Formation Continue du Supérieur

Hedda (Higher Education Development Association) is celebrating its 10th Anniversary with a one-day conference on 4th of November, 2011. The conference is themed “Mergers and Higher Education Cooperation”, and takes place at the University of Oslo, the coordinating institution of Hedda.
The conference includes presentations from leading international and Nordic researchers and experts, bringing together the expertise of researchers and the insights and experiences from top executives in merger processes.
The main target groups for the conference includes both researchers and administrators, as well as policymakers who work with issues related to higher education.
Registration deadline – 15th of October. The conference is free of charge, however, there is a limited number of places available.
The aim of the conference is to bring together research and practice, featuring keynotes from top international researchers in the field and providing the practical insights from people who have held top executive positions in a merger process. We have already confirmed three keynote speakers, including Dr. Leo Goedegebuure (LH Martin Institute, Australia), Dr. Sissel Østberg (former rector of Oslo University College) and Dr. Yuzhuo Cai (University of Tampere). Please note that additional keynote speakers will be added and updated information on the keynote speakers and the conference programme will be available on the conference website.
Keynote Speakers
Dr. Leo Goedegebuure has extensive experience in researching institutional mergers in various contexts, and he has published over 100 articles and approximately 15 books on topics linked to governance and management, system dynamics including large scale restructuring policies, university-industry relationships, and institutional mergers. Currently he is an associate professor and the Deputy Director of LH Martin Institute at University of Melbourne (Australia). Based on his extensive experience, he can provide up to date research based knowledge on institutional mergers.
Dr. Sissel Østberg has first hand knowledge of being involved in a merger process as a top executive. She was the rector for the Oslo University College (HiO) in Norway, during the time when the college was merged with Akershus University College, a process finished in 2011. She will be sharing some of her insights of this experience, adding to a further understanding of how these processes take place in practice.
Dr. Yuzhuo Cai is an assistant professor  at the Higher Education Group at the University of Tampere in Finland. He has been involved in a number of projects and authored  publications focusing on Finnish and Chinese higher education, both of these countries have experience with institutional mergers.

La Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco, como sede del 11º. Congreso Retos y Expectativas de la Universidad, les espera en este foro que es un espacio de reflexión para la comunidad universitaria al que concurren investigadores, profesores, estudiantes y funcionarios administrativos en un ambiente plural y abierto a diversas temáticas, con el fin de comparar y compartir experiencias para lograr una mayor calidad y pertinencia de los servicios educativos. Este evento se celebrará del 5 al 7 de octubre de 2011, en las instalaciones del Centro Internacional de Vinculación y Enseñanza, en la ciudad de Villahermosa, Tabasco.
Objetivo General
Ofrecer un espacio académico de debate y conocimiento respecto de las diversas experiencias de innovación y generación de alternativas de las Instituciones de Educación Superior a nivel nacional e internacional.
Presentación
El 11º. Congreso Internacional Retos y Expectativas de la Universidad representa un esfuerzo interinstitucional, principalmente de las universidades públicas de los estados e instituciones de educación superior de la República  Mexicana –en colaboración con la Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior (ANUIES)- que inició en el año 2000, a propuesta de la Universidad de Guadalajara. Desde ese año y hasta el presente, se ha configurado como un espacio de reflexión plural, horizontal e incluyente acerca de los asuntos sustanciales de la universidad, determinada históricamente por la responsabilidad social para la construcción de mejores realidades nacionales. La esencia y la misión de una universidad se define como una institución de carácter social, trascendente, dedicada a la formación de profesionales, la generación y aplicación del conocimiento, y a la difusión y preservación de la cultura.
Actualmente las sociedades contemporáneas se enfrentan al reto de proyectarse y adaptarse a un proceso de cambio que viene avanzando rápidamente hacia la construcción de sociedades del conocimiento. Este proceso es dinamizado esencialmente por el desarrollo de nuevas tendencias en la generación, difusión y utilización del conocimiento,  demandando la revisión y adecuación de muchas empresas y organizaciones sociales, así como la creación de otras nuevas con capacidad para asumir y orientar el cambio. Una sociedad del conocimiento es una organización con capacidad para generar, apropiar y utilizar el conocimiento para atender las necesidades de su desarrollo y así construir su propio futuro, convirtiendo la creación y trasferencia del conocimiento en herramienta de la sociedad para su propio beneficio, donde las IES tienen un papel importante.
Las nuevas tendencias están relacionadas con tres procesos muy dinámicos y de vasto alcance: la "informatización" de la sociedad, la globalización y las nuevas tecnologías. La convergencia y vertiginoso desarrollo de tecnologías relacionadas con la informática, las telecomunicaciones y el procesamiento de datos, y sus casi ilimitadas posibilidades de aplicación, están transformando las sociedades modernas en sociedades de la información. El proceso de "informatización", se ha constituido a su vez, en la base técnica del fenómeno de la globalización, puesto que ha posibilitado por primera vez en la historia superar las distancias y la dispersión geográfica, para poner en contacto grupos sociales de todo el mundo a un mismo tiempo. Aún cuando el fenómeno de la globalización se ha hecho más visible en el sistema económico, lo cierto es que tiene un impacto mucho más trascendente, en la medida en que está posibilitando el surgimiento de una verdadera sociedad global con el desarrollo de nuevos valores, actitudes y de nuevas instituciones sociales. Sin embargo, la revolución en las tecnologías y, sobre todo, en la tecnología de la información, no garantiza la trasferencia de conocimiento, sólo la facilita.
Asimismo nuestras universidades están llevando a cabo diversas, experiencias y construcción de alternativas, tanto en el ámbito de las TIC´s como se ha hecho referencia con antelación, como también en la docencia, en la investigación, en la innovación académica y organizacional para hacer frente a los retos de la sociedad del conocimiento. Los convocantes dan con ello continuidad a un esfuerzo magnífico que se ha desplegado a lo largo  de 10 años, pero ahora, buscando propiciar el intercambio de las experiencias y de transformación en el quehacer de las funciones sustantivas y adjetivas de la universidad.
Ello sin demérito del debate académico más amplio  y conceptual respecto del papel que juega la universidad en la construcción de una sociedad que aprovecha y valoriza los conocimientos, los nuevos aprendizajes y transferencia de la ciencia y la tecnología en el mejoramiento y desarrollo de nuestra sociedad.

THE FUTURE OF LABOR ORGANIZING IN HIGHER EDUCATION.  Friday, September 30 - Saturday, October 1, 2011  University of Massachusetts Boston.
SEIU Local 615, the MTA, the AFT-MA, and The Labor Resource Center invite you to join us for an international conference at UMass Boston.
The higher education industry is changing rapidly in the US and internationally. Through this conference we will analyze the trends in the higher education industry in the US and the implications for union organizing, examine national and international efforts to craft a more expansive vision of higher education that works for all stakeholders, and explore building union mutual aid and support networks.
Union activists, leaders and staff, as well as industry scholars, employees and students will participate in presentations, panel discussions and workshop on topics, including:
• assessing the impacts of the corporatization of higher education
• comparing NLRB elections, community campaigns for union recognition and minority unionism
• demanding institutional responsibility to the community: from “report card” to endowment transparency
• redefining the public mission of the higher education industry
• building community-labor coalitions
Keynote speakers will include:
• Sheila Slaughter, Ph.D., Institute for Higher Education, University of Georgia
• Benjamin Thomas, a National Officer for UNISON, Britain and Europe’s biggest public sector union, and the UNISON representative on the Higher Education National Equalities Forum.
• Ed Marsh, the Vice-President of the National Union of Students from the UK.
Workshop tracks will include (tentative):
• Building Industry Density: Organizing the Unorganized
• Bad Jobs in Higher Ed: Contracting Out, Casual Labor & Privatization
• Your Tax Dollars at Work: All Higher Education is Public
• It's an Industry: Higher Education as an Economic Driver.
Click here for more details on the developing program. Email Anneta Argyres to receive conference details and registration information. Join us for this interactive conference for workers, activists, union leaders and staff in the higher education industry, and our allies.

In this article Amanda Schimunek of the University of Kassel presents a discussion regarding the so called “network university” by putting forward the results of two studies undertaken one by the University of Twente, Netherlands and the other by the Carlos III University of Madrid and the University of Granada, Spain.
Introduction
The purpose and function of a university may seem rather obvious upon initial consideration.  A university educates students.  But, increasingly, that simple fact is far from the whole truth.  Although some traditionalists still view student education as the primary responsibility of the university, pressure from both inside and outside is leading higher education institutions to engage in a growing number of activities that might seem incongruent with this responsibility.  University cooperation with local, regional, national, and sometimes international government and industry could make cries for relevance and accountability just as dangerous and unpredictable as shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater.  But, if society at large continues to change, expand, and place increasing demands on institutions of higher education, then universities may have no choice but to change in order to survive, despite the inevitable criticism that always accompanies change.  Exactly how universities will adapt to shifting dynamics is impossible to predict; some universities may begin to self-steer and develop strategies tailored to their individual needs.  Others may face tighter control from the state or fall somewhere in between the two extremes.  In any case, it is arguably clear that universities will have to devise plans to keep their heads above water in the flood of forces pushing and pulling in all directions.  There is no universal formula for what works and what doesn’t, but there are a lot of interesting ideas. 
The network university is an emerging concept that attempts to represent the increasing number of universities with public and private cooperative agreements as a concrete model.  Within the model, an individual university is visualized as part of a large “spider web” with overlapping and complex connections to government and industry as well as public, private, non-profit, and community organizations.  The challenge of defining and mapping the network university is that relationships and connections change over time and can appear, strengthen, weaken, or dissolve entirely.  A team of researchers in Madrid, Spain have mapped the development and evolution of network university connections over two separate three-year periods (1995 to 1999 and 2000 to 2003). They are among the first to attempt such an ambitious and thorough study of the network university and the research has led to some interesting conclusions about co-authorship, co-ownership, and innovative ways of disseminating newly published information.  Conclusions like these, of course, have both positive and negative potential impacts on the relationship of the university to society, especially how the purpose and function of a university is perceived and interpreted.
The Network University
In 1963, Clark Kerr felt confident enough of his understanding and foresight of higher education as for to predict the coming of the multiversity within the twentieth century.  At the arrival of the twenty-first century, he felt less confident about making predictions for what lies on the road ahead, a road “filled with potholes, surrounded by bandits, and leading to no clear ultimate destination” (2001, p. vii).  A 2004 project based out of the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS) at the University of Twente in the Netherlands took the uncertainty of the future university as a challenge.  The research team developed possible scenarios for the European higher education landscape in 2020 using a method known as the Delphi technique, which draws its name from the ancient Greek oracle at Delphi, famous for predictive powers (De Boer and Westerhijden, 2005, pp. 13-15).
The results of the exercise produced three scenarios, which have been named in Latin and presented as cities.  Centralia, the City of the Sun, is a scenario in which the university has maintained some of its status as an Ivory Tower; as institutions, universities still stand alone on the hill as “public centres of discovery and knowledge dissemination, but often as sites or campuses that are part of large (national) institutions” (Westerheijden et. al., 2005, p. 63).  Vitis Vinifera, the City of Traders and Micro-Climates, is a scenario in which the European university has grown tired of market obsession in favor of “quality of life” issues like “longer (working) lives, travel and leisure, the environment, paramedical therapies, media and design, cross-cultural relationships, critical consumerism, and urban social cohesion” (File, et. al., 2005, p. 86).  In this scenario, those who seek great wealth have left Europe behind for “more entrepreneurial shores” (File, et. al., 2005, p. 86) to be found elsewhere.  Octavia, the Spider-Web City, is a scenario in which the idea of the university “as a single concept has diminished in the face of multiple missions and visions of higher education and research” (Enders, et. al., 2005, p. 75).  Instead, there is a growing sense of “interconnectedness” and diffusion marked by the “unbinding of the university” and the strengthening of the “many tangible hands of networks that have become the main modes of coordination within universities as well as between institutions and other providers and consumers” (Enders, et. al., 2005, p. 75).
Details about the Delphi study conducted by CHEPS and the resulting three scenarios, along with a collection of essays and commentary prepared by various researchers in response, were published in 2005.  Guy Neave reflects on the inseparable relationship between the city and the university in all three scenarios.  The university “has become symbiote of service to the city rather than an institution possessing a particular and definite identity” (2005, p. 113). This is particularly true of the Spider-Web City scenario, Octavia.  The purpose and function of the network university in the spider web are no longer rooted in the activities taking place within the individual institution, but rather spread over an ever-expanding number of connections outside the institution.  The individual university is only one integrated part of a much larger network and is ideally characterized by an extremely high level of accessibility provided by combined on-site courses and internet resources, with an also high level of structural diversity within the framework of which “greater attention is devoted to generic competencies, social skills, and the lifelong learning function” (Enders, et. al., 2005, p. 80).  How these competencies are to be identified and decided is not clear; this issue alone might take years to resolve. The network university operates with “full-scale application of multi-level governance” (Westerheijden, et. al., 2005, p. 98) that capitalizes on “the traditional capacities of academic and scientific networks, as well as on inter- and intra- organizational networks that are based on reciprocity, trust, and long-term commitment” (Enders, et. al., 2005, p. 77).
In theory it all sounds very lovely and metropolitan, but of course there are a wide range of possible issues and conflicts of interest, particularly in the areas of leadership and quality assurance.  The idea of multi-level governance in combination with public-private partnerships could create a huge mess.  As yet unimagined new and higher demands on institutional leadership make it seem “doubtful that such a complex governance arrangement could be realized as it would exponentially increase the coordination problems among the different actors” (Westerheijden, et. al., 2005, p. 98).  Lack of coherence is often cited as one of the main problems in the Octavia scenario, especially when it comes to quality.  With the student study experience described as a “cross-national journey with diversified, modular programmes” (Westerheijden, et. al., 2005, p. 100), how could the quality of learning or instruction be adequately and consistently measured?  These are only a few of many potential issues that would have to be addressed in process. The fact that the network university is an emerging concept lacking clearly defined parameters remains a big challenge for researchers.

The Madrid Study
A recently-published study from the Madrid region is among the first to actually study the network university as it develops.  In Spain, research and observation has generally established that financial support for research and development initiatives is tending toward “large interdisciplinary and inter-organizational groups” (Olmeda-Gomez, et. al., 2008, p. 2).  With this in mind, a collaborative group of researchers from the Carlos III University of Madrid and the University of Granada set out to identify and explore what they have termed “bridging networks” that exist within the government-industry-university cooperation “Triple Helix” in Spain.  The central aims of the study were to graphically visualize how the bridging networks are formed and how the institutions and organizations interact, discover which actors are involved in which positions, and better understand how “information flows across the bridging network” (Olmeda-Gomez, et. al., 2008, p. 3).  A high degree of co-authorship and information sharing was revealed by the study.  “The percentage of organizations connected to the main component was never under 88.8% of the co-authors in any of the networks” (Olmeda-Gomez, et. al., 2008, p. 7).  This could suggest the kind of “unbinding” of the university postulated by the CHEPS Octavia scenario, at least in terms of intellectual property rights.
The researchers also attempted to map and diagram the connections between companies, universities, and government agencies from 1995 to 2003.  Network connection and inter-institutional co-authorship is reported by cooperation rate (Olmeda-Gomez, et. al., 2008, p. 5) and network density (p. 7).  Figure One displays the network map constructed for the study of molecular, cellular, and genetic biology from 1995 to 1999.  Perhaps predictably, it looks like a spider web, which is also connected to other spider webs.  Each area of study included in the project has been mapped twice by the research team; once from 1995 to 1999 and again from 2000 to 2003.  In each case, clear increases can be seen in the number and strength of network connections, which indicates that networking between universities, industry, and government is on the rise.  The research suggests that researchers themselves may play a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining network connections and outlines possible implications for the exchange of ideas and joint publication of scientific papers (Olmeda-Gomez, et. al., 2008, p. 17).
Conclusion
Although the research team working in Madrid is forthright about the weaknesses of the study (Olmeda-Gomez, et. al., 2008, pp. 4-5), the project sets a rather remarkable precedent in its attempt to break down and visually represent the concept of the network university, within which not only one but sometimes several universities form integral parts.  The researchers also admit the limited scope of the project; there may be field, region, or country specific factors affecting the outcomes as well as other networks and connections not identified.  Despite the limitations, the Madrid study serves as an excellent starting point for future research on the network university in another setting.  The next step will be to go beyond the “Triple Helix” and ask what the network university really means for students and practitioners in higher education.  Will traditional campus locations remain to become centers of learning and research or will they become obsolete as the technology of e-learning and distance education continues to develop?  How will issues of quality and accountability be managed as the traditional connections between one university and one or two funding sources expand into networks of multifaceted public and private cooperation?  While there are no ready answers to these questions, it is important now (and will be in the near future) to keep asking – the network university is an exciting prospect for exchange and collaboration, but the future of higher education may very well be at stake.
References
de Boer, H. and Westerheijden, D. (2005).  Scenarios as Method.  In Enders, J. et. al. (Eds.), The European Higher Education and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates.  Twente, the Netherlands (CHEPS): UNITISK Printing, pp. 13-24.
Enders, Jürgen et. al. (2005).  Octavia, the Spider-Web City.  In Enders, J. et. al. (Eds.), The  European Higher Education and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates.  Twente, the Netherlands (CHEPS): UNITISK Printing, pp. 75-84.    
Enders, J. et. al. (Eds.), The European Higher Education and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates.  Twente, the Netherlands (CHEPS): UNITISK Printing, pp. 86-94.
File, Jon et. al. (2005).  Vitis Vinifera, the City of Traders and Micro-Climates.  In
Kerr, Clark (2001).  The Uses of the University, Fifth Edition.  Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Neave, Guy (2005).  On Prophets and Metaphors: Devices for Coping in Times of Change.  In Enders, J. et. al. (Eds.), The European Higher Education and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates.  Twente, the Netherlands (CHEPS): UNITISK Printing, pp. 103-116.
Olmeda-Gomez, Carlos et. al. (2008). Comparative Analysis of University-Government-Enterprise Co-Authorship Networks in Three Scientific Domains in the Region of Madrid.  Information Research: an International Electronic Journal.  v13 n3 Paper 352 Sep 2008.
Westerheijden, D. et. al. (2005).  A Tale of Three Cities: Highlights and Problems of Centralia, Octavia and Vitis Vinifera.  In Enders, J. et. al. (Eds.), The European Higher Education and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates.  Twente, the Netherlands (CHEPS): UNITISK Printing, pp. 97-102.
Westerheijden, D. et. al. (2005).  Centralia, the City of the Sun.  In Enders, J. et. al. (Eds.), The European Higher Education and Research Landscape 2020: Scenarios and Strategic Debates. Twente, the Netherlands (CHEPS): UNITISK Printing, pp. 63-74.
Author’s Bio
Amanda Schimunek holds a Bachelors Degree in English Literature from the University of Southern Indiana (USA) and a Masters Degree in Higher Education from the University of Kassel (Germany). Her research interests are international student affairs, language acquisition, and cultural exchange. She has also worked as a research assistant at the International Center for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel) on a project designed to evaluate the implementation of the Bologna Process reforms in Europe at the Masters level. Currently, she is a Project Administrator at the International Center for Development and Decent Work (ICDD) in Kassel. She is responsible for the development of English for Academic Purposes diagnostics and workshops for international Master students. For further information about this article, contact the author at the following e-mail address: icdd.diversity@googlemail.com.

Brussels, 14 October 2011. 30th in the series “European Policy Seminars” of the Academic Cooperation Association.
Theme
Social concerns have traditionally played an important role in the discourse on European higher education. After a boom in the social rhetoric in the 1970s, the issue re-emerged in Europe in the context of the Bologna Process. Introduced by student representatives as a counterweight to demands for ‘competitiveness’, the social dimension was first strongly associated with the notion of higher education as a ‘public good’ and a ‘public responsibility’ (Prague 2001). The Bergen summit of 2005 referred to it as a “constituent part” of the Bologna Process and the London Communiqué for the first time provided a quasi-definition and formulated a goal: “the student body entering, participating in and completing higher education should reflect the diversity of our populations”.
Stated aims and ambitions are one thing, but how about the reality on the ground? Are our universities and colleges accessible for students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and immigrants and cultural minorities, to mention just three groups that play a role in the ‘social discourse’? Or is the social dimension, as a report of 2009 found, a rhetorical rather than a real success, and is it true that it is still not the “ability to learn but the ability to pay” which determines participation in higher education? Do universities and governments in Europe have policies for participative equity in place, and are these policies effective?
These are only some of the questions which this ACA European Policy Seminar will address. Key experts will present latest research findings. Among them are a soon-to-be released EURYDICE study on the issue, the brand new EUROSTUDENT 2011 report and the external evaluation of the social dimension in the Bologna Process. The seminar will also showcase the work of the 'Official Bologna Working Group' on the Social Dimension. The European Commission will present its latest policy position paper on higher education and the OECD will provide intelligence on if and how our universities and colleges are catering to students from migrant communities. Two institutional representatives will provide insights on access and diversity ‘from the field’.
Speakers
Bernd Wächter is the Director of the Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), a consortium of European and global agencies which support international cooperation in higher education. ACA is a think-tank which promotes innovation and internationalisation in higher education. Bernd was born in Giessen (Germany) and studied at the universities of Hull (UK), Giessen and Marburg (Germany).  He lives in Brussels (Belgium) and is married to Thora Magnusdottir, a delightful lady from Iceland. Bernd’s career has been focused on international higher education. In his first post, at the University of Kassel (Germany), he devised international degree programmes in cooperation with universities abroad. He later joined the British Council, before becoming the Director of the international office of the Fachhochschule Darmstadt. Moving on to Germany’s internationalisation agency DAAD, he became the head of this organisation’s European section. He subsequently became Director of Higher Education in the Brussels Socrates Office, with overall responsibility for the Erasmus Programme in Europe. In 1998, he took up his present post as the director of ACA. Bernd has published widely on international matters in higher education, and he is a frequent speaker at European and international education conferences. He is the editor of the ACA Papers on International Cooperation in Higher Education.  He also works, as an expert advisor, for many international organisations.
David Crosier joined Eurydice, the EU's education information network, in September 2008. He is responsible for the network's studies on higher education, and in particular for a study on Funding and the Social Dimension that will be published in the autumn alongside the European Commission's Communication on the Higher Education Modernisation Agenda. He is also currently working on the official report to be produced for the Bologna Ministerial Conference in Bucharest, 26/27 April 2012. This will offer a comprehensive picture of progress towards agreed higher education objectives across the European Higher Education Area. Before joining Eurydice, David worked for the European University Association where he was responsible for a variety of projects focusing on different aspects of implementation of the Bologna process. He managed EUA's Trends reports, and was co-author of the Trends V publication in 2007.
Brian Power is head of Student Support and Equity of Access to Higher Education at the Irish Department of Education and Skills and is currently Co-Chair of the Bologna Working Group on the Social Dimension of Higher Education. He has held a number of senior posts in the Department of Education and Skills, including in international and EU affairs and has served with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as Education Attaché in the Permanent Representation of Ireland to the EU in Brussels. Until recently, Brian was also Co-Chair of the Bologna Network of Experts on Student Support in Europe (NESSIE). He has previously served as a member of the EU Education Committee and the Education Committee of the OECD. He holds an MSc in Public Service Innovation Management from the University of Ulster and the Letterkenny Institute of Technology and represents Ireland as a member of the High Council of the European University Institute in Florence.
Yasemin Yağcı is a doctoral student in the International Centre for Higher Education Research, University of Kassel, Germany. Her dissertation is on the social dimension of the Bologna Process, focusing on policy impacts in Finland, Germany and Turkey. Ms. Yağcı has worked as a junior researcher in different international research projects on the Bologna Process, e.g., Bologna Beyond 2010 and The Bologna Process Independent Assessment. Yasemin Yağcı earned her BSc in Political Science and Public Administration at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey in June 2005. She completed her master’s studies in the Institutions and Social Mechanisms Programme, at the University of Turku, Finland in September 2007. Further information can be found at http://www.incher.uni-kassel.de/.
Lene Oftedal has served as a Seconded National Expert in the Directorate-General for Education and Culture at the European Commission in Brussels since 2008. In the Unit for Higher Education and Erasmus, she is working on policy development for reforms in higher education, both within the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Bologna Process. Ms. Oftedal is in charge of facilitating the open method of coordination for higher education as coordinator of peer learning activities. She also works on policy issues related to lifelong learning, the social dimension in higher education and recognition. Prior to her secondment, Ms. Oftedal was working on international cooperation in higher education in the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. She was previously seconded to the Nordic Council of Ministers in Copenhagen, where she worked on tasks related to international cooperation in higher education. She has a Master of Social Science from the University of Oslo.
Dominic Orr. Coming soon.
Dirk Van Damme currently is Head of CERI (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation) in the Directorate for Education at the OECD in Paris. He holds a PhD degree in educational sciences from Ghent University and is also professor of educational sciences in the same university (since 1995). He also was part-time professor in comparative education at the Free University of Brussels (1997-2000) and visiting professor of comparative education at Seton Hall University, NJ, USA (2001-2008). His main fields of study and research have included comparative education, lifelong education and higher education policy. He has been professionally involved in educational policy development as deputy director of the cabinet of the Flemish Minister of education Luc Van den Bossche (1992-1998), as general director of the Flemish rectors’ conference VLIR (2000-2003), as expert for the implementation of the Bologna Declaration for Ms Marleen Vanderpoorten, Flemish Minister of education (2002-2003) and as director of the cabinet of Mr Frank Vandenbroucke, Flemish minister of education (2004-2008). In 2004 he served also as executive director of the RAGO, the organization of public schools in the Flemish Community of Belgium. Besides that, he has served as an expert for several national and international organisations. In recent years he has served as board member of QANU (the quality assurance agency for the Dutch universities), as member of the scientific board of AQA (the Austrian Quality Agency in higher education), as expert member of the OECD review of schooling in Scotland, and as member of the Committee for the external evaluation of the University of Luxembourg. His current interests focus on educational policy, innovation in education, comparative analyses of educational systems, new developments in the learning sciences and knowledge management in education.
Maurits van Rooijen. Since 2009, Prof. Dr. Maurits van Rooijen FRSA has been the Rector Magnificus of Nyenrode Business Universiteit. He is also the CEO of Universiteit Nyenrode BV. Van Rooijen worked previously in academic positions; at his alma mater Utrecht University and a variety of visting positions at universities around the globe. He held senior managerial positions at Erasmus University Rotterdam, Leiden University and University of Westminster, London. Van Rooijen also holds various international administrative positions. He is, for example, Co-Chairman of the World Association for Co-operative Education (Boston MA, USA), which supports work-integrated learning. Furthermore, he is President of the Compostela Group of Universities (Santiago de Compostela, Spain), an association that stimulates cooperation and dialogue in the field of higher education. Van Rooijen is also Vice President of the London-based European Access Network, that encourages under-represented groups to participate in higher education, and Chairman of the Managing Board of the Euro-Mediterranean University in Slovenia, an initiative of the European Parliament.
Erich Thaler has joined the University of Basel in 2007. He heads the Department of International Affairs and is responsible for marketing and developing the presence of the University internationally. He works within a team of eight to nurture a world wide marketing and recruiting network, coordinates the Swiss – South African bilateral research programme SSAJRP, overviews the joint doctorate activities of his university and is a Uni Basel delegate to the EUCOR network of Upper Rhine research universities. Before this position, Erich has held responsibilities of marketing and teaching at higher education institutions and education providers in Vienna, Munich, Paris, Seoul and Berlin. He lives in Basel, is married and father of a 4 year old boy.

The European University Association (EUA) has this week published a political declaration underlining the outcomes of its recent Annual Conference held at Aarhus University (Denmark) which focused on the role of universities in developing talent in Europe. Aarhus Declaration 2011.
As political leaders in Europe begin important negotiations to determine the next EU budget (after 2013) the Aarhus Declaration begins by underlining the importance of investing in education, research and innovation  to enable universities to play their full role in nurturing talented individuals and in contributing to the EU 2020 strategy for ‘smart sustainable and inclusive growth’. The Declaration is, however, not only addressed at political leaders as it also contains an action agenda for universities to develop talent.
The Declaration stresses that Europe cannot afford to run the risk of losing a generation of talented people, or of a serious decrease in research and innovation activity while its competitors are investing heavily in universities and the innovators of tomorrow: “Europe’s universities collectively add value to European society and the European economy. Looking forward to the discussion on the EU budget post 2013, the considerable achievements of the last decade should not be wasted. They need to be consolidated in future by prioritising higher education, research and innovation as every Euro spent at European level on universities will add value by bringing people together, pooling knowledge and creating synergies that could not be achieved at national level alone.”
Nurturing talented individuals has always been central to the mission of Europe’s universities and becomes increasingly vital as knowledge becomes central to social and economic development and as global competition for talent increases. The Aarhus Declaration calls on universities to strengthen this role and outlines an agenda for action.
It encourages universities to:
- Widen access and increase capacity to respond to the needs of more diverse student populations
- Develop distinctive research portfolios
- Ensure that university staff and students identify with the university and its specific mission as a basis for generating and maintaining a vibrant university environment.
The statement then calls for clear university “strategies that promote talent from an early stage”, in particular:
- Strengthening the links between teaching and research from an early stage and building research capacity from the undergraduate level
- Building attractive and transparent career structures, tracks and opportunities for all staff
- Placing a special focus on doctoral education and training and prioritising the development of career opportunities for early stage researchers
- And developing and promoting the circulation of talent in order to enhance research capacity and bring new knowledge.
Finally, the statement underlines the need for:
- Strong university leadership to promote talent development in all its dimensions
- Ensuring a clear internationalisation strategy within universities
- Ensuring an overall commitment to a quality culture and to transparency within universities
- Understanding the importance of partnerships. Promoting dialogue with, and engaging a variety of stakeholders at different levels, ensures impact on society, and the development and dissemination of local knowledge in an international context.
Download the  Aarhus Declaration.
I. Combatting the global economic and financial crisis through investment in higher education and research
1. Universities - crucial for the future of Europe: through knowledge creation and by fostering innovation, critical thinking, tolerance and open minds we prepare citizens for their role in society and the economy and respond to their expectations by providing opportunities for individual development and personal growth. Through research-based education at all levels we provide the high-level skills and innovative thinking our modern societies need and on which future economic, social and cultural development depends. We strive for the long term in addition to assuming new tasks and providing solutions to current problems.
2. Universities - motors for economic recovery: by striving for excellence in teaching, research and innovation, by offering opportunities to diverse groups of learners, and by providing the optimal creative environment for the talented young researchers that Europe needs universities are increasingly central to future growth and to the consolidation of Europe‟s knowledge society. With our reservoir of highly-trained and flexible citizens able to respond to changing labour markets and with the research skills needed to make Europe more creative and innovative, and thus ultimately more competitive, we are well placed to find answers to the global challenges of the 21st century.
The changed context 2011: Meeting the challenges of the EU 2020 agenda
3. Universities – central to the success of the EU2020 agenda: Europe cannot afford to run the risk of losing a generation of talented people, or of a serious decrease in research and innovation activity while our competitors are investing heavily in universities and the next generation of young people who will be the innovators of tomorrow. Europe‟s universities collectively add value to European society and the European economy. Looking forward to the discussion on the EU budget post 2013, the considerable achievements of the last decade should not be wasted. They need to be consolidated in future by prioritising higher education, research and innovation as every Euro spent at European level on universities will add value by bringing people together, pooling knowledge and creating synergies that could not be achieved at national level alone.
4. Universities – addressing complex problems that need innovative solutions: Higher education and research hold the key to the future. The world is facing unprecedented global challenges. These grand societal challenges, be it climate change, energy consumption, sustainability or combatting poverty, affect all aspects of our lives and are not contained by geographical borders or specfic scientific disciplines. They require urgent attention, and European universities, working within a global research community, have a crucial role to play in addressing these challenges through their contribution to new knowledge, and to educating talented individuals to be creative and search for innovative solutions.
5. Universities - smart people for smart growth requires long-term commitment: universities need to be able to continue to invest in their future academic and research activities. Financial sustainability is conditional on reliable and sufficient public funding. This means redoubling overall efforts to reach the target of 3% investment in research and development and to invest at least 2% of GDP in higher education, as proposed by the European Commission. Such support will not only underpin the continued dynamic development of the European Higher Education Area and European Research Area that drive the activities of European universities, it will support European solidarity and will work against the present increased risk of nationalism and protectionism in Europe, ensuring that Europe emerges strong, resilient and forward looking from the present crisis.
6. Universities – need financial sustainability to be able to keep investing in their future academic and research activities, and thus to continue fulfilling their role in society. Financial sustainability is crucial and conditional on reliable, sufficient public funding, and the required autonomy to be able to explore additional funding options. Because public funding provides ¾ of the income structure of universities on average across Europe, complementary funding sources, even combined, do not have the potential to fully replace it. Therefore, public funding should be viewed as more than a basis on which universities may develop additional income streams but rather as a condition for sustainability.
7. Universities - European commitment and added value: not only do universities in Europe cooperate among themselves, they are also united in the context of a common European project, and the ongoing construction of the European Higher Education Area and European Research Area. This means a common commitment, in an increasingly global context, to creating new knowledge and training people to be creative in terms of their personal development, their contribution to the economy and as global citizens. This is a common European endeavour and Europe‟s future will depend largely upon its capacity to increase substantially the number of highly-trained people across the continent and to attract others from abroad. The impact of demographic change in Europe in the years to come make this all the more urgent.
Download the  Aarhus Declaration.

Bologna-Seminar “New Perspectives for Master Study Programmes in Europe. Implementing the Second Cycle of Bologna – A European Success story?” on 25-26 October 2011 in Berlin. Programme.
The German Rectors’ Conference and project nexus are jointly organising the Bologna Seminar “New Perspectives for Master Study Programmes in Europe” in preparation for the ministerial conference in Bucharest in 2012. It will take place on 25 and 26 October 2011 in Berlin, Germany.
The Bologna Seminar seeks to focus on the current state of Master programmes in the European Higher Education Area. Moreover, new developments for orientation and transparency on the rapidly increasing “Master-market” will be discussed. These include, among others, marketing of Master degree programmes, recruitment of students, and implementation of lifelong Learning. Finally, the participants will propose recommendations for the Bologna Follow-Up Group in preparation for the 2012 ministerial conference in Bucharest.
Please note that participation is limited. Registrations will be accepted in the order of their arrival. Please wait with any travel planning until your registration will be confirmed.
Programme
Workshop 1: The Emerging Master Market. The Importance of Recruiting and Marketing
Among the most prominent Bologna objectives is the development and implementation of the second cycle. The Master offers universities new chances: to ensure the availability of high level education to all citizens throughout their lives, to anticipate and satisfy the needs of a labour market demanding ever higher skills, and to contribute to economic growth by promoting research and innovation. Among the three cycles, the second cycle is probably the one most intensely marketed. This is also evidenced by the increasing number of Master programmes taught in English.
The Master can also be a platform for joint curricula and enhance the employability of graduates by providing extra education and training. Master programmes have become one of the most important tools for European universities for raising their international profile and attracting international students. Internationalization will not only prompt universities to draft more efficient marketing strategies; it is also an opportunity to generate added economic and social value for societies. The purpose of this workshop is to explore these and related issues and assess where we stand at present.
Workshop 2: How to match Students and Programmes. Assessment and Access
Although direct continuation from the Bachelor into the Master still prevails in a number of countries, the introduction of the Bologna 3-cycle system has opened up new learning pathways and offers great potential for a flexible transition from higher education to the world of employment. The TRENDS V Study found that: “It is at the second cycle level that institutions are becoming most innovative and creative, and the rise of new types of master programmes should therefore be seen as a basis on which to build specific institutional strengths in Europe”. But it is not only students who are faced with a bewildering number of different types of master programmes with various disciplinary, interdisciplinary and professional orientations. Institutions too find themselves having to choose from applicants with very diverse backgrounds. How does one respond to individual applicants and adequately assess the prior learning and experiences of each aspiring student? How does one ensure a diverse intake, but at the same time manage to assess the entry requirements efficiently and openly? The session will show how institutions make these responsible decisions.
Workshop 3: What facilitates international student mobility?
Mobility is an essential aim of the Bologna process. This workshop will therefore discuss strategies, instruments and curricular features that promote and facilitate international student mobility with a focus on the Master level. In this context competencies and learning outcomes are of special interest as expedient vehicles of mobility.
Key instruments such as the European Credit and Accumulation System (ECTS) as well as Diploma Supplements (DS) and issues with their implementation at higher education institutions (HEI) will be discussed in detail. Opportunities of HEI cooperation, joint and double degrees and the design of "mobility-friendly" curricula will also be addressed.
Workshop 4: What makes Lifelong Learning attractive? Distant Learning, Blended Learning and Face-to-Face Instruction
Many higher education institutions in various European countries do not yet run comprehensive lifelong learning systems. The Bologna second cycle, consisting of postgraduate pre-doctoral study, and the Master qualification, seems to be promising. There are three different types of Master-level courses available: those with a strong professional development application (available in full-time, part-time, distance and mixed modes), research-intensive programmes embedded into innovation and knowledge transfer (a sort of pre-doctoral studies for career researchers) and programmes of varying duration focused mainly to returning learners on in-service, executive release or self-referral bases. The workshop aims to discuss different strategies and measures, both at the level of curriculum and its institutional location, to integrate the lifelong dimension and the view of the adult learners and facilitate, inter alia, flexible learning paths and the recognition of prior learning.
Workshop 5: Types of Master Programmes: Similarities and Differences. Is there such a Thing as a “European Master”?
Master programmes in the European Higher Education Area can be characterised by a number of common criteria. They include length and workload in terms of ECTS credits, consistency with the Master level descriptors in the Bologna Qualifications Framework and by being described in terms of learning outcomes. However, these requirements are not always met and there are wide variations in how they are interpreted. Consequently, the Master is not always as easily "readable" across the European Higher Education Area as it should be. In this workshop we will discuss the current situation and formulate recommendations for a template for a "European Master" that will allow students, employers and other interested groups to grasp the nature and content of a programme at a glance.
See also on the blog Future of Higher Education - Bologna Process Researchers' Conference - Bucharest, ENQA seminar on Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes.

EUA and the Bavarian State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning (IHF), partner to the EUDIS (European Universities Diversifying Income Streams) project, have jointly produced a special edition of the academic journal “Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung” (Contributions to Higher Education Research), focusing on income diversification for universities. This issue is a collection of articles whose authors have been involved in the EUDIS project. The publication complements EUA’s report by exploring case studies that illustrate some of the major findings of the EUDIS project. The publication is available here.
Editorial
The present issue of Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung is one of the results of the collaboration between the Bavarian State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning (IHF) and the European University Association (EUA) within the framework of the EUDIS project (European Universities Diversifying Income Streams). One of the project milestones of this project, which EUA and the IHF have undertaken with their partners between 2008 and 2011 on the diversification of university income, was the EUDIS Bologna conference, held on 13-14 September 2010. The following articles are based on contributions made during that conference and selected by the project team. As such, these case studies reflect not only a variety of issues that are connected to income diversification in higher education, but also the different angles and opinions that coexist today in Europe on this topic. EUA and the conference experts have worked together further on their presentations and case studies to adapt them for this publication.
An introduction to the European University Association’s work on financial sustainability, Jean-Marc Rapp, EUA President
In this paper, Professor Jean-Marc Rapp, President of the European University Association, reviews the Association’s work on the topic of financial sustainability in the light of the developments that have had an impact of universities in Europe in the recent years. That includes general trends such as massification and rising costs for higher education; but also the economic crisis that continues to affect the sector today. The paper also explains the connections between the EUDIS study on income diversification and the European policies in the field of modernisation of higher education. The European University Association takes the view that financial sustainability is crucial and conditional on reliable, sufficient public funding, and adequate autonomy to be able to explore additional funding options.
1 Introduction
EUA’s Experts Conference “Towards financially sustainable universities II: diversifying income streams” was an important milestone of the EUDIS project, co-funded by the European Commission. In this project, EUA partnered with HUMANE, the network of university heads of administration; the Bavarian State Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning, and the University of Bologna, which hosted the conference.
The EUDIS project belongs to the second part of a work agenda that EUA set up some years ago around the topic of financial sustainability of European universities. This work is structured around three pillars, or key ideas:
■■Universities must be able to identify and better understand the costs of all their activities and projects;
■■Universities must maintain a reasonably diversified income structure to mitigate risks and enhance autonomy;
■■But this cannot be achieved without sufficient and sustainable public funding.
This project came to a close in February 2011 and collected highly valuable data across Europe, through an online questionnaire to which many European universities responded, but also through site visits and through the constant monitoring of the impact of the economic crisis on universities’ activities and financial structures. EUA is in a privileged position to achieve these tasks, with its membership of over 800 higher education institutions in 46 countries and the national rectors’ conferences of 35 countries in Europe.
During the conference, EUA shared the findings of this project and invited high level experts from Europe and beyond to debate around the different conditions and aspects of income diversification. Participants from nearly 40 countries attended the event to share their expertise, whether as university leaders, national and European policy-makers, researchers, or partners. The conference therefore helped EUA elaborate clear messages and conclusions to inform policy-making both at national and European levels.
It is important to underline a few key points to better situate the importance of financial sustainability for universities in Europe in the context of EUA’s work.
2 Universities’ financial sustainability under threat
The costs of higher education and research have been growing rapidly. The reasons for this are well known; advances in the field of technology, particularly ICT and its wider usage in higher education and research, a growing participation rate, new societal demands on institutions, rising pension costs and tougher quality requirements are increasing costs and necessitate additional financing.
Despite the fact that universities are at the centre of knowledge creation and development, which itself is seen as one of the main motors of economic growth, public funding of higher education in most countries is not increasing or at least not increasing enough in real terms. “Massification” has led to the fact that the higher education budgets per student are relatively low in most European countries compared to Europe’s competitors. Despite declarations of intent to increase spending on higher education and research, it is not very likely that public expenditure will grow significantly on average in Europe and therefore be able to keep up with rapidly inflating costs in the years to come. One of the reasons for this is that higher education and research have to compete with other priorities in public budgets (security, health, etc.). Demographic trends and an aging population point to the fact that the health sector is likely to take priority over higher education.
The recent economic downturn has furthermore contributed to the decision in many European countries to decrease the levels of investment in higher education and research. Such trends are particularly worrisome for universities across Europe, whose continuing dependence on public funding puts their future sustainability under pressure.
All the above reasons are forcing universities to respond by taking action. The first step is for universities to master their cost structures and identify the full costs of their activities for both internal and external purposes. While calling for vital additional financial support from public authorities, who have a responsibility for the universities’ long-term financial sustainability, universities also need to increase and diversify alternative sources of funding.
3 EUA’s work on financial sustainability
Since the launching of its Glasgow Declaration in April 2005, entitled “Strong Universities for a Strong Europe”, EUA has addressed the issues of autonomy, accountability and funding through promoting conferences and workshops, and engaging its members in an evidence-based debate on improving university governance and leadership competencies and updating funding structures.
Since 2006, EUA is conducting ambitious research on universities’ financial sustainability. This issue was first addressed in a study “Towards Full Costing in European Universities”, showing the need for supporting the implementation of full costing in Europe’s universities. These findings are now taken further by the project “European Universities Implementing the Modernisation Agenda” (EUIMA), which promotes the implementation of full costing in European universities. A number of country workshops will bring together all relevant stakeholders to stimulate coordinated approaches on national and regional levels. Study visits to experienced universities will take a very hands-on approach and support those who have to implement full costing.
EUA’s Lisbon declaration, adopted by its members in 2007, stressed the association’s commitment to “identifying supplementary revenue streams for universities and to promoting modes of governance that support optimal transparency in financial management.” EUA also committed to undertake “more comprehensive mapping of current public funding models, of their legal and financial environments, and of the supplementary income streams available.”
This is what the EUDIS study is focusing on, looking at raising awareness of and identifying good practices in the field of diversification of income streams in universities across Europe.
Financial sustainability also plays a major role in EUA’s current work on university autonomy. Insitutional autonomy is strongly connected to the topic of income diversification.The ability to freely allocate and manage financial resources, to establish partnerships and raise income from the private sector, are crucial elements that fully contribute to the universities’ long-term financial health.
This agenda is summarised in two of the 10 key success factors that EUA and its members identified in the Prague Declaration last year, which states the importance of “Increasing and diversifying income: to achieve financial sustainability, by implementing sound accounting practices that identify the full costs of all activities, diversifying the income portfolio and securing adequate public funding, thus providing the basis to fulfil the university’s core missions over the long-term.”
It also underlined the need to “Shape, reinforce, and implement autonomy: universities need strengthened autonomy to better serve society and specifically to ensure favourable regulatory frameworks which allow university leaders to design internal structures efficiently, select and train staff, shape academic programmes and use financial resources, all of these in line with their specific institutional missions and profiles.”
Finally, the EUDIS project has in particular provided crucial input for the European University Association’s policy position on higher education funding released in April 2011. Entitled “Working together towards financial sustainability for European universities”, the position underlines the key factors that contribute to promoting financial sustainability for Europe’s universities.
4 Current policy processes
At European level, the Modernisation Agenda from 2006 pointed to nine areas where action would help universities to modernise. One of these points states the need to “reduce the funding gap and make funding work more effectively in education and research”, and reminds us that the Commission proposed that governments spend at least 2 per cent of GDP (including both private and public funding) on higher education.
In this Agenda, the Commission also calls for more output-oriented funding and for universities to take responsibility for their financial sustainability, including proactive diversification of funding, albeit restricted in the Agenda to the research mission of the university.
This Modernisation Agenda is now being reviewed and new objectives will undoubtedly be proposed by the Commission during autumn 2011. Evidence from the EUDIS project also substantiates part of EUA’s response to the European Commission’s consultation on the Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe. EUA’s response highlights the factors that the association believes are crucial in the years to come for supporting universities’ further development, and thus for determining the strategic direction of higher education, research and innovation in future. The response highlights the need for reliable and sufficient public funding as well as improved funding mechanisms, such as funding on a full cost basis and further simplification, in particular at European level.
The European Union has also set the frame for its “2020 strategy”, which is to follow the Lisbon Strategy. Building on its Prague Declaration, EUA has submitted a response on behalf of its members to highlight the role of universities in advancing the European Knowledge Society. Stressing the need for increased investment in higher education and research, EUA has called for clear investment targets to ensure the progress of all member states towards agreed objectives.
The conclusions of the conference and the findings of the EUDIS project are contributing to and underpinning EUA’s future policy recommendations in this regard.
5 Debate on funding simplification
In parallel to these developments, European policy-makers have grown aware of the need to simplify Commission funding, especially for research. This is of major importance for universities, who are beneficiaries of the 7th framework programme and its soon-to-be successor. EUA is taking an active role in these discussions and has just recently contributed to a series of events on simplification of funding regulations organised by the EU Trio Presidency (Spain and Belgium in 2010, Hungary in 2011). EUA has also represented the higher Education sector’s views in dedicated hearings in the European parliament and informed the general rapporteur on the university sector’s views for the report on simplification.
EUA argues that simplification needs to cover the full funding cycle and that rules need to be consistent, stable and respect the diversity of Europe’s universities. EUA also calls for an urgent change in the implementation and interpretation of rules based on trust, as argued in EUA’s response to the consultation on the review of the financial regulation, the rules of which apply to Commission funding.
EUA’s work with its member universities, the EUDIS project and the previous work on funding have contributed and will contribute to gathering all the necessary evidence to take part in such forums and activities at European level.
6 Economic crisis
Finally, income diversification in higher education cannot be discussed in isolation to the national circumstances. By mid-2009, it did not seem that the financial crisis had a strong impact on higher education across Europe; however, EUA’s continuous monitoring has shown that the situation, although very diverse from country to country, has evolved in such a way that many European countries have had to proceed to cuts in higher education and / or research funding. In some countries, the crisis has also had an effect on the balance between autonomy and accountability. In some cases, governments try to go back to more direct steering mechanisms or set up more regulations, in particular in relation to funding. Governments are being keener to provide funding targeted at the achievement of specific objectives, often in line with national priorities, thus curbing the ability of universities to freely manage their funds.
When governments use targeted investments and funding to promote certain subjects or research, they need to be aware that, with declining general university budgets, this can result in counterproductive effects. Governments have the responsibility to ensure that all areas are sufficiently catered for.
On the other hand, in the light of the crisis, public authorities seem to be growing more aware of the need for higher education to develop a reasonably diversified funding structure, attracting funding from other sources including the private sector. In no case however can such “new” funding be a substitute for public funding. The findings of the EUDIS project will show this very clearly. Public authorities have a responsibility to ensure the financial sustainability of its universities and therefore basic funding should come from the common budget. However, to mitigate risks entailed by excessive dependency, it is important for universities to develop a funding portfolio spreading over different sources. Governments need to support this by providing the right framework conditions and adequate incentive mechanisms.
7 Conclusion
This summarises, in essence, EUA’s vision of how to approach the funding challenges that universities are or will be confronted with in Europe. Universities need to be able to keep investing in their future academic and research activities to continue to fulfil their role in society. Financial sustainability is crucial and conditional on reliable, sufficient public funding, and adequate autonomy to be able to explore additional funding options.
The importance of reducing the funding gap and making funds work more effectively for teaching and research, as well as of maintaining the goal of achieving the 2 per cent GDP target of investment in higher education, cannot be reiterated often enough.
Contact: jean-marc.rapp@eua.be. Jean-Marc Rapp was Rector of the University of Lausanne from 1999 to 2006 and President of the Rectors’ Conference of the Swiss Universities (CRUS) from 2001 to 2006. He has been an EUA board member since 2005, Vice-President since September 2007 and President since March 2009.
See also on the blog European universities diversifying income streams (EUDIS), Les effets redistributifs du financement de l’enseignement supérieur, Impact of the economic crisis on European higher education, CPU, AMUE, EUA: Universities Implementing Full Costing, Towards Financially Sustainable Universities II: Diversifying Income Streams.

Interview Laurent Wauquiez, le ministre de l'Enseignement supérieur, revient sur le problème récurrent du recours abusif aux stagiaires. Recueilli par Marie Piquemal.
Les mesures prises pour éviter les recours abusifs aux stagiaires se retournent parfois contre les jeunes. Aujourd'hui, certains se retrouvent à payer des organismes de formation bidons pour avoir des conventions de stage. Partagez-vous ce constat d’échec ?
Il faut voir d’où on vient, du Far West ! La loi de 2006 et aujourd’hui la loi Cherpion [qui impose notamment un délai de carence entre deux stages à un même poste, ndlr] ont permis d’établir un cadre. C’est incontestablement un progrès. Aujourd’hui, selon notre étude, la moitié des stages sont rémunérés, contre un tiers auparavant. Là où on trouvait des stages type pause-café, on estime aujourd’hui que six stages sur dix sont professionnalisants et durent plus de deux mois. Donc, que les choses aient progressé, c’est sûr. Que ce soit suffisant, sûrement pas. On est loin d’être au bout du chemin, j’en ai conscience. Je compte axer mon action sur ce sujet, notamment en traquant les «marchands de stage».
Que comptez-vous faire ?
Traquer les organismes privés qui vendent des fausses formations pour délivrer de fausses conventions de stage. Ce sont des arnaques. Ces organismes s’exposent à des sanctions extrêmement importantes.
Est-ce que la solution ne serait pas d’appliquer le droit du travail aux stagiaires de la même manière que pour les apprentis ? Ils auraient ainsi une vraie rémunération, et l’accès aux droits de base (la possibilité de cotiser pour leur retraite, congé, l’ouverture de droit au chômage…).
Non. Il faut faire attention de ne pas tout rigidifier. Si prendre un stagiaire devient aussi compliqué que d’embaucher quelqu’un, les entreprises ne prendront plus de stagiaires. Or on a besoin que nos étudiants fassent des stages, c’est un vrai plus. Il faut donc trouver un équilibre entre traquer les abus et laisser les portes des entreprises ouvertes.
Pour le collectif Génération précaire, les stages tuent l’emploi junior...
C’est exactement l’inverse. Un jeune qui a fait un stage voit ses chances de trouver un emploi multipliées par deux [toujours selon l'étude du ministère, ndlr]. Je défends absolument la place des stages dans la formation des étudiants. Mon modèle, c’est un stage conçu à l’intérieur de la formation, dans le cadre d’un parcours d’acquisition de compétence, avec une rémunération intégrée et un partenariat entre l’université et l’entreprise. Les connaissances, avec les stages, deviennent des compétences.
Les organisations étudiantes réclament une vraie rémunération des stages, et non plus la gratification forfaitaire de 417 euros mensuels, inférieure au RSA. Que leur répondez-vous ?
Aujourd’hui, 83% des étudiants qui sont en deuxième année de master ont une rémunération supérieure à 417 euros (ils sont 63% a faire un stage à ce niveau). Les compétences des étudiants concernés sont donc reconnues, dans des conditions de plus en plus satisfaisantes.
A lire aussi : «Jeune diplômé cherche stage à tout prix» Payer 900 euros pour faire un stage
Les étudiants se tournent alors vers des boites privées. Gwenaëlle a ainsi aligné «quelque chose comme 900 euros» pour avoir sa convention. «La formation vendue avec, c'était un peu la blague. Des cours par correspondance avec des livrets à rendre si on voulait. Le formateur brillait surtout par son absence», raconte-t-elle, ajoutant, un peu gênée: «évidemment, ça m'énerve. Devoir payer pour faire un stage ce n'est pas normal. Mais en même temps, j'étais coincée, je n'avais pas vraiment d'autre choix.»

By Jack Grove. Most pupils planning to attend university from 2012 onwards are reconsidering their options due to the increase in tuition fees, according to a new poll.
The National Foundation for Educational Research found that 15 per cent of year 10 to 12 pupils who planned to study at university would not now go owing to fee rises.
Nineteen per cent of pupils said they would only apply only to those universities where the annual fees are less than the maximum of £9,000 per year and 17 per cent were considering alternatives to university, such as studying at further education colleges or foreign universities.
Just over a quarter of pupils questioned said they would only apply for local universities so they could live at home.
The National Foundation for Educational Research reported that only 21 per cent of the pupils spoken to said their plans to attend university would not change.
Average tuition fees are set to rise to £8,393 from September 2012, although poorer students will be eligible for fee waivers and bursaries at most institutions.
The results are drawn from a survey of 1,139 secondary school pupils in England aged 14 to 17 in June 2011, of which 433 pupils said they planned to go to university.
Analysis also shows that 43 per cent of pupils from richer backgrounds would not change their plans - double the rate of the overall rate of 21 per cent.
Maria Charles, project director for the foundation’s omnibus surveys, said: “Until the applications come in for university studies from September 2012 it will be hard to know the real impact of the increase in fees on young people’s choices.
“However, it seems likely that fewer young people will apply for university and that the pattern of applications will change. It remains to be seen what the longer term implications will be.”
The government has urged young people not to be put off university by the changes to the fee regime, arguing that the new system – under which repayments will not kick in until they are earning over £21,000 a year – will offer many a better deal than at present.