PROCESSING THE BOLOGNA PROCESS: CURRENT LOSSES AND FUTURE GAINS

ZAGREB, MARCH 6, 2010

DARKO POLŠEKDPOLSEK@FFZG.HR

Responsibility of Departments and Schools in the Realization

of the Bologna Process

Three topics of the presentation

1. Responsibility OF AUTHORITIES

2. Responsibility OF ACTORS: Example (PHILOSOPHICAL FACULTY, UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB)

3. Future of humanities (FUTURE GAINS in the Bologna process)

Responsibility of authorities (My personal responsibility)

Responsibility of authorities II

Croatian Ministry of education & Rector’s Conference 2005: s.c. Bologna “walkabout schedule” (“hodogram”):1. Ministry’s Decree (September 2004): HE Institutions should

draft study programs till January 15, 2005. (timespan: 2,5 months). Deadline for HE Institutions to deliver elaborated Study programs till April 1, 2005 (time involved: 5 months).

3. Evaluation process of HE Programs: From April 1 to May 15, 2005

4. End of Evaluation and Official results: June 5, 20055. Result: about 1000 programs submitted by April 1, 2005,

around 800 programs evaluated (just undergraduate ones)6. Result: from 800 programs submitted – 80% positive; 20% letter

of expectation;7. By September 19, 2005 – almost 100% programs got accredited

by the National Council for Higher Education.

Responsibility of authorities III

Consequences:1. Rush to finish the requirements for licencing2. All programs got accredited almost authomatically (especially

at state Universities)3. Very different quality and enormous diversity of study

programs

Why have the authorities decided to licence programs in such a rush? (“preko koljena”)

Whose fault is it that the programs were poorly designed?

Why have the authorities left important issues to be decided by the faculties and departments?

Responsibility of both types of actors:(Vagueness of Bologna)

Consequences II:What was not decided by the decree (licence)/nor

stipulated by Bologna declaration:

1. Financing of programs? (by the state, university, faculty, department or by student participation)

2. Coordination of programs (at the national or university levels)?3. Coherence of various types of degrees at a single university? (4+1; 3+2;

5+0)4. Coherence within a Faculty?5. Coherence within a Department / among Departments?6. What should be done with the students who did not finish courses?7. Should enrollment in new academic year be conditioned by the passing of

exams from the previous years/semesters?8. How are new degrees going to be mixed with the previous ones?9. What is the status in the job market of bachelors?

Since Bologna declaration does not require any precise course of action in such matters, problems above were left to Faculties and Departments

Responsibility of Faculties and Departments I

consequences above are essential for evaluation of the Bologna process (precisely those left to faculties and departments)

Resulting picture: VERY CHAOTIC

1. Financing: At some faculties, students do not finacially participate, at others they are the prime sponsors of programs. But the more important thing: at the same faculties, there are

hundreds of variations of student financial participation: by merit (academic grades), by a direct inrollment (s.c. “combatants’ descendants” in 2005), by a combination of entering quotas, by direct payment for an academic year, by a direct payment for a semester, by a direct payment for an ECTS (!), by a combination of grades (depending on courses required), by a number of previously finished years of study, or by all of the above etc.

Responsibility of Faculties and Departments II

Variety of STUDYING REGIMES: (examples from my faculty) Undergraduate: “Anglistics”, anthropology, archeology, Czech,

ethnology and cultural anthropology, philosophy, phonetics, French, “Germanistics”, Greek, “Hungarology”, “Indology”, Information Science, South Slavic languages, Comparative literature, “Croatistics”, Latin, Linguistics, Pedagogy, Polish, Portugese, History, Art history, Psychology, Romanian, Russian, Slovak, Sociology, Spanish, Swedish, “Italianistics”, “Turkology”, Ukrainian.

Graduate #of specializations (more than one): “Anglistics” (4); Archeology (3); Czech (2); Philosophy (2; “scientific” and “educational”); Phonetics (3); French (3); German (3); Greek (2); Information science (5); South Slavic L. (3); “Croatistics” (3); Latin (2); Linguistics (5); Polish (2); History (5); Art history (4 modules for major-minor; 1 spec. for single) Russian (2); Sociology (2); Spanish (3); Swedish (2); “Italianistics” (3); Ukrainian (2)

Philosophy (major or minor) 4+1; Indology (major or minor) 4+1; Latin (major or minor) 4+1; Greek (major, minor) 4+1; Ukrainian (major or minor) 4+1; Croatian (major, minor, single) 3+2; Psychology (major only) 3+2

Responsibility of Faculties and Departments III

Calculation of various regimes: 33 departments (undergraduate) in major-minor combination

= 1089 combinations Plus 8 depts in major only combination = 1097 combinations

Calculation of variety of combinations with different regimes (4+1 or 3+2)

Calculation of combinations with different regimes + number of financing combinations (slide 7)

Outcome I: more combinations than the number of students enrolled. (Comment – later)

Outcome II: There is no valid measure for student quality ranking (so, students cannot compete properly for domestic grants and grants abroad).

Responsibility of Faculties and Departments IV

Some students study under the previous regime, most of them under the newer one.

Even bachelor’s certificates differ. Some have to finish the 4th year in order to get a

baccalaureat... Some have to pay for the whole year albeit they need just

a single ECTS for a baccalaureat... Which does not make them employable anyway (allegedly

because of the competition with the number of masters candidates on the job market, but de facto because baccalaureat does not grant them employability – courses do not give them sufficient specializations).

Outcome III: REVOLT AGAINST “BOLOGNA” (several student strikes in the last couple of years)

Responsibility of Faculties and Departments V

The prime target of the managers in our public sector in general: to show “growth”

In the academic sector: 1. growth in the number of enrolled students2. growth of tuition revenues3. (MY FACULTY AS AN EXAMPLE): growth in study

specializations or the number of modules1. Our intention at present is to found new departments: for

“Nederlandistics” and “Judaism”, and new modules – like “Creative writing”

2. Proliferation of doctoral studies

Outcome IV: PROLIFERATION INSTEAD OF CONSOLIDATION, ENORMOUS FINANCIAL BURDEN

Responsibility of Faculties and Departments VI

The question of (mis)management:How is the “growth” achieved? OUTSOURCING (providing courses with student

financing, while the costs stay on the budget list - for the taxpayers’ money) –

“OSTAP-BENDERISM” (Ostap Bender is the character from Iljif-Petrov books – most notable for inventing socialist “schemes” - institutions without anyone working for them, the funniest one being “the Institute for hoofs and chevrons” (za rogove i kopita). This is the method which involves asking for new,

“developmental” working places from the Ministy, and then Instead of using them to fill educational holes in existing

modules, founding new study courses (departments, modules, even institutions etc.) with such new jobs.

Responsible answer to present challenges(Example: My faculty)

CONSOLIDATION of courses, departments, variety of studies and financing combinations

Dividing faculty onto two departments: Department for various languages (where a sequence of

studying is required) Department for human and social sciences (where the study

regime on undergraduate courses would be left for students to decide) Kepping ECTS for the workload Outcome: baccalaureat of human and social sciences

Graduate courses would entail specializations, and eligibility of students would depend on the courses taken at undergraduate level. To get a masters, various specializations would require enrollment at specific (already existing) courses.

Building common PhD studies for these departments (again, built by already existing, but previously not enrolled courses)

Responsibility of Faculties and Departments VII

Responsibility of authorities III

This was indeed the case (at FF – from 1980’s number of departments rose by 120%,

number of combinations has to be squared at least) Number of students in the last decade rose by 100% Number of doctoral studies rose by more than 100%

Number of universities from 1990’s rose from 4 to 6 Number of polytechnics from 1990’s rose by 100%

Outcome V: EDUCATIONAL BUBBLE (similar to the financial bubble which caused the present crisis)

What is to be done? (Future gains)

Proper management of public resources would require a CONSOLIDATION of costs and a consolidation of programs (AT THE UNIVERSITY OR DEPARTMENTAL LEVELS). “BUBBLE SHOULD BURST” Do academic institutions have the strength to do so? No.

(It might possibly require jobs’ consolidation as well) Do authorities have the strength to do so? No.

The way out of such a bubble? Market forces Paying (perhaps even) by the ECTS

Future of humanities in the Bologna process?

Enrollment quotas for humanities and social sciences in Croatia have always been high, so there seems to be no problem for the future in that respect.

But: if the quality does not follow, the rise of quotas and costs will backfire: if academic institutions do not take care of the quality IMMEDIATELY, job market and finances will prevent students from entering such institutions.

If the present trend continues, egalitarianism and proliferation will backfire: instead of making students responsible citizens, we shall be providing a NEW SOURCE OF PAUPERISATION (example: Greece)

Elitism or egalitarianism? Pendulum should now swing towards elitism. (Role model: USA)