Norway
Expansion Waves and Access Policies in
Higher Education
Rómulo Pinheiro & Peter Maassen
University of Oslo, HEDDA
Work in Progress
(Draft Report)
August 2006
Project: Access on Higher Education. A comparative study across four
national settings/systems.
1
“Today there is lots of criticisms of the [Norwegian] Government’s policy on higher education,
mainly because it is not considered expansive enough. Thousands of young qualified people are
standing outside the gates of higher education, and this is a political reality not to be overlooked.
Public opinion is undoubtedly on the side of potential students, and warnings that expansion has
gone too far are seldom heard.” (Aamodt 1995: 79)
1. The first period of expansion: late 1960s and early 1970s - ‘More is better’
The period between the end of the World War II and the mid-1950s did not suffer any
considerable alterations regarding the number of students entering higher education (HE).
This has been explained on the grounds that, Norway as a country, spent considerable time
and resources in re-building the nation after the conflict, as well as a consequence of
population stagnation (small birth cohorts) during the 1930s (Aamodt 1995). As it occurred in
a variety of OECD countries, the expansion of the number of students attending HE in
Norway was initiated during the late 1950s. It is generally acknowledged that this process was
the result of emerging social demands, such as labour market dynamics, i.e. a shortage of
qualified labour force, and/or the enhancement of equality of educational opportunity to the
broad population (Aamodt & Kyvik 2005). Particularly when it comes to the latter factor, this
is of key importance, as Norway, like the rest of the Nordic region1, is characterised as a
social-democratic country placing a strong emphasis on ‘equality of opportunity’.
In Norway, the role undertaken by HE in society has been complemented, from a policy
perspective, with a strong utilitarian dimension, i.e. as a useful tool to leverage economic
development. The period of the late 1950s and early 1960s was marked by such a strong
‘pragmatic’ (utilitarian) orientation, though this emphasis tended to decline during the late
1960s and almost disappear by the 1970s; to re-emerge once again in the 1990s (Ibid.).
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the proportion of high school leavers enrolling in HE
increased rather dramatically across the whole of the Nordic region. Whereas in 1960, only
less than 10% of each age cohort enrolled in HE studies, the number of students entering the
sector increased (in a decade) by a factor between three and four (Aamodt & Kyvik 2005:
128). In only five years (1960-65), the number of university students doubled, reaching
1
The Nordic countries consist of Denmark, the Faroe Islands, Greenland, Finland, Åland, Iceland, Norway and
Sweden. The Faroe Islands and Greenland are both part of the kingdom of Denmark, and Åland is part of the
republic of Finland. The region has a population of 24.7 million people (Norden).
2
20.000 individuals (Aamodt 1995: 64). Within a decade, this figure would double once again
to 40.000 students (by 1975), with 30.000 active university students in 1970. According to
national statistics, in 1970, around 17.000 individuals were involved in research and
educational activities in Norway, of which close to 46% possessed some type of HE degree
(NIFU-STEPa). Around one quarter of all those possessing a HE degree during this period
were actively involved (employed by) with the HE sector (Ibid.).
As a result of the exponential expansion in the number of students entering Norwegian HE, a
series of policy reforms were undertaken by the government during the second half of the
1960s2. Access was expanded by increasing the size (number of institutions and study-places)
of the university sector, as well as the gradual development of a binary system through the
creation of (new) non-university institutions3. The latter measure was partly a consequence of
the political resistance against the proposed reforms at universities. In other words, due to the
‘hot atmosphere’4 of the day, “politicians had to look outside the universities to reform higher
education” (Aamodt 1995: 65). Additionally, the transformation of existing post-secondary
schools into institutions of HEIs further boosted the capacity of the system considerably.
While reflecting on the expansion of the HE system in the Nordic countries5 during the 1960s.
Aamodt and Kyvik (2005) stress the fact that the structural changes exercised across the
region acted both as ‘means’ of responding to the rapid growth in HE enrolments, as well as
‘preconditions’ for the future6 expansion of the system as a whole.
As it often happens, Norwegian HE developments during this period were in sync with wider
reforms occurring across the broad educational sector. As such, compulsory school was
increased from seven to nine years7 and upper secondary school8, was branched out (and
2
This first period of expansion was to some extent foreseen by state authorities and highly stimulated by the
Government.
3
A special Commission (‘Ottosen’) responsible for the process was formed (1965-70). Amongst other things it
proposed radical reforms in aspects like degree structures at universities, plans for life-long education, and the
creation of new – non university institutions. The Commission’s proposals also aimed at moving the existing
degree structure in light of the Anglo-Saxon model, as to reduce the normal period of studies (Aamodt 1995).
4
Both university students and staff were generally very critical towards the proposed reforms.
5
In this context, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland.
6
That took place in the early 1970s.
7
Due to the inclusion of lower secondary education.
8
Upper secondary education includes both general and vocational courses. Young people have the legal right to
three years of education on a general course leading to HE or to four years of education leading to vocational.
qualifications. Attendance at upper secondary school is voluntary and is completed by approximately 90% of the
age group (OECD 2005b). Around 70 % of the age cohort successfully completes upper secondary education.
3
opened up9) in order to incorporate both general and vocational education. Moreover, a rise of
the student population at lower levels, mostly secondary, as a consequence of the baby-boom
following the end of WWII, lead to strong social pressures to expand HE to a broader
public10.
Across the whole of the Nordic region the first wave of HE expansion initiated in 1960s
followed the utilitarian perspective described earlier, i.e. the rationale of investing in human
capital as a means to leverage economic development. In order to tackle existing (and
potential) asymmetries between urban centres and the periphery, a strong regional focus,
when it comes to geographic accessibility to HE, was exercised by state authorities11. In
practice this meant that new HEIs, especially at the non-university sector12, were established
across Norwegian territory. The so-called ‘Regional Colleges’ became the symbol of the new
policy framework in HE (Aamodt 1995); though most of these ‘new’ institutions were the
result of existing upper secondary schools being upgraded to HE status.
2. The period of Stabilisation: Mid-1970s and 1980s
The period between 1975 and 1987 was characterised by a slow-down in the number of HE
enrolments across the Nordic region13, when compared to the previous decade. During this
period some international analysts proclaimed “the end of the expansionist era” in HE (c.f.
Trow 1981; Geiger 1980; in Aamodt 1995). Nonetheless, in Norway, the non-university (or
college) sector did continue to expand gradually, doubling its student intake numbers
throughout the period14. As it happened elsewhere, the economic recession initiated by the oil
shocks of the 1970s led to high levels of unemployed amongst HE graduates across the
Nordic region. A fear of over-supply (of HE graduates) and a climate of uncertainty seriously
questioned plans for further expansion. Pressures in the finances of public administration have
also led to cuts in public sector expenditures, including HE. As a consequence, HEIs were
pressured to respond to external calls for efficiency and flexibility. Shorter and more
vocationally-oriented education, usually provided at the college level, increased in popularity
(Aamodt & Kyvik 2005), leading to a gradual decline in the number of applicants entering
9
Until then, upper secondary school was based on a traditional academic selective system.
Also on the basis of social policies geared towards enhancing ‘equity’ amongst citizens.
11
It is worth mentioning that, in the context of the Nordic countries, HE policies during this, and subsequent
periods, have been closely linked with regional policy at the national level.
12
As such, the college sector comprising a wide range of institutions was organised in 1976. These sorts of
institutions have traditionally had a strong regional/developmental dimension.
13
Excluding Iceland.
14
By 1987, the total number of HE enrolments at universities and colleges reached 100.000 (Aamodt 1995: 66).
10
4
traditional university-based HE. The period 1975-1987 has also initiated a qualitative change
in the composition of the student population enrolled at universities and colleges throughout
the Nordic region. Whereas the number of male students across all Nordic countries stagnated
during this period, the number of females enrolling in HE did continue to increase.
In the Norwegian national context, the success derived from the policy of channelling
students from the university to the college sector, led to the stagnation of resource allocations
to the former type of HEIs. A new Commission set in the late 1980s (‘Hernes’) strengthened
the focus provided to university-level education, which, as such, represented a considerable
strategic shift as far as policy is concerned (Aamodt 1995). The most affected study-areas,
when it comes to new student numbers, during this period were the humanities and researchoriented programmes. Moreover, demographic trends, i.e. the decline of age cohorts after
1990s, were also seen as a major concern (Ibid.).
3. The Second Period of Expansion: Early 1990s – ‘More is problem’
The second big expansionary wave in HE across the Nordic countries, including Norway,
occurred in the early 1990s. The sustained growth in the college sector registered a decade
earlier did intensify itself across the HE system. In Norway, the number of registered students
at HEIs (fall semester) increased from close to 102 thousand (in 1988) to more than 169
thousand by 1996 or 66%15 (SSB 2001: 07). Due to the fact that many faculties at the
university-level did not adopt (at the time) a policy of ‘limited admission’ (caps), this factor
per se, led to a disruptive intake in the number of new university students. This was mostly
evident across academic fields like the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences, since
professional areas such as medicine and engineering had previously adopted relatively strict
admission limits16 (Aamodt 1995). As a result, starting in 1990, stricter admission policies
were introduced across all faculties within the university-sector, which led to a gradual
equilibrium in the number of students registered across universities and state colleges17. As
such, the proportion of students undertaking university-level education decreased from 97%
of the total (in 1990) to 52% in 1994 (Aamodt 1995). This trend is seen by some as well in
line with national policies, both within Norway and across the Nordic region (Aamodt &
15
Between 1992 and 1994 alone, the number of applicants to universities and colleges (fall semester) increased
by 13%; an average of 71.6% of all 24 year olds and younger (SSB 2001: 03).
16
This was also the case for non-university institutions.
17
In 1990, the number of registered students (fall semester) at universities surpassed that of the state colleges by
19% (SSB 2001: 7). By 1995, however, the difference was only 5% in favour of universities; to be levelled, i.e.
same number, by 1999.
5
Kyvik 2005)18. Regarding gender, whereas in 1990 (fall semester) the number of males and
females enrolled at Norwegian HEIs was rather balanced, i.e. around 24 thousand per gender
cohort; by 1994, however, women already represented 56% of the total enrolments19.
Interestingly, in the case of Norway, this second wave of expansion (early 1990s) was neither
planned nor as a result of ongoing policy reforms. The key factor seems to have been related
to considerable high levels of unemployment amongst the youth (16-24 year olds) in this
period20. As a consequence, the gradual expansion of HE throughout the 1990s kept
unemployment levels down throughout the decade (OECD 2005)21. Higher educational
aspirations amongst the youth, affected by parents’ educational attainment as well as peer
groups, have also been indicated as deterministic factors for an increase in enrolments
(Aamodt & Kyvik 2005). As for women, the exponential growth in intake is often seen in
light of the changing (emancipative) role of women across Nordic societies, a process
initiated during the late 1960s22.
The increase in the number of applicants during this period brought, once again, issues of
equity to the fore of the political agenda23. In order to accommodate the highest number of
students possible, governments across the Nordic regions implemented policies aimed at
increasing the ease of access into HE. As a result, in Norway at least, state funding previously
allocated to prevent unemployment was re-directed to fund new student places at HEIs24. This
aspect, according to some observers, re-enforces the idea that, within the Nordic welfare
context, “…access to higher education constitutes a quite strong political pressure, and indeed
results in political action.” (Aamodt & Kyvik 2005: 132).
18
It is worth mentioning that traditional university education is/has not necessarily been the first priority for
secondary school leavers across the Nordic region. This may be related to the relatively law returns on a
university education across the region (Harmon et. al 2000).
19
Female enrolment in HE (across all fields) grew from 30% in 1970 to 54% by 1992 (Aamodt 1995: 66). In the
fall semester of 1999, 59.4% of all enrolled students were women (NSD/DBH).
20
Writing in the mid 1990s, Aamodt (1995: 77) writes: “High unemployment perhaps does not force many
young people into higher education, because they had intended to enrol anyway, however, it may cause some to
want to enter just at the moment”.
21
Nevertheless, mismatches occurred in certain fields like the humanities and the social sciences. Graduates
with a higher degree (more than 4 years) have also experienced much stronger fluctuations in the labour market
than those with general HE (OECD 2005: 33-34).
22
For a brief overview of the historic role of women in Norwegian society see ODIN (2002).
23
As it happened during the 1960s expansionary wave (Aamodt & Kyvik 2005)
24
Despite this measure, the capacity of the system to assimilate new applicants was still limited. By the mid
1990s about 20 000 applicants were being rejected entrance into HE on an annual basis (Aamodt 1995: 67). The
percentage of new students, as a percentage of the population aged 19, increased from around 30% in 1980 to
more than 55% in 1992 (Ibid. p, 70).
6
One of the most significant policy measures undertaken in Norway, in order to increase (or
facilitate) access to HE, was the removal (in 1994) of a series of structural barriers across
upper secondary education (OECD 2005). This step per se, made it easier for students with
un-traditional academic backgrounds to be accepted at HEIs. As such, access to HE in
Norway is usually gained on the basis of students’ performances in upper secondary
education25. The new reform provided students between the ages of 16 and 19 with a statutory
right to three years of upper secondary education, leading either to HE entrance qualifications
or, instead, to vocational/partial qualifications. This policy also resulted in the reduction of the
number of foundation (first year) courses in upper secondary education, from 113 to 13, as
well as an increase in advanced courses (second year) in order to provide a clearer and more
straightforward path to (formal) upper secondary qualifications, and, consequently, access
into HE.
Ever since the first half of the 1990s, the net number of applicants to HE has gradually
increased; from 89 000 in 1991 to 106 000 in 1993, a 19% rate (Aamodt 1995: 73). In 1993
alone, the number of applicants was 1.7 times the relevant age group, and close to threefold
the number of secondary school leavers qualified to enter HE. Hence, not surprisingly, by the
mid-1990s, it was observed that, “The entrance into higher education at the moment is a
bottleneck that creates heavy backwaters and an accumulation of pressure on the system.”
(Ibid.). Even though the Norwegian educational system has been characterised by some as
“soft” (c.f. Teichler 1988; Aamodt 1990; in Aamodt 1995) since it is based on the principle of
adjusting capacity to existing demand, the reality is that this goal has been difficult, if not
impossible, to realise, as entrance into the system has gradually become (since the 1990s) a
competitive endeavour.
One of the key policy measures aimed at increasing access to HE originated in the late 1990s
with the implementation of the so called ‘Competence Reform’ (1999). Its main goal is to
contribute significantly for meeting three sets of needs, of: (a) the labour market; (b)
individuals searching for new competences and skills; and, (c) society in general (OECD
2005a: 63). To a great extent, it has been suggested that this reform effort is well in line with
25
Today more than 90% of the youth cohorts complete some form of upper secondary education, either fully or
partially (OECD 2005: 56).
7
international measures (e.g. across the OECD region) in the area of ‘Lifelong Learning’, since
a central aspect of the former lies on the implementation of measures for
documentation/assessing the formal, non-formal and informal qualifications of adults26. This
assessment, in turn, is used as a basis for professional recognition and/or entry into further
formal education. A series of schemes involving a wide variety of stakeholders27 has been
devised in order to validate non-formal learning. Since 2001, adult students have gained
access to HE studies in light of the new arrangements. By 2002, this group of mature students
already represented 7% of all those applying for a study position at Norwegian HEIs or 5% of
all individuals being offered a (HE) study place (Helland & Opheim 2004 in OECD 2005a).
Finally, and returning to the area of equity, three governmental-led action plans have been
developed in the period 1991-2002. These were geared towards leveraging equal access to HE
by individuals (young and adult) with disabilities; in a joint effort amongst several
ministries28. Since 1998 all institutions of HE are required, by Ministerial decree, to develop
action plans in this area, as well as report on their implementation efforts on an annual basis.
Recent evaluative studies reveal that, overall, institutions have been highly receptive to the
development of such action plans, which, to a great extent, have helped raising awareness
about the subject (Båtevik 2003 in OECD 2005a). Nevertheless, the study discloses,
implementation of the action plans is still far from being complete.
4. Impacts & Outcomes of Norway’s Access Policy since the 1960s
One of the areas in which the expansionary policies (and measures) of the HE system in
Norway and other Nordic countries was suppose to tackle, relates to traditional unrepresentation of certain study groups like ethnic minorities, women, individuals from the
regions (periphery), and/or those originating from low socio-economic backgrounds. It is
worth stressing that, in the Norwegian context, ‘equity in education’ relates to;
simultaneously, access to, and the opportunities given by, the educational system, in addition
to the practical outcomes of the different student constituencies (OECD 2005: 55).
26
As such, the Norwegian legal framework was amended so that applicants who are 25 years of age (or older)
and do not meet the general matriculation standard, can be accepted on the basis of an individual assessment of
their acquired competencies (‘realkompetanse’).
27
Social partners, the education system, study associations and private providers of education.
28
Namely, the Ministry of Social Affairs, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Education and Research.
8
Aamodt & Kyvik (2005: 133) report that, across the Nordic countries29, when it comes to
gender representation, enrolment nowadays is either neutral or in some cases femaledominated, including traditionally male-dominated academic fields. The exceptions here are
technology fields still dominated by males, and nursing and education (especially pre-school
teaching) where females are in the majority. For example, in Norway (2005), 70% of the
students enrolled in general teaching education at both universities and colleges were women
(NSD/DBH). In the same year, of a total of 13 thousand students undertaking nursery studies,
88% were females. In a similar vein, 86% of engineering-education students in 2005 were
males (Ibid.). Overall, participation rates across gender groups in the last two decades have
increased substantially. Whereas in 1982, 16% of the males and 18% of the females (agecohorts 19-28 years old) enrolled in HE studies, by 2002, the gender gap 30 had increased by
5%, i.e. 20% for males and 27% for females (OECD 2005: 57).
Recent domestic studies on ‘equity’ indicate that access to Norwegian HE in the lines of
gender, is characterised by a few intriguing features. For example, in 2004, the percentage of
the cohort leaving upper secondary education and entering HE studies in the following
semester was 27% for females and 20% for males, a significant difference (OECD 2005b: 223). Anecdotic evidence point out for the fact that young males (age 19) prefer to initiate a
well-paid trade occupation after high school rather than gaining debt (state loans) by enrolling
in long-term HE studies that are susceptible of not paying off such an investment31 (Ibid.). In
this context, it is worth mentioning that Norway, and the Scandinavia region 32 as a whole,
have one of the lowest (economic) returns on education, particularly regarding the difference
between individuals possessing a HE degree and those who have (only) completed upper
secondary education (Harmon et al. 2000).
Another interesting (recent) shift concerns the traditional cessation of male dominance over
HE degrees lasting more than 4 years, i.e. higher-level degrees33. During 2004/05, for the first
time ever, female postgraduates surpassed their male counterparts with 52% of all higherlevel degrees (SSB 2005a). As for doctoral degrees, males still dominate the field, though
29
Excluding Iceland.
Some of the gender difference in participation rates may (partly) be explained by the fact that men enter
military service shortly after completing upper secondary education (OECD 2005).
31
Also in Norway the economic return on HE differs substantially across study-fields (Harmon et al. 2000).
32
Composed of Norway, Sweden and Denmark.
33
Long-term bachelor degrees in certain fields (e.g. medicine) and/or master-level degrees. Doctoral degrees are
considered separately to normal tertiary education in Norway.
30
9
women were awarded (in 2004/05) more doctorates across primary industry fields. Finally,
despite the fact that close to one third of all Norwegian students (in 2004) took twice as long
time to complete their HE degrees, women, and particularly women-dominated study fields,
were amongst the largest proportion of students finishing their studies within the normal
timeframe34 (SSB 2005b).
Regarding the geographic origin of HE students in Norway, the establishment of new regional
institutions have contributed to an exponential increase in enrolments by students originated
from, and living in, rural (peripheral) areas. In the 10-year period, 1992-2002, the
participation rate in HE amongst students from rural areas doubled from 10% to 22% (OECD
2005: 57). The correspondent figures for individuals originated from urban districts were,
20% and 24%, respectively. Moreover, decentralisation and flexible provision, exercised via
distance education, off-campus provision, the use of ICT, and/or a combination of these
elements, has also contributed to the levelling of participation rates across the country (Ibid.).
In 2002, general differences (urban/rural divide) in participation rates across upper secondary
education in Norway were almost inexistent. However, a substantial (socio-economic) gap
was revealed; between the rates of upper secondary pupils whose parents experienced HE vis
á vis their peers coming from families who had only undertaken primary schooling, i.e. 80%
versus 67%, respectively (OECD 2005b: 21). As for HE attainment, by 2002, 38% of the age
cohort 30–34-year-olds living in urban areas had obtained some type of degree, whereas the
corresponding figure for those living in the country side was 22%, i.e., a 16% difference35
(OECD 2005a: 58).
As allured to earlier, local/regional development priorities have traditionally been a core
element of national policies at a variety of levels (economic, political, educational, etc.). For
the most part of the 20th century, the preservation of the spatial distribution of the Norwegian
population has been articulated as a main policy objective (OECD 2005: 39). As a result, and
since the mid 1970s, a strong policy focus (at the national level) has been put on the important
role (economic and cultural) undertaken by HEIs across their surrounding geographic areas.
34
35
Usually 3-years for an undergraduate degree, 2 years for a master-level degree and 3-4 years for a doctorate.
Baring in mind that urban areas tend to attract highly skilled individuals from the rest of the country.
10
Following the establishment, in 1968, of the first real regional university in Trømso (Northern
Norway), as a means to develop the region economically and tackle population decline, a
gradual expansion of non-university HEIs occurred throughout the country. These were,
amongst other things, under the responsibility of regional councils for HE; a deliberate policy
aimed at decentralising decision-making capacity36. Recent studies have demonstrated that
regional institutions attract, first and foremost, students from within the region, and that they,
to a greater extent than their urban counterparts, depend on the existence of a growing
“regional student market” (Berglund 2004).
From a policy perspective, an additional aspect supporting the rationale for regionally-based
HEIs in Norway has been to reduce the (expansion) pressure on existing institutions, mostly
universities. During the 1980s, the emergence of a variety of regional establishments across
the country led to the need for a more coordinative approach at the system level37. As a result
of this process, the idea of the establishment of a “Network Norway” (early 1990s) for HE
gained general acceptance amongst stakeholders. The new policy challenged the traditional
arrangements geared towards institutional discretion, when it comes to the aims and
objectives of HEIs, which were traditionally stated in rather general terms. Instead, the
Ministry of Education became responsible for defining system-level coordination and
institutional specialisation (differentiation), after thorough consultations with the sector38.
Most importantly, the new arrangements facilitated a most needed division of tasks and
responsibilities across the university39 and the college sectors. In order to make this goal
feasible, a stronger institutional base for teaching and research activities within the college
sector had to be articulated. In 1994, the then existing 98 regional colleges were converted
(merged) into 26 new university colleges; in light of new efficiency and quality concerns.
An analysis of the merger process across the college sector, and the subsequent creation of a
‘de-facto’ binary system of HE in Norway, indicates that, generally speaking, the reform
36
Writing in the mid 1970s, Kintzer commented: “The regional college movement in Norway is in direct
response to societal pressure felt worldwide to democratize and decentralize higher education […] The regional
colleges operate with a high degree of administrative autonomy to allow each institution maximum freedom to
develop regional identities. From the beginning, innovation and experimentation have been officially
encouraged. Faculty and students participate broadly in institutional policy development, and at several colleges,
in the actual day-to-day decision making process.” (Kintzer 1974: 303).
37
At one stage, 127 regional and vocational colleges existed, with many of them being very small institutions.
38
It is worth stressing that, in Norway, as well as other Nordic countries, any measures aimed at enhancing
centralisation are combined with high levels of horizontal consultation involving a variety of constituencies.
39
Between comprehensive and specialised universities.
11
effort was rather successful (Kyvik 2002). Amongst the most positive outcomes include an
increase in administrative competence and professional leadership, as well as the
enhancement of the profile/status of the college sector as a whole. On the other hand, less
fulfilled (reform) aspects, include; qualitative improvements across teaching and research
activities, and, cost-effectiveness (rationalisation). As it often happens in reform processes,
un-intended outcomes such as; increased bureaucratic procedures, a weakening of the
vocational identity of some programmes, and a general retrenchment of financial resources,
were seen, by academic staff, as major constraints (Ibid.). Nonetheless, similar studies reveal
that, the division of labour and system-level coordination initiated by the above reforms,
enhanced the emergence of “decentralised regional centres” that have positive impacts on
service sectors (public and private) within a given region (Sæther et al. 2000 in OECD 2005).
Studies regarding the expansion of Norwegian HE into the regions, reveal this policy of
having been rather successful (OECD 2005a). Nonetheless, high levels of geographic
concentration when it comes to traditional research and development (R&D) activities are still
the norm40. In recent years, however, Norway’s regional (HE) policy has been focusing on the
role of institutions in stimulating the economic development of their regions and localities
with several national agencies administering the various policy instruments geared towards
stronger collaboration between HEIs, industry and society (Ibid.). From an institutional
perspective, stronger links between regional (HE) actors have been enhanced, as well as
between those and other regional partners, hence leading to fiercer competition along
geographic dimensions.
Turning back to the outcomes of the policy measures taken in light of the expansion in the
number of HE students (and institutions), the tackling of inequality of social background, as
such, still remains a major problem at the system level. Despite the fact that, decreasing social
differences in access patterns were initially detected in the (15-year) period, 1960-1975
(Aamodt 1982 in Aamodt & Kyvik 2005), subsequent trends from the 1980s and 1990s show
no significant changes with regard to (social) inequality of access to HE (Knudsen et al. 1993;
Hansen 1999; both in Aamodt & Kyvik 2005). The scenario throughout the whole of the
Nordic region41 is rather similar. Qualitatively speaking, several domestic studies indicate a
40
The main centres of R&D activities in Norway are to be found in the Oslo/Akershus and in the Trondheim
(Sør-Trøndelag) regions (OECD 2005; NIFU-STEP).
41
Excluding Iceland.
12
stronger social-economic bias of student enrolments across the Norwegian university sector
when compared to the colleges, particularly so in the case of short term programmes (Aamodt
1982; Hansen 1999; both in Aamodt & Kyvik 2005).
The existing data for Norway reveals that, on average, students with parents possessing a HE
qualification have a higher (HE) participation rate than their peers whose parents have no
education beyond compulsory school42. For example, in 1992, the participation rates across
the two reference groups were 36% and 6%, respectively (OECD 2005: 57). By 2002, the
figures had slightly changed to 40% and 8%, respectively. In other words, the difference in
participation rates across the two groups, for the 10-year period (1992-2002), was almost
constant (around the 30% mark). While reflecting on the expansion of HE in Norway,
Aamodt hypothesises that, “changes in the class structure and the increasing educational level
in the parent population are possible explanations for the long-term trends towards increasing
demand for higher education” (Aamodt 1995: 78; my italics).
Lastly, regarding the inclusion of non-Norwegian ethnic groups in HE, the immigrant
population living in Norway43 still has a lower participation rate when compared to the
majority of the population44. This issue is mostly pronounced across ‘first generation’
immigrants45 where, in 2002, the participation rate in HE was only 11%; 25% for the nonimmigrant population (OECD 2005: 57-8). However, when it comes to the ‘second
generation’46, participation rates are very similar to the native population, i.e. 23% in 2002.
National statistics reveal a social-economic bias across minority groups, with those coming
from higher socio-economic groups more likely to enrol in HE (SSB 2001b), as well as
graduate (Vabø & Aamodt 2005). In recent years, an articulated policy process aimed at
enhancing the integration and participation of ethnic minorities across the educational system,
including the HE sector, has been leveraged (DEP 2003). Some preliminary studies seem to
indicate a slight improvement (increase) in the number of secondary school leavers enrolling
in HE (Pinheiro 2005), though a strong bias is revealed between ethnic origin and type of
42
Amongst other things, it has been generally observed (across several countries) that children will attempt to
avoid downwards social mobility by having at least as much education as their parents (Boudon 1974 in Aamodt
1995).
43
In 2004, immigrants composed 7.6% of Norway’s 4.5 million (total) population (OECD 2005b: 24).
44
Significant differences also occur within the immigrant population, particularly between westerns and nonwesterns.
45
Defined as born outside the country of two foreign-born parents (SSB 2004).
46
Born in Norway of two foreign born parents (SSB 2004).
13
institution attended; with ethnic minorities being over-represented in the college sector47 and
across certain professional fields48.
Studies on equity across the Norwegian education system indicate that, in 2002, the difference
in participation rates in upper secondary education between native Norwegian 49 and ‘second
generation’ immigrant pupils was rather small; 80% versus 73%, respectively (OECD 2005b:
21). However, the figure was much lower when it comes to ‘first generation’ immigrants with
a 53% participation rate50. As referred earlier, Norway possesses a strong geographic
concentration of the population with an ethnic minority background, mostly around the
greater Oslo region (NSD 2006). In 2004, the two largest HEIs based in Oslo, the University
of Oslo (Uio) and the Oslo University College (HiO), enrolled 12.3% and 14% of their
student population with a minority background, respectively (OECD 2005b: 22; Pinheiro
2005: 67) Nevertheless, participation rates of minorities at lower educational levels (primary
and lower secondary) were much higher, i.e. 33.8% (OECD 2005b: 22).
A thorough review of the outcomes brought by the 1994 reform across upper secondary
education reveals a slight improvement in the progression and completion of courses by
students following vocational tracks, as well as an enhanced co-operation with potential
employers regarding labour market integration (OECD 2005b: 14). As for impacts on access
to HE, the 1994 reform efforts seem to have successfully increased the number of upper
secondary pupils entering HE studies directly (OECD 2005a: 84). Nonetheless, problems still
remain, and evaluation studies have revealed that the current access structure, based on a
considerably high number of advanced courses, acts as a barrier to labour market recruitment,
and, has had negatively impacts on students’ progression through upper secondary education
(Ibid. p, 83).
As far as the 1999 ‘Competence Reform’ is concerned, this policy measure has contributed to
an increase in the number of individuals accessing HE, that otherwise, would have not been
able to qualify51. Nevertheless, some analysts argue, “…this [Competence Reform] is a policy
47
Mostly in and around the greater Oslo region due to ethnic-population concentration.
Such as engineering, economics/business studies and health. Under-representation tends to be common across
the humanities, social and natural sciences (Pinheiro 2005: 62-3)
49
Born in the country of two Norwegian-born parents (SSB 2004).
50
Bare in mind that this group tends to be older in age than ‘second generation’.
51
Hagen & Skule (2004 in OECD 2005: 86) found that the number of mature students, i.e. above 30 years of
age, increased rapidly since the past few years.
48
14
on equity of access which does not necessarily imply equity of outcome” (OECD 2005a: 65;
my italics). As such, there is a lack of specific policies (or measures), at the national level,
making sure that this untraditional study groups are capable of successfully completing their
HE studies. Performance monitoring by some individual HEIs indicate that this ‘new’ study
group is, on average, advancing through HE rather smoothly, though in some cases, higher
failure rates (in comparison to the broad student population) have been reported (Ibid.).
Studies shedding light on the way HEIs have responded to the new scenario created by the
Competence Reform show the adoption of a variety of strategies (Brandt 2001 in OECD
2005a: 85). These include, but are not limited to; the provision of standardised study
programmes using ICT, the introduction of interdisciplinary degrees and courses targeting
new niche markets, as well as the development of tailor-made courses upon commission. A
major finding of these studies was that, “[…] continuing education was perceived as an
activity that institutions linked to their standardised education and research activities, and that
non-credit advanced research courses offered to scientists and engineers in industry was an
important activity related to continuing education, but rarely reported to the outside world.”
(Ibid.)
In an analysis of the key factors driving the expansion of the HE system across the Nordic
countries52 in the last forty years, Aamodt and Kyvik (2005:133), conclude that, “[…] the
interaction between individuals demands and political priorities has been the most important
driving force behind the increased in access”. Their data, generally speaking, make a strong
case for the interplay between labour market requirements, individual demands53 and political
priorities. Three factors are seen by the above authors as having had a decisive impact on
individual demand for HE, namely: (a) a series of policy reforms at the system level; (b) the
expansion of the secondary education system; and, (c) substantial changes in access
requirements. Interestingly, but maybe not surprisingly, the immediate needs of the labour
market as such, were shown as having had a lower impact than both policy and individual
demands. “It could be argued that if the capacity of higher education had been based on longterm labour market projections, then student numbers would have been considerably lower
than the actual numbers in all Nordic countries.” (Aamodt & Kyvik 2005: 134).
52
Excluding Iceland.
For example, studies from the beginning of the 1990s (Norway) reveal that more than 50% of the age cohort
16-18 years old had plans to enter HE (Edvarsen 1993 in Aamodt 1995).
53
15
The above authors’ analysis of policy objectives across the four Nordic countries shows that,
HE expansion still (today) ranks high in the policy agenda, often substantiated around notions
of ‘leadership in knowledge production’ (the cases of Sweden and Norway) and/or
‘international competitiveness” (the case of Finland). In the Norwegian national context, in
contrast to its Nordic neighbours54, no specific HE enrolment targets have been set as yet.
Nonetheless, a series of (qualitative) ‘equity objectives’ for HE have been articulated. These
can be divided into two main policy areas: (a) a set of measures focusing on ‘equality of
opportunity’ via the improvement of access, and; (b) mechanisms aimed at increasing ‘equity
of outcome’ (OECD 2005a: 59-60).
Whereas the first policy area focuses on increasing access amongst under-represented groups
like ethnic minorities, individuals with special needs, as well as the enhancement of gender
equity55 regarding study/student choices; the second area is aimed at efficiency measures like
the improvement of the progression and completion of rates across HE, particularly amongst
under-represented study groups such as the ones mentioned above, but not exclusively.
While reflecting on the nature of policy initiatives across (four) Nordic HE systems, Aamodt
& Kyvik (2005: 135) suggest that, whereas, “expansion in higher education is generally
justified as an ‘investment in the future’ […] at the same time the actual policy pursued is
designed to solve immediate problems.” An important shift in recent years across the region
has been an active policy of decentralisation and deregulation, thus, changing substantially
the traditional relationship between the state and HEIs (Clark 1983). Hence, Norwegian HEIs
are, to a greater extent, relatively free to determine the intake of new students56, as well as
their internal distribution across the various fields of studies and individual programmes.
Nevertheless, as it often happens, these ‘new freedoms’ are intertwined with new acquired
‘responsibilities’, like the need to increase efficiency and effectiveness both, across
54
Finland has targeted future HE enrolments to 65% of secondary school leavers (volume already achieved).
Sweden aims at enrolling 50% of an age cohort by the age of 25 years old. Denmark set the enrolment target at
two thirds of the age group (Aamodt & Kyvik 2005: 135).
55
The policy on gender equity in higher education is thus related to three issues: (a) reducing the gender
segregation in HE; (b) increase female participation and completion rates at the master’s and doctoral levels;
and, (c) increase the share of female professors (OECD 2005a: 62). All HEIs are required to develop a strategy
and formulate a plan of action regarding gender equality.
56
Whereas the minimum intake capacity is decided by the Government, institutions are free to exceed this
number within their resource constraints. Funding is centrally attributed to HEIS as per the totals number of
students enrolled.
16
organisational activities (teaching, research, and servicing), as well as educational outcomes
(OECD 2005a). Recent developments (2003 Quality Reform) are particularly relevant in this
regard, given their potential impacts on matters related to equity and access.
5. Quality reform: impacts on university and college enrolment – ‘More but different’
One of the most significant developments in Norwegian HE has been the implementation of a
wide reform effort known domestically as, ‘Quality Reform’. The latter encompasses a
variety of elements, namely: changes in governance structures of HEIs; a new funding
formula for HE; a new quality assurance procedure; a new degree structure; new forms of
student guidance; a new scheme for students’ financial support; and, a renewed emphasis on
the internationalisation of Norwegian HE (DEP 2001). Enhanced internationalisation per se, is
an important element with regard to access since domestic HE policies have (recently)
increasingly been focusing on the relevancy of Norway’s HE system in its international
context (OECD 2005a: 8). Besides the goal of quality enhancement in the areas of teaching
and research, the internationalisation agenda has been vital in helping realising controversial
governmental objectives57, as well as promoting the country’s commitment to the Europeanwide Bologna process in the context of the creation of a European Research Area (Bologna).
The number of Norwegian students undertaking some sort of HE studies overseas has been
steadily on the increase in the last decade; from a total of 8 600 in 1995 up to 12 340 ten years
later58 (SSB 2006a). It is worth mentioning that, a considerable percentage of the Norwegian
student population overseas is undertaking full-time (FTE) HE programmes, particularly at
the graduate (master) level. The most popular areas, both in 1995 and 2005, were HE studies
organised around such study fields as: the social sciences, law, business administration,
health, welfare and sports; with more than 60% enrolments in 2005. The most wished
destinations (in 2005) were the United Kingdom (21% of all students), Australia (17%) and
Denmark (16%)59.
Notwithstanding the above figures, it is interesting to observe that after the implementation of
the ‘Quality Reform’ in the academic year 2003/04, there has been a slight reduction (-6.1%)
It has been observed by many that, the ’Quality Reform’, implemented by the former central-right coalition
government led by Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bundevik, was in real terms an ‘efficiency’ reform.
58
The equivalent numbers for the domestic student population were, 181 736 and 223 607, respectively.
59
The big “looser” has been the United States which saw its numbers decrease from 21% to 6.5% of the total
number of Norwegian overseas students, in the decade 1995-2005 (SSB 2006a).
57
17
in the number of Norwegian students studying overseas60, even though the domestic student
population has stabilised61 (SSB 2006a). It is unclear at this stage the reason for such a
decline, and given the time period in question, it may even be irrelevant as such62. However,
if this is a trend to continue in years to come, it may indeed have considerable impacts in the
nature of the Norwegian student population, both domestic and overseas63. In other words, if,
as a result of the Quality Reform, fewer Norwegian students will choose to undertake HE
studies overseas, it is likely that the number of new applicants as well as registered students at
Norwegian institutions will rise64.
More importantly, and in the context of access policies, the strengthening aspects around the
internationalisation of Norwegian HE65, stressed upon in the Quality Reform, may indeed
have a long term impact on the size of the foreign student population enrolled at Norwegian
universities and colleges66. Particularly across the publicly-run college sector a fierce
competition for foreign students has been established in recent years. This is mostly due to an
over-supply67, as a consequence of the expansionist measures undertaken during the 1990s. In
the absence of a (growing) domestic student population68, and the loss of competitiveness69
for their university counterparts, the college sector has been stepping up its efforts to attract a
growing international student population. Amongst other things, colleges have created
international offices, increased their program offers in English language and expanded their
collaborative arrangements with overseas institutions.
60
2004 and 2005 (latest) figures.
From 2004 to 2005, the total number of students enrolled at Norwegian universities decreased 0.24%.
62
Considerable changes in student and institutional funding associated with individual credit production, and as
part of the 2003 reform, may, instead, have had a relevant impact.
63
Note that, in the 12 months period being analysed above (i.e. 2004 and 2005), the total number of domestic
applicants rose by 3.6%, whereas the number of new students increased by 2.4% (NSD/DBH).
64
Note that Norway’s population, in contrast to other European countries, still presents a rather positive trend. In
2001, the total fertilisation rate (TFR) per women in Norway was 1.84, way above the European average (1.3),
though still below the necessary 2.1 children per women as the replacement level (SSB 2006b).
65
Courses taught in English, increased mobility of staff and students, networking, etc.
66
The total number of foreign students undertaking HE in Norway (fall semester) rose by 30% from 2001 to
2005 (NSD/DBH). In the fall semester of 2005, foreign students corresponded to 5.2% of the total student
population, and, they were mostly concentrated in the university sector (close to 60% of total).
67
The number of applicants to public colleges (2001-2005) increased only by 4.6%, in comparison to a 117%
rise at universities (NSD/DBH). Whereas in 2001, 60% of all applications went to public colleges (30% to
universities), in 2005 this figure had declined to 45% (46% to universities).
68
The total number of applicants to HE rose by 39% in the period 2001-2005, though, as shown above, this
growth was concentrated across the university sector (NSD/DBH). The number of new students at public
colleges rose by 3.8% in the period 2001-2005, versus 17% for universities (NSD/DBH).
69
Anecdotic evidence seems to indicate that, as far as the domestic labour market is concerned, generally
speaking, a university degree is still seen as more prestigious than a college one, particularly from the main
universities of Oslo, Bergen and/or Trondheim.
61
18
Another important aspect relates to a tendency for ‘academic drift’ initiated in the last few
years, with colleges (public, private and specialised ones) attempting to gain university status;
due to the opportunities that this recognition may offer. The criteria for such procedure have
been defined in the new accreditation scheme, based heavily on the number and levels of
study programmes70, as well as a strong regional component71. During 2005, a former
university college (in Stavanger) and a specialised university institution (in Ås) were awarded
‘university’ status by the new national quality agency (NOKUT). Moreover, a private HEI72
was also accredited the status of ‘specialised university institution’ (OECD 2005a: 80;
NOKUT). As such, academic specialisation has been contemplated as an important policy
objective brought by the new reform. But, instead of reaching this goal via central planning,
as was the case throughout the 1990s, Norway’s government believes that competition
(markets) is the ideal mechanism for such a task (OECD 2005a: 79).
In terms of system level capacity, the new reform efforts did not substantially change the
existing status quo73, though, generally speaking, HEIs have strengthened their autonomy.
Currently, planning measures (at the central level) are being leveraged in order to guarantee
that, in the near future, half of each age cohort will gain access to HE studies (OECD 2005a:
79). The level of state supervision over the number of places offered is considerably high in
the cases of resource-demanding study programmes in such areas seen as key for: (a) the
growth of the domestic economic; (b) the functioning of the labour market; as well as, (c)
required infrastructure (e.g. health). As indicated earlier, no particular expansion targets have
been set to date.
Reflecting on the challenges in integrating Norwegian HE with other aspects of the
educational spectrum (adult, vocational, etc.), in light of the recent reforms, a recent OECD
report indicates:
70
Currently, a minimum of four doctoral and five master programmes are required.
The overall idea is to allow colleges to develop their own distinct profiles, thus, avoiding that they will
become like traditional universities. A central criterion for becoming a new university is that, two out of four
required doctoral programs ought to have, “regional relevance and national significance” (OECD 2005a: 41).
72
The Norwegian Lutheran School of Theology (‘Menighets Fakultet’).
73
Institutional autonomy has been gradually strengthened during the last decade with institutions being
increasingly responsible for capacity dimensioning issues, except for some resource-demanding studies, and
fields of study of national importance (as shown in the text).
71
19
“In principle, the Competence Reform and the recent Quality Reform of higher education are
intended to be mutually supportive. For example, the modularisation of higher education study
programmes as part of the Quality Reform can establish stronger links between higher education
and continuing education by increasing the number of “access”-points to higher education for
those with an interest in continuing education.” (OECD 2005a: 85)
6. Summarising the major trends
In light of the elements presented above, and the typology used throughout this research
study, the following elements can be summarised:
The first wave of HE expansion in Norway occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This
phase was both expected and highly stimulated by the Norwegian government, and its main
drivers were equity, i.e., the democratisation of HE and society, and, economic development
imperatives. This led to a policy of “More is Better”, both when it comes to the number of
students and study programmes, as well as HEIs. As a result of the political resistance by
universities, when it comes to reform efforts, the state was ‘forced’ to look for the nonuniversity sector as an alternative to foster expansion. Significant measures were also
undertaken at lower levels of the educational spectrum, in light of general and vocational
education. A core focus of the latter policy was to ‘open-up’ the HE system to new publics all
over the country. A strong policy of regional decentralisation was also initiated during this
period, culminating in the emergence of regional colleges.
The second major period of expansion occurred in the early 1990s. This phase differed
considerably from the previous one since it was neither planned nor expected by state
authorities. High unemployment levels amongst the youth were the major deterministic factor
for the exponential growth in the number of new applicants. Thus, the state was caught by
surprise in a process that can be characterised as, “More is Problem”. In order to handle the
new situation, several policy efforts were exercised. To start with, public funds aimed at
covering unemployment benefits were re-directed into HE, as a means of funding the new
expansionary wave. Structural barriers at the upper secondary level were removed in order to
make access accessible to students with un-traditional academic backgrounds; who would,
otherwise, not be able to qualify for entry into HE. The growth in the number of students has
also led to a new policy of rationalisation and tighter coordination, culminating with the
20
merger of a number of existing lower-level institutions, which, almost overnight, became part
of the broad HE sector.
The last and most recent phase, in Norwegian HE, relates to a series of substantial reforms
initiated in the beginning of the millennium. As such, these signify a qualitative change in the
way HE arrangements, including governance (i.e., the relationship between the Ministry and
HEIs), have been established. The nature of the new HE policy, very much in line with
international developments, particularly within Europe, can be characterised as an access
policy of, “More but Different”. In the latter context, HEIs have been given more autonomy
(responsibility) but, simultaneously, have also been stimulated to improve accountability to
external stakeholders. The new policy agenda brings to the fore, once again, the rationale of
economic rationalisation (i.e. efficiency and effectiveness), based on international
competitiveness as a core element. Both, students and HEIs are now being expected to
respond to (external) social demands like the ‘knowledge economy’ and ‘globalisation’.
Competition, on the other hand, is also being stimulated amongst HEIs, and the development
of (new) institutional profiles is leading to a process of ‘academic drift’, which, if not
carefully articulated, may have the potential to collapse the traditional divide along a binary
system of HE.
21
List of References
Aamodt, P. O. (1995). ‘Floods, bottlenecks and backwaters: an analysis of expansion in higher
education in Norway’. Higher Education 30, p. 63-80.
Aamodt, P. O. and Kyvik, S. (2005). ’Access to higher education in the Nordic countries’, in Tapper,
T. and Palfreyman, D. (eds.), Understanding Mass Higher Education. Comparative perspectives on
access. London og New York, RoutledgeFalmer
Berglund, F. (2004) Høyere utdanning i”Vestviken”. Status for høgskolene i Buskerud, Vestfold og
Telemark. NIFU skriftserie 18/2004. Oslo.
Bologna. The Bologna Process. UK Department for Education and Skills (DFES).
Online at: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna/
Burton Clark (1983) The Higher Education System. Academic Organization in Cross-National
Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press
DEP (2001). ‘Do your duty - Demand your rights: Reform of the quality of higher education.’
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
http://odin.dep.no/kd/english/doc/white_paper/014071-120002/dok-bn.html
DEP (2003). ”Equal education in practice! Strategy for better learning participation by language
minorities in day-care centres, schools 2004–2009”. Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Online at: http://odin.dep.no/filarkiv/212768/Strategiplan_ENG.pdf
Harmon, C. Walker, I and Westergård-Nielsen, N. (eds) (2000). Education and Earnings in Europe: A
Cross Country Analysis of the Returns to Education, p. 198-212. Cheltenham:. Edward Elgar.
HiO. Oslo University College.
Online at: www.hio.no
Kintzer, F. (1974). ‘Norway’s Regional Colleges’. Higher Education 3, p. 303-314.
Kyvik, S. (2002). The merger of non-university colleges in Norway. Higher Education 44, p. 53–72.
NIFU-STEP. Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.
Online at: http://english.nifustep.no/
NIFU-STEPa. Nasjonal FoU-statistikk (in Norwegian). Norwegian Institute for Studies in Innovation,
Research and Education.
Online at: http://foustat.nifustep.no/nifu/index.jsp
NSD/DBH. Norwegian Social Science Data Services.
Online at: http://www.nsd.uib.no/english/
NSD (2006). ‘Ikke-vestlige innvandreres bosetningsmønster I Oslo’. Nytt nr. 2. Norwegian Social
Science Data Services.
Norden. The Nordic Council.
Online at: http://www.norden.org/start/start.asp
22
NOKUT. Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education.
Online at: http://www.nokut.no/sw335.asp
OECD (2005a). OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education: Country Background Report for
Norway. The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research.
Online at: http://odin.dep.no/filarkiv/253805/OECD_Report_July-05_ny2807.pdf
OECD (2005b). Equity in Education. Thematic Review: Norway. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development. Paris.
http://odin.dep.no/filarkiv/268836/equity_-_endelig.pdf
ODIN (2002). ‘The position of women in Norway’. Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/social/032091-991525/index-dok000-b-n-a.html
Pinheiro, R. (2005).The Impacts of the Higher Education Experience in the Quality of Life: A study
focusing on individuals with an ethnic minority background. Master of Philosophy dissertation in
Higher Education. University of Oslo.
SSB. Statistics Norway.
SSB (2001). Norway: Current Educational Statistics. Statistics Norway.
Online at: http://www.ssb.no/emner/04/utdanning_as/200103/au200103.pdf
SSB (2001b). ‘Rekruttering til høyere utdanning: Sosial bakgrunn betyr mer enn innvandrerbakgrunn’.
Statistics Norway.
Online at: http://www.ssb.no/samfunnsspeilet/utg/200102/6.shtml
SSB (2004). ’Har du en utenlandsfødt bestemor eller bestefar’. Statistics Norway.
Online at: http://www.ssb.no/vis/samfunnsspeilet/utg/200403/06/art-2004-06-16-01.html
SSB (2005a). ‘Male postgraduates outnumbered by females in 2004/05’. Statistics Norway.
Online at: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/04/02/40/eksuvh_en/
SSB (2005b). ‘Women closing education gap on men’. Statistics Norway.
Online at: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/04/02/40/hugjen_en/
SSB (2006a). ‘Students in tertiary education in Norway and Norwegian students abroad, by gender,
type of college, ownership and educational institution’. Statistics Norway.
Online at: http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/04/02/40/utuvh_en/tab-2006-06-23-01-en.html
SSB (2006b). ‘Population statistics. Births, 2005: Centralization of births’. Statistics Norway.
Online at: http://www.ssb.no/vis/english/subjects/02/02/10/fodte_en/main.html
UiO. University of Oslo.
Online at: www.uio.no
Vabø, A. and Aamodt, P.O. (2005). “Kvalitetsreformen og universitetene som
masseutdanningsinstitusjon”. NIFU skriftserie nr 2/2005. Norwegian Institute for Studies in
Innovation, Research and Education.
23