• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Prof. Ulrich Teichler, Future challenges facing Europe’s higher education systems in the 21st century
 

Prof. Ulrich Teichler, Future challenges facing Europe’s higher education systems in the 21st century

on

  • 2,146 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,146
Views on SlideShare
2,146
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
24
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Prof. Ulrich Teichler, Future challenges facing Europe’s higher education systems in the 21st century Prof. Ulrich Teichler, Future challenges facing Europe’s higher education systems in the 21st century Presentation Transcript

    • Future Challenges Facing Europe’s Higher Education Systems in the 21st Century Keynote Speech Seminar: “Youth on the Move: Briefing for Journalists”European Journalism Centre, European University Institute Badia Fiesolana (Italy) 08-09 May 2011 by Ulrich Teichler International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel INCHER-KASSEL University of Kassel 34109 Kassel, Germany Tel. ++49-561-804 2415 Fax ++49-561-804 7415 E-mail: teichler@incher.uni-kassel.de
    • 2 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (I)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges Five Major Issues in Higher Education in Europe in the First Decade of the 21st Century (Teichler 2010)  Management and strategy  Internationalisation/globalisation  Quality  Relevance (“knowledge economy”, “employability”, etc.)  Diversity Source: U. Teichler. Equal Opportunity, Quality, Competitiveness (Contribution to the Conference „The Future of the European University after
    • 3 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (II) “Higher Education Looking Forward” (HELF) Project of Key HigherUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Education Researchers Sponsored by European Science Foundation (ESF) (2005-2008)  “Knowledge society”: The role of knowledge dynamics vs. external demand  Expansion and the changing role of HE as regards to social equity/jus- tice/cohesion vs. meritocracy and vs. acceptance of traditional privileges  Widening of functions (knowledge transfer, “third mission” etc.) or response to “mission overload”?  Steering and “academic power”: the changing roles of governments, other external “stakeholders”, “market forces”, university managers and academic profession; a new “balance” or a new “steering overload”?  Pattern of the higher education system: extreme vertical stratification or flat hierarchy? Imitation of the top or “horizontal diversity” of profiles? Source: J. Brennan, & U. Teichler, eds. Special Issue: The Future of Higher Education and the Future of Higher Education Research. Higher Education (56)3, 2008
    • 4 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (III) The Bologna Process (1999-)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Introduction/functioning of a cycle system of study programmes and degrees  Expansion of lower ranks of higher/tertiary education (?)  Increasing inwards mobility of students from other parts of the world  Increasing intra-European student mobility  “Employability”  Coordination of teaching/learning-related quality assurance  Strengthening the “social dimension” of HE (?)
    • 5 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (IV) The Lisbon Process (2000-)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Increase of public and private expenditure on research  More research serving the “knowledge economy” (Europe as “most competitive economy”)  More intra-European research cooperation and mobility (?)  More competition within higher education and research (?)  A more stratified higher education and research system (?)
    • 6 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (V) OECD Project “Higher Education to 2030Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges (2005-2010)  Three themes: “demography”, “technology” and “globalisation”  “Four future scenarios for higher education” (2006): (1) “ open networking”, (2) “serving local communities”, (3) “new public management”, and (4) “higher education inc.”. Source: Four Future Scenarios for Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 2006. Higher Education to 2030. Volume 1: Demography. Paris: OECD, 2008; Higher Education to 2030. Volume 2: Globalisation. Paris: OECD, 2010.
    • 7 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (VI) European Commission: Youth on the Move (2010)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  In general: “Increasing Attractiveness for the Knowledge Economy”  Expansion of higher education: Target for 2020: 40 % of 25-34 years olds with university degree or equivalent qualification (Bachelor or any tertiary qualification?)  2% public and private expenditures for HE in 2020  Modernisation of higher education according Bologna objectives (including 2020 target: 20 % mobility during the course of study)  Increased European cooperation in quality assurance  Development of a multi-dimensional global HE ranking  Closer links between education, research and innovation  Increasing mobility during the course of study and after graduation
    • 8 Themes of Trend Reports, Policy Statements and Future Scenarios (VII)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges A Provisional Summary  Conservative futurology a. Looking one or at most two decades ahead b. Assumption that current issues will remain salient c. Even no courage as regards popular futuristic slogans (e.g. life-long learning)  Major themes (similar to the first list presented): Expansion (additionally), management and strategy, internationalisation/globalisation, quality, relevance (“knowledge economy”, “employability”, etc.), diversity
    • 9 Major Themes of the Subsequent AnalysisUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Higher education and the world of work (including the issues of expansion and relevance)  International student mobility and graduate professional mobility  Diversity (including issues of quality)  Only a short glance at governance
    • 10 Governance – a Short GlanceUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  More managerial power  More external stakeholders‘ involvement  More evaluation activities  More incentives and incentive steering  Major narratives: “New Public Management” or “Network coordination”  Question: More rationality and efficiency or steering and evaluation “overkill”?
    • 11 Higher Education and the World of Work (I)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges Three Conflicting Narratives, All Blaming Higher Education  The shortage and need for expansion narrative (“too few students and graduates”)  The “over-education” and inappropriate employment narrative (“too many students and graduates”)  The “employability” narrative (“wrong competences”)
    • 12 Higher Education and the World of Work (II)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges The Shortage Narrative  Belief that increasing graduation rates stimulate economic growth  Rate of 25-34 years olds with tertiary education credentials in EU-27: 22% in 2000, 32% in 2009, target 40% in 2020 (country mean)  Argument: Higher rate in the U.S. and Japan Source: European Commission. Progress Report on Education and Training 2010, pp. 64-66
    • 13 Higher Education and the World of Work (III) The Over-education Narrative Work Experience During the Course of Study (% of persons graduating in 1995)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges D F UK I E Work experience prior to study 45 17 19 8 7 Study-related work while studying 61 69 20 22 23 Non-study related work while studying 53 47 44 29 24 Internship 79 83 32 22 57 Source: REFLEX Survey
    • 14 Higher Education and the World of Work (IV) The Over-education NarrativeUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Whereabouts of Bachelor Graduates from Selected European Countries (%) ________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Total Solely Employment Solely Total Country Employment Employment + Study Study Study ________________________________________________________________________________________ _ AT University 56 26 28 40 68 Fachhochschule 66 42 23 31 54 CZ Czech Republic-2008 • • • • 72 DE University 45 18 24 51 75 Fachhochschule 71 52 17 24 41 HU Hungary 65 39 16 28 44 IT Italy 46 31 15 42 57 NL HBO 89 73 16 7 23 NO University 62 23 39 34 73 UK Full-time study 71 63 8 15 23 Part-time study 82 67 15 6 21 ________________________________________________________________________________________ _
    • 15 Higher Education and the World of Work (V) The Over-education Narrative Graduates in Managerial/Professional Position and in Associate Professional Position among Graduates fromUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Selected European Countries (% of employed graduates) ___________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All __________________________________________________________________________________________________ CZ Managerial/Prof. Position • • 31 • • 60 • Associate Prof. Position • • 52 • • 34 • • • FR Managerial/Prof. Position 17 15 • 63 81 • 91 • • Associate Prof. Position 64 67 • 29 15 • 7 • • HU Managerial/Prof. Position • • 62 • • • 62 58 Associate Prof. Position • • 29 • • • 31 34 • NL Managerial/Prof. Position 57 52 • 71 • 71 71 52 • Associate Prof. Position 11 22 • 10 • 10 9 23 • NO Managerial/Prof. Position 27 • • • • 75 • • • Associate Prof. Position 11 • • • • 13 • • • UK Managerial/Prof. Position 36 • • 73 • • • • • Associate Prof. Position 30 • • 18 • • • • • __________________________________________________________________________________________________ Prof. = Professional / Univ. = University Other HEIs = Other Higher Education Institutions (e.g. Fachhochschulen, Grandes Écoles etc.) Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.
    • 16 Higher Education and the World of Work (VI) The Over-education Narrative Gross Income of Graduates from Selected European Countries (in Euro; arithmetic mean of employed graduates)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ AT Austria 2,358 2,748 2,532 • • • 2,641 2,888 2,705 (monthly) DE Germany 2,448 2,817 2,718 3,012 3,743 3,346 3,070 3,037 3,053 (monthly) FR France1,368 1,575 • 1,904 2,313 • 2,383 • • (net monthly) HU Hungary • • 8,884 • • • 11,958 9,327 • (annual) IT Italy1,109 • 1,109 1,057 • 1,057 1,110 • 1,110 (net monthly) NL The Netherlands 2,589 2,040 • 2,439 • 2,439 2,476 1,938 • NO Norway 38,259 45,228 • • • • 46,012 • • (annual) PL Poland • • 2.23 • • 2.40 • • 2.38 (net hourly) __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Univ. = University; Other HEIs = Other Higher Education Institutions (e.g. Fachhochschulen, Grandes Écoles etc.) Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.
    • 17 Higher Education and the World of Work (VII) The Over-education Narrative Strong Vertical Link between Level of Educational Attainment and Position among Graduates from Selected European Countries (% of employed graduates)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges ___________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other All Univ. Other All Univ. Other All HEIs HEIs HEIs ___________________________________________________________________________ AT Austria 77 83 80 • • • 86 88 87 CZ Czech Republic • • 84 • • 87 • • • DE Germany 75 81 • 78 85 • 82 86 • FR France 55 40 • 82 88 • 97 • • IT Italy 80 • 80 • • • • • • NL The Netherlands 47 81 • 64 • 64 64 78 • NO Norway 37 • • • • 58 • • • PL Poland 60 • • • • • • • . ___________________________________________________________________________ Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2011.
    • 18 Higher Education and the World of Work (VIII) The Over-education Narrative Strong Horizontal Link between Level of Educational Attainment andUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Position among Graduates from Selected European Countries (% of employed graduates) ___________________________________________________________________________ Bachelor graduatesMaster graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Univ. Other All Univ. Other All Univ. Other All HEIs HEIs HEIs _______________________________________________________________________________ _ AT Austria 48 51 49 • • • 47 54 49 CZ Czech Republic • • 65 • • 67 • • • DE Germany 35 48 • 56 64 • 50 51 • HU Hungary • • 61 • • • 76 59 • IT Italy 40 • 40 • • • • • • NL The Netherlands 54 62 • 66 • 66 66 64 • NO Norway 65 • • • • 87 • • • PL Poland • • 82 • • 83 • • 83 _______________________________________________________________________________ Source: Schomburg/Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. _Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2011.
    • 19 19 Higher Education and the World of Work (IX) The “Employability” NarrativeUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges The “Employability” Debate in Europe  Bologna Declaration (1999) expresses concern that the new Bachelor programmes might have too little relevance for the work of graduates  A growing “instrumental” and “utilitarian” expectation in general  The spread of a British debate all over Europe
    • 20 20 Higher Education and the World of Work (X) The “Employability” NarrativeUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges “Employability”: A Misleading Term  “Employability” is a term of labour market research and labour market policy referring to potentials and measures of securing that “youth at risk” get somewhat employed at all. This is not the problem of university graduates.  The “Bologna Process” means little for “employment” (e.g. employment vs. unemploy- ment, remuneration social benefits, holidays, short-term vs. long-term contracts, etc.), but much for “work” (knowledge, competences, work tasks, job requirements, etc.)
    • 21 Higher Education and the World of Work (XI) The “Employability” NarrativeUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges “Professional Relevance”: A Superior Term  Impact awareness as common element of evaluation and accountability culture  “Professional relevance” does not call for a certain direction of link or for a certain balance between training professional “rules and tools” and training of sceptics  Problem: the meanings of “professional” in different languages and cultures
    • 22 Higher Education and the World of Work (XII) The “Employability” NarrativeUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Key Areas of Competences (I) (2) Academic/professional specialisation (3) General cognitive competences (generic skills, broad knowledge, theories and methods, learning to learn, etc.) (4) Working styles (e.g. working under time constraints and perseverance) (5) General occupationally-linked values (e.g. loyalty, curiosity and achievement orientation) (6) Specific professionally related values (e.g. entrepreneurial spirit, service orientation)
    • 23 Higher Education and the World of Work (XIII) The “Employability” NarrativeUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Key Areas of Competences (II) (2) Transfer competences (e.g. problem-solving ability)  Socio-communicative skill (e.g. leadership, team work, rhetoric)  Supplementary knowledge areas (e.g. foreign languages and ICT)  Ability to organise one’s own life  Ability to handle the labour market (e.g. job search relevant knowledge and good self-presentation to employers)  International competences (e.g. knowledge and understanding of foreign cultures, comparative analysis, coping with unknown persons)
    • 24 Higher Education and the World of Work (XIV) The “Employability” Narrative Select Dimensions of Work Orientation and Work Situation (% of 2000 graduates employed in 2005)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges D F UK J Work orientation Or Sit Or Sit Or Sit Or Sit Work autonomy 94 89 87 74 70 59 75 52 Job security 80 56 70 60 80 66 79 59 Opportunity to learn 87 62 93 58 90 65 82 45 High earnings 55 28 60 20 62 33 68 23 Enough time for leisure activities 63 38 72 46 79 48 80 40 Chance: useful for society 52 45 72 55 63 48 67 47 Combine work and family 64 41 83 50 44 30 69 41 Source: REFLEX Or = Work orientation Sit = Work situation
    • 25 International Student and Graduate Mobility (I) Foreign students/study abroad vs. student mobilityUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Traditional statistics (UNESCO, OECD, EUROSTAT) present data on foreign students and study abroad: Citizenship, passport  The more mobile people are (professional mobility, migration, etc.), the less foreign/abroad is useful as a proxi for mobility  “Genuine mobility”: border-crossing for the purpose of study (i.e. excluding foreign students who lived and learned in the country of study already prior to higher education study)  In recent years, the number of European countries has increased where data have been collected both of (a) foreign students and (b) inwards mobile students  Inwards students mobility is measured with the help of either (a) (prior) residence, or (b) prior education  A distinction can be made between (a) foreign mobile students and (b) home country mobile students (e.g. “returners”)
    • 26 International Student and Graduate Mobility (II)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges Different Proportions of Foreign/Mobile Students 2007 (percentage) A CH UK E DK a. Foreign mobile students 11.9 14.3 13.6 1.8 2.7 b. Home country mobile 0.5 2.1 0.7 0.0 2.8 students All mobile students (a, b) 12.4 16.4 14.3 1.8 5.5 c. Foreign non-mobile students 4.6 5.0 5.9 1.6 6.3 All foreign students (a, c) 16.7 19.3 19.5 3.4 9.0 Source: U. Teichler/B. Wächter/I.Lungu, eds. (2011) Mapping Mobility in Higher Education in Europe. Brussels: European Commission.
    • 27 International Student and Graduate Mobility (III) Degree/diploma mobility vs. short-term/credit mobilityUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  The majority of mobile students all over the world cross the border for studying the whole study programme and aim to be awarded a degree in another country  Notably in economically advanced countries, however, short-term mobility is highly appreciated (cf. the ERASMUS programme and Sorbonne/Bologna as regards intra-European mobility)  UNESCO, OECD and EUROSTAT intend to collect statistical data only of degree mobility. They ask the individual countries to exclude short-term mobility  Actually, however, some countries include and other countries exclude short-term mobile students in the general statistics of foreign/mobile students  As a consequence, we have no international statistics on short- term mobility. The usual statistics focus on degree mobility, but de facto include about half of the short-term mobile students in Europe
    • 28 International Student and Graduate Mobility (IV)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges Results according to statistics of foreign students  Foreign students from outside Europe: 2.4 % (1999), 3.7 % (2007)  Foreign students from other European Countries: 3.0 % (1999), 3.3 (2007) Country means for 32 Eurpean countries Source: Based on Mapping Mobility in Higher Education in Europe. Brussels: European Commission, 2011.
    • 29 International Student and Graduate Mobility (V) Ratio of Students with Home Nationality Enrolled Abroad to Resident Students with Home Nationality (%)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges __________________________________________________________________________________ Ratio Change* Country 1998/ 2002/ 2006/ of absolute 99 03 07 of ratio numbers ___________________________________________________________________________________ AT Austria 5.1 6.4 6.0 +18 + 14 CZ Czech Republic 1.7 2.5 2.5 +47 +119 DE Germany • 3.1 4.3 (+39)** (+ 69) FR France 2.4 2.8 3.2 +33 + 38 HU Hungary 2.4 2.2 2.1 -13 + 34 IT Italy 2.4 2.3 2.3 - 4 + 4 NL The Netherlands 2.8 2.5 2.6 - 7 + 13 NO Norway 7.1 7.7 6.8 - 4 + 7 PL Poland 1.1 1.3 2.0 +82 +169 UK United Kingdom 1.4 1.4 1.2 -14 - 10 ______________________________________________________________________________ * Increase/decrease from 1998/99 to 2006/07 ** Change 2002/03-2006/07 Source: Based on Mapping Mobility in Higher Education in Europe, 2011 (not yet published)
    • 30 International Student and Graduate Mobility (VI) Increase of the event of study in another EuropeanUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges country during the course of study  In the Leuven Communiqué (2009), the ministers of the countries involved in the Bologna Process call for a 20% of European students having studied or participated in internships in another country by 2020.  In Germany, the number of graduates at German institutions of higher education having studied abroad or having undertaken other study-related activities abroad increased from 29% among those graduating in 1999 to 34% among those graduating in 2007. About half of them studied abroad.  In addition, about 3% of German students undertook degree study abroad and graduated abroad.  Thus, Germany as well as some other European countries have reached the Leuven goal for 2020 already more than 10 years earlier.
    • 31 International Student and Graduate Mobility (VII) Periods Abroad During the Course of Study of Graduates from Selected European Countries (%)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Country Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ AT Study 16 22 18 • • • 22 23 22 Various act. 24 33 27 • • • 37 40 37 CZ Study • • 6 • • • 18 • • Work • • 6 • •• 15 • • DE Study 16 14 • 17 9 • 19 9 • Various act. 28 27 • 35 22 • 37 20 • FR Study 6 2 • 12 22 • 11 • • Various act. 20 22 • 29 54 • 32 • • IT Study 5 • 5 15 • 15 10 • 10 NL Study 28 21 • 28 • 28 35 16 • NO Study 20 • • 25 • • • • • PL Study • • 2 • • 3 • • 3 UK Study 4 • • • • • • • • ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _
    • 32 International Student and Graduate Mobility (VIII) Employment Abroad After Graduation of Graduates from Selected European Countries (%)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ Bachelor graduates Master graduates Single-cycle/ traditional degrees Country Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All Univ. Other HEIs All __________________________________________________________________________________________ _ AT Austria Since graduation 12 12 12 . . . 20 22 20 Currently 9 9 9 . . . 11 8 11 CZ Czech Rep. Not Specified • • 10 • • 11 • • • DE Germany Since graduation 6 13 • 20 23 • 12 12 • Currently 7 8 • 11 8 • 5 4 • NL The Netherlands Currently 5 3 • 7 • 7 4 2 • PL Poland More than one trip abroad • • 3 • • 2 • • 2 UK United Kingdom Currently 7 • • • • • • • • __________________________________________________________________________________________ _
    • 33 International Student and Graduate Mobility (IX) International Dimensions of Employment and Work of Former ERASMUS Students (% of employed graduates)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges 1988/89 1994/95* 1994/95* 2000/01 Non- ERASMUS ERASMUS ERASMUS Mobile International scope of employing org. + + + 51 Frequent contacts of employing 71 + + 59 organisation with other countries Employed abroad since graduation 18 20 5 18 Sent abroad by employer + 22 10 12 Professional knowledge of other + 40 20 45 countries important Understanding of different cultures and + 52 32 57 society important Working with people from different + 62 43 67 culture important Communicating in foreign language + 60 30 70 important * Year of graduation Source: Janson/Schomburg/Teichler. The Professional Value of ERASMUS. Bonn: Lemmens, 2009.
    • 34 International Student and Graduate Mobility (X) ERASMUS-Related Work Tasks of Former ERASMUSUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Students (% of employed graduates) 1998/99 1994/95* 2000/01 Using the language of the host 47 42 38 country orally Using the language of the host 47 40 38 country in reading and writing Using firsthand professional 30 25 25 knowledge of host country Using first hand knowledge of 30 32 24 host country culture/society Professional travel to host country 17 18 14 * Year of graduation Source: Janson/Schomburg/Teichler. The Professional Value of ERASMUS. Bonn: Lemmens, 2009.
    • 35 Diversity (I) The Desirable Configuration of the Higher Education SystemUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges Popular views since the 1960s  Expansion of student enrolment is desirable; expansion is linked to diversity  Diversity of higher education institutions and study programmes is the response to the increasing diversity of motives, talents and career perspective of students  There is a trend towards increasing diversity  Research quality is the single most powerful element of diversification in Europe: vertical diversification among universities, segmentation between universities both in charge of research and teaching and other HEIs without a major research function  The vertical dimension shapes the discourses and actions as regards diversity more strongly than the horizontal dimension
    • 36 Diversity (II) Three Generations of Diversity Discourses and Trends in EuropeUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  1960s and early 1970s: Diversification according to sectors, notably types of higher education institutions  Mid-1970s and 1980s: Moderate inter- institutional diversity according to types of higher education institutions, vertical ranks and occasional profiles  Since the 1990s: Stronger vertical stratification, establishment or extension of intra-institutional diversity of study programmes through a cycle system (Bologna), stratification goes global, lip- service for profile diversity
    • 37 Diversity (III) The new Zeitgeist at the Time of the Third Diversification EraUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  The more diversity the better (no chance for profiles?)  Emphasis of steep stratification  Growing belief that steep stratification contributes to quality, relevance and efficiency of the higher education system  Increasing attention paid to ranks at the top and increasing belief that success at the top is important (“elite knowledge society”?)  Assumption that top universities do not play anymore in national leagues, but rather in global leagues (“world-class universities”)
    • 38 Diversity (IV) The Biased Diversity Discourse on the Part of Ranking and Classification Advocates (I)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Polarisation: Either you are in favour of my notion of desirable diversity or you defend counter- productive homogeneity of higher education systems (disregards of different extents of diversity).  Extremism: The more diversity the better (steep diversity is beneficial, moderate diversity is old- fashioned)  Normative bias: Diversity is vertical diversity, and vertical diversity is the sexy game of today – Marginson: “compelling popularity of vertical diversity” (horizontal diversity is negligible)
    • 39 Diversity (V) The Biased Diversity Discourse on the Part of Ranking and Classification Advocates (II)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Preoccupation with inter-institutional diversity (neglect of intra-institutional diversity)  Biased claim of transparency (only partially transparent, driven by availability of data)  Claim of benefits with at most reference to “unintended consequences” (neglect of endemic weaknesses of the various models of diversity)
    • 40 Diversity (VI) Major Arguments in Favour of a Steep, Mostly Vertical Diversification (I)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Learning is more successful in relatively homogenous environments  The HE institution as a whole is crucial for the quality of academic work of its parts (the quality of the academic work of the individual depends to a large extent on the institution)  A steeper stratification of resources is needed to ensure quality at the top
    • 41 Diversity (VII) Major Arguments in Favour of a Steep, Mostly Vertical Diversification (II)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  The demand for research in higher education institutions is smaller than the demand for teaching  Quality of research is more steeply stratified than quality of teaching  A transparent steep hierarchy is a strong motivator for enhancement all over the higher education system
    • 42 Diversity (VIII) Major Counter-Arguments Against a Steep, Mostly Vertical DiversificationUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Learning benefits from moderate diversity  There is always a certain degree of intra- institutional diversity  “Over-competition” undermines the valuable potentials of HE  In the global ICT-based society, quality of academic work is less dependent than ever before on the physical locality  Steep vertical diversity undermines horizontal diversity (imitation of the top instead of variety of profiles)
    • 43 Diversity (IX) Nine Frequently Named Endemic Weaknesses of RankingsUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges (Teichler 2011) (I) 1. Vicious circle of increasing distortion (search of success according to indicators) 2. Endemic weaknesses of data and indicators (burden of good data collection, under-complexity, driven by availability, cheating, etc.) 3. Lack of agreement about “quality” 4. Imperialism through ranking 5. Systematic biases (negative assessment of HEIs with other functions than the mainstream, underestimation and discrimination of horizontal diversity, small institutions, humanities and teaching in general, reinforcement of dominant paradigms)
    • 44 Diversity (X) Nine Frequently Named Endemic Weaknesses of RankingsUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges (Teichler 2011) (II) 1. Pre-occupation with institutional aggregates 2. Praise of and push towards concentration of resources and quality 3. Reinforcement and push towards steeply stratified systems 4. Rankings undermine meritocracy (reinforcement of past reputation, anti-meritocratic selection of students: “picking the potential winners”, more frequent inclination of students to “buy” entry to prestigious institutions, no reward of “value added” but visible edge at entry and exit, discrimination of high quality scholars in average quality institutions, cheating, indicator- driven success race rather than race for high quality.
    • 45 Diversity (XI) Classifications Systems: A Way of Rating Diversity Without Vertical Bias?Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges The European Commission supports a project on the “classification” of higher education institutions Literature The concept:  Van Vught, F. (2008). “Mission Diversity and Reputation in Higher Education”, Higher Education Policy 21 (2), 151-174. The classification study:  Mapping Diversity: Developing a European Classification of Higher Education Institutions. Enschede: University of Twente, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, 2008.
    • 46 Diversity (XII) Claim of the Strengths of “Classifications” as Compared to “Rankings”Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Multi-dimensional instead of aggregation to a single list  Non-hierarchical in terms of dimensions, criteria and categories  Capturing real performance instead of reputation etc.  Inclusive of all institutions
    • 47 Diversity (XIII) A Provisional Assessment of the Classification ApprochUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  Similar demagogy as ranking approaches (only eu-functions claimed and neglect of endemic weaknesses, highest possible diversity is beautiful, belief in institutional power of shaping academic performance, mantra of transparency)  Disregard of the issue of horizontal diversity, instead: multi-dimensional vertical ranking  The majority of dimensions included are closely correlated to dimensions usually employed in ranking studies  Most of the dimensions not clearly linked to those in rankings studies are seldom viewed as relevant by the representatives of HEIs surveyed  In sum: a weak approach as far as attention to and reinforcement of horizontal diversity and the attention to and reinforcement of institutional profiles are concerned
    • 48 Diversity (XIV) Is There Hope for the Pursuit of Specific Profiles? (I)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges Scepticism  The strong “world-class university” drift (instead of the old “academic drift”) can be viewed as a discouragement as far as specific profiles are concerned.  The Bologna structure might have an effect of reinforcing vertical diversity by weakening the role of institutions types and type profiles.  The increasing emphasis on competition does not seem to encourage the search for profiles as much as it reinforces a rat-race in vertical adaptation.  (Cf. Teichler, U. (2007). Higher Education Systems: Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative Perspectives, Empirical Findings. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense, chapter 8)
    • 49 Diversity (XV) Is There Hope for the Pursuit of Specific Profiles? (II)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges Arguments supporting hope  “The overburdened university” (the reader could rename B. Clark’s book “The Entrepreneurial University” that way) calls for a “division of labour” between institutions of higher education and thus for profiles.  The “knowledge society” paradigm is a stronger call for varied profiles than the quality paradigm in the inner- academic discourse.  The debates about strong management, incentives, marketization, competition etc. were based on a historical step back towards the belief in the homo oeconomicus of the industrial society. This could be substituted by a break-through of “post-industrial values” which are likely to support diverse profiles in higher education.
    • 50 Conclusion  Uncertainty about the futureUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges  The role of HE expansion and the Bologna Process: increasing the intellectual plateau of middle-level occupation?  Between sufficient relevance and counterproductive instrumentalism  Will LLL remain a rhetorical phrase or become a reality?  Will student mobility continue to expand when it continues to loose exceptionality?  Will there be a European convergence or continued divergence as regards the quantitative targets of graduation rates and mobility?  Will we move towards counterproductive rat-races or balanced competition?  Will we realize intellectual elitism or the wisdom of the many?
    • 51 Key Literature with Involvement of INCHER-Kassel (I)Ulrich Teichler: Future Challenges  H. Schomburg and U. Teichler. Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Europe. Results of Graduate Surveys from Twelve Countries. Dordrecht: Springer 2006.  U. Teichler. Higher Education Systems. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2007.  U. Teichler, ed. Careers of University Graduates. Views and Experiences in Comparative Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer 2007.  K. Janson, H. Schomburg and U. Teichler. The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility. Bonn: Lemmens 2009.
    • 52 Key Literature with Involvement of INCHER-Kassel (II)  B.M. Kehm, J. Huisman and B. Stensaker, eds. TheUlrich Teichler: Future Challenges European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2009.  U. Teichler. Higher Education and the World of Work. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers 2009.  H. Schomburg and U. Teichler, eds. Employability and Mobility of Bachelor Graduates in Europe. Key Results of the Bologna Process. Rotterdam/Taipei: Sense Publishers 2011.  J. C. Shin, R.K. Toutkoushian and U. Teichler, eds. (2011). University Rankings: Theoretical Basis, Methodology, and Impact on Global Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer (in press).  U. Teichler, B. Wächter and I. Lungu, eds. Mapping Mobility in Higher Education in Europe. Brussels: European Commission, 2011 (to be published soon).