Juniper Publishers-A Case for Caution: Eighteen Years of Bologna and Ramifications for the United Sates
Juniper Publishers- Open Access Journal of Social Sciences & Management studies
Introduction
The European Bologna Process is the most historic
higher education reform of the 20th with wide ranging global ambitions
and implications. It has been described as a unique model of systemic
integration that “has not been achieved anywhere else, even in some
federal nations such as the United States where higher education remains
highly state or province bound”[1].
Zgaga [2] reports that the goal of the “external
dimension” of the Bologna Process is not only to make the European
Higher Education Area [3] attractive enough to the rest of the world in
order to draw in more of the best foreign students and scholars, but
also to boost the quality of higher education within Europe itself, as a
way of making universities more effective. The report points out that
such an appeal is important within the present-day knowledge-based
economy, which the world’s richest nations regard as the sine qua non of
economic growth. The 2009 Prague Report confirmed this view but also
clearly stated that the main goal of the Bologna Declaration was to
ensure that the European higher education system acquires a worldwide
degree of attraction. This report confirms that one of the primary goals
of the reform has always been to render European higher education
competitive in higher education marketing, dominated by United States
and the United Kingdom.
Labi argues that, since the inception of the Bologna
Process, Britain is no longer theUnited States’ only competitor for
international students in Europe because ContinentalEuropean countries
such as the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, and Finland are
increasingly becoming popular destinations for international students.
In order to attract foreign students, European universities and
governments have adopted aggressive online marketingstrategies, created
foreign recruitment offices, and favored not only the use of English in
classrooms but also the creation of English programs. The UNESCO
Institute for Statistics [4,5] indicates significant increases in the
enrollment of foreign students in four European countries from 1999 to
2005: Britain (232,540 to 318,399), Germany (178,195 to 259,797), France
(130,952 to 236,518), and Finland (4,847 to 8,442).Since the BP reform,
cooperation between both governments and colleges and universities has
grown tremendously, influencing governance, funding, student and faculty
mobility, and curricula [6,7].
Altbach [8-11] argues in favor of international
cooperation among tertiary education institutions by asserting that no
institution of higher education can survive on its own and stay viable
in the 21st century. Altbach [8] affirms that internationalization is a
natural and not so new phenomenon because, historically, academe has
always been international in scope, even when most of the time it has
been characterized by inequalities. Limited
access to modern technology and inadequate infrastructure
caused by insufficient funding has greatly weakened the ability
of universities in developing countries to effectively compete
internationally. Notwithstanding this, international activities of
universities have dramatically expanded in volume, scope, and
complexity during the past two decades [10].
Many worldwide higher education reforms, especially
the BP, have enabled universities to enter a new “virtual” or
“e-learning” market, and to intensify cooperation and exchange
through joint programs and exchange programs. This has led
to a new kind of higher educational institutional management,
strategic leadership, and organizational structures [12]. Yang
points out that higher education reform has played a major role
in developing the new quality of educational leadership that is so
vital to the modernizationprocess. It is against this background of
perceptions regarding higher education trends that the European
Bologna reform went beyond encouraging the convergence of
European systems to establishing the goal of promoting the model
worldwide through partnerships[13].
Adelman [14]affirms that parts of the Bologna Process have
already been imitated in Latin America, North Africa, and Australia.
According to Adelman[14]the core features of the Bologna Process
have enough momentum to become the dominant global higher
education model within the next two decades. While recognizing
the fact that United States’ initial reaction to the Bologna Process
had been almost dismissive, he points to the fact that since 2008
things have begun to change. Recent higher education conferences
in the U.S. have “panels, presentations, and intense discussions of
Bologna approaches to accountability, access, quality assurance,
credits and transfer, and, most notably, learning outcomes in the
context of the disciplines” [14].
In neighboring Canada, initial reaction to the Bologna
Process was positive, and demonstrated a desire by higher
education authorities to understand it better. The conclusions
of the 2009 AUUC report recognize that the Bologna Process
is not without controversy and does not provide the single
answer to all challenges to higher education. However, it also
emphasizes the need for collaboration between Canadian and
European universities, and acknowledges the potential of the
Bologna Process “as a trust-building exercise through developing
transparency in higher education systems and procedures, and
fulfilling the responsibility for enabling students to develop the
knowledge, skills, and aptitudes to survive in the labour market
and participate in their societies” (AUUC, 2009, p. 13). The
Conference on Canadian Perspectives on the Bologna Process, held
in March 19-20, 2009 at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, gives
a largelypositive appraisal. It points out in one of its conclusions
that the Bologna Process is an expression of the increasing need
for a global understanding of higher education (AUUC, 2009).
Despite the improving trends in favor of students’ mobility,
exchange programs, and international students’ enrollment in
the universities of mainland Europe, the U.S. continues to outpace
Europe in the enrollment of international students. Data from the
National Center forEducation Statistics (NCES) (2017) indicate a
rise of international students’ enrollment from14,791,000 in 1999
to 20,185,000 in 2017, a 26.72% increase. Notwithstanding, Europe
has gained some grounds in the competition for international
students with the United States since the European Bologna
Process reform. By spreading the BP models and intensifying
cooperation with universities in Asia, Latin America, and Africa,
continental Europe has become more and more attractive—with
an increasing number of students from these regions choosing
Europe over America. Asia-Pacific countries, notably Australia and
New Zealand that have also adopted BP models have also become
more attractive to students from Asian countries who constitute
the largest block of international students studying in the United
States [4,5].
Purpose
The goals of the Bologna Process were not limited to ensuring
a converging of European higher education systems. A further
objective was to increase the competitiveness of the European
models by aiding in their spread outside Europe. This goal was
expressed clearly by the 1999 Bologna Process Accords. The
May 1998 Sorbonne Declaration leading to the BolognaAccords
emphasized: “the international recognition and attractive
potential” of European models.The Bologna Accords emphasized
the “the objective of increasing the international competitiveness
of the European systems of higher education” and claimed to ensure
“a world-wide degree of attraction” [2]. One of the undeclared but
obvious objectives of the BP was to strengthen European higher
education institutions in order to be able to compete effectively
against the domination of American colleges and universities. This
objective came to the fore in 2003 when the French Education
Minister, Luc Ferry, told French universities to adopt an alternative
to the “American globalization” by constructing a European model
of higher education that would attract more foreign students and
strengthen their public-service ethos. He argued that it is the
only sure growth path for European higher education since there
are neither the resources nor the desire to prohibit the private
U.S. universities already establishing themselves in European
countries [15].
This study focuses on the implications of the BP reform for
American higher education in areas such as international students’
enrollment, faculty mobility, study abroad, transferability of
degrees, and joint and dual degree offerings, while pinpointing
a noticeably gradually tightening competition for international
students between U.S. and EU colleges and universities.
Research Question
What are the implications of the European Bologna Process
reform for the United States of America regarding international
student enrollments, faculty and student mobility, study abroad,
transferability of degrees, and joint and dual degree offerings?
Bologna Process Gains Since 1999
The European Bologna Process remains the largest and
most successful worldwide higher education harmonization
initiative. The intergovernmental, inter-institutional process to
harmonize degree structures, qualifications frameworks and
quality standards across Europe that began 18 years ago, initially
involving 29 European signatory countries, is now encompasses
47-member countries [16]. The movement has made considerable
historical advancestoward convergence in many areas. Significant
gains are noticeable, especially regarding the internationalization
or external dimension objective of the reform as well as with the
goals of the EHEA, a centerpiece of the BP reform. Great strides
have been made to align the EHEA degree structures and promote
academic mobility across the continent of Europe. These successes
have placed the reform in an exceptional position as an example for
other regions of the world interested in establishing similar crossborder
agreements in higher education [17].The initially stated
goals of the BP included easing readability and comparability
of degrees, establishing a common European credit transfer
system (ECTS), adopting the two-cycle system (undergraduate/
graduate), cooperation in quality assurance, and promoting
both mobility and the attractiveness of the EHEA. As of today,
the implementation of the ECTS as a transfer and accumulation
system is almost complete. Comprehensive internationalization
and mobility strategies, which were not in the EHEA at its creation,
are now being developed and applied by many EU countries.
According to the European Commission (2013), the European
higher education strategy is encouraging EU member states to
implement comprehensive internationalization and mobility
strategies likely to impact EU and non-EU countries[18-20].
Apart from these more recent concerted efforts, the rapid
growth in the number of English-language programs at European
universities has helped to facilitate student mobility, which
is one of the primary objectives of the Bologna Process. The
development of dual-degree programs is an essential new trend
in Europe’s long-term commitment to international highereducation
collaboration [5]. According to the January 2009 survey
report by the Institute of International Education and the Free
University of Berlin, European universities have greatly outpaced
American universities in offering international joint-degree and
dual-degreeprograms. These programs flourish more in European
universities than American universities because the tuitionpaying
American students and their universities are more likely to
bear the costs of such programs than their European counterparts
who tap into a broader range of support from governments and
nonprofit groups. As a result, fewer students in American higher
education establishments can afford the cost of international
joint-degree programs.
The report also points to the weakness of the American studyabroad
programs which tend not to integrate students effectively
into overseas host institutions because they usually last less than
a full semester or academic year and face greater difficulty in
obtaining institutional support and recruiting students for such
programs.The 2015 European Commission Report summarizes
the achievements of the Bologna Process while indicating
what remains to be achieved. The report underscored the fact
that numerous stakeholders and more than 4000 educational
institutions from 47-member countries“have continued to adapt
their higher education systems, making them more compatible,
modernizing degree structures and strengthening their quality
assurance mechanisms” [20]. According to the report, the Bologna
Process provided a framework for dialogue and cooperation,
which has spread outside Europe. The achievements of the reform
go beyond assuring dialogue and collaboration regarding the
technicalities of the credit transfer systems, faculty and student
mobility, and quality assurance, and now extend to the promotion
of European interests, values, and institutions.
Despite the mostly positive progress report on the BP,
implementation is moving in different directions and at a widely
varying pace, thereby creating some instability in the EHEA.
Remarkably, the 2015 European Commission report points to
that fact that students and graduates in many countries still face
obstacles in having their studies abroad recognized forwork or
further study. Worst of all is the conclusion that “graduates too
often discover that they do not have the skills and competencies
they need for their future careers” (p. 3). These identified
weaknesses are an indication that much remains to be done
for European higher education to be competitive in a tertiary
education market dominated by United States institutions.
BP Implications for United Sates of America
Even though exporting the European model to the United States
was not a direct objective of the external dimension of the Bologna
Process, the reform naturally has repercussions for the enrollment
of foreign students in American institutions, as well as the exchange
of students and faculty between European and American colleges
and universities. The drive by European universities to recruit
foreign students intensified following the launching of the Bologna
Process in 1999[21]. American dominance in the enrollment of
foreign students seemed threatened by Europe more than ever
before[22,23]. Since the adoption of the Bologna model, which is
more compatible with the Anglo-American models, Continental
Europe has attracted more students from Asia, Latin America and
Africa [16]. In the past, apart from America, Britain has been the
preferred European destination for students from Korea, China,
India, Pakistan, Philippines, and much of Asia.
Research arguably points to the conclusion that the shifting
interest in favor of European higher education is due to the BP
reform and its embrace of English programs in many universities
in continental Europe. Labi [4] indicates that the strong shift
toward English is the most significant attraction of foreign
students to Western Europe. She adds that as early as the 1950s the
Netherlands became the first non-Anglophone country in Europe
to teach courses in English, and today offers 1,300 programs in the
language. The trend has intensified withGermany offering more than 500 degrees in English and one quarter of university courses
in Denmark are offered in English. Finland, with a population of
about 5 million people, offers 400 English-language graduate
programs. Labi [4] underscores the significance of the trend
toward the embrace of English language programs in European
universities by pointing to the fact that “even France, with its
deep-seated scorn for the creeping Anglicization of its national
language, assures foreign students in its marketing brochures that
they “no longer need to be fluent in French to study in France” (p.
A29).
The external component of the Bologna Process has encouraged
and enabled European countries to extend collaboration in the
areas of research, student and faculty mobility and exchange [2].
Several European universities are developing exchange programs
with African and Asian universities. These targeted outreaches
explain why Europe has become very competitive in attracting
Asian students who have customarily been the largest block of
foreign students in the Unites States. In 2003 they comprised more
than half (51%) of foreign students in the United States [24]. Today,
China and India together account for more than 47 percent of all
current foreign students in the U.S., and mobility trends in these
two countries are of vital consequence for many U.S. universities.
However, draconian immigration policies currently supported
by the U.S. are beginning to have an effect. Trines [25,26] points
to a sudden decrease in the visas issued to students from the
Asian continent (including the Middle East). If past trends are an
indication as to what could happen in the future, the likelihood is
that students from these regions will find viable alternatives not
only in Australia and the UK but also in continental Europe, which
continues to create more international student-friendly programs
in the Englishlanguage—English representing the representing
the closest approximation to a twenty-first century lingua franca.
Understanding the Inevitability of Cooperation in Higher Education
The creation of the BP reform was a move in line with a
global trend in the 1990s aimed at recognizing the importance
of internationalization and fostering it around the world.
Courts [27] states that one of the most traditional and efficient
methods for training students to be competent, confident, and
comfortable internationally is through exchange programs—jointdegree
programs and study-abroad programs. Among the early
Americans pursuing this goal are those who studied in European
universities in the second half of the 19th century. Study-abroad
supporters also argue that through living abroad one could better
understand his own country, develop linguistic skills, and gain
useful knowledge and skills for fruitful careers in government,
business, and education [27-29].
The most reliable component of internationalization in the
United States is the international student’s component, which has
a significant impact on the economy [30]. In the mid-1990s the
United States was already considered to be the leading exporter of
higher education services. In 1995/1996 the United States ranked
first in the number of international students (453,787 students)
followed by France (170,574 students), Germany (146,126), and
the UK (128,550) (WTO Council for Trade in Services, 1998)
[31,32]. In the early 1990s, for the first time, more Europeans were
studying in the United States than Americans studying in Europe.
Even though today the United States remains the leading exporter
of education services, it now faces increasing competition from
European and Asia-Pacific countries such as Australia and New
Zealand, particularly for Asian students, who remain the largest
group of international students in the United States [33].
Since the November 2016 presidential elections, the U.S. higher
education community has monitored the extent to which the
policies implemented during the Trump presidency are affecting
the flow of international students to the United States. Recent
SEVIS data points to declining enrolment from key countries
due to new visa restrictions [26]. Considering that the BP reform
improved the interpretation and transferability of European
degrees, it is very likely that European universities will become
the second choice for international students who are blocked
by visa restrictions from attending United States universities.
It is imperative for American higher education stakeholders to
understand that because of global higher education reforms
inspired by the Bologna Process, international students now have
attractive alternatives in Europe and Asia-Pacific.
It was with the desire to be competitive and the need to
promote European cooperation in the areas of quality assurance,
mobility of faculty and students, easy readability and comparability
of degrees, that 29 European ministers of education signed the
Bologna Accords in 1999. The accords were aimed at promoting
a European dimension in higher education that would culminate
with the creation of a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by
2010 [33]. This reform was timely considering that the demand
for higher education has increased tremendously in recent
years. Even though the trend is worldwide, the rate of increase
in demand and accompanying challenges vary from country to
country. Teferra and Altbach [11] affirm that a rise in demand for
postsecondary education has led to pressures of expansion and
“massification” that have added large numbers of students to most
African academic institutions and systems. These expansions have
encouraged student and faculty exchange programs and expanded
campus environments [34]. More competition has developed in
recent years as institutions, countries, and regions areintroducing
reform that will give them a competitive advantage over others in
the struggle to acquire more resources, faculty, the best students,
and funding. The BP seemed to have increased the competition
significantly for Europe, and dismissiveness on the part of America
would be erroneous.
Initiatives by the European Commission to fund cooperation
initiatives between European universities and Universities in
Africa, Latin America, and Asia is indicative not just of Europe’s
desire to render its higher education systems attractive; it
also demonstrates its appreciation that globalization, from the perspective of higher education, raises a certain number
of challenges. These challenges and concerns have to do with
decisions on curricula, funds to support exchange programs, and
cooperation with foreign universities. Forest (2004) states that
the way globalization is affecting higher education in developing
countries is of interest because these countries will experience
the bulk of higher education expansion in future decades. From
a policy perspective, globalization impacts upon public policy
most prominently in four critical dimensions of higher education:
access, funding, internationalization of teaching and research, and
quality assurance [35]. American higher education needs to show
the same kind of understanding and engagement to maintain its
leading position during the first half of the 21st century.
The architects of the BP reform understood that the
internationalization of higher education is a necessity. The April
2009 report of the U.S. Government Accountability Office appears
to agree with this position. The report stated that Western
governments use higher education to advance diplomatic,
economic, and other objectives, and employ multiple approaches
to attract international students. Reimers [36] asserts that
students need “global competency”—the knowledge and skills
that help them across disciplinary domains tocomprehend
global events and respond to them effectively. He identifies three
interdependent dimensions of global competency. The first is that
students who have an international higher education experience
are more likely to develop a positive approach toward cultural
differences and show empathy with people who have other
cultural identities.
The students are likely to have an interest and understanding
of various civilizations and their histories as well as the ability to
see those differences as opportunities for constructive, respectful,
and peaceful transactions. The second dimension of global
competency is the ability to speak, understand, and think in one
or more foreign languages. Finally, students with an international
education experience have a broader knowledge of world history
and geography, and the global aspects of health care, climate
change, economics, politics, international relations, and other
issues. Brennan, Locke, and Naidoo [31] argue that successful
research has always had an international element, which favors the
internationalization of higher education since higher educational
institutions serve as large research centers.The interest shown by
higher education institutions and governments in the introduction
of new exchange programs, the creation of extension campuses,
promotion of joint-degree programs, and recruitment of more
foreign students is an indication that there is a higher recognition
than before of the advantages derived from internationalization.
Against this background, cooperation between European and
North American higher educational institutions is bound to grow
over time. Such partnerships can only be successful if educational
organizations on both sides of the Atlantic appreciate and
understand the systems they partner with—hence the need for
American colleges and universities to fully comprehend the nature
and the applications of the various BP models and components
across Europe and beyond Europe.
Understanding Bologna Model Qualifications inside Europe
Despite the almost unanimous adoption of the BP, significant
differences still exist in qualification from graduates of various
European colleges and universities. These differences vary, at
a smaller scale among institutions in the same country but also
at a more significant level among countries that have officially
joined the reform, depending largely on the pace of adoption and/
or adaptation of the BP models [20]. The European commission
Reports (2012/2015) indicate that a third of countries belonging
to the EHEA have implemented the Bologna framework. It adds
that in another third of EHEA countries, 89% of students are
enrolled while “in the remaining countries, with the exception of
Switzerland (63.2 %), Germany (61.9 %), Austria (61.5 %) and
Spain (47.9 %) more than 70 % of students are enrolled in threecycle
programmes” (p. 49).
It is very important for American educational stakeholders
to understand that the BP is a working progress towards
convergence just as is the entire European Project. In like
manner with the rest of the European Project, the BP higher
education reform is happening amidst significant differences
between European national education systems but still ensuring
a gradual progress towards a convergent higher education
system—significant differences still exist in interpretations,
and level and pace of implementation and adaptations of the BP
all over Europe. American educational institutions and leaders
stand a better chance of correctly interpreting the implications
of the BP for partnerships and the enrollment of students from
EU and non-EU countries implementing the Bologna reform by
trying to understand the overall purpose of the reform which falls
somewhat in line with the goals and trend of the European project.
The original goal of the BP process was realistic in the sense
that it recognized the need to create a common and not an identical
EHEA that would facilitate the comparability of degrees and
the mobility of students and faculty within Europe (Armstrong,
2009). The reform provided a set of reference points that enable
one European institution to evaluate clearly the educational
attainments of a student from another institution. While
recognizing the fact that national and institutional variations in
curriculum, instruction, programs, and degrees, resulting from
historical, political, and socio-cultural influences, are bound to
exist, it created a common European credit transfer system (ECTS),
degree structure, credit, and quality control structures. This kind
of understanding will limit the tendency to generalize when
initiating student and faculty exchange programs with European
universities or the interpretation of transcripts from Europe.
The 2012 BP implementation report on the EHEA indicated
that the context for higher education reform and development
differs substantially between countries caused by different structural realities, including institutional types and demographic
challenges. It underscored that despite on establishing National
Qualification Frameworks and using the Bologna comparability
tools such as the ECTS and the Diploma Supplement, problems
persisted in way the tools were understood and implemented. As
a result, problems of recognition of qualification and credits in
Europe still exist in spite near uniformity in the reforms of threecycle
degree structures (BA, MA, PhD).
Moreover, it would be important for educational establishments
in the US to know even the minor but significant differences in
the implementation of Bologna structures and instruments from
one European higher educational institution to another and from
one country to country. These considerations can provide much
needed guidance and clarity regardingadmission requirements
for students from various European universities and the nature
of partnerships to pursue.According to Terry (2007) the Council
of Graduate Schools (CGS), which representsUnited States
institutions who award 95% of doctorate degrees and 85% of
master’s degrees, reported that the Bologna Process is a concern
for graduate school deans. He noted thatin summarizing events at
the March 2005 conference on “Graduate Education and American
Competitiveness,” CGS reported that “virtually every speaker at
the conference, in one way or another, stated that international
competition in graduate education threatens American worldwide
leadership in research and innovation and therefore
threatens American prosperity.” (p. 241)
Terry [37] also points to a presentation by Sybille Reichert,
one of the speakers at this conference, who offered a European
perspective on the Bologna Process and international competition.
She explained that European higher education was undergoing
a massive transformation, providing more competition for the
United States. Reichert and Tauch [38] pointed to ways in which
European graduate education already had surpassed United States
graduate education, including the number of Ph.D. graduates, the
number of peer-reviewed publications, and significant rankings in
a list of the top 200 research institutions. Douglass and Edelstein
[22] affirm that there are already signs that the world market
for student talent is shifting to the benefit of the United States’
competitors; adding that in bad economic times of today, the shift
may continue to accelerate.
Understanding Bologna Model Qualifications Worldwide
It is not enough for admissions officers in American colleges
and universities to understand differences in Bologna model
ECTS transcripts and non-Bologna transcripts from European
graduates seeking admission in American graduate schools. In
order to ensure a more reliable interpretation of degrees and
transcripts from students seeking graduate admission fromnon-
European countries that have adopted the Bologna model, it is
equally important for graduate admissions officials in the US to
understand the differences in various Bologna hybrids outside
of Europe. Various BP hybrids are adopted with varying degrees
of modifications by tertiary educational institutions in several
countries and regions of the world. Just like there is no complete
convergence yet in the Bologna Process structures and processes
throughout Europe, there is none yet in regional higher education
consortiums fashioned after the European model. These groupings
include the 2002 LMD (Licence, Mastère, Doctorat) reform in the
Maghreb Countries, Latin American and the Caribbean Higher
Education Area (ENLACES-IESALC), the CEMAC Higher Education
Professional Training and Research Area (CHEPTRA) composed
of countries of Central Africa, and the Regional Centre for Higher
Education and Development (RIHED) Framework for Regional
Integration in Higher Education in Southeast Asia. (Morocco,
Algeria and Tunisia).
Eta [39,40] investigates what she named the adoption and
adaptation of the Bologna Process reform in the countries of
Africa, focusing on Cameroon. Anglophone universities, she points
out, did not have to do much adoption and adaptation because they
already had the credit system and the two-tier degree structure
(BA, MA, and Ph.D.) implemented by Bologna. However, Frenchinspired
universities had to not only adopt the credit system but
also modified it to accommodate the module and average systems
that were previously in place. This example testifies to the fact
that Bologna Process model higher education reform outside
Europe may not only vary from country to country but also within
the same country. Interpreting transcripts from such countries
can be tricky and misleading. American colleges and universities
attracted to graduate students from Europe and other countries
implementing various forms of the reform must try to know the
salient differences in models within Europe, betweenuniversities
in the same country, and between the worldwide regional models.
Knowing the minute details on the extent of the Bologna impact
on tertiary education programs in these regions of the world and
more is the only way the United States higher educational leaders
and institutions would ensure constructive and beneficial mutual
exchanges in study abroad, joint and dual degree offerings, faculty
and student mobility programs. Degree interpretations and
transferability and soundness of admission decisions of students
from these regions will depend entirely on the understanding
admission officials in US colleges and universities have of the
Bologna Process reform and the varying Bologna models used
in institutions from these regions. Studies show that significant
differences still exist in areas such as the credit counts and degree
structures among countries that have adopted the BP model and
among educational establishments within countries [39,40].
Considering that theUnited State remains the world’s biggest
host of international students, many of whom come from countries
implementing some version of the BP, it is important that US
educational institutions know these differences. Not knowing can
lead to misinterpretation of qualifications with all unintended
consequences.
Costs Competitive Disadvantages for the U.S.
The United States is likely to become further weakened in
the competition for international students because the cost of
education in the United States has surged more than 500 percent
since 1985 [41]. Cost is having a direct effect upon access and
affordability, which constitute the main reasons for the drop in the
number of graduates from U.S. four-year degree programs. The
U.S. is significantly losing ground as the global leader in producing
college graduates—ranked first in 1990, the country currently
ranks twelfth in graduation rates among 25-34-year-olds[41].
While America lags incollege graduation rates largely due to
unaffordability, the situation of Germany, the largest European
country, is the complete opposite.
Today, German higher education is publicly funded, and
students pay no tuition fees, even as the country embarks upon
a large-scale internationalization of education, aided not only by
the absence of tuition fees but also by its reputation for higher
education quality in the sciences [25,41]. European countries that
do charge tuition still have a big competitive advantage over the
United States in terms of college affordability because the rates
of tuition are insignificant compared to what students in the
United States pay, including those attending state colleges and
universities. In France, one of the citadels of European higher
education, students pay about 200 dollars in tuition in public
universities. These access-related advantages for European higher
education should be a source of grave concern for U.S. higher
education, especially when examined within the context of the
incrementally popular Bologna models of higher education.
Colleges and Universities in the United States must understand
the Bologna credits system and its European credit transfer system
(ECTS) in order to facilitate European degree interpretations
and the admission of students from Europe and regions such as
Australia, Latin America, and Africa where the Bologna model
has gained ground.Even though the major outcomes of the
Bologna Process reform have been the development of degree
programs that are defined in terms of required credits and the
introduction of a two-tiered (undergraduate/graduate) system,
the new European bachelor’s degree is still different in many
aspects to its United States counterpart. In the April/March issue
of WENR, Assefa and Sedgwick [42] raise the difficulty of United
States graduate schools in evaluating potential European graduate
students with the three-year Bologna bachelor’s degree.
This is particularly difficult because a UnitedStates bachelor’s
degree typically requires the completion of 120 credits and spans
four years. They compared a business BA program from the Kelly
School of Business in Indiana and the laurea program in business
administration from the Bacconi University in Italy and concluded
that the Italian laurea is functionally equivalent to the United
States bachelor’s degree. These conclusions gave the impression
that the degree interpretation process could be easy. However, this
couldn’t be farther way from the reality, considering that variations
in quality and interpretation of the Bologna recommendations as
well as the pace of implementation of the Bologna process still
exist among EU countries [20].
Focusing particularly on legal education, Terry [37] further
elaborates on the implications of the Bologna Process upon
the United States legal education. The areas of concern for the
United States legal education include admissions, recognition,
accreditation, and quality assurance. Law schools must decide
whether to provide full admission or provisional admission for
students coming from Europe into their JD, LLM, or SJD programs.
He explains that unjustified differences exist in the admission
requirements, depending on institutional policy. He contends
that in the face of such discrepancies it will be necessary for the
United States to come up with a common higher education policy
to handle interpretation issues resulting from the European Credit
Transfer System (ECTS) used by the Bologna Process reform.
The probability of this happening is slim because collaboration
between state jurisdictions is likely in America, but an overall
agreement is not. In the U.S., the autonomy of each institution
is valued to a highly significant extent. However, even though
the federal government is beginning to push for even more
authority there is hardly any agreement as to howmuch power
the federal government should have in matters of education.
Assefa & Sedgwick[42] point to an interesting future while
stating thatfailure to recognize the Bologna bachelor’s degree
solely because it is a three-year qualification would leave United
States graduate schools no choice but to reject candidates who
apply for admission using these degrees, even when their records
demonstrate that they have completed more than enough subjects
in their discipline, have achieved the same skills and level of
knowledge as their U.S. counterparts, and would very likely
succeed at the graduate level.
Such decisions would not only lack any academic merit,
but they would also have profound and negative implications
for international academic mobility. According to some critics,
the United States higher education system is characterized
byconsiderable program and certification requirement
differences between its constituent states.These occasionally
lead to unnecessary re-certifications of professionals who
have alreadyundertaken the requisite training [43]. The logical
explanation of this isthat United States higher education has not
embraced more uniformity in important areas such asprofessional
training. The United States stands to gain by observing the
Bologna Process reform,which seeks to strengthen and harmonize
professional training in order to facilitate student,faculty, and
labor mobility within the EU.
The scale of European higher education outreach has grown
tremendously since 1999.The Bologna Process objective of
improving the attractiveness of European higher education isbeing
achieved. The corollary of this is the influx of foreign students into
Europe, encouraged bythe incentives in tuition and the easing of visa requirements. Helguero-Balcells [43] arguesthat the United
States higher education will only remain viable in the long term
if there is“alignment with the Bologna Agreement” (p. 1) and
the strengthening of exchanges with nationaland international
partners which would benefit all stakeholders. The problem with
thisproposition is that alignment with Bologna might be more of
a political than educationaldecision, involving the 50 states of the
United States—hence intricate and controversial.
Rather,more cooperation with EU countries and other
regions of the world, the extension of existing programs, and the
creation of new ones would keep the United States more active
and competitive in international higher education. Cooperation
with EU countries and universities would naturally mean that the
U.S. education stakeholders must be more accepting of degrees
and graduates from the Bologna model higher educational
institutions.No one knows yet what direction United States-
European cooperation in higher education will take in the latter
part of the 21st century. Notwithstanding this, the United States
must come up with new frameworks and legislation that would
facilitate the interpretation of European qualifications—including
the mobility of students and the comparability of degrees between
the United States and Europe and all the other Bologna Processrelated
higher education systems [37].
Good knowledge and understanding of European curricula,
structures, and degrees in the United States would equally facilitate
the appreciation and interpretation of certificates from Bolognastyle
systems, such as the emerging BMD (LMD) in Africa, Asia,
and Asia-Pacific countries.Even though the United States must
not adopt the Bologna style reform, it cannot ignore its influence
either. With higher education institutions and programs that have
gained international reputation, there is apparently no motivation
for the United States colleges and universities to be interested in
the Bologna models.
Apart from costs that put the United States tertiary education
institutions at a competitive disadvantage, quality remains the
forte of the U.S. models. In his criticism of the initial tepid United
States response to the Bologna Process, Adelman [14] contended
that “such purblind stances are unforgiveable in a world without
borders” (p. 8). In other words, he was saying that a war against
higher education internalization is a losing one.The U.S. has been
the top exporter of higher education services worldwide for
decades. The U.S. is eager to retain its leadership status in global
higher education in the face of the increasing competition from
Europe instigated by the Bologna Process harmonization and
its adoption of extensive marketing strategies to attract foreign
students.
This rivalry can only be beneficial to higher education in that
colleges and universities will not only work hard to improve,
they will also improve costs in order to attract students. The
discrepancies in costs between United States and European
tertiary education institutions are already beginning to give Europe
a competitive advantage.The U.S. Government Accountability
Office (2009) highlighted the decline the UnitedStates’ share of
international students worldwide from 26% to 20% between
2000 and 2008 even though it remained the leading destination
for international students. In 2008 Institute of International
Education (IIE) Open Doors Report asserted that the decline in the
number of international students attending U.S. higher education
institutions between 2003 and 2006 was the first drop in over 30
years. According to the IIE and U.S. Department of State Bureau of
Education and Cultural Affairs (2017), the number of international
students enrolled for the first time in dropped by about 10,000
students, representing a three-percent decrease from the previous
year. The report underscored the important fact that the decline is
the first in twelve years.
The competition from continental European countries
and from other attractive Bologna models in Eastern Europe,
Asia-Pacific, and Africa and Latin America makes it illogical for
the United States to take for granted its leading position since
prospective international students now have many attractive
alternatives from which to choose. Urias and Yeakey [44] point
out that other countries have used the opportunity created by
the tightening of screening procedures andvisa issuance by the
United States government to attract international students to
their own educational, scientific, and technical institutions. The
United States needs to strike a delicate balance between ensuring
its security amidst terrorist threats and participating in the global
community in a way which empowers Americans to compete in a
global workforce, while also being open, accessible, and attractive
to the world’s best talent and future leaders [45].
Summary
An outcome of the Bologna Process has been a steady increase
of English language programs in universities in continental
Europe. This development, which added to the adoption of models
that facilitate degree interpretations and transferability as well
as student and faculty mobility, has undoubtedly improved the
appeal of European degrees in and Europe and beyond. These BPinspired
programs have continued to act as a magnet for many
international students, who before 1999 were only attracted to
the United States of America and the United Kingdom. A review
of pre-BP and post-BP reform indicate that the ongoing progress
in international interpretation and recognition of diplomas and
degrees as well as global improvements in quality assurance
mechanisms are not unrelated to the reform. Research into
the impact of the Bologna Process on international higher
education suggests that the reform has significantly improved the
competitiveness of European higher education [46].
To explain the drop in the number of foreign students in
American Universities in favor of European Universities at
the beginning of the 21st century, Gillespie [47] and the U.S.
Government Accountability Office (2009) pointed to the homeland
security policies developed after the September 11, 2001 events
as having undermined the openness of the American education system to foreign students. However, the drop in the enrollment of
foreign students inU.S. colleges and universities post-September
11, 2001 could also be attributed, arguably, to the increasing
attractiveness of European higher education following the 1999
Bologna reform.
An important point to note is that, overall, U.S. colleges and
universities continue to win the completion for international
students even when periodic drops in enrollments are
identified—between 1999 and 2017 there was a steady increase
26.72% in enrollment (NCES,2017). The current significant dip
in international students’ enrollment is largely attributed to the
tightening of visa policies by the Trump administration. Trines
[26] attributed the decline in the number of students from the top
24 sending countries—by 1,900 (1.85%) from November 2016
to Aprils 2017—to the “Trump effect.” He argues that the dip,
even though small, represents the largest downward fluctuation
between fall and spring quarters since 2014, the first year SEVIS
data was made available online.With trends indicating recent
minor dips in international students’ enrollments in the U.S.
resulting from other factors, the big question is whether Europe,
with its more attractive Bologna models, will take advantage of the
situation[48].
The positive trends in the popularity of European higher
education will likely continue if institutions such as the European
Union and the European Commission, as well as individual
countries such as France, the UK, and Germany, continue to promote
higher education exchange and collaboration at institutional,
governmental, and regional levels. American colleges, universities,
and higher education stakeholders must up their game in order
to continue having a competitive edge in the recruitment of
international students. It is not clear yet whether the imminent
departure of Britain from the EU and withdrawal from Bologna
Accords will affect the BP implementation or whether such an
effect or lack thereof will have any bearing on the competitiveness
of the Bologna models of higher education[49-53].
For More Articles in Annals of Social Sciences & Management studies
Please Click on: https://juniperpublishers.com/asm/index.php
Comments
Post a Comment