Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Filip Callewaert
Management of the Partnership
Overall objective
 Management of the partnership and decision
making boards
 Promotion and visibility of the programme
 Methodology for the management of mobility and
student selection
2
1. Management of the partnership and decision
making boards
3
The formation of the consortium
Egypt, Israel, Palestinian Territories (West-Bank and Gaza)
 Palestinian U. : principles (Birzeit)
 But: a lot of candidates (TG1 – TG2)
 Egyptian U.: problems with involvement of Israel
 Few candidates
 April 07: visit to Egyptian partners; discussion of proposal
4
Needs analysis
Egypt & Palestinian T.: starting-point = needs:
 Capacity building (faculty development programmes)
 Introduction of new programmes
 More focused educational portfolio
Israel: // Erasmus LLP partner: any discipline
 mobility
5
EU partners
Existing relationships with 3rd country partners
Focus on traditional partners
 UNICA network, EuropeAid partners etc.
Answer to needs of 3rd country partners
6
=> Erasmus Mundus University II
7
Decision taking & Action
 proposal
 eg. Institution’s Mobility Flow
8
Institution’s Mobility Flow
9
Worries: Mid June: surprise & concern
 Time schedule
 General:
 Degree-seeking students + 1-year programme Credit Transfer
students needed to start in Sept/Oct 2007
 Call/Application/Selection/Admission = 6 months > 1.5 months
 Visa Application: 2 months
 Particularities:
 Strikes in IL
 No electricity in Gaza
 Holidays everywhere (also embassies…)
10
Worries: Mid June: surprise & concern
Experimental character
 Credit transfer programmes
 Curriculum (in)compatibilities
 Quality
11
Decision taking & Action
 start call & preselection
 protocols: to be discussed
 steering committee (but: holidays…)
 e-mail / phone calls / fax
 intranet
 Pull / Push
 importance of LIVE meetings
 absence of Palestinians (in all cases: Gaza)
12
Meetings
April 07: visit to Egyptian partners (TG1 and TG2)
July: Rome meeting: representatives from IL, EG, EU
August: visit to selection of IL, PA partners
September: Brussels meeting with all partners
September: Lille meeting with TG2 EG
September: Paris meeting with PA (P.E.A.C.E. meeting)
November: visit to selection of EG partners (also TG2)
December 07: visit to selection of EU partners
January 08: Steering Committee meeting
March 08: visit to selection of EU partners
April 08: EG meeting (or Turkey)
13
Meetings
14
Decision taking & Action
 importance of having the EMECW implementation situated in
a clear institutional structure
 International office or other central academic office
 Clear mandate towards executives
 Visible responsibility
 Support of institutional governors
15
Decision taking: Lessons learned




Do not overestimate Pull-technology
Do not overestimate Electronic communication
Have live meetings
Institutional mandate for executives
16
2. Promotion and visibility of the programme
17
Promotion
 As 75 % of mobility flow is TG 1: major responsibility at TG1
institutions
 TG2: “preferential” TG2-partners
 TG3: associate partners: GUPS, PEACE, …
 No open national calls, but open institutional calls
18
Websites
 Central: www.erasmusmundus2.eu
19
Websites: central
20
Websites: local; eg. www.ccast.edu.ps/emu2
21
Ad Valvas
22
Magazines
E.g. Local: American University Cairo:
AUC Weekly
VUB: electronic newsletter
23
Promotion & visibility
 Towards local programmes:
 Importance of ECTS information package!
 Educational portfolio
 Mainly in case of credit transfer!
24
Promotion & visibility
 Timing
25
3. Methodology for the management of mobility and
student selection
26
Management software
The planned use of MoveOn / MoveIn failed
- MoveOn : for the management of mobility
- MoveIn: for the management of the
application/selection process
Main reason: software not intended for consortia but
only for one single institution and Unisolution could
not manage to alter it in time
27
Management software
Registration/application module in our CMS website
(Joomla based) www.erasmusmundus2.eu
Before 10 July, 148 people applied online for the first
call (Ba/Ma level).
28
Management of mobility
an exchange server and ftp server was set up for mail
and internal document management (eg. application
workflow);
central databases were set up to manage, update and
communicate scholarship availability and granting
E-banking software was introduced
29
Selection: BA/MA
Preselection by partners
 Impartial selection committee + procedure: report!
 Ranking sent to HQ ; HQs dispatch
Final admission by hosting academics
Limited exceptional PRIORITY scheme allowed in framework
of faculty building programmes
30
Selection BA/MA: TG1, 1st call: BA/MA
31
Selection BA/MA: transparancy & equal treatment
- Reporting
- Number of candidates = 3x scholarships available
32
Selection BA/MA: CCAST
For instance, the Community College of Applied Science and
Technology (CCAST, Gaza) appealed to the following criteria
and weighting:
• Qualification General Grade (Excellent: 9 points / Very Good: 6 /
Good: 4)
• Language (Qualification with the required level: 7 / Qualification
below the required level: 4 / Without qualification but with
excellent CCAST English test: 3 / Without qualification but with
very good CCAST English test: 2 / Without qualification but with
good CCAST English test: 1)
• Academic experience (1 point per year, maximally 9)
• Motivation (maximally 5)
33
Selection: group mobility
- Selection done at home university
34
Selection: PhD
- Strategic use of scholarships: faculty development
programmes (instructors as candidates)
- Recommendation letters
- Final acceptance: by hosting academic
35
Selection: postdocs & academic staff
- strategically: they have a mission in the future of EMECW
project, supported by institutional governors
- Faculty development programmes
36
Selection: TG2
- Cfr. TG1, with limited number of TG2 partners
37
Selection: TG3
- Palestinian refugees
- Reside in EU
- Recommended by home university
38
Conclusions: specific
- Management of partnership
- Specific problems due to regional compostion
- Meet
- EMECW in organisational structure of institution
39
Conclusions: specific
- Promotion
- Start in time
- Programme still unknown; profit in future from
built up resonance now
40
Conclusions: specific
- Selection & management of mobility
- Software?!
41
Conclusions: General
- Learning process; hope to be able to use the
lessons learnt in the future
- ‘Of mice and men’: schemes do not always turn out
as planned, in this case mainly due to tight time
schedule
42