèves: elle est déjà pratiquée dans certains établissements, l’université Panthéon-Assas par exemple. Elle stimule les enseignants et leur permet de s’adapter directement aux besoins des étudiants. Elle n’est pas sans effet non plus sur l’étudiant qui peut y voir un surcroît gratifiant de responsabilité.
La sélection et l’orientation doivent être envisagées: l’université doit pouvoir choisir ses étudiants. « On observe qu’un certain nombre d’acteurs de la vie universitaire serait favorable à la mise en place d’une réflexion ou d’une expérimentation concernant l’orientation sélective des étudiants pour l’entrée à l’université » (rapport 2011 du Comité de suivi de la loi LRU, p. 22). Actuellement, la sélection se fait par l’échec ou en milieu de cursus (entre L1 et L2, entre M1 et M2), une meilleure information doit d’une part être délivrée en lycée. Il faut d’autre part valoriser les orientations professionnelles et d’apprentissage, qu’elles n’apparaissent plus comme des seconds choix, mais bien comme des voies d’insertion d’excellence alternatives. Par ailleurs, une année de propédeutique pourrait être mise en place avant la première année. Elle permettrait aux élèves en difficultés, mais désireux de poursuivre dans l’enseignement supérieur, d’acquérir des éléments de méthodes et de discernement, afin de se préparer efficacement (et donc d’éviter l’échec) et de mieux s’orienter.
Renouveler les investissements d’avenir : cette politique a eu un vif succès et les principaux acteurs du monde universitaire demandent son renouvellement. Elle doit être envisagée à nouveau, mais en tenant compte des effets du premier plan, et peut-être de manière plus ciblée. Elle ne doit pas en effet se substituer au financement récurrent des universités.
3- Pour des universités ouvertes sur le monde
Renforcer le rôle des personnalités extérieures et leur permettre d’élire le président: experts extérieurs, ou représentants d’une institution partenaire ou des collectivités territoriales, ils sont pour l’instant relégués. Changer leur mode de désignation et la durée de leur mandat, cinq à sept ans au lieu de quatre, permettrait qu’ils participent à l’élection du président d’université et limiterait le poids des luttes internes à l’université. Leur nombre devrait aussi être augmenté, de manière à rendre plus effectif le contrôle de la société civile sur l’usage qui est fait de leurs impôts.
Renforcer les relations entre la recherche et le monde professionnel: en révisant et simplifiant les multiples structures de valorisation de la recherche. Il faudra inévitablement réduire ce mille-feuille, la nécessité est en effet de le rendre plus lisible, plus efficace et de limiter ainsi la dispersion et le gaspillage des ressources financières et intellectuelles.
Un benchmark auprès de nos principaux partenaires européens permettrait de mettre en évidence les bonnes pratiques.
Toutes ces mesures sont faciles à mettre en place et relanceraient les universités françaises dans la compétition internationale. Elles ont déjà permis d’atteindre l’excellence à certains établissements français comme la Toulouse School of Economics. Pourquoi ne pas les étendre à tous? Télécharger notre étude "Universités: premier bilan de l’autonomie".