Who are the assessors that made this decision???!!!
Our institution is too big to do this
We are good and well known as we are to care about labels…
Only third rate institutions apply for the label….
Not supported nationally
Quality assurance agencies do not care for it
No extra money for all the bother and hard work
But did anybody ask themselves:
Is our HEI prepared to think global and perceive international tendencies, demands and competition?
Does our HEI need better visibility in the process of globalization? How do labels help?
Can visibility be fostered by the labels?
What does the label mean for our students? Our partners? Ourselves?
Or maybe it:
Tells about transparency in recognisable format
Proves s tudent-centred / workload based approach
C onvince s senior management to consider administrative standards / guarantees adminstrative excelence
Guarantees q uality of information available to students and their proxies (parents, funders etc.) / and potential partners
Increases quality of mobility / provides more possibilities for joint degrees
Helps marketing the institution at home and abroad
Aid s recognition of periods of study and qualifications
Increases p restige / Quality: showing that ınstitution uses DS/ECTS properly
How does selection go?
Keep in mind: Checklist Users’ guide
Based on written evidence and at this particular point in time (3 programmes/3 course units)
Relative quality – the best of the bunch does not mean the best in absolute terms
Will the route through NA help to avoid this?
ECTS label – simple requirements difficult to fulfill
Information Package and Course Catalogue(IP/CC) for ALL I and II cycle degree programmes in local language and English (unless English is l-ge of instruction); (accessible through the Web page)
Correct use of credits (student workload based)
Recognition of study period abroad
Correct use of other ECTS tools (Learning agreement, Transcript of Records)
ECTS - Knock out criteria (Polite form: Prerequisites for assessment)
Not all degree programmes described;
Allocation of credits is not based on student workload;
No IP/CC version in English;
The dossiers for outgoing or incoming students do not fulfill basic criteria:
Of programmes, countries, partner institutions;
One or more forms are missing in the 3 X 2 dossiers.
The most common mistakes for IP/CC
No mirror information in two languages
Missing information items in degree and course descriptions
IP/CC is difficult to find on the institutions webpage
ECTS is used only by some departments
ECTS is not applied to all students
Credits do not equal 60 per year (no course structure diagram)
No information on LO
Istanbul recommendations for IP/CC:
Should institutions also describe short programmes?
Of course they should! Short programmes are already descrıbed ın some countrıes
Often short courses lead on to other courses and so the ir description is necessary though should not influence the decision on label award. (Subject to debate?)
Istanbul recommendations for IP/CC:
Credit requirements per respective period 20/30
For the formal programme, the credit distribution must be respected, i.e. 20 / 30/ 60... B U T
What can an institution do if the student could not achieve the correct number of credıts at host institution? : SENSIBLE FLEXIBILITY for mobile students
The most common mistakes for student documents:
The copies of the ToR are not certified/stamps missing
Missing explanation of the local grading system
Students awarded credits though they did not pass exams
Missing local grades, ECTS grades and/or credits
Missing dates and signatures
Inconsistency between LA, ToR and proof of recognition
No credits indicated in the LA
LA not in place before the mobility
Istanbul recommendations on grading:
If not compulsory for the label (as it is the case):
Better not to use it, than to use it wrongly
DON’T REPLACE local grades and grading systems with ECTS rating scheme
Recommendation: working group on the proper use and implementation of the ECTS Grading System
The most common mistakes for proofs of recognition:
No information on recognition procedures
Not clear how credits and grades have been converted
Not clear what period at home institution is replaced by the period abroad
Recognition documents without signatures and/or stamps
Proofs made just for the label application
Istanbul recommendations on proofs of recognition:
Transcript of records from a database,
If not, they must APE (be Authentic, Plausible, and Explicit)
DS label - requirements easier to fulfill?
The DS should be issued for all students:
Free of charge
In two languages (local and widely spoken foreign); Unless a country’s law foresees DS only in a widely spoken language.
DS - knock out criteria (Polite form: Prerequisites for assessment)
Not fulfilled - 4 hard copies
Not fulfilled (except institutions with less than four degree programmes):
2 different first cycle programmes
2 different second cycle programmes
4 integrated programmes
The most common mistakes for DS:
The DS does not follow official model
Changed or missing preamble
Transcripts are not included in the DS
Not all cycles are represented in the dossiers submitted
No proofs that DS is issued to ALL students and Free of charge
The courses taken abroad are not indicated with the original titles
Not clear what credits are used
Filled in examples instead of copies submitted
Confusing translation of degree titles
Istanbul recommendations for DS:
Should last longer than 3 years
Consistency in terminology: preferably use Bologna terms
What should a HEI be aware of when applying for the label?
Be aware that label is not only prestige but also responsibility
Be convinced that it is able to live and work according to the label standards after it got one (better proper use of ECTS and DS without the labels than the labels combined with poor practice)
Be aware that it puts itself under the “magnifying glass” of its partners
Proper fulfillment of formal application requirements is very important when applying for quality labels
National and European evaluation – danger or help? National European Clearer information for the evaluator Easier to see if information is transparent enough Better awareness of national legislation Better compliance to ECTS/DS “Philosophy” Relative quality in national context Relative quality in European context
Look for consistency (common platforms)
Try judging if separate missing items hamper transparency
Decide if solutions offered/adopted by a HEI foster mobility and are beneficial to students
For fellow experts:
The wind is never favorable to those who don’t know where they are going.
We have to believe in what we promote. Only our belief allows us to be critical and credible.