Chapter 2. The structure and governance of higher education of higher education systems

Qualifications frameworks

Qualifications frameworks aim to make qualification systems more transparent and coherent by describing the knowledge, skills, autonomy and responsibility students will have acquired on successful completion of each level of qualification (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, 2010[11]). These descriptors (learning outcomes) indicate the relative complexity of the qualifications at each level. They may also describe the level of autonomy required to demonstrate or apply the knowledge, skills and competences acquired at each level.

The classification of qualifications through a system of levels allows the comparison of qualifications and shows how students can progress from one level to another. In this way, qualifications frameworks help students, those designing and developing higher education programmes, employers and policy makers to understand and recognise qualifications.

Qualifications frameworks are important in promoting mobility within education systems, as well as for the transparency and portability of qualifications internationally. The clear articulation of expected learning outcomes at each level can also contribute to lifelong learning, the recognition of learning and skills, and improving the quality of education (Tuck, 2007[12]).

The QF-EHEA is a meta-framework that can be used to compare different national systems. This promotes comparability and compatibility between the different higher education systems across the EHEA. In 2008, the European Commission developed a broader meta-qualifications framework, the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF), which encompasses eight education and training levels from the primary school level through the doctorate level. Individual countries can use the EQF to develop their own NQFs for all levels of education. All participating jurisdictions have developed an NQF that has been referenced to the EQF and self-certified to the QF-EHEA.

Regions outside of Europe are introducing similar initiatives. Countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) have developed the Southern African Development Community Qualifications Framework (SADCQF) for school education, technical and vocational education and training, and higher education. The SADCQF aims to facilitate the movement of learners and workers across the SADC region and internationally. It was established in 2011 by the SADC Ministers of Education and is currently being implemented across the region (Keevy, Chakroun and Deij, 2010[13]; Jaftha and Samuels, 2017[14]). In addition, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has developed a technical and vocational education and training (TVET) qualifications framework; and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) has developed a Qualifications Reference Framework (Keevy and Chakroun, 2015[15]).

UNESCO has also established a number of regional conventions in order to strengthen and promote intergovernmental co-operation in recognising qualifications. Recent conventions include the Council of Europe and UNESCO Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region in 1997 (the Lisbon Recognition Convention), the UNESCO Asia-Pacific Regional Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications in Higher Education in 2011 (the Tokyo Convention) and the UNESCO Revised Convention on the Recognition of Studies, Certificates, Diplomas, Degrees and Other Academic Qualifications in Higher Education in African States in 2014 (the Addis Convention). They outline the principles for recognition of higher education qualifications to help increase transparency and facilitate cross-border mobility of students, academic staff and professionals across the region (UNESCO, 2018[16]). Additionally, in 2016, UNESCO established a committee developing a draft text of a Global Convention on the Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications (UNESCO, 2018[17]).

Distribution of students across programme levels

The distribution of students across higher education levels varies across OECD countries. On average, 11% of all students in higher education were enrolled in short-cycle tertiary education programmes in 2016 (Figure 2.1). Some countries, such as Australia and the United States, have relatively large proportions of students enrolled in short-cycle programmes, while other countries, such as Germany and Finland, do not provide education at this level at all. The majority of students (64% in 2016) were enrolled in bachelor’s level programmes, while 22% were studying in master’s level programmes and 4% were undertaking doctoral level studies.

A greater proportion of students tend to be enrolled in master’s and doctoral programmes in European countries than in other OECD countries. In 2016, while students in master’s level programmes accounted for more than one-third of all higher education students in some countries, such as Czech Republic, France, Italy and Portugal, the proportion was less than 10% in others, including Chile, Mexico and New Zealand. Doctoral students represented more than 5% of enrolments in Austria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Luxembourg, Portugal and Switzerland; while the percentage was less than 1% in Chile and Mexico.

Most students in the participating jurisdictions were enrolled in bachelor’s level programmes in 2016, from 65% in Estonia to 76% in the Netherlands, which was above the OECD average of 64% (Table 2.2). Short-cycle tertiary education programmes are not as common in these jurisdictions as they are in other OECD countries; enrolments at this level in the Flemish Community (8%) and the Netherlands (2%) were below the OECD average of 11% in 2016. However, enrolments in these programmes have been increasing rapidly in these two jurisdictions.

The proportion of students enrolling in master’s programmes was higher than the OECD average (22%) in Estonia (30%) and Norway (23%), while it was lower than the average in the Flemish Community (18%) and the Netherlands (20%). Estonia had 6% of its higher education students in doctoral programmes in 2016, which was above the OECD average of 4%, whereas the remaining jurisdictions were below the average. The Netherlands had a particularly low share of doctoral students with 1.8% of students enrolled at this level, less than half of the OECD average share.

Figure 2.1. Distribution of student enrolments across ISCED levels (2016)

Note: *Participating in the Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance exercise 2017/2018.

Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of students enrolled in short-cycle tertiary education programmes.

Data on doctoral students exclude those who are employed outside of higher education.

Source: Adapted from OECD (2018[18]), OECD Education Statistics, https://doi.org/10.1787/edu-data-en; data provided by the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933940417

Horizontal differentiation

Horizontal diversity in higher education institutions can help accommodate the varying needs of a heterogeneous society. In addition to varying missions, governance arrangements and internal organisation, other distinguishing features could include legal foundation, size, services and differences in student population (Birnbaum, 1983[21]). Differences between institutions can be historically inherited, or arise from socio-political context, government policy and regulation (Marginson, 2017[22]). Key distinguishing features (Birnbaum, 1983[21]; Teichler, 2007[23]) include:

• types of institutions: universities or other higher education institutions

• sectors of control: public or private

• types of programmes: academic or professional orientation

• levels of programmes: delivery of programmes at ISCED levels 5 to 8 or specific levels

• institutional focus: research or teaching

• modes of teaching: face-to-face, online or blended

• discipline coverage: comprehensive coverage of all disciplinary domains or specialisation in particular fields.

As seen in Table 2.3, there are varying degrees of horizontal diversification in the participating jurisdictions. The key differentiating factor in Estonia, the Flemish Community and the Netherlands is the distinction between universities, which have a predominantly academic focus, and other institutions, which have a predominantly professional focus. This is discussed further in the following section.

Public and private institutions

The divide between public and private institutions is an important feature of many higher education systems. In the UNESCO, OECD and Eurostat (UOE) data manual, public and private higher education insitutions are classified primarily according to the locus of institutional control, rather than by who provides the majority of funding. Control is determined according to who has the majority of power to set policies and design the operations and practices of the insitution.

Private institutions can be further divided into government-dependent private and independent private institutions based on the source of funding (UOE, 2018[29]):

• A government-dependent private institution is one that either receives at least 50 percent of its core funding from government agencies or one whose teaching personnel are paid for by a government agency.

• An independent private institution is one that receives less than 50 percent of its core funding from government agencies, and whose teaching personnel are not paid for by a government agency.

In practice, government-dependent private institutions often comply with the same regulations as public institutions, given that receipt of public funding can be conditional on adhering to these regulations. In the United Kingdom, for instance, all higher education institutions, including universities and colleges, are private, but the majority receive funding from the government and are therefore “government-dependent” and subject to regulations.

Higher education remains predominantly public in most OECD countries. As shown in Figure 2.2, the majority of higher education students in 2016 were enrolled in public institutions in most OECD countries, or, in the case of countries such as Estonia6 and the United Kingdom, in government-dependent private institutions. In a small number of countries, independent private institutions make up a relatively large proportion of the overall system; they accounted for around 80% of student enrolments in Japan and Korea, 70% in Chile, 30% in Mexico and 25% in the United States in 2016.

In the Netherlands and Norway, approximately 85% of higher education students were enrolled in public institutions in 2016. More than three-quarters of students in Estonia6 and close to two-thirds in the Flemish Community were enrolled in government-dependent private institutions. In all participating jurisdictions, the proportion of students enrolled in independent private institutions was below 15%.

Figure 2.2. Share of all higher education enrolments by type of institution (2016)

Note: * Participating in the Benchmarking Higher Education System Performance exercise 2017/2018.

Source: Adapted from OECD (2018[18]), OECD Education Statistics, https://doi.org/10.1787/edu-data-en; data provided by the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933940436

The vast majority of private higher education institutions are non-profit, meaning that any financial gains from their activities cannot be distributed to the owners of the institution, and they do not pay tax on their income. However, there is an increasingly important for-profit sector in some OECD countries.

It has been argued that for-profit institutions are more responsive to student needs, particularly those of non-traditional learners, as they need to be self-sufficient and able to respond to market demand (Bennett, Lucchesi and Vedder, 2010[30]). In the United States, they tend to enrol more minority, disadvantaged, and older students than community colleges and other public and private non-profit institutions. In addition, in comparison to community colleges (which are primarily public), for-profit institutions perform better in terms of retention rates for students in their first year and completion rates in short-cycle tertiary education programmes at the certificate and associate in arts levels (Deming, Goldin and Katz, 2012[31]).

However, there are concerns about the quality of education provided by for-profit institutions, as they may be more motivated by the financial bottom line rather than education outcomes (Bennett, Lucchesi and Vedder, 2010[30]; The Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2012[32]). Students from for-profit institutions in the United States, for instance, have poorer employment outcomes than comparable students from other higher education institutions, making it difficult for them to repay their student loans. As a result, they are more likely to default on their student loans. Students from for-profit institutions also report lower satisfaction with their courses and are less likely to consider their education and loans worth the price-tag relative to similarly situated students who attended public and private non-profit institutions (Deming, Goldin and Katz, 2012[31]).

These concerns are exacerbated when government-funded student financial assistance is a key source of revenue of for-profit institutions. This has been found to drive aggressive and, at some times, fraudulent recruitment practices in some institutions in the United States (Public Agenda, 2014[33]). Coupled with concerns about quality in for-profit institutions, this has led to government initiatives to improve their accountability for student outcomes in some countries. The United States, for instance, introduced new Gainful Employment regulations designed to hold for-profit colleges accountable for student outcomes in 2014. These regulations tied eligibility for federal funding to student success in terms of programme-level measures of student debt and earnings (Cellini and Turner, 2018[34]). As a result, the share of enrolments in for-profit institutions, which increased from 4% in 1995 to 11% in 2010, decreased to 7% in 2016 (U.S. Department of Education, 2017[35]).

Vertical differentiation

Higher education institutions can also differ in terms of the quality and reputation of individual institutions and likely graduate outcomes (Teichler, 2008[36]), leading to a vertical stratification of the system.

As discussed in Chapter 1, higher education participation is no longer reserved for the elite, with some OECD countries now having a participation rate of more than 50%. But high levels of participation and increased numbers of institutions do not preclude the concentration of top researchers and students in high-status institutions and programmes, even in very egalitarian societies (Marginson, 2016[20]). This tier of institutions exists in many countries and is often comprised of the older and more established institutions, such as the Grandes Écoles in France, the SKY universities in Korea (Seoul National University, Korea University, and Yonsei University), the Russell Group in the United Kingdom and the Ivy League in the United States.

Vertical differentiation can also exist within institutions. For example, university colleges in the Netherlands (often called Honours Colleges) are part of a university, but differ from the rest of the institution in many aspects. They are selective and focused on developing talented students, with classes delivered in small groups. These students follow a broad liberal arts and sciences curriculum in their first year before selecting their major in their second year. Students must pay an additional fee on top of the regular tuition fee to attend, and in some cases, need to live in dedicated on-campus resident halls.

Vertically differentiated systems are more likely to generate hierarchical differences in labour market outcomes (including types of occupations, employment rates and wages) (Leuze, 2011[37]). Elite institutions and programmes provide students with an identifiable social advantage (Marginson, 2016[20]) and students with highly educated parents are more likely to enrol in higher-status institutions and programmes, which can increase their advantages in the labour market. Vertically differentiated higher education systems, therefore, can play a role in increasing the correlation between students' socio-economic status and labour market outcomes (Triventi, 2013[38]).

The vertical differentiation between higher education institutions no longer exists only nationally. The advent of the global ranking industry and the competition to attract both funding and international students means many institutions now measure their outputs on a global scale, and aim to achieve “world-class” status. A number of countries have explicit policies in place to create “world-class universities,” as certified by their ranking in various global university rankings, such as the Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU) (Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China), the QS World University Rankings (Quacquarelli Symonds, UK) and THE World University Rankings (Times Higher Education, UK). This can result in additional funding and support for top-ranking institutions to help them build their research capacity and attract global talent.

Project 911 (1995) and Project 985 (1998) in China, for example, are both aimed at producing “world-class” universities and improving China’s international competitiveness. The initial nine universities selected through the project are known as the C9 League. 39 universities have subsequently received additional financial support from Project 985 to strengthen their performance and promote the growth and reputation of China’s higher education system. The significant injection of funds to these institutions has led to an increase in the output of academic papers, many of which are considered to be influential and of high quality, and improve the performance of Chinese universities in global rankings (Yang and Liu, 2018[39]). The Double First-Class strategy introduced in 2015 also aims to expand the number of highly ranked Chinese universities by 2050. 43 universities have qualified for additional support to become “world-class,” and another 95 institutions have been selected to develop “world-class” programmes (Peters and Besley, 2018[40]).

Similarly, in Japan, the Top Global University Project was launched in 2014 to provide financial support to universities that are leading the internationalisation of education in Japan. 37 universities have been recognised as global universities. Type A (Top Type) universities are those which are considered to have the potential to be included in the top 100 in world university rankings. Type B (Global Traction Type) universities are recognised as innovative institutions that can lead the internationalisation of Japanese society (Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2018[41]).

Competition between institutions can also be a means to promote excellence, especially in research, and has led to the creation of Research Excellence Initiatives in many countries, to identify and promote excellence among institutions (OECD, 2014[42]). For example, in Germany, the Excellence Initiative was introduced in 2005 to encourage excellence in research and doctoral training and enhance the profile and attractiveness of German universities. The Excellence Initiative has three lines of funding. The first line funds graduate schools that provide high-quality doctoral training and stimulating research environments. The second line funds clusters of excellence, which are internationally visible and competitive priority research areas at universities and their non-university partner institutions. The third line finances the institutional strategies of only a small number of universities. In its first phase from 2005-2012, the Excellence Initiative provided funding for 39 graduate schools, 37 clusters of excellence and 9 institutional strategies. In the second phase from 2012-2017, 45 graduate schools, 43 clusters of excellence and 11 institutional strategies received financial support (OECD, 2014[42]).

On the other hand, the trend towards increasing competition between institutions can increase vertical differentiation and possibly decrease horizontal differentiation. The additional financial support for Project 985 universities, for instance, has created a widening gap between the selected universities and other higher education institutions (Zong and Zhang, 2017[43]). It is also argued that the German Excellence Initiative has reduced variety within the German university landscape (Flink et al., 2012[44]). In addition, these policies can drive an even greater emphasis on research over teaching, as most global rankings tend to focus heavily on research performance (Hazelkorn and Gibson, 2018[45]).

As a response to global university rankings, which focus on a narrow range of measures and provide simplified league tables, there have been a number of efforts to provide a broader view of the relative strengths of institutions. For example, U-Multirank is a multidimensional ranking covering various aspects of higher education functions, e.g. education, research and engagement. It ranks higher education institutions into five different performance groups, and is an independent ranking developed with seed funding from the European Commission’s Erasmus+ programme (U-Multirank, 2018[46]).

Admission to higher education

Access to higher education is generally based on an upper secondary education qualification. Applicants may also be awarded entrance scores or points based on their performance in upper secondary schools that are used for higher education admissions processes. Some countries stream secondary school students into academic or vocational pathways, which may determine whether they are able to enter higher education, and the types of higher education institutions and programmes they can enter (diagrams of the education systems in the participating jurisdictions are available in Annex 2B).

However, the level of autonomy institutions have in selecting students for admission to higher education can vary across countries. In some, institutions have the power to set admission criteria (as in Estonia); in others, the admissions criteria is either co-regulated between institutions and an external authority (as in the Netherlands and Norway); or it is entirely regulated by an external authority (as in the Flemish Community) (European University Association, 2018[47]).

In Estonia, all individuals with upper secondary education are eligible to apply for all types of first-degree programmes (i.e. bachelor’s programmes, professional higher education programmes or programmes based on integrated curricula of bachelor’s and master’s studies) under the Universities Act 1995 and the Institutions of Professional Higher Education Act 1998. Completion of upper secondary education is certified by an upper secondary school leaving certificate or a certificate of vocational secondary education. However, higher education institutions may introduce further admission requirements, such as entrance examinations, minimum scores on the national examinations, and interviews.

In the Flemish Community, a secondary school leaving certificate (a diploma of secondary education) gives individuals access to all types of short-cycle and bachelor's programmes. Individuals are able to achieve this qualification by completing either two years of the third stage of general, arts and technical secondary education or three years of the third stage of vocational secondary education. Access to short-cycle programmes is also granted if applicants hold either a certificate of the second year of the third stage of vocational secondary education or a certificate of a programme of secondary adult education, which had at least 900 teaching periods.

In the Netherlands, the Higher Education and Research Act 1993 outlines the different entry requirements for universities and professional HEIs, which are based on completion of one of three different strands of upper secondary education:

• Graduates from the “pre-university education” (VWO) strand (three years) can directly access all types of higher education institutions.

• Graduates from the other senior general secondary education (HAVO) strand (two years) can only access professional HEIs. However, in some cases, they can access university programmes after one year spent in professional HEIs.

• Graduates from vocational upper secondary education (two or three years) do not generally have direct access to higher education. However, they can access higher education after completing some additional years of upper secondary education or post-secondary non-tertiary education (depending on which programmes they have followed).

In Norway, admission to bachelor’s programmes is regulated through the Universities and University Colleges Act 2005 and national regulations, with higher education institutions formally responsible for admission. Applicants must have a minimum level of achievement in six key academic subjects (English, history, mathematics, natural science, Norwegian and social studies), in addition to achieving the general matriculation standard to access higher education by:

• completing three years of general upper secondary education

• completing three or four years of vocational upper secondary education and training (three years of schooling or two years of schooling and two years of apprenticeship training, which leads to a craft or journeyman's certificate), followed by an additional year with the six key academic subjects.

For many programmes, additional requirements apply, e.g. specific subjects or results from upper secondary education.

In some countries, including the Flemish Community, the Netherlands and Norway, alternative ways of access to higher education are available for individuals who may not meet the usual admissions requirements. In the Flemish Community and the Netherlands, students without an upper secondary degree can be admitted through admissions tests (in the Netherlands, this applies only to students who are at least 21 years old). In the Netherlands, students can also be admitted based on the evaluation of a piece of research. In Norway, individuals over 23 years old and without an upper secondary qualification can access higher education by documenting five years of education and/or work experience and demonstrating basic proficiency in the six key academic subjects.

The recognition of prior learning (RPL), i.e. the recognition of non-formal and informal learning, also provides alternative ways to access higher education. In the Flemish Community and Norway, individuals may access higher education on the basis of RPL. In the Netherlands, individuals apply for RPL in order to fast-track their attainment of upper secondary education qualifications. In Estonia, prior learning can be recognised; however, higher education institutions are not able to admit students solely on the basis of RPL.

Selectivity in admission systems

The level of openness or selectivity in admission to higher education differs across countries, institutions, programmes and levels of study. Where government regulations on admissions exist, they tend to focus on short-cycle and bachelor’s level programmes and institutions are more likely to have greater autonomy in admissions to master’s and doctorate level programmes.

Around half of the countries and economies with available information on admissions processes to public institutions have at least some institutions with open admission systems (Table 2.5). Open admissions systems provide all applicants with the required qualification level (usually an upper secondary school qualification) and automatic right of access to higher education. This is the case for admissions to short-cycle and bachelor’s programmes in the Flemish Community and the Netherlands. Open admission also exists in half of all jurisdictions with government-dependent private institutions and nearly half of those with independent private institutions.

In Norway, admission to first-degree programmes (bachelor’s and integrated master’s) is open, but based on a point scale within quotas. This system was introduced to address imbalances in higher education and society at large (in terms of age, gender, culture and region). Half of all student places are reserved for those 21 years of age or younger. These “youth quota” applicants are ranked solely on the courses they completed in upper secondary education and their grades. Applicants in the other half of the admission quota, known as the “ordinary quota,” can obtain extra admission points based on their age, past education experience and military service. Some applicants within the ordinary quota may re-sit exams to improve their upper secondary school results, thereby improving their chances of admission to their preferred study programme. Norwegian institutions that offer popular programmes can therefore be selective, as demand exceeds the number of places available. In these instances, the highest ranking applicants are offered a place in their preferred institution. By contrast, institutions must accept all eligible applicants in low-demand programmes where there are fewer applicants than places.

Other countries allow institutions to set the admissions criteria and be more selective. In these countries, applicants are usually assessed on the basis of their performance in upper secondary school, and applicants may also be required to have successfully completed pre-requisite subjects at that level. Institutions may also use interviews, portfolios, entrance exams and other mechanisms to assess the suitability of applicants for admission to programmes, as is the case in Estonia.

Even in open admission systems, there are often additional conditions required for entry to specific programmes, and limits on the number of places offered by institutions. The number of places available in medicine, for instance, is controlled in many countries as these are closely linked with national restrictions around medical practitioners. Places in some programmes may be limited due to high demand. In the Netherlands, for instance, the number of places is limited for medicine, veterinary medicine, dentistry, journalism and physiotherapy programmes. Applicants for these programmes are selected through a weighted draw (loting), in which a higher average mark in the final school examination gives applicants a higher chance of gaining a place. In addition, some programmes, such as university colleges and art programmes, are selective by nature. Similarly, in Norway, admission to engineering and medicine programmes requires the completion of specific upper secondary courses such as advanced courses in mathematics and sciences.

Management of applications

The management of applications to enter higher education also varies across countries. Institutions manage direct applications with full autonomy and responsibility in some countries. In others, students submit applications through a centralised government agency, which applies admissions criteria. A third approach used in some jurisdictions entails the use of centralised bodies which act as clearinghouses to manage applications for institutions that make the decisions on criteria, procedures and applications. Centralised application systems to manage entry to programmes are seen as a way to ensure a uniform standard across the jurisdiction (Hoareau McGrath et al., 2014[48]). Some countries use a combination of management practices, depending on the level of study and programme.

In 2017, students applied to public institutions through a centralised system in around one-quarter of countries with available information, while they applied directly to institutions in nearly half of the countries (Figure 2.3). Another quarter of countries combined a centralised application system with a direct application system. In private institutions, a centralised system is less common; students applied directly to institutions in nearly one-half of the countries with government-dependent private institutions and in most countries with independent private institutions. However, a centralised application system was combined with a direct application system in one-third of countries with private institutions.

Figure 2.3. Application systems for first-degree programmes (2017)

Note: First-degree programmes include i) ISCED level 6 programmes that do not require prior completion of another level 6 programme for entry and ii) ISCED level 7 programmes that do not require prior completion of a level 6 programme for entry.

Source: OECD (2017[49]), Education at a Glance 2017, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2017-en.

 StatLink https://doi.org/10.1787/888933940455

In Estonia, students apply to higher education institutions through the Admission Information System (Sisseastumise Infosüsteem, SAIS), and institutions assess the applications against their own criteria. In the Netherlands, all students must apply for study programmes through Studielink; applications are assessed centrally to establish eligibility for open admissions programmes. In programmes with a fixed number of places, such as medicine, applicants receive a ranking via Studielink if the number of applications exceeds the places available. The ranking is determined by institutions based on their selection criteria. Most applications in Norway are processed through the Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service, with some exceptions (e.g. programmes in performing arts where admission is based on tests, and programmes offered by some independent private institutions). The Norwegian Universities and Colleges Admission Service registers all applications, assesses eligibility and assigns admission points based on criteria laid down in a national regulation on admission to higher education, which is revised annually, before the applications are forwarded for final processing at the institution ranked as first priority by the applicant. Students apply directly to institutions in the Flemish Community (Table 2.5).

Different application processes may be used for different levels of study. For example, in the Netherlands, application processes are centralised for short-cycle tertiary education and bachelor’s programmes, while they are decentralised for master’s and doctoral programmes (i.e. students apply directly to institutions).

Pathways within higher education

Flexible pathways within higher education enable students to move easily between levels of study, programmes and institutions. This can be important in facilitating lifelong learning and enabling students to change programmes or institutions if they realise their first choice was not suitable.

Short-cycle programmes can help create more flexible learning pathways into and within higher education, bringing students who did not follow a traditional pathway into higher education (Adelman, 2009[50]; Slantcheva-Durst, 2010[51]). Pathways from short-cycle tertiary education programmes to bachelor’s programmes have been developed in many jurisdictions, including the Flemish Community and the Netherlands.

• The Flemish Community: Short-cycle programmes (associate degree programmes) have been delivered by institutions responsible for adult vocational training (“centres for adult education”) since their introduction in 2009. However, from 2019 onwards, these programmes will be delivered by professional HEIs. These programmes have been created as an entry point to a bachelor’s programme with a professional orientation, and professional HEIs will have to provide pathways from a short-cycle to a relevant bachelor’s programme.

• The Netherlands: Students who complete a short-cycle programme (associate degree) at a professional HEI can decide to continue for another two years (in case of full-time study) within the sub-sector to obtain a bachelor’s degree.

In general, applicants are required to complete a bachelor’s programme for entry to a master’s programme. However, as higher education institutions tend to be responsible for admissions to master’s programmes, the transition from bachelor’s to master’s programmes differs among programmes. The completion of a bachelor’s degree in the same field of study may be required for entry to a master’s programme. For instance, in Norway, most master’s programmes require a certain number of credits in the same field of study. Holders of a bachelor’s degree in a different field of study, therefore, may need to meet extra requirements, such as exams or additional courses.

In some countries, the type of higher education institutions may influence pathways from bachelor’s to master’s programmes. For example, in the Flemish Community and the Netherlands, graduates from universities can directly access a master’s programme in all types of institutions, with some exceptions. However, graduates from professional HEIs are often required to complete a bridging programme before they are able to enter a master’s programme at universities. The bridging programmes take between six months (30 ECTS) to one year (60 ECTS) to complete in the Netherlands, and between three-quarters to one year and a half in the Flemish Community (45 to 90 ECTS). These credits are not counted towards a master’s qualification.

Higher education institutions tend to be responsible for admissions to doctoral programmes and the transition to doctoral programmes differs among countries and institutions (see Chapter 6).

Quality assurance of higher education

Quality assurance is one of the key mechanisms used to steer higher education and ensure the quality of education and research activities. The purposes of quality assurance include accountability, improvement, monitoring and transparency.

Quality can be monitored externally and internally at a system, institutional, department or programme level. Indicators of quality of education and research can be input, outcome and process focused. They can also be quantitative or qualitative (Krcal, Glass and Tremblay, 2014[58]). Quality assurance activities therefore take different forms, including developing generic guidance, internal processes of self-reviews and external reviews. Three overarching approaches to quality assurance are: accreditation, quality assessment and quality audit (Table 2.6) (OECD, 2008[53]).

• Accreditation is an assessment by an external agency on whether an institution or programme meets pre-determined minimum quality standards (Skolnik, 2010[59]). The accreditation is, in other words, the establishment of the status, legitimacy or appropriateness of an institution or programme (or even a module) of study. The criteria used for accreditation can be input, outcome, process or combination of these (Harvey, 2004[60]). In general, accreditation output is a pass/fail decision; it may also be known as registration, licensure or authorisation.

• Quality assessment is the process of evaluating the quality of outputs, resulting in a grade, whether numeric (e.g. a percentage or a shorter scale such as 1 to 4), literal (e.g. A to F) or descriptive (e.g. excellent, good, satisfactory and unsatisfactory). There may be a pass/fail boundary along the grade spectrum (Krcal, Glass and Tremblay, 2014[58]).

• Quality audit involves an external check on whether procedures are in place to assure quality of an institution and programme and whether explicit and implicit claims of an institution are correct (Woodhouse, 1999[61]; OECD, 2008[53]). It often focuses on processes by which institutions exercise their responsibility to assure academic standards and improve the quality of their provision (Dill, 2000[62]).

Accreditation approaches can serve accountability objectives because of the external locus of control, the graded judgements they produce and the possibility they enable to set a pass mark reflecting minimum quality standards to be met. The quality audit approach, on the other hand, is more compatible with improvement-driven objectives because of their emphasis on processes rather than outcomes and their greater internal locus of control. The quality assessment approach lies between these two approaches, with graded judgements and an emphasis on outcomes suitable for quality signalling in an accountability perspective, while simultaneously leaving scope for improvement recommendations (OECD, 2008[53]).

Some form of quality assurance is mandatory in most of the OECD countries. In some countries, a negative evaluation may result in the closure of an institution or the suspension of a programme. The results of quality evaluation may also have an impact on funding (OECD, 2008[53]).

External quality assurance can be administered either directly through government agencies, such as the ministry or department responsible for higher education, or through intermediate agencies. In countries such as the United States, it is conducted by private, non-profit organisations established for this specific purpose (Eaton, 2015[63]).

All participating jurisdictions have established an independent, government-funded quality assurance agency responsible for external quality assurance activities.

• Estonia: the Estonian Quality Agency for Higher and Vocational Education (Eesti Kõrg- ja Kutsehariduse Kvaliteediagentuur, EKKA)

• The Flemish Community and the Netherlands: the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie, NVAO)

• Norway: the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (Nasjonalt organ for kvalitet i utdanninga, NOKUT).

As the participating jurisdictions are members of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), their quality assurance agencies comply with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education; European Students' Union; European University Association; European Association of Institutions in Higher Education, 2015[64]), a condition which must be met to be registered on the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR). In accordance with the criteria set in the ESG, these agencies are all independent from other parties, including higher education institutions, governments and other stakeholder organisations, in order to ensure that procedures and decisions are solely based on expertise. In order to ensure their continued compliance with the ESG, agencies are required to undergo an external review carried out by a panel mostly composed of external experts, including a student member, at least once every five years (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education; European Students' Union; European University Association; European Association of Institutions in Higher Education, 2015[64]).

Nonetheless, the primary responsibility for quality assurance rests with the institutions through their internal quality assurance processes (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education; European Students' Union; European University Association; European Association of Institutions in Higher Education, 2015[64]). Internal quality assurance makes use of available information on the experiences of students and staff in the higher education programmes offered by the institutions, and on students’ study progress and outcomes after graduation (see Chapter 5 for the information on students’ experience and study outcomes). The views of different stakeholders (students, staff and representatives of the labour market) are taken into account. The internal quality assurance process therefore provides input for the external quality assurance process.

Supranational governance

The alignment of national initiatives at the intergovernmental level has also become an increasingly important consideration for many countries when developing national policy. With the creation of supranational organisations, regional integration has been encouraged in different parts of the world. In this context, regional integration in the field of higher education has also been promoted.

For example, in Europe, the European Union (including its predecessors) has been actively involved in the process of European integration. European integration was initially limited to economic integration; therefore, only vocational training was under the scope of discussion. At that time, education was regarded as a matter of each individual nation based on the principle of subsidiarity. Although the principle of subsidiarity still applies, from around the 1970s, member countries began acknowledging the economic importance of education, particularly higher education, and in 1973, a special division for education and youth was created in the Directorate-General for Research and Science (DG XII) (European Commission, 2006[68]).

The EU’s mobility programmes have helped to establish greater regional integration in the field of higher education. Joint Study Programmes were introduced in 1976 and were succeeded by the Erasmus programme in 1987. The development of mobility programmes highlighted the need for comparable and compatible higher education systems (Papatsiba, 2006[69]).

The Bologna Process (Box 2.1) was the second turning point for European countries in relation to higher education governance at a supranational level. As mentioned in Section 2.2.3, the Bologna Process aimed at increasing cross-national comparability in European higher education systems. To help students circulate freely across the EU, the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) was established within the Erasmus programme in 1989. The ECTS is now a key component of the Bologna Process and has been adopted by most countries in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), including the participating jurisdictions (European Union, 2015[70]). Following the development of the EHEA qualifications framework, countries in the EHEA have adopted the three-cycle structure.

Regions outside of Europe have also sought to create similar mechanisms using the Bologna Process as a model for higher education integration (Vögtle and Martens, 2014[71]). For example, there have been discussions about the establishment of an African Higher Education and Research Space (AHERS), a Space for Higher Education in Latin America and the Caribbean (ENLACES), and a Common Space of Higher Education in Southeast Asia. In the Asia-Pacific region, the Brisbane Communiqué was presented in 2006, in which governments agreed to collaborate in some areas, such as quality assurance frameworks.

Accountability

As mentioned, increased autonomy tends to be accompanied by increased accountability. Institutions are increasingly required to demonstrate value for money and show that they have undertaken responsible and relevant activities with public funds.

Accountability can be ensured through various means, including quality assurance frameworks, performance-related funding, market mechanisms and participation of external stakeholders in governing bodies (where external representatives would advise and support the institution regarding its contribution to society, and information on institutional results would be provided to the public) (Hénard and Mitterle, 2010[72]).

Table 2.10 provides examples of policy levers used in participating countries to ensure accountability. These are currently common in many higher education systems, though the emphasis placed on the different types of levers varies from country to country.