Work programme 2009-2012
Working Group on Mobility 2009-2012 - meeting 3
Third meeting of the Bologna Working Group on Mobility 2009-2012.
After the BFUG meeting in Alden Biesen (24-25 August 2010), the Mobility WG had its third meeting in Budapest on November 4, 2010, where the members received inputs from:
- Academic Cooperation Association (ACA), which presented the preliminary results of their ongoing study titled „Trends in European student mobility, Main findings of the forthcoming study on “Mobility developments in higher education” (EURODATA II)“, financed by the European Commission (DG Education and Culture), which covers 32 countries (all EU countries plus other five from outside EU);
- Andrea Herdegen (Germany), who introduced the preliminary results of the BFUG questionnaire on student and staff mobility; based on the 30 responses available at the moment the data was interpreted (the return rate of the filled in questionnaires was about 65 %);
- EUA, EI and ESU, which presented their joint input paper “Disincentives for Mobility”.
Starting from the first two mentioned inputs, the WG had in Budapest on November 4, 2010, a first debate focused on the following issues:
- the very diverse national mobility strategies and the internationalization of mobility;
- the social context and the perception of mobility obstacles, depending on the target group;
- staff mobility;
- the importance of quality of higher education within the mobility debate;
- the general actions to be supported, taken in or considered further in drafting the EHEA mobility strategy;
- balanced mobility and situations in which it is difficult to achieve.
The WG agreed on the main ideas to be used for drafting the EHEA mobility strategy and also agreed on an updated draft Work Plan.
Defining „balanced mobility“ was another discussion topic. The Mobility WG participants tried, without reaching a final conclusion, to come closer to an appropriate definition with a view to the EHEA mobility strategy. The main ideas advanced were:
- we should prioritize learning mobility, not cultural exchange;
- even if there are specific imbalances, mobility itself is good and therefore should not be restrained;
- where imbalances exist we should look into the reasons. Depending on the size and duration of imbalances we should aim for a more balanced mobility inside the EHEA;
- regulations which limit mobility are very dangerous. Only awareness and capacity building in the home countries can sustainably reduce brain drain;
- demographic changes, mainly in the Western European countries, have to be considered;
- the EHEA is not the only player in international mobility; some traditional European destination countries compete with North America and Asia. The issue is how to increase the attractiveness of all EHEA countries;
- estimating the magnitude of the brain drain phenomenon is difficult;
- quality assurance of higher education in the destination country is very important;
- more should be done to improve the chances for being employed when coming back (professional recognition).
The WG’s intention was to provide a longer paper on mobility for the BFUG consideration and eventually a short paper for the EHEA Ministers to receive their endorsement within the 2012 Bucharest Ministerial Conference.
Introduction into the meeting and welcome from the Hungarian hosts
Adoption of the Agenda
Minutes of the meeting in Berlin, 13 May 2010
Results from the ACA study on mobility
Results from the mobility questionnaire
EUA/ESU/EI: Disincentives for Mobility
Increasing Motivation for mobility
Outline of the mobility strategy and work plan of the group
Any other business