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

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 Higher

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

Statements and Future Scenarios (III)
The Bologna Process (1999-)

 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 (?)

Statements and Future Scenarios (IV)
The Lisbon Process (2000-)

 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 (?)

Statements and Future Scenarios (V)
OECD Project “Higher Education to 2030

(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.

Statements and Future Scenarios (VI)
European Commission: Youth on the Move (2010)

 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)

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
Analysis

 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 Glance

 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Graduates in Managerial/Professional Position
and in Associate Professional Position among Graduates from

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)
Gross Income of Graduates from Selected European Countries (in Euro;
arithmetic mean of employed graduates)

__________________________________________________________________________________________
_
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)
Strong Vertical Link between Level of Educational Attainment and
Position among Graduates from Selected European Countries
(% of employed graduates)

___________________________________________________________________________
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)
Strong Horizontal Link between Level of Educational Attainment and

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” Narrative

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
of Work (X)

“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.)

of Work (XI)

“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

of Work (XII)

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)

of Work (XIII)

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)
Select Dimensions of Work Orientation and Work Situation
(% of 2000 graduates employed in 2005)

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 mobility

 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
Mobility (II)

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
Mobility (III)
Degree/diploma mobility vs. short-term/credit mobility

 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)

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 (%)

__________________________________________________________________________________
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)

Mobility (VI)
Increase of the event of study in another European

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.

Mobility (VII)
Periods Abroad During the Course of Study of Graduates from
Selected European Countries (%)

__________________________________________________________________________________________
_
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 • • • • • • • •
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
_

Mobility (VIII)
Employment Abroad After Graduation of Graduates from Selected European
Countries (%)

__________________________________________________________________________________________
_
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 • • • • • • • •
__________________________________________________________________________________________
_

Mobility (IX)
International Dimensions of Employment and Work of Former ERASMUS
Students (% of employed graduates)

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
Mobility (X)
ERASMUS-Related Work Tasks of Former ERASMUS

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 System

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 Europe

 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 Era

 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)

 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)

 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)

 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)

 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 Diversification

 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 Rankings

(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 Rankings

(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?

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”

 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 Approch

 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)

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)

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 future

 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)

 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. The

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).

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

More Related Content

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

More from European Journalism Centre

Recently uploaded

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