University Conference in Venice

“Nowadays, the very noble city of the Venetians is the only home of liberty, peace and justice, the only refuge of the good people, the only harbour where the ships of those willing to live well and safely arrive”, wrote Petrarch in a letter dated 1364, at the dawn of European Renaissance. In our times, the “Serenissima” has turned into the destination mainly of tourists, not necessarily looking for the same things as their predecessors.

I am lucky to be in Venice, but not as a tourist this time though. This morning, on my way to San Giorgio Island, I looked like an oddball in my suit surrounded by hundreds of early morning tourists. I am attending the 2nd Workshop on the Process of Reform of University Systems, organised by AIESM, an extremely interesting conference gathering academics who research on university issues. It was a splendid opportunity to learn more about the views of academics and university officers on the Bologna Accord. Naturally, the venue was very seductive too and I would like to thank Professor Carmelo Mazza for his kind invitation.

I was honoured to speak at the opening panel of the conference, on the future of higher education in Europe, moderated by Anthony Hopwood, Dean of the Said Business School, and having Mr. Umberto Paolucci, Senior Chairman of Microsoft Europe, as co-panellist. My presentation focused on the analysis of two following main propositions. First, the management education industry is changing in terms of its business model, not just in terms of cycle or phase. Second, the implementation of the Bologna Process requires, more fundamentally than the harmonisation of higher education systems, comparable information and transparency of university offerings and the creation of financial schemes to foster cross-border mobility of students. You are probably familiarised with these propositions since I have dealt with them earlier in this blog (see Categories section on the left of this blog in "Bologna Process").

My presentation provoked some criticisms at the Q&A turn, the part of conferences that I enjoy most. In sum, my ideas were seen by some attendees to be too liberal, too market-oriented to be applicable to universities. I replied that universities, and business schools, should feel committed to many different stakeholders, not only academia, including their students, business, society, benefactors and many other incumbent agents. In fact, the Bologna Process is about opening up universities to the world and making them more competitive, isn’t it? The idea of universities competing among themselves –for the good- sometimes raises suspicions among academics –few, I hope- who believe that the academic status quo should be preserved and that non-competitive universities are an endangered species that should be protected. I am afraid I do not agree with this. The fact is that universities have not competed for seven hundred years and many academics fear rivalry to attract the best students and professors, capital and other resources.   

I was also asked to express my view on what is “the” function of universities. I believe that this question should be reformulated unless we want to embark in a metaphysical debate. There is a wide typology of universities. Should we formulate the same strategic mission or function for universities as different as the Open University or the University of Oxford? There is no panacea when discussing the function of universities. Indeed, it is desirable that the Bologna Process promotes the autonomy and the diversity of educational institutions.

Comments

[Richard Edelstein]

The Bologna Agreement has initiated a great deal of reflection about higher education in Europe and will overtime have impact. The impact is, however, uncertain in its nature. Why is this the case? First, The Bologna Agreement is a "from the top down" initiative. It was the brainchild of Ministers of Education in a few countries and was undertaken with little if any consultation or negotiation with those most impacted by the program. It was a political initiative driven by multiple objectives, some stated, some unstated. As Professor Iniguez points out, there are funding issues that are fundamental to it's success but remain unaddressed. Beyond funding, there is an issue of whether there exists a European market for degree education. The current reality strongly suggests that education markets remain national in nature with consensus that student and faculty exchange or mobility is a useful addition to the curriculum. A critical reason education markets remain national is that labor markets are still overwhelmingly national with only small numbers of graduates working outside their home country. Most students prefer to get their degree at home. Finally, any attempt to introduce "market forces" into the education sector will meet with much resistance from two forces. First, education is a domain where national culture and identity is promulgated and insured for future generations. This means that unlike commerce and industry where the market is primarily for goods and services, it is more difficult for a nation to deregulate or relinquish control to supra-national forces its institutions of higher learning. There is nothing more political and debated than the European Union's struggle to find the right balance between seeking convergence of economic structures while at the same time allowing for significant autonomy at the national level in areas related to culture, language and historical tradition. Education is largely thought of as a "public good" rather than a private good. Like it or not, too much "privatization" or introduction of differential fee structures is likely to have strong resistance from students and parents whether it is in Spain or Sweden.

Bologna has engendered significant debate because universities and education systems are very complex in nature, closely associated with national identity and not easily amenable to "top-down" management and necessarily rather resistant to change.