Joint Programmes are complex forms of collaboration. This report, co-authored by Nadine Burquel, EFMD Director Business School Services, provides examples and checklists for action on how to overcome challenges including legal restrictions, recognition issues, financial or organisational constraints, linguistic or cultural issues.
The 162-page report highlights the tremendous efforts put into teaching and learning cooperation in EU and Russian institutions. Several hundreds of programmes are covered and findings are structured around seven key dimensions:
- Institutional partnership composition — Looser to more strategic partnerships
- Programme design and delivery– Fragmented to real jointness
- Student mobility paths — Ad-hoc to structured mobility paths
- Recognition of study abroad — None, partial to full recognition
- Degree types — Single (Joint), Double, Certificate
- Programme management — From individual to institutional integrated arrangement
- Quality assurance — Internal and external arrangement
- EU-Russian Joint Programmes focus primarily on Management, Economics and Engineering, Manufacturing & Construction and are for the majority at the Master level.
- German and French universities dominate in EU-Russian partnerships, followed by Finland and the United Kingdom.
- In Russia, most Joint Programmes are found in Moscow, followed by St-Petersburg and Siberia.
- Different lengths of studies in the EU and Russia create recognition problems.
- Mobility is mainly for Russian students who travel to Europe.
- The strength of internationalisation in partner universities
- The lack of partners’ clear motives
- Linguistic, cultural and legal limitations
- Developing and establishing robust partnerships
- Decisions at the level of programme integration and jointness
- Creating opportunities, building brand and reputation
- Financial constraints to ensure joint programmes’ long term sustainability
The 261-page report “Social and Economic Conditions of Student Life in Europe” presents the findings of the 5th round of the EUROSTUDENT project to which 30 countries of the EHEA have contributed between 2012 and 2015. It is a collection of key indicators on the social dimension of higher education and functions to monitor progress in the implementation of the Bologna Process reforms. The synopsis focuses on three main topic areas: Access to higher education and characteristics of students; Study conditions; and International student mobility and future plans.
Chapter 10 examines students’ international mobility (realised and planned), obstacles to enrolment abroad, organisation and funding of enrolment abroad, and the recognition of credits earned abroad. As an indicator of internationalisation at home, the extent to which students’ national study programmes are taught in foreign language is examined. Results here indicate that:
- International student mobility rates vary greatly by country; between 5 % and 39 % of students in the cross-sectional samples.
- Enrolment abroad tends to be the most frequently realised foreign study-related experience.
- Access to international student mobility can be shown to be subject to social selectivity.
- The most critical of the analysed obstacles to studying abroad is the (perceived) additional financial burden.
- A separation from partner, children, and friends has turned out to be the second most critical obstacle.
- A large degree of variation across countries can also be observed regarding the organisation, funding and recognition of foreign enrolment periods.