The Bologna Process: Advancing Trans-Atlantic Collaboration
in a Changing Higher Education Landscape
A joint symposium of NAFSA and EAIE
Symposium Summary
For two days, March 22-23, 2007, 16 European and 16 North American international educators met in
Amsterdam to explore the current state and direction of the Bologna Process. Designed as a dialogue among
colleagues, the symposium is part of NAFSA’s ongoing effort in 2007 to provide useful, practical information
that policymakers on campuses can use to respond to the rapidly changing landscape in the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA).
Rather than focusing on the details of the Bologna Process, the symposium focused on the state of Bologna
and what to expect in the coming years, commonalities and differences in systems on both sides of the
Atlantic, Bologna’s role in advancing international mobility, the tools to promote transparency, and the status
of implementation. How would this changing landscape affect trans-Atlantic cooperation in international
higher education?
This summary is written for those who already have a grasp of the basics of the Bologna Process, but want to
know more of its context and what its relationship is to North American higher education and graduate
education in particular. [To learn more about the elements of the Bologna Process before reading this
summary, we recommend reviewing the information you can find at www.nafsa.org/bologna. A succinct
overview is also available from the European Universities Association1.]
The summary is presented in two parts:


Introduction & Overview, which provides an overview of some of the major themes and “messages”
which came out of the two days, and
Session Notes, which were prepared by Diego Sammartino of the European Commission. We are
grateful to Diego for allowing us to use his material, which has been edited slightly for this report.
As one of the participants at the Symposium wrote, “the relevance, variety and quality of the presentations
and discussions made it a remarkable event.” We trust this report will capture, at least in part, the enthusiasm
of the event itself.
Co-Hosts of the Symposium:
Diana Carlin, Dean of the Graduate School and International Programs, University of Kansas
and Chair, NAFSA’s Bologna Task Force
Fiona Hunter, International Director, Universitá Carlo Cattaneo (LIUC)
and President, EAIE
1
http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/EUA_Bologna_brochure_nov06_v2l.pdf
Symposium Participants
Bjørn Einar Aas
International Advisor
University of Bergen
Fiona Hunter
International Director
Universitario Carlo Cattaneo LIUC
Tim Birtwistle
Professor of Law & Policy of
Higher Education, Jean Monnet
Chair
Leeds Metropolitan University,
School of Law
Marlene M. Johnson
Executive Director and CEO
NAFSA: Association of
International Educators
Diana B. Carlin
Dean of the Graduate School & Intl.
Programs
University of Kansas
Antoinette Charon Wauters
Director International Relations
Université de Lausanne
Robert J. Coelen
Vice President International
Leiden University
Jeremy Cooper (Observer)
Deputy Managing Director
Hobsons UK
James P. Cross
Vice Provost for International
Affairs
Clemson University
Hans de Wit
Dean
Windesheim Honours College
Everett Egginton
Dean, International and Border
Programs
New Mexico State University
Heather Kelly
Director of Student Services
School of Graduate Studies
University of Toronto
Maria Kelo
Senior Officer
Academic Cooperation
Association
A. Douglas Kincaid
Vice Provost for International
Studies
Florida International University
Eric Kronenwetter
Task Force Writer
David Larsen
Vice President
Arcadia University Center for
Education Abroad
JoAnn McCarthy
Assistant Provost for International
Affairs
Office of International Programs
University of Pennsylvania
Alex Olde Kalter
Director
European Association for
International Education (EAIE)
Sebastian Fohrbeck
Director
Deutscher Akademischer
Austauschdienst (DAAD)
Patricia J. Parker
Assistant Director Admissions
Iowa State University Admissions
James Frey (Observer)
Member of the EAIE Board of
Directors
John E. Reilly
Director
UK Socrates-Erasmus Council
John V. Richardson, Jr.
Associate Dean, Graduate
Division
University of California at Los
Angeles
Diego Sammaritano
Programme Manager
European Commission
Directorate General for
Education and Culture
Prof Giancarlo Spinelli
Rector's Delegate for
International Relations
Politecnico di Milano University
Robert L. Stableski
Deputy Executive Director
Professional Development
Services
NAFSA: Association of Intl.
Educators
Christian Tauch
Policy Officer
European Commission
Directorate General for Education &
Culture
Linda Tobash
Director
Institute of International
Education
Leonard van der Hout
Head International Office
Hogeschool van Amsterdam
Robert Watkins
Assistant Director of Admissions
Graduate and International
Admissions
University of Texas-Austin
John J. Wood
Associate Vice Provost for
International Education
University at Buffalo
The State University of New
York
Rolf Hoffmann
Executive Director
The German-American Fulbright
Commission
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007
2
Introduction & Overview
When 16 North American and 16 European international educators meet to discuss the Bologna Process,
there is no lack of topics to explore. This symposium, by design, focused more on the implications of the
Bologna Process, and less on the specifics of credential evaluation and admissions.2 In this introduction and
overview, we present some of the major themes that recurred throughout the discussion. The second part of
this report, the Session Notes, provides an overview of specific topics presented and comments from the
extensive discussions participants had at the end of each presentation. In addition, the two co-hosts, Diana
Carlin and Fiona Hunter, provided daily wrap-up comments that captured much of the spirit of the day.
Bologna is a Process, not a Product
Despite the fact that we use the words “Bologna process,” the tendency among U.S.3 international educators is
to try to find the Bologna product. Participants soon realized a need to dispel some common myths of
Bologna. For example, there is often an operating assumption that there is a “Bologna degree”; there are
Bologna-compliant degrees, but not Bologna degrees. Three cycles culminate in bachelor, master and
doctorate degrees—but one should not jump to the conclusion, despite the similarity in names, that they are
the same as North American degrees.
Participants noted that there is often an assumption that the Bologna process will result in a single set of
structures for first and second degrees; to the contrary, U.S. institutions can continue to expect to see 3+2,
4+1, 4+2 bachelor/master structures emerge. Predominant models reported by DAAD in 2005, for example
were 3+1 in the UK and the Netherlands; 3+2 in Germany and France; and 4+2 in Spain. European
participants made the point that there will not be “one European system”; rather, there will continue to be
national systems within the larger framework of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
The closest thing to a Bologna “product” are the “tools of transparency,” designed to allow first those in the
45 countries in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)4 to understand each others’ systems and
specific courses of study. This developing toolkit includes the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) and
the diploma supplement (which describes the actual course of study and competencies achieved). As
Europeans develop these for each other, North Americans will need to learn this new language of higher
education in the EHEA. (See Session Summary 4 for further discussion of these tools.)
A Uniquely European Approach
It also becomes clear during a trans-Atlantic dialogue that we don’t all understand the broader context of the
Bologna process in the same way. Fiona Hunter describes the situation: “The first image that comes to my
mind is that when we speak of building the European Higher Education Area it is not a multi-story tower
In November, 2007, the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO) held a
seminar on The Impact of Bologna and Three-Year Degrees on U.S. Admissions. The report of that seminar is available
at www.aacrao.org/publications.
3 Our symposium included one Canadian participant, and many of the statements—but not all—could be applied to the
broader North American higher education system. We have used U.S. rather than North American in the remainder of
the report.
4 Refer to http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/Publications/EUA_Bologna_brochure_nov06_v2l.pdf for a
listing of EHEA countries and a map.
2
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview
3
that we can see going up in front of us story by story so we can see exactly which stage we are at in the
construction. Rather we are building an enormous European mosaic–there are many tiny pieces being
assembled and the picture is emerging progressively, some parts already more visible than others, some gaps
still appear. And there are many different players involved all responsible for fitting in some of the pieces.
The Bologna Process brings about change at all levels and it is the sheer size, speed, breadth and depth of this
reform that is so striking.”
Those very characteristics often confound U.S. international educators. The assumption that there will be a
Bologna “system” that will be consistent and easy to follow is not accurate. Diana Carlin reported in her
summary of the first day’s discussion, “Bologna is about complexity not conformity. European higher
education is not monolithic among and within signatory countries. The same is true of the U.S. system as a
result of decentralized universities. Thus, it is impossible to establish a set of guidelines or policies to propose
that U.S. universities should use.”
Instead, European participants suggested, U.S. colleagues must, at least for now, rely on individual exchange
partners to inform them about individual institution’s progress in adopting Bologna. Indeed European
participants urged U.S. colleagues to impress on their counterparts the importance of adopting the tools to
facilitate transparency and allow U.S. institutions to properly evaluate the new degrees.
It Will Take Time: The Gap between Legislation and Implementation
While the tools for transparency exist, they are not yet used uniformly. Even within countries, institutions are
still experimenting with diploma supplements, adopting sometimes the prescribed format, and sometimes
choosing to adapt the format to their needs—not the intention, but an example of the bottom-up approach
Bologna is taking. As Fiona Hunter stated it, “While the legal structures for change are now in place in most
countries, the messiness of policy making becomes evident as different countries and institutions interpret
and implement the reforms in response to local needs and perceptions.”
Leonard van der Hout, one of the Dutch Bologna Promoters5 noted that even within The Netherlands,
which is on the forefront of adopting the Bologna Process, individual universities had adapted the diploma
supplement to their own needs, deleting some sections, using various sections differently, and generally
rendering the diploma supplement less useful. Through work with the Dutch Bologna Promoters, those
inconsistencies are being addressed—even at this level, an ongoing education process is needed to properly
implement the reforms.
Quality assurance is one of the elements of the Bologna process, and national systems (or, as one presenter
informed us, multiple systems such as in Germany) are being created. Again, it is key to remember that
Bologna is not an EU program; it is a program of the national states, supported by the European
Commission but not directed by it. Legislation is national and implementation requires institutional adoption.
As one U.S. participant said, “Let me be a stereotypically American and ask, when will this be done!?” The
response was varied among Europeans—but two things are clear: it will be “done” in different countries at
different rates; and 2010, the date set out as the goal for implementation, means that no new students will
enter old programs in 2010, not that all programs will be Bologna-compliant by that date. As one European
said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, “it will be a generation before all the reforms already announced are fully in
place.”
5
There are over 200 Bologna Promoters in the 45 EHEA countries, selected by their national authorities to support implementation
of the Bologna Process aims at the national level. They are made up of teams of experts from the university management, academic
authorities, specialists in the field of higher education and students. The aim of the national teams' activities is the support of the
realization of Bologna Process principles in the universities according to the priorities laid down at the national level.
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview
4
Compliance will take time, but Europeans emphasized that the curve of adoption is rising sharply, even
exponentially, to where a critical mass will soon be reached. The Bologna Process is real, it is here, and it is
happening. (See Sessions 1 and 4.)
Bologna is about New Opportunities
There is a tendency to focus on the challenges that the Bologna Process has brought to the field. As those at
the symposium learned, the change is massive, uneven, and hard to inventory or quantify at this point. This
creates challenges within Europe, but also for those outside of Europe who must translate the changes for
their institutions and faculty.
One part of the symposium focused on the promise of Bologna. True, it is perhaps too early the measure any
effect that the Bologna Process has had on mobility—though if the development over time mirror the
Erasmus program, we will all see a significant increase. (See Session 3 for further information on this topic.)
From the point of view of the symposium participants, joint and dual degrees in particular should be
stimulated. (See Session 2 for more discussion on this topic). Diana Carlin writes, “Bologna should be
viewed as an opportunity for cooperation rather than competition. Atlantis/FIPSE is a good example of how
both sides can benefit. The same is true with J-1 scholars to work in U.S. research labs or research programs
for undergraduates in Europe.”
Some would even maintain that there is a gradual movement from general education to more professional
degrees in the U.S., while in the EU the tendency is to complete specialist studies with more soft skills
studies. (See Session 5.)
Europeans emphasized that U.S. participants can look to Europe for new program opportunities during this
time of change, and should not focus solely on the developments in Asia for innovation. As Fiona Hunter
pointed out in one of her summary comments, “While countries cooperate in setting the goals [for the
Bologna Process], opportunities emerge for institutions to differentiate themselves and to position themselves
in different markets.” As in any marketplace, the “buyers” need to be aware that the “sellers” are not all the
same—on either side of the Atlantic.
Practical Messages for Our Colleagues
At the end of the symposium, working groups crafted “key messages” to their colleagues who did not
experience the symposium. The lists are “first draft,” but express even in its raw form the gist of the
conversation.





Bologna: it’s big…it’s here…it’s significant for you.
Bologna has implications on a global scale. It’s part of a worldwide trend. U.S. educators can learn much
from the Bologna process.
For campus policy-makers, the competitive aspect of Europe in a “Bologna-mode” may catch our
attention—but the need to quickly realize the opportunities is where institutions will benefit. Joint/dual
degrees are easier and should be stimulated by Bologna and greater information may ease the creation of
joint degrees.
For U.S. campus policy-makers, don’t look at a transcript in terms of years but look at the student’s
overall preparation, including secondary education.
Showcase success stories of dual/joint degree programs, partnerships
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview
5





Campus practitioners must be creative and seek to understand the new paradigms and affiliations.
o Take a look at U.S. and partner institutional mission when evaluating credentials.
o Use your comparable European partner institutions to assist you in your evaluation of other
European institutions, as the intra-Europe information base is being built slowly.
o Don’t look at years, but content/prep for admissions.
o Obtain curriculum outlines (programs of study) with ECTS credits from a variety of partner
schools and have faculty review.
o Translate ECTS credits to U.S. semester conversion is a consultative process--it is not exact and
not consistent between schools/faculty etc.
In Europe, understand goals, needs, types of study abroad the U.S. wants—and vice versa.
In Europe, data collection is critical; there is a pressing need for a European version of “Open Doors.”
In Europe, send the message to the U.S. not to overlook Europe and clearly market opportunities (in
light of, for example, Simon Award scholarships which will be targeted at non-traditional destinations)
In Europe, remember the diversity of the U.S. academic institutions and the lack of central control. Rely
on negotiations with individuals partners = creative solutions.
A Dynamic Context for Reform
Our symposium was directed toward opportunities. There are, to be sure, both Europeans and U.S.
international educators who are less enthusiastic about the Bologna Process. As can be seen from this
symposium, implementation is proceeding at different rates, data and information is not always available
(even within Europe about European institutions), and fiercely independent campus structures can thwart
progress in the process.
But as a U.S. participant, one cannot help but be impressed by the enthusiasm of our European colleagues for
the Bologna process, not just as higher education reform, but in a larger context of a new Europe. If one
stops to think about it, the degree of transformation since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 is stunning. In
the overall scheme of European history, the intervening 20 years between then and 2010 are a whirlwind of
activity. The Bologna Process is reflective of the social and economic transformation, and should not be seen
separate from this larger context. Those who are working to make positive contributions in this sea of
change are proud of their efforts and accomplishments, and passionate about the bright future that can be
achieved. It is in that context that our work to advance trans-Atlantic collaboration in a changing higher
education landscape is framed.
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna ▪ March, 2007: Introduction & Overview
6
Session Notes
We are grateful to Diego Sammartino, Program Manager in the European Commission’s Directorate General for Education
and Culture and Linda Tobash, Director of University Placement Programs at IIE, for providing their notes from the five
major sessions of the meeting. Their summaries have been edited slightly for this report.
Session 1: State of Bologna Today ........................................................................................................................... 8
Speaker: Christian Tauch, European Commission
Respondent: John Richardson, UCLA
Session 2: Commonalities and Differences in Systems ..................................................................................... 9
Speaker: Linda Tobash, IIE
Respondent: John Reilly, UK Socrates-Erasmus Council
Session 3: Bologna’s Role in Advancing International Mobility .................................................................. 11
Speaker: Maria Kelo, ACA
Respondent: Everett Egginton, New Mexico State University
Session 4: Tools to Promote Transparency/
Understanding of Students’ Educational Experiences .................................................................................... 12
Speaker: Antoinette Charon Wauters, University of Lausanne
Session 5: Status of Implementation ..................................................................................................................... 14
Speaker: Sebastian Fohrbeck, DAAD
Respondent: Diana Carlin, University of Kansas
N.B. You will find references to ministerial meetings, documents, and projects (such as the Tuning Project) which are not
annotated in this version. In a subsequent publication later this fall, any such references will be included.
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
7
Session 1: State of Bologna Today
Presenters Christian Tauch and John Richardson
Bologna, as an ongoing process, is today into a
“homework mode”. Many new objectives and
initiatives were introduced in the past through
biennial ministerial meetings. At the forthcoming
ministerial meeting in London in May 2007, we
can expect to see further developments in
stocktaking reports on national progress, quality
assurance frameworks, and external dimensions
related to the attractiveness of the European
Higher Education to international students both
within Europe and into Europe.
We can also expect to see Montenegro added as
the 46th signatory country. Further expansion will
probably soon come to an end as there are not
many eligible countries left based on the current
criterion that to be eligible to join the EHEA a
country must be a signatory to the 1954 European
cultural convention of the Council of Europe.
This criterion affects four new membership
applicants: Kosovo, Northern Cyprus (not a
state) and Israel and Kyrgyzstan (not in Europe).
However, other practical solutions may be found
to associate non-European countries to the
Bologna Process as it is possible that requests
from countries outside Europe might continue to
grow.
With regard to the progress achieved so far, access
to the next cycle, student involvement in quality
assurance, and external quality assurance systems
are among the most prominent areas. However,
more effort is still needed in National
Qualification frameworks and in recognition of
prior learning. Increasing attention is being paid
to Qualification Frameworks (QF). A QF can be
seen as a tool to define the set of knowledge and
skills that a student should possess in order to
obtain an undergraduate or graduate degree.
has proposed a European Qualification
Framework (EQF) to cover the whole spectrum
of life long learning. There are some unresolved
questions about the EQF such as: What is the
relationship between national QF with EQF?
What is the level of detail of the QF? What is the
risk of standardization in content of degrees?
What is the impact of national and European QF
on university autonomy?
On the external dimension of Bologna, ministers
at the 2005 meeting in Bergen stated that EHEA
should stimulate balanced student and staff
exchange and cooperation between higher
education institutions (HEIs) and set up a working
group to elaborate a strategy. The issues currently
on the agenda for external dimension strategy
development are: 1) improving information on
Bologna and the EHEA, 2) enhancing world-wide
attractiveness and competitiveness of European
HE, 3) strengthening cooperation based on
partnership, 4) intensifying policy dialogue, and 5)
furthering recognition of qualifications.
One of the participants commenting on the new
EQF expressed strong disappointment over the
fact that the descriptors chosen by the European
Commission for higher education (HE) in the
EQF were not the Dublin descriptors already
agreed upon in the EHEA QF. There appeared
to be a prevailing sentiment that the EQF should
adopt or align the qualifications being identified
for higher education with the EHEA
qualifications as it is not advisable to have two
different pan-European qualifications frameworks
describing competencies for that educational level.
There are two pan-European qualification
frameworks. The EHEA Qualification Framework
(EHEA QF) is based on the Dublin descriptors
with a primary focus on higher education. As part
of another initiative, the European Commission
Bologna is a huge but very young reform process.
It started just eight years ago but has changed the
landscape of HE in Europe more than national
initiatives have done in decades. Bologna is a
typically European process i.e. bottom up. It is not
controlled by the European Union. It is a complex
process with moving targets and it is not
surprising that there are discrepancies, gaps and
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
8
sometimes contradictions in implementation at
the national level.
said that three-year degree was “not an issue” rose
from 41% to 56%.
It was noted that U.S. higher education
institutions depend on foreign students especially
for the graduate and PhD degrees and distinctly so
in STEM studies (science, technology, engineering
and mathematics) where the majority of graduates
at some institutions tend to be non-U.S. citizens.
It is felt that today, the U.S. is looking mainly to
Asia as a source of foreign students. While the
Mediterranean Sea was the sea of the 19th century
and the Atlantic was the ocean of the 20th century,
we are now in the “Pacific century”. The U.S. is
more and more working in partnership with Asia.
The message from Europe to U.S. HEIs is that
acceptance of three-year bachelor degree should
not be based merely on the number of years but
rather on the content of the degree and the level
of performance/preparation of the applicant
student. This is true also for HEIs in Europe for
which Bologna has not produced automatic
recognition of undergraduate degrees from one
European country for admission to a Master
degree in another country. The Bologna Process
does not promote equivalency of degrees. Rather
it provides a system and tools to make assessment
easier through transcripts and Diploma
Supplements. Bologna helps HEIs to make an
informed assessment on admission to graduate
programs.
From the U.S. perspective, Bologna is still not well
known by many U.S. higher education institutions,
especially among faculty. However, awareness of
Bologna is increasing and the sense is that the
more U.S. HEIs know about Bologna, the more
there will be an understanding of the
characteristics of the Bologna-complaint degree,
especially three-year bachelor degrees that pose a
challenge to many U.S. HEIs.
There has been progress over the past few years,
in recognition of the three-year Bolognacompliant degrees. A survey by the Council of
Graduate Studies (CGS) shows that between 2005
and 2006 the percentage of respondent HEIs who
As to the employability of three-year degree
holders, there are no sufficient data on responses
from the labor markets. However, a general
consideration can be made that entry into the
labor market for bachelor degree holders is really
linked to the level of the economy and overall
employment. A situation of high employment
rates will push companies to recruit more and
more BAs. In regions or during periods of low
employment students will tend to stay longer in
HE and get an MA degree due to the difficulty of
finding quality jobs.
Session 2 – Commonalities and differences in systems
presenters Linda Tobash, and John Reilly
Among the many commonalities in the U.S. and
European HE systems of particular interest for
international cooperation in a global context is the
fact that both systems recognize education as a
global commodity. Both systems need to attract
increasing number of students especially in science
and engineering.
There is also a widespread desire on the two sides
to work cooperatively and support mobility
schemes and joint/dual degrees. The
Commission/FIPSE Atlantis program was
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
mentioned as an example of a cooperation model
that could be extended to bilateral cooperation.
There are also distinct differences between the
two systems. In the U.S. governance of HE is
firmly in the hands of HEIs. Autonomy of
universities is pursued to its highest degree. There
is no federal or central government overseeing or
coordinating the system. Individual institutions
establish policy and management structures with
varying degrees of oversight at the state level, with
public institutions experiencing more regulation at
the state level.
9
U.S. HEIs operate in a highly competitive
environment and believe that healthy competition
at the institutional level, rather than through
central, national planning, leads to the best quality
for HEIs and for students. U.S. HEIs generally act
on their own and not under national or state
banners. An example of this mind set can be seen
at annual conferences and meetings. At NAFSA
conferences one can see country pavilions from
for example from Germany, Switzerland, or Japan,
but one does not see a U.S. national pavilions at
EAIE or other international conferences or
meetings.
In the U.S., access to higher education is seen as a
right rather than a privilege for people; provision
for equal opportunity is pursued and social
mobility is encouraged. With 70% of the adult
U.S. population having some higher education
experience, it can be seen that access to and
support for HE is seen as a public good. While
tuition and fees are levied at almost all institutions
and can be quite steep at some, a large number of
undergraduate receive some funding from the
federal government, based on family income, and
are eligible to receive merit-based awards from
HEIs on the basis of their preparedness and
performance.
Diversity in the number and types of U.S. HEIs is
promoted. It is believed that such diversity better
meets the different educational needs of the
student population as well as work force needs of
the community and nation. It is not only by
chance that there has been a dramatic expansion
of community colleges in recent years, which can
be seen as a labor market driven development in
U.S. HE.
Another important distinction is that the U.S.
system is deeply rooted in the liberal arts tradition.
Undergraduate students spend a portion of their
first year, and frequently their second year, in
general education coursework, consolidating their
knowledge in humanities and soft skills and
advancing their critical thinking skills. Depending
on the institution and the field, anywhere from 25
to 65 percent of the undergraduate curriculum
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
might consist of liberal arts or general education
courses. This is an important difference with the
EU system where undergraduate students are
generally immersed fully in specialist studies from
day one of their undergraduate studies and even
more so at the Master level.
In terms of bridging differences, one can look at
strategies that Europe has employed to advance
mobility, including pan-European discussions on
quality assurance and qualification frameworks.
‘Tuning’ projects involving 135 different
institutions in 27 European countries across nine
disciplines—business administration, chemistry,
education sciences, European studies, history,
geology/earth sciences, mathematics, nursing, and
physics—were exceptional models that lead to
greater transparency in those fields and eased
barriers to mobility. Also, the success of Socrates
and Erasmus programs, emphasizing exchange,
mobility, and joint degrees, have played a huge
role in facilitating student and faculty mobility,
preparing students for workplace mobility, and to
a large extent have been precursors to the Bologna
Process.
On dual and joint degrees, several issues were
raised by both European and U.S. participants as
to differences between joint and dual degrees and
the degree of difficulty in creating such degrees
trans-Atlantic. A joint degree is defined as a single
degree issued and owned by two institutions
jointly. It corresponds to a single diploma with the
logo and signatures of the two institutions. A dual
degree translates into two degrees issued by two
institutions in relation to the same common study
program. In both cases the student attends part of
the courses in one institution and part in the other
one. The common element between a joint and a
dual degree is that they both refer to a coherent
program of study shared between the two
institutions.
However, joint degrees usually require prior
approval by national accreditation authorities. In
several EU countries and in the U.S., legislation
does not automatically allow joint degrees. In
these cases the institutions administering the
common study program can only offer dual
10
degrees. In the U.S. the joint degree would need to
be formally vetted and approved through the
governance structures within the institution and
those mandated by each state. It was stressed that
this takes a great amount of time and that it is
important when arranging for dual or joint degree
exchanges that they key policy-makers be
consulted early on in the process.
Some speakers stressed the need for more
information on the definition and the practice of
joint and dual degrees. Some participants observed
that a dual degree could require additional
workload compared to a standard degree. The
point was made that the overall duration of a joint
or dual degree should not be longer than (or at
least it should be as close as possible to) the
duration of the original single degree. In order to
reach this goal proper planning and full
recognition of the courses and exams undertaken
at the partner institution in the framework of the
agreed common study program is essential.
Session 3 – Bologna’s role in advancing international mobility
presenters: Maria Kelo and Everett Egginton
Two clear messages emerged from this session.
The first message is that there is not enough data
to measure the impact that Bologna has had on
mobility so far. This is true for different types of
student mobility: intra-EU, EU/rest of the world,
horizontal Erasmus-like mobility, and
vertical/degree mobility. There is therefore a clear
need for collecting and disseminating statistics on
HE mobility at all levels. In this respect it was
suggested that Europe should collect
comprehensive mobility data comparable to the
Open Doors’ series published by IIE.
The second message is that Bologna reform of
degree structures and subsequent increases in
transparency, readability and rationalization of
study programs is bound to bring more mobility
within the EU and between the EU and the U.S.
There are 97 million students enrolled in higher
education institutions worldwide. In 2000, 1.7
million crossed borders to study with an
anticipated 8 million projected to do so by 2025.
Recent statistics indicate that there are 27,000
degree-mobile U.S. students studying in the
European Union. To facilitate cross-border
exchange and student mobility, integration,
transparency, and greater regional cooperation are
seen as key, all of which is facilitated by the
Bologna Process.
Some participants voiced the concern that
Bologna may affect negatively horizontal mobility.
Before Bologna the average student spent five, six
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
or seven years getting a university degree. Students
had plenty of time to participate in study abroad
even without full recognition of the work.
In the Bologna system, students have to attend a
packed three-year bachelor’s degree immediately
followed in most cases by an equally packed twoyear master’s, and will find it more difficult to go
for a semester abroad. This is being addressed in
some programs by carefully planned and
integrated study program, and with full
recognition of work is ensured so that mobility
does not delay time to graduation.
The above concern is one reason why there is a
growing interest in joint/dual degrees providing
for structured mobility within highly integrated
joint study programs delivered by two or more
institutions in different countries. The market for
transatlantic joint/dual degrees at the bachelor’s
level is enormous. The Atlantis Program facilitates
the development of transatlantic dual degrees and
encourages U.S. students to go to Europe for one
year of study. In most cases, courses attended in
Europe by U.S. students are conducted in English;
however, a language component is generally built
into the study program for U.S. students. This
gives U.S. students the unique opportunity to
learn a European language and earn credits.
There is the tendency in the U.S. to favor shortterm mobility opportunities like summer schools
or short two to four week experiences. From a
European perspective, this is the result of
11
insufficient recognition of study abroad periods.
However, it can be argued that the advantages of
international education are not linear. If one
doubles the duration of the study abroad the
advantages for the students in terms of
international skills, adaptability, understanding,
cross-cultural awareness, self-confidence, are
frequently more than doubled. Hence there is a
need to promote longer study abroad, ideally of at
least one academic semester.
One of the major obstacles to study abroad for
the U.S. students can be parents who might be
afraid to send their children to European
countries other than the traditional UK, Italy,
France and Spain. In addition, some parents do
not like the idea of sending their students to
Europe for periods for which they must pay very
expensive fees to the U.S. institution while the
European may charge no tuition or if a fee is
charged it is comparatively very low. This is
further linked to a perceived risk that the study
period abroad may not be fully recognized with
the consequence that the students upon their
return to the U.S. would need to take extra
courses and pay extra fees to obtain their U.S.
degree.
A majority of participants was convinced that
Bologna will promote vertical mobility, that is to
say mobility of students with an undergraduate
degree obtained in a given country enrolling in a
master course in a different country, as well as
horizontal mobility, via greater study abroad
opportunities within a degree program. The
Erasmus program with its more than 1.5 million
exchange students has been undeniably the
success story of the European Union in the last
twenty years with implications and benefits well
beyond higher education. (“Erasmus has shifted
cultures as nothing else” - J. Reilly). The EU has
set the target of 3 million mobile students by 2013
and that the target is within reach.
As to the impact of Bologna on acceptance in the
U.S. of three-year undergraduate degrees for
admission to U.S. master programs, as mentioned
earlier a survey by the Council of Graduate
Schools (CGS) revealed that acceptance is
increasing hand in hand with more awareness of
Bologna. The percentage of U.S. institutions that
do not accept three-year Bologna-compliant
degrees went down from 29% in 2005 to 18% in
2006 and 80% of respondents do not see Bologna
degree structure as an obstacle to admission to
U.S. graduated schools.
It was observed that most of the incoming
mobility in European countries is from other
European countries and that most of the outgoing
mobility from Europe to non-European countries
is directed to the U.S. With Bologna, it was
suggested that in the long run there may well be
more and more European students in U.S. master
degrees but that it is unlikely that Europe will
attract more U.S. students at that level. At the
same time Bologna will make European higher
education more attractive world wide with an
expectation that there will be more and more
students form other parts of the worlds coming to
Europe for undergraduate or graduate studies.
Session 4 – Tools to promote transparency/understanding of students' educational experiences
(presenter: Antoniette Charon Wauters )
ECTS (European Credit Transfer System), the
ECTS Grade Implementation Scheme, and the
Diploma Supplement are the most important tools
that have been adopted across the EHEA to
promote greater transparency. While
implementation can be a bit spotty in certain
countries, especially Diploma Supplement
implementation, it appears there is quick
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
movement to a ‘critical mass’ of institutions using
these tools more consistently.
ECTS has been a key feature of the reform
process in Europe for a number of years. First
introduced as a pilot scheme in the Erasmus
Program in 1989, it is now widely used across the
EU and beyond. In 1999, the signatory states in
the Bologna Process identified ECTS as a proper
12
means of promoting the most widespread student
mobility.
students and by admission departments in U.S.
institutions.
According to the official definition “ECTS is a
student-centered system based on student
workload required to achieve the objectives of a
program of study. These objectives should be
preferably specified in terms of learning outcomes
and competencies to be acquired. The workload
of a full-time student during one academic year is
60 ECTS credits. It amounts to around 15001800 hours per year, which corresponds to 25-30
students work hours per credit." Student workload
consists of the time required to complete all
planned learning activities. Credits are supposed to
be allocated to all educational components of a
study program and reflect the quality of the work
each component requires to achieve its specific
objectives or learning outcomes in relation to the
total quantity of work necessary to complete a full
year of study successfully. Credits can only be
obtained after successful completion of the work
required and appropriate assessment of the
learning outcomes achieved.
A new credit system for vocational and lifelong
training (ECVET) is being developed by the
European Commission. Some participants
criticized the fact that ECVET has not been
integrated into the ECTS and that insufficient
analysis and consultations with stakeholders was
made. Some argued that a separate credit system is
not necessary as ECTS can handle the needs of
vocational training.
Based on the key characteristics described above,
the majority of “Bologna” countries have adopted
country legislation on the ECTS. However, while
there is agreement on key ECTS characteristics,
there can be disagreements on implementation.
Beyond the official language, it was observed that
the link between credits and leaning outcome was
not clear for both the staff and for the students.
The need for fine-tuning or re-tuning of ECTS
and its implementation by HEIs was stressed, but
changing ECTS is quite difficult as it would be
necessary to change legislation in each member
country.
Documents for all learners and potential exchange
students on ECTS can be found in course
catalogs, ECTS learning agreements, student
application forms, and ECTS transcript of
records. It was raised that another point requiring
action by HEIs is the need to update course
catalogue and other informational pieces with
English translations as this would greatly facilitate
quality assessment of the educational offer by
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
While the ECTS Grade Implementation Scheme
(EGIS) is not mandated, it is recommended.
ECTS grades carry credit and are awarded to
students passing the assessments as follows:
10%
ECTS A grade
25%
ECTS B grade
30%
ECTS C grade
25%
ECTS D grade
10%
ECTS E grade
FX (fail – some work required to
pass)
F (fail – considerable work
required to pass)
Generally, in exchanges grades are not transferred,
only credits transfer. Symposium participants
noted that the percentage of successful students in
the course is also an important piece of
information that would be quite useful.
The European University Association Trend V
Report provides information on the growth over
the past four years in institutions having an
articulated credit transfer and/or accumulation
system at both the BA and MA levels.
The Diploma Supplement, another fundamental
transparency tool promoted by the European
Commission, is a direct product of the Council of
Europe/UNESCO’s “Convention on the
Recognition of Qualification Concerning Higher
Education in the European Region” adopted in
the Lisbon in 1997. It is a key tool for facilitating
admission of European undergraduate students to
graduate degrees in other countries including in
the U.S.
13
A Diploma Supplement provides information
essential to make a valid judgment about any
qualification and includes:
 Information identifying the holder of the
qualification;
 Information identifying the qualification;
 Information on the level of the qualification;
 Information on the contents and results
gained;
 Information on the function of the
qualification;
 Additional information; and,
 Certification on the national higher education
system.
recognition or a substitute for the original
qualifications or transcript.
To date, implementation of the diploma
supplement in different European countries is
uneven; work is needed to maximize consistency
and transparency. For example, not all institutions
follow the required layout, translation into another
European language is not always available, and the
national grading scale is not always explicitly
described. Further, the national usefulness of the
Diploma Supplement to students and employers
has yet to be proved. That said, it remains an
extremely useful tool for determining the nature
of the qualification.
While the Diploma Supplement is a critical tool, it
is not an automatic system that guarantees
Session 5 – Status of implementation
presenter: Sebastian Forhbeck, Diana Carlin
This session featured a general presentation on
Bologna and its status of implementation. As it
had been mentioned in an earlier session, the
concept of Bologna as an ongoing process was
stressed.
On the U.S. side, the high degree of autonomy,
decentralization and heterogeneity of HEIs and
degrees was stressed. The work of the Spellings'
Commission was mentioned with its emphasis on
outcomes and accountability. Internationalization
is receiving more emphasis than ever before with
more faculty involved in international
collaborations. The recommendations of the
Lincoln Commission calling for an increase from
200,000 to 1 million in the number of American
post-secondary students studying abroad a year by
2010 also raised much interest. It remains to be
seen however to what extent the proposed study
abroad program will be funded by the federal
government and other sources.
transatlantic cooperation at the undergraduate
level.
Awareness in the U.S. about the Bologna process
is increasing. As mentioned earlier, a growing
portion of U.S. HEIs does not consider three-year
Bologna degrees as an issue for their admission
decisions to U.S. master’s programs. Bologna is a
regular topic at Graduate Deans' and other
meetings of university administrators. Bologna is
also a regular topic at NAFSA and other
international association meetings. Credential
evaluators provide regular workshops, and there is
a growing number of opportunities to bring
Europeans and Americans together for discussion.
However, more information, analysis and
dialogues is necessary. Participants brought
forward the idea of a conference on Bologna and
other reforms in EU and U.S. higher education
gathering Europeans and American together.
One observation was that it appears there is a
gradual move in the U.S. from general education
to more professional degrees, while in the EU the
tendency is to complete specialist studies with
more soft skills studies. This can be seen as a
converging trend that increases the scope of
EAIE/NAFSA Joint Symposium on Bologna: Session Notes
14