Nov. 6, 2006

Making Sense of ‘Bologna Degrees’

In the early 1990s, the then-presidents of Oberlin College and Stanford University floated the idea that the standard time for an undergraduate degree might be better at three years instead of four. The idea went nowhere — at least in the United States.

Looking for a job?

See all 231 new postings

Browse all job listings:

Faculty: 3,298
Administrative: 1,239
Executive: 160
FEATURED EMPLOYERS

But 45 European nations have pledged to make three years the standard time for their undergraduate degrees by 2010. Under “the Bologna Process,” named for the Italian city where the agreement for “harmonizing” European higher education was signed in 1999, degrees are supposed to be sufficiently similar that they will be recognized from one country to the next, encouraging student mobility. What happens when some of that mobility involves graduate study in the United States?

Should American graduate schools recognize three-year degrees and admit such students to graduate programs? If they don’t want to consider three-year degrees as automatically equivalent to the standard four, how do they decide how to handle such applicants? If American graduate schools are seen as treating European applicants unfairly, will the best European talent stay on the other side of the Atlantic? If American graduate programs start admitting three-year degree holders from Europe, do they have any basis for turning down American students who have finished three years of bachelor’s work and feel ready to move on? And will answers to these questions challenge the traditional norms of graduate admissions in the United States, in which departments rather than central offices make the key decisions?

These were among the thorny questions that brought a number of academic leaders from the United States and Europe together on Saturday in Washington, at a meeting organized by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. The outcome of these deliberations is also seen as likely to affect students and institutions in many other countries.

Australia, while not part of the Bologna Process, also has three-year degrees. So Australian educators want their students to be treated well in the United States — while also recognizing that U.S. recalcitrance might result in more European students ending up down under. Interest is such that the Australian Embassy was the host for the discussions, for which a number of Australian educators made the trip to D.C. Canadian educators were at the meeting because their top graduate programs embrace the American model, but they also want European talent.

And the big question for many here was about yet another country: India, which also awards three-year degrees. While American universities don’t like to boast about it, most have for years had no problem admitting graduates of three-year programs in Britain as being on par with American four-year graduates. Many of those same institutions would tell a three-year graduate from India (or elsewhere) to earn a master’s degree or to complete more coursework before applying to American graduate programs. While that may have been doable when just a few countries’ graduates were quietly granted exceptions from four-year rules, would it work if American universities opened their doors widely to three-year degree holders?

“This is a fairness issue that has a racial dimension to it,” said Margit Schatzman, president-elect of Educational Credential Evaluators, which helps individuals and institutions establish the comparability of programs in and outside the United States.

Stanley O. Ikenberry, former president of the American Council on Education and the University of Illinois, moderated the sessions, and introduced the discussion by asking his American colleagues to imagine the world with “an academic Euro,” in which European diplomas matched the clout that has increasingly come to the common European currency.

Ikenberry stressed that American educators couldn’t assume that the issue wouldn’t hit them. The Bologna Process goes far beyond just ensuring comparable degrees to encouraging European students to move about. “Mobility in and of itself is being valued,” he said.

And the message from most European academics at the conference was that American graduate schools have no business thinking that a three-year degree represents any less preparation than a four-year degree awarded in the United States.

Christian Bode, secretary general of the German Academic Exchange Service, told the group that there was far too much diversity in the quality of American higher education to make any blanket comparisons between American and European degrees. In the United States, he said, “a bachelor’s degree is not necessarily a bachelor’s degree.”

In an interview after his talk, Bode said European higher education is more homogeneous such that the rigor for a bachelor’s degree from a “top” university isn’t that different from one at a less prestigious institution. Given the quality gaps in the United States, “you have a problem in your own house,” he said, before Americans can denigrate European degrees. Bode said that when evaluating European graduate student applications, American graduate schools should not draw any conclusions based on length of program.

What are American universities doing? Many appear to be shifting — rapidly — away from systems that have been widespread in the past, in which three-year degrees were automatically rejected or in which graduates of three-year programs were granted provisional admission, on condition that they take certain courses or perform at certain academic levels.

Daniel D. Denecke, director of best practices for the Council of Graduate Schools, presented data from a recent survey showing that more institutions are shifting to policies in which degrees are evaluated for comparability or applicants are evaluated for whether they can do the work.

Graduate School Policies on 3-Year Degrees

Policy	2005	2006
Do not accept	29%	18%
Provisional acceptance	9%	4%
Evaluate degree for equivalency	40%	49%
Evaluate candidate for competence	22%	29%

The council also asked a question about non-European three-year degrees. The results indicate the universities with the largest foreign graduate populations are more likely to be open to accepting such degrees than are other institutions.

Graduate School Policies on Non-European 3-Year Degrees, 2006

Policy	25 Largest Institutions	Other Institutions	All
Accept	56%	44%	45%
Don’t accept	44%	56%	55%

To non-Americans, the figures suggest that American graduate schools just need to learn more about the qualities of foreign students. Joe Hlubucek, counselor for education and science at the Australian Embassy, said that students from his country generally have no difficulties getting admitted to American graduate programs that have had a decent number of Australians enrolled over the years. “They are very well prepared,” he said.

The skepticism tends to come from an institution that hasn’t had many Australians.

In most of the public sessions, the general theme was one of the need for American flexibility.

Manfred J. Hampe, a professor of mechanical engineering at the Technical University of Darmstadt, in Germany, described the way his institution had shifted his program from one in which bachelor’s degrees were awarded in four and a half years to three years. “We were looking for core competencies,” he said, “the essence of what it means to be a mechanical engineer.”

In an interview, Hampe said that he was entirely convinced that his graduates would be ready for American master’s programs.

But not all North Americans were buying it. Randall L. Alford, associate provost for graduate and international programs at Florida Institute of Technology, noted that engineering programs in the United States have a tough enough time covering material in four years (many were once five). Gail Potts, director of graduate admissions at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said she also had doubts.

Questions extended beyond engineering-focused institutions. Scott Moore, who works in graduate education at the University of Toronto, said that his institution routinely accepts three-year degrees from Britain (assuming that more has been covered in secondary school) and Israel (where degree programs are particularly intense), but that’s it. Moore said he was convinced that Toronto would need to consider its policies, but that he wasn’t sure anything would change.

At one point, some of the Americans asked the overseas educators who were extolling the value of three-year degrees whether they ever questioned the three-year credentials they received from other countries. The responses were that nobody was saying that graduate schools didn’t have the right to seek more information about three-year degrees, but that they needed to do so without bias.

How to Evaluate 3-Year Degrees

In Australia, individual graduate schools evaluate applications and have the right to decide whether an individual’s qualifications are appropriate. But the Australian government maintains Country Education Profiles — which cover more than 100 countries and extend to individual universities — so that an admissions decision can be based on precise information about what a degree means in a given country.

In addition, European universities have also agreed to issue “diploma supplements,” which provide detail — in English — on the academic programs for which students receive their degrees.

Several speakers said that one of the key things American colleges need to understand is that it is the freshman year, not the senior year, that is missing in a three-year European degree. Most such degrees do not have much general education, but have as much or more instruction in the major. If Europeans are forced to take more education before enrolling in American programs, “you’ll just have further microspecializing,” not general education, warned Margarita Sianou, deputy executive director of the World Education Services, which compares education credentials across country lines.

The implications of that fact were much discussed. Some Americans said that they worried about the message it would send to their own campuses to admit graduate students without general education. Some Europeans said privately that if American high schools had higher standards, students in the U.S. could have a better general education — and finish college in three years.

How American universities will respond remains an open question, with people here describing movements in any number of directions. Victoria Rodriguez, vice provost and dean of graduate studies at the University of Texas at Austin, said her institution has a general policy against accepting three-year degrees “and we also admit these students all the time.”

Ultimately, she said, “we trust departments to make the right decisions.”

At the same time, she said, she has had the “nightmare experience” of admitting international students who looked great on paper only to have them show up without the necessary language skills. Many people spoke about the value of “holistic reviews” to be sure applicants would make a good match, and the additional time such reviews take.

A British professor involved in recruiting in India stunned some of those present by talking about the use of “agents” in India who help identify candidates. While some accrediting-type systems exist to govern the use of such agents, several Americans said that they found this middleman role particularly troubling and that it made them nervous about any perceived relaxing of admissions standards.

Some argued for the current system — similar to that in use at Texas — of having strict admissions rules and granting plenty of exceptions. But Mary Braxton, associate director of admissions and records at California State University at Northridge, said that the “do it by exception” practice doesn’t really work when you are granting too many exceptions.

The Power to Admit

There was division among those present on whether admissions offices should first make a decision on “admissibility” and then pass the application to graduate departments, or whether the departments should be involved throughout. Some argued for the former system, saying that there was no way individual departments could do the research necessary. Other institutions are evolving away from such a system.

Chris J. Foley, director of international admissions at Indiana University at Bloomington, said that 10 years ago, his office was rejecting applicants from abroad whose degrees didn’t seem appropriate without graduate departments “even knowing that the applicants existed.”

In the age of e-mail, he questioned whether this was even possible, noting that these days, international graduate applicants are likely to let departments know that they have applied. But philosophically, he also said he thought it made sense to move “from gatekeeper to a consultative role.”

Foley and others said that the challenge posed by the Bologna process could be very positive for American universities if it causes them to think more seriously about what they expect a new graduate student to know.

A repeated request throughout the day was for some national guidelines to be developed. Denecke of the Council of Graduate Schools said that he didn’t see his group trying to legislate on the issue, but that he hoped to see the development of “best practices.” Jerome H. Sullivan, executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, said he also hoped to see “best practices” developed. He also said that the discussion Saturday indicated the need for much more discussion — and for a similar gathering he hopes to organize to focus specifically on India.

In the meantime, the clock is ticking toward the 2010 Bologna Process target date, and each year has seen more European countries coming into compliance. If American graduate schools don’t get ready, friendly competitors are ready to fill the void.

Peter Booth, deputy vice chancellor of the University of Technology, in Sydney, which is seeking more European students, told the Americans at the conference: “I’d be delighted if you stick to requiring four-year degrees.”

— Scott Jaschik

Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Comments

Large difference between UK and USA

The average Ph.D. scientist coming out of American universities is far more advanced compared to the UK. At least in biochemistry, the requirements leading to a Ph.D. in America can be completed in 6 years of graduate school on average. In the UK, it is only 3. Sorry folks, but Ph.D.s coming out of UK are like masters degrees in the US, no more and no less. I hold a Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in biochemistry, done a postdoctoral fellowship at Harvard University, and have two bachelors degrees in biochem and molecular genetics. Every single new Ph.D. graduate that I’ve met from the UK (which numbers about 10) is nowhere even near as prepared as an American Ph.D. in terms of rigor, breadth, and depth of thesis, number of publications, quality of publications, and breadth of knowledge. The Ph.D.s in America laugh at the ones from UK. A Ph.D. in 3 years is nothing more than a joke. With that said, Ph.D.s from France or Germany, etc. are respected.

Bill Jones, Ph.D. at Harvard University, at 7:00 am EDT on July 15, 2007

Bill Jones and his PhD nonsense

Bill Jones has pooh-poohed the quality of PhDs from the UK. I find this quite telling of his underlying ignorance of the true state of affairs.

A British PhD finishes their degree in a far shorter time than the American precisely because they are better prepared to do research by the time they start. The American spends an enormous 6 years on a qualification, because the education prior to that has left them insufficiently prepared to launch into research. Almost all “PhDs” in the US spend several years in the classroom on further studies. To a European, this looks remarkably like a Bachelor’s program all over again. A European PhD — UK included, launches straight into research.

He claims that a US PhD has more papers to their name by the time they graduate. Well, hang on a minute — exactly how OLD is a typical US PhD graduate? They have spent 4 years in a Bachelor’s programme (instead of a European 3 year programme) at the end of which their major is comparable to a secondary school qualification called A level, taken at 18. An level student, however, would have three subjects, not one, at “major". The American PhD will then have spent six years at PhD, rather than 3. That means the American PhD is at least four years older than the British counterpart. It is not difficult, for a person of even rudimentary intelligence, to see why a 28 year old American might have more publications than a 24 year old British PhD — they are so much older and further into their careers (or should be). That, for arguments sake, is accepting Bill’s statement as fact, rather than fiction (which it could easily be: I have no access to the data — and he probably doesn’t either). The real test is this: how do they compare on “rigour, depth and papers published” when they are the same age? An American PhD has, at 28, just left College. A British 28 year old PhD will already have established their careers — have four years of real working experience and may, in fact, have published a lot more papers than the recently graduated American student.

Bill Jones is either unaware of — or careful not to point out — the essential difference between the American and UK systems. The UK begins specialization at 16 — the US does not do so until 22. From the point of view of efficiency of time, the UK wins by a long margin — and their graduates begin careers much younger, with an effective, professionally related educational background in place.

I believe that education should be as short as possible (for life is always more educative). I see no virtue in crowing about having wasted 6 years of the prime of one’s creative life, on a qualification that have been achieved in far shorter a time, if the education prior to it had been more focussed.

Having said that, I wish Bill well on his scientific career: he has certainly spent a lot of time studying for it.

Valentine, at 3:45 am EDT on August 21, 2007

David Tudor is right : 3 (European) = 4 (American)

As a French professor having taught in twelve countries around the world, I agree with David Tudor. Even if we (in Europe) cry on the “decreasing level” of students, American college students learn, during the first two years, what european students have acquired in high schools. Of course it is a general appreciation, with exceptions on both side of the Atlantic.

Jean-Pierre Nioche, at 8:35 am EDT on September 10, 2007

Broadly, I agree with the post above: when on exchange at a US Public Uni (a reputable “Land Grant” State university), I was surprised to find that most GE courses were pitched at a level that I’d been expected to work to aged 14-15. In British terms, these were O level courses. To the detractor on this thread who sneered at the quality of British PhDs, I can only reply that a friend (American) who took a BA(Hons) in History at London Uni found the AM “Comprehensive Exam” at Princeton (a prerequisite for continuation on the PhD program) to be significantly less demanding than his British BA “Finals".

QUASIMODO, at 9:05 pm EDT on September 14, 2007

UK degrees vs American

I went to obtain a British MA for three simple reasons: time and cost and language requirements. I could have added ease if I considered the fact that American Universities require a broad variety of tests; GMAT, LSAT, etc… to be included in an already comprehensive application process. What I found was that my MA was essentially a repeat of my senior year at an American university. It was basically a few casual once-a-week modules and a 20,000 word thesis (completed in the summer –at home, in the States). In 9 months I was done. It was a pretty cut and dry affair. Not rigorous at all. The language requirement was another reason. To graduate from almost any American University you needed at least one, if not two languages under your belt. This was not true in at the University of London. I met people who were obtaining an MA in French literature without more than an elementary grasp of the language. Also, it should be remembered that competition is stiff for US universities. In the UK, outside of Oxbridge, it is the inverse: British postgraduate program need paying bodies. If anyone is in doubt, simply research the graduation requirements for even the lowest tiered American universities.

Aaron Kirby, UK degrees, at 3:40 pm EST on February 15, 2008

Aaron Kirby — delusions?!

So, British MAs are “cash cows", eh? Well, err, yes...! Everyone knows that, by & large, you’ll just be spending another year or so doing pretty similar things to the final year of your BA(Hons) course, and generally the dissertation is likely to be the only stimulating/ useful part of the experience. That’s precisely why an MA has never been a prerequisite of undertaking research in most British universities.

Why then does anyone bother? First, it may represent an “upgrade” opportunity for someone whose first degree isn’t good enough to qualify for research. Second, it may be helpful to overseas graduates seeking to do research in the UK. Third, it may be an opportunity to “convert” from, say, history to war studies, politics, or whatever. Fourth, many people just want to study a bit more, and teachers, notably, find that the extra post nominals can be helpful in the promotion stakes. Finally, there’s the “status thing” — it looks good, and — of course, as you note — it’s a nice little earner for cash strapped institutions!

This differs from the American system in that MAs in my discipline (history) are frequently required to be taken “in passing” as an integral part of a 6/7 year PhD program: ie it’s the “coursework” component of the whole package. I know there are plenty of “stand alone” MA programs too, and I imagine that many people do these for similar reasons to most Britons. The quality/ demands of such programs — as in the UK — varies considerably. Certainly, I have come across Americans with MA after their names who could barely speak English, let alone the foreign languages we’re assured by flashy college websites are the sine qua non of graduation with a BA!

Ref this languages thing. Americans persist in believing that we Brits don’t do languages other then English (why then all those hideous translation exercises I had to slog through as part of my BA course?!) whilst they’re all prepared by their 4 year degrees to be competent speakers of at least one modern language. Dream on! I’ve yet to meet American college graduates (exceptions being Ivy League, & places like Stanford, Chicago, Reed etc, and, of course, languages majors) whose foreign language capabilities were much better than elementary, and certainly no better than that acquired during my “O level” courses taken at secondary school aged 14-16. Those who do speak Spanish tend to have learnt it at home/ in the workplace, and laughed at the notion that it was “college taught".

Now, I’m not in the business of knocking one system or the other. IMO, the American approach has many virtues, and indeed elements of it are being adapted by many British universities — eg the so called “New Look PhD” programmes which incorporate a more formal taught element of coursework preparation than has traditionally been the case in the UK. That said, the ethos underpinning PhD research in the UK remains very different from in the USA. Although, you’ll usually be part of a research group, and expected to participate in research seminars etc, the general mind set is that you have to demonstrate the ability to work pretty much on your own (with advice from supervisors, of course) to produce a thesis representing a substantial & original contribution to knowledge/ understanding. The emphasis is as much on the substantial as the original — Brits may be excused all those time consuming “field” courses, “comprehensive exams” etc, but they’re expected to produce much longer theses (often twice the length) than their American counterparts. Now, I’m all in favour of quality over quantity, but do feel that where research training is concerned — certainly in a discipline like history — the ability to construct & substain a thesis at some length is quite a significant indicator of fitness for undertaking future research totally independently. Therein, I feel, lies the essential difference: British PhDs are about preparing researchers, whereas American PhDs are as much about training people to teach in colleges.

FWIW, I think, by & large, in fact, the end products are pretty similar — certainly history PhDs in both countries tend to be a tad obsessive, pedantic, and more than a little “up themselves", although they also tend to demonstrate an endearingly “crusty” cynicism & wry humour at the vagaries of this world. I should know!

QUASIMODO, at 5:20 am EDT on March 19, 2008

“Some Europeans said privately that if American high schools had higher standards, students in the U.S. could have a better general education — and finish college in three years.”

There it is. Our college students in their freshman year typically not only have to focus on the general education they didn’t receive in high school, but on the basic language and study skills they never received at all. American freshmen admitted to most schools here with their de rigueur (and meaningless) “B+” averages typically cannot write a complete sentence, don’t know how to use clauses correctly, can’t spell or punctuate, can’t organize their thoughts coherently for an essay etc. Further, they can’t read a page of text and tell you accurately what they read. And all this is in their own language. Europeans, Indians, Asians, etc. come to school here and perform very well in what amounts to a second (third, fourth) language for them. My international students regularly perform better, as a whole, than my home-grown students, as a whole. And we are being snooty about “accepting” them, wondering if their 3-year degrees are “equivalent” to ours? For the record, no, they are not “equivalent” at all. My unscientific impression after 15 years in the college classroom is that it is our Master’s degrees that are approximately “equivalent” to many other countries’ 3- or 4-year Bachelor’s degrees.

marya, at 7:40 am EST on November 6, 2006

England, Germany, and the U.S.

Here are some salient points about higher education in England and Germany:

England: Students get a degree in three years, but specialize from the day they enter college.

Germany: Students graduate from high school after 13 years of education. In the past, there was no equivalent of the bachelor’s degree, but rather students studied for 5 years and obtained a master’s. (I believe this is still the norm but the 3 year bachelor’s degree was introduced to parallel the American bachelor’s degree. But I’m not sure of the current state of affairs.) Students also specialize from the day they enter college.

A hundred years ago, more or less, the doctorate was introduced in the U.S. to enable American students to obtain the highest terminal degree that was awarded in Germany. Now the reverse is true—Europe is adjusting to the U.S.

But surely what is in order here is to consider the content of degrees rather than their form (e.g., number of years). And even when deciding which American students to admit to graduate school, we (and every other institution I know) considers the content of their degree, rather than just counting credits.

math prof, at 7:40 am EST on November 6, 2006

General Ed In College

I’ve long thought that the amount of general ed at the university level was not necessary. It seems that Europe and other parts of the world have got it right on that.But to say their are “racial overtones” in decisions made by graduate schools in the US when it comes to deciding who gets accepted is in my mind demeaning to those who make those decisions. Why do those with different colored skin always jump in with that kind of claim? I personally find it offensive.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 8:06 am EST on November 6, 2006

back to the future

In the “old days” (when there was no assumption of equivalent education from town to town, much less country to country), colleges and universtities has matriculation exams, in order to determine who was ready to enter their school. Why not take that approach with respect to graduate shool? If student from countries with three year BA programs can pass the exams, then they get in. If not, then not.

Canadian Prof, at 8:40 am EST on November 6, 2006

Three Years for U.S. Degree?

Many accredited private colleges now offer the four year degree in three years. Have these colleges changed the content or just the schedule and presentation? How do these compare with foreign degrees? And does anyone know, statistically, how many students are able to graduate from these three-year U.S. programs and enter graduate programs? I’m curious.

kgotthardt, at 8:50 am EST on November 6, 2006

US Involvement in Bologna

Time to degree is less of an issue than the quality of the degree. The European adoption of the three year undergraduate degree is a compelling reason for the United States to partner with the EU in helping to define the quality mechanisms employed to offer such degrees. If the US can become comfortable with the quality of the institutions offering the degrees, then the number of trans-Atlantic agreements will flourish rather than diminish.

The 2010 deadline is fast approaching but the EU has yet to adopt a common framework for defining institutional quality. This should have been done before mandating time constraints for completing the undergraduate experience.

The US should step-up its efforts to get involved!

Claude Pressnell, President at TICUA, at 9:00 am EST on November 6, 2006

Canadian Prof

I would take the testing thing one step farther. Anybody should be allowed to test into any grad program, regardless of actual bachelor certification. If they know enough, that should be the criterion.

Craig C, political pundit at http://blogresponder.blogspot.com, at 9:01 am EST on November 6, 2006

... m.. Test ??

I thought there were a lot of opposition against assess US higher ed. But it seems, after all, people here agree that content is much more important then the formality of year. Or maybe we should extend this a bit to the formality of our bachelor title — I do agree with Claude Pressnell’s concern that their 3 year may not be uniform either.

But the key here is the competency of the students. How can we best measure it? Or, just let them in and see how long it take them to graduate — which can be a waste of resources but it can still be fair.

About the general education — America need really think about this! I would say things that deem necessary to become a responsible citizen should be mandate in K12. We also should realize that even if you have committed to a major, you can still enrol in other class for the sake of broaden your content. Graduate school can still require it if it is essntial to meet their quality of graduation.

Duncan, at 10:06 am EST on November 6, 2006

Bologna resources

There is an excellent set of resources on the Bologna Process available at the Web site of NAFSA: Association of International Educators. Location: http://www.nafsa.org/knowledge_co...t_admissions/bologna_process_network

Chris, at 10:35 am EST on November 6, 2006

Bologna degrees

4 year coursework can drag out into 5 and 6 years and the costs are monumental. Love the idea of a 3 year degree program and have no problem with test-in to see if the student is prepped for grad school. Once again the U.S. is being left in the dust by more progressive nations; has anybody taken a train lately? I keep wondering why Europeans and Asians have more progressive ideas than we do and it takes them shorter times to activate it.

Chicago, Adjunct, at 10:55 am EST on November 6, 2006

In systems such as in Australia (and the old British Commonwealth), undergraduate education is preceded by a two-year “Advanced Level” after high school. For engineering programs, this is the time when the physics, chemistry and calculus course requirements are completed. It would be equivalent to completion of AP courses in these subject areas. Based on this, a three-year program is feasible. The difficulty in the US is in the uneven quality of K-12 education. In these other countries, the quality of high school education is centrally controlled and the standard is the same across the board.

Joe Akinmusuru, at 10:55 am EST on November 6, 2006

Shorten degrees

I find this discussion interesting because the issue of proprietary education is somewhat based in these accelerated educational concepts which are controversial in the American Educational system and found in most For Profit Schools…and of course we for profits graduates are not well liked or accepted. Moreover the accreditation issue of so many fine educational centers based online for companies and licensed professionals plus academic pursuits for true learners from these institutions is even more related to this European idea. Personally and I’m only a graduate of a accredited proprietary system and a non accredited college run by a group of retied scientists think the idea is sound. Additionally the Europeans always seem to get it whereas we Americas are always obsessed with money, prestige and power and race is factored in….lets not kid ourselves. Our current educational system is bias, top heavy and geared toward helping the financially strong and very socially privilege; The current cost and accessibility is far beyond the average poor person reach and when a degree is rec’d…the issue then is…. was it from a levy league college or an nationally accredited university….and god for bid online….such a lazy and unproven way to receive a higher education. I applaud the Europeans because education is not a privilege but a necessary for a citizen to be a productive member the modern world. Also, online based education will change the whole landscape and sitting around for long periods watching the local team and going to the local campus parties and such really is helping socially but in truth a effective competitive education can be shorten, offered online, while turning the professor into the guide on the side and not he sage on the stage.

Greg Harris, at 12:10 pm EST on November 6, 2006

“Once again the U.S. is being left in the dust by more progressive nations; has anybody taken a train lately?”

Since we don’t pay $6 a gallon for gas, why bother?

Anyway, there are obviously people graduating from American universities in less than four years. It’s not common, but people do head off to grad school with three years of undergrad. It doesn’t have to mean you learned less, but just see if it does—look at the quality of the program they went through and leave it at that.

SB, at 12:10 pm EST on November 6, 2006

3 Years to a BA

In 1969, I entered New College at Hofstra University and in 1972, I earned my B.A. The New College Program had started in the early 60s by combining the first two years of an undergraduate program into one. By the later 60s it had evolved into a three year course of study where students had a 40 week school year rather than the 30 weeks on Main Campus.

My class was the last graduating class in the official three-year program. With Vietnam hanging overhead, graduating in three years had become less popular, and many (male) students stuck around for a fourth year by doing work-study programs along the way.

The three-year program doesn’t permit much experimenting or searching—it is best left to students who have pretty solid ideas about their career paths. Somehow, I think it’s a better idea than the 6-year plan my friends say their kids are on.

Christine Valada, at 1:40 pm EST on November 6, 2006

general comments

I am somewhat saddened that this discussion has become a “let’s rank on the US” discussion, when universities need to deal with real issues.

A few things to keep in mind.

First: In the US, accreditation is key. One needs to graduate from an accredited school in order to matter. People that graduate from for-profit schools are considered suspect. (I will not hire either of them. I can’t take the risk.)

Second: As above commentators points out, Americans can and do graduate from college in under four years. A student that takes extra courses and attends school in the summer will have enough credits to graduate. A student that attends college courses in high school will also have enough credits to graduate in three years. A student that partakes in a 3/2 program, or a 3/3 program will be admitted to a graduate program with only three years at a school (even less if they took college courses in high school.) So, there isn’t anything necessarily incompatible with American education happening if 3-year students are admitted to graduate programs.

Third: Europeans are generally not in a position to know what standards American high schools have. For better or worse, the quality of American high schools varies. There are good ones, that require a lot. There are bad ones, which give everyone the same grade, and/or teach intelligence design. Most Europeans that I know are smart enough to know that they can’t spot the difference.

Fourth: The presence of smart foreigners in the US does not indicate that all foreigners are intelligent. It might simply mean that the only foreigners appearing in the US have passed certain benchmarks. In truth, European education, with its selectivity, places only people who have passed numerous tests, and surmounted a number of hurdles, in the position to attend school in the US. In the US, just about everyone graduates from high school, and unless you have intimate knowledge of American education, you can’t tell the difference between the graduates.

Fifth: Subject-specific and general examinations already exist in the US. However, many programs are not so happy about using subject-matter GREs as an entry test. Perhaps they should reconsider this.

Craig, It does not matter if you are offended. However, you should feel free to respond to arguments on their merits. On the other hand, most graduate programs want to see some track record of performances in undergrad before they admit people, because they usually are taking an incredible risk with every admit, and they want to feel like they are buying “quality” rather than just a good score on a test that can be cheated on.

Larry, at 1:40 pm EST on November 6, 2006

Vast Differences

With secondary (and “Further Education") so different between Europe and the US, the needs of university students are radically different. Both the UK and Germany have essentially rolled what is the the first year of university in the US into FE or Grade 13, and these occur in secondary schools focused (truly) on the higher education bound student, not utilizing the moronic “one size fits all” approach of the US under NCLB. These European students have also already passed competency testing (national, not the faked as-easy-to-pass-as-possible tests created by theis US Republican regime). And, critically, they are almost never paying for college, allowing a concentration on study not possible for most US students.

And European education has traditionally been more “competency-based” (certainly true of Germany) than the US reliance on hoop-jumping (take this pre-requisite for that, and do A, B, and C).

But what makes this discussion amusing is the context... in a nation with no national standards for high schools, and no national (or often state) standards for universities, these colleges are troubled by the equivalency of Euro and Aussie degrees? They should wonder about their home-grown incoming freshman a bit more.

Ira Socol, Michigan State University, at 1:40 pm EST on November 6, 2006

Europe vs US Educational System

I received my degree from an Italian institution and move to US for the PhD.

I was simply impressed at the level of preparation of junior and senior students.

It is simply different -I don’t want to comment on it beside saying that as graduate student and teaching assistant I was correcting their writing- but I found two major differences in the US system compared to the general European -and in particular Italian- one.

First European students start immediately with the courses pertinent to their field of study. The degree in Math includes only math or physics courses and there is no room for music, history or even chemistry.In the US students have to take a consider amount of time for courses outside their major only to fill the gap of knowledge.

Second, in Italy (and at least France, Austria, Germany) there are three cycles before college: Elementary — Middle – High; all adding up to 13 years. Here you go!The last year of high school in Italy is very similar to the freshman in college.

The whole point of debating if US universities should accept European students is off-focus because the 3 years as undergraduate + 2 years as master degrees have been specifically designed to conform to the American educational system where K13 means first year of college.

I just cannot believe that top level politicians –as should be those who debate these issues- did not even realize that.

Marco, PostDoctoral Fellow, at 2:15 pm EST on November 6, 2006

Good good good. I like the discussion

US “should wonder about their home-grown incoming freshman a bit more!” Excellent point.

US graudate schools “want to feel like they are buying “quality” rather than just a good score on a test that can be cheated on.” Good point indeed. It sounds like US institutions like quality check too. Except I have trouble understand the need of linking the test with cheat.

I also wonder how institution weight an A from University of Nebraska with a B from MIT. I am sure some one can provide some inside.

Duncan, at 3:45 pm EST on November 6, 2006

Bologna

First, American universities have toyed with the idea of the 3 year BA from the outset. Harvard and William & Mary were patterned on the Oxford model when they started up, but quickly learned that a lack of a strong secondary system required an additional year of essentially pre-college work. Elliot argued for the 3 year BA in the 1880s, but even he didn’t have the clout to pull it off (most “colleges” in the 19th century US were actually supported by their “Academic” departments — essentially high schools, that filled their classrooms and their dorms. Only a handful of colleges — Harvard, Columbia, Chicago — could even consider lessening the time students spent at their institutions. The remainder simply needed the income. In the 1920s, Leondard Koos and a few other scholar-educators argued that the senior year of a strong high school was essential equal in content to the freshmen year of college, but they argued for the elimination of the 12th year of the public schools — they recognized the power of the tax payer as compared to the relatively few families that sent their children on to college. And that is where we stand now. State legislatures, which control the funding of most education, will look for savings in eliminating the 12th year of the public schools, and not the first year of college. Why save some parents money they can readily borrow from the federal governtment when they can cut the property tax rates by nearly 10%? This is a political no-brainer.DocBob

Robert Pedersen, at 4:45 pm EST on November 6, 2006

They’re better

I agree with marya. I have taught in the US and the UK and will say without hesitation that the US student with 4 years is well behind the UK student with 3. Our (US) secondary education is a joke. We are teaching highschool for the first two years of college. My entering PhD students (I am at a large R1) who are US trained can barely write. Even with degrees from solid universities, they are well below the level of an entering UK PhD student. Yes ,they have more breadth—maybe. But they are very superficial and there is no depth at all. Lots of entitlement, though, and not a great work ethic. I’m happy to admit the Europeans and Indians interested enough to come here. Tho’ they tend to want to do a 3 year European PhD as well!

ProfF, Science Professor, at 8:20 pm EST on November 6, 2006

balogna degrees = baloney degrees!

It never ceases to amaze me how a discussion like this so quickly degenerates into a feeding frenzy of America bashing. Non-Americans just love to talk about how terrible American universities are, yet given the chance, they won’t hesitate to attend one.

I happen to be in a science department at a major American university and I can tell you from personal experience that I would rather work with a motivated American students than many foreigners. Contrary to popular myth, many foreign students are not as well prepared as people think they are. For starters, a major problem is an inability to communicate in English. If you cannot communicate with a person, then you cannot communicate. It does not matter how intelligent they are.

Also, many of them who come to US graduate programs have received bachelor’s degrees that clearly are not as strong as a degree from an American university. They may be hard-workers, and they may be motivated, but can you really get the same quality education in many 3rd world nations? In my experience, no.

As for Europeans, the quality varies. However, when I’m judging a graduate applicant I would much rather have a knowable standard by which to judge. The curriculum for science majors at most American universities are often comparable. However, I have seen some curriculum at European institutions that are so different from Americans, that it’s difficult to create a basis for comparison.

Also, the tendency to engage in America-bashing is itself a detrimental quality. People like “ProfF", for example, are speaking more from their anti-American political views than anything else. He apparently forgets that America continues to lead the world in science and technology.In academia, it is inevitable that you will meet people who love to engage in anti-America polemic. But, do you really want to spend time working with a person who makes it clear he doesn’t like your nation (irregardless of the fact that these same people are so eager to come here)? Honestly, I don’t.

rob, at 10:05 pm EST on November 6, 2006

Fix from the Ground Up

I entered Kindergarten at age three in what the British call a public school (much closer to voucher-backed private education in the U.S. than anything else). In the U.S. we start students two years later, have them attend fewer days per year (U.S. districts tend to offer under 80% the number of school days), and ask them to do less at any given age or level than do the British.

Is it any wonder our K-12 system stinks, putting our student in catch-up mode for at least a year in college?

Andrew Purvis, at 10:05 pm EST on November 6, 2006

Big Bang in International Education

In addition to various perspectives already presented, I see two major implication of Bologna:1. Marked improvement in numnber of Indian students considering U.S. education. Already, India sends largest number of international students to U.S. But, now with acceptance of three year degree lot of BA, BSc and BCom (10+2+3= 15 years degree) student would start applying who currently required to have at least sixteen years of education for admission to U.S. graduate programs. This improvemenrt in number will provide more choice for admissions officers and hence improvement in quality.

2. Increase in student mobility: Europe will gain more acceptance as a destination as it will be more compatiable with other education systems. Already it has advantage of cost as tution is very low as compared to U.S. universities. It is expected that more programs will be taught in English which will further add to acceptability.

Rahul Choudaha, Doctoral Student in Higher Education, at 3:45 am EST on November 7, 2006

variable preparation

Those who are pointing out that US K-12 preparation varies are right on. I went to a high-performing public HS in the US, where talking multiple AP courses and International Baccalaureate diplomas was the norm. I went to Scotland for my undergraduate degree. There were some others in my boat, with varying levels of preparation. Scotland has a four-year degree; had I gone to England, I would have been done in 3. Meanwhile, many of my fellow HS alumni finished American colleges in 3 years and got the MA in their fourth—because they started with all those APs. Now I teach American students, and I will say this: while the British system of A-levels and Highers does produce a more specialized university entrant, remember that with A-levels in particular, something is lost. I went to uni with computer science and biology “majors” who were very weak writers. I have to say that some of the more generalized US requirements can yield engineers, scientists and mathematicians with stronger writing skills. The Scottish undergrad honours degree is traditionally 4 years and allows for students to try out 3 subjects in their first year, continue two to a higher level in their second, and focus exclusively on one (sometimes 2) in the last two years. It was a wonderful experience and I would hate to see it Bologna-ized.

European graduate, at 3:45 am EST on November 7, 2006

Bologna Process

I have not been in a high school anywhere on the planet for more than 30 years, so I have no idea what’s happening there these days. The worse for me, perhaps.

Are they preparing students to be good citizens; to go on to higher education and live lives of value?

I know that with the great barriers to education and tank traps put out for students, teachers, administrators, parents that it’s amazing the number of our students who do well.

I’d like to think that the US higher ed. system accomdates a VERY wide range of interests and abilities. We are a market economy that seems to serve many people well judging by attendance.

Do we want to be able to admit qualified, sincere international students to this system? Many US schools that have asked this question of themselves and answered in the affimative will be the ones in the driver’s seat in the passing lane of the next generation.

Lars Gingery, at 1:46 pm EST on November 7, 2006

Bologna Process Monitor

World Education Services maintains a Bologna Process resource page for those seeking information and/or assistance on how to evaluate Bologna degrees: http://www.wes.org/ewenr/bolognaprocess.htm

Jeff McWhorter, Assitant Editor WENR at World Education Services, at 2:05 pm EST on November 7, 2006

Bologna is a lot bigger than the 2-cycle degrees

The Bologna Process, which began in 1999, was preceded by the Lisbon agreements of 1997 on a common European qualifications framework. Its key pieces include a credit system based on student workload, not faculty contact hours, and what’s called a Diploma Supplement that basically warantees the degree. The Diploma Supplements are subsequently linked to a standard c.v., an account of transnational education and training experience, and a “language portfolio” to form an electronic Europass that can then be accessed by employers across the continent, and in all major languages. To the Europass can be added documented subsequent education and training, rendering it an account of lifelong learning.

U.S. higher education has been asleep to these major features of Bologna, and our latest wonderful Spellings Commission report on higher education never bothered to look or ask about them. I’ve elaborated all this on the back page (Commentary) of this week’s (Nov. 8) Education Week in an article entitled, “Border Blind Side: What the Higher Education Commission Didn’t See.” Check it out.

Clifford Adelman, Senior Associate at Institute for Higher Education Policy, at 12:55 am EST on November 8, 2006

comparability

Speaking for myself and not for my institution, I want to focus on the differences between 4 year Bachelor degrees in the US and the discussed 3 year degrees from UK/EU, India and elsewhere. I’ll leave aside the issue of US high school student preparedness for the moment (though the point is well taken.)

Part of the length of a US 4-year degree is not just training in the chosen major, but exposure to a spectrum of knowledge and experience, literally the “education of the whole person.” It is I think a root principle of modern US degree structure to overall produce an enriched person/citizen as well as a skilled accountant or engineer. Certainly there are accelerated and technical programs in the US but their accepted equivalence to a standard 4-year Bachelors is varied.

In my work I see a lot of (for example) 3 year degrees from India. These students focus almost entirely on the major and supporting subjects with no broad curriculum at all. It would seem to me from the outside looking in that this pattern of education might have been generated to produce experts in subjects as directly and efficiently as possible.

It was brought up that some preparation in 3-year degree systems is accomplished in high school, perhaps the equivalent of US first year of degree. Whether it is GCE AS/A-Levels from England or say a business or math/science track in Std. XI and XII in India (for students moving toward a BCom, BBA or BSci,) again the subjects I’ve seen taken seem rigidly goal-aimed. If you are aiming for a Bachelor of Commerce in India, I can bet you good money you will be taking Bookkeeping & Accountancy in Jr. College.

I’m not saying that one approach to degree pattern is better or worse than the other but merely that they are different, and my subjective impression is that they became that way organically to fill different needs and goals in different cultures.

A Business student in the US taking 4 years has a different experience and exposure than a 3 year BCom holder from India. If a US graduate program is looking for the type of broad exposure that the 4 year pattern provides it is not unthinkable that these may be handled differently.

I get the impression from the preceding discussion some may feel that this is just US institutions looking down their noses at the rest of the world but I don’t feel that is true.

The issues raised by the Bologna process are of course going to be approached not just from an academic standpoint but also political and financial. The increased hurdles to US study imposed by SEVIS and the course of current events have reportedly resulted in more international applicants deciding to go elsewhere, putting pressure on administrators to consider all options, even while national and international organizations wrangle over the big picture. I’m just a small actor in this drama, but it is fascinating to me. I just wanted to present my estimate of comparability of the discussed credentials, reporting from the trenches.

I would be interested to know if these EU degrees are being fit to the 3 year pattern by removing broadening subjects, by accelerating the progress of study while retaining diversity of subject matter, or where between these poles the slider sits.

Neal, international evaluator, at 11:10 am EST on November 8, 2006

Follow the Money!

European higher education has traditionally been reserved to its elite. The idea of universal higher education was a foreign one to Europeans, much as it was in the US before WWII. With the advent of the GI Bill and the National Defense Student Loans, the bachelor’s degree became something most if not every American high school student could realistically aspire to, unlike their European counterparts who had to make the cut for admission to university as opposed to a trade school. The European universities were very difficult to be admitted to, but had the true benefit of being virtually tuition-free once you made the grade. As the First World is moving away from a manufacturing to a service economy, the trade school route is no longer as appealing or useful, and Europeans are in greater numbers demanding a university education. As the numbers of students increases, the Euro taxpayers’ ability to pay for these students is now stretched to the breaking point. The three year degree is a way of knocking out a significant portion of the cost of that subsidy.

If new PhDs think it is hard to find a full-time faculty appointment now, just imagine how hard it will become if US schools move to a three year degree and universities don’t need faculties (or facilities) the size that they are now. Pushing the basic humanities courses “down” a level to a fifth year of high school would stretch those education dollars for the legislatures. It is much less expensive to hire a high school teacher whose terminal degree is at the masters level to teach five sections of humanities or basic science per day five days a week than it is to hire a PhD to teach two or three sections for two or three days a week. The outcry on this one is going to be massive.

Michael, at 4:01 pm EST on November 8, 2006

Rumors travel fast

A quick note, this morning in our international applicant inbox, a student said (summarizing) that The Times of India had published that the requirement to enter a US Masters program had gone down from 16 to 15 years, and was this true?

Universities better decide quick, international students are, from at least one testimonial, being told that the decision is already made.

Neal, international evaluator, at 8:05 am EST on November 9, 2006

Taking Responsibility

The last time I checked, there were no open admission graduate programs. If faculty and/or staff are unhappy with the quality of their graduate students they need to REVIEW THEIR ADMISSIONS PROCEDURES!! Maybe the whole lot of you should quit whining and pay a visit to the undergraduate admission office of an equivalently selective college/university and take a few notes. These offices have developed very sophisticated methods for sorting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. Guess what? Maybe you will have to actually (gasp!) visit some of these foreign universities, and (oh my!) actually interview the faculty members and potential graduate students in person. Get real here folks, the number of “years in school” is a pretty flimsy standard. The quality of work is what you should be looking at.

And yes, if you admit a student who turns out to be a real dud, you ARE allowed to flunk him/her out of a graduate program.

The advice about reviewing admission practices goes for whiners at undergraduate programs in the European universities too. If you want better experiences with graduates of US high schools, take a good hard look at how you are selecting those students.

wits-end, at 11:35 am EST on November 15, 2006

First of all, despite the Bologna reform, the European countries differ as much as before when it comes to educational systems. Try comparing egalitarian Scandinavia with Germany or France...As a Norwegian who has an undergraduate degree from the US and a graduate degree from Norway, I can only say that I’m glad I did my bachelor degree in the US — general education requirements and all. I was so much better prepared for a Master degree than any of my fellow students. Moreover, nobody will ever convince me that the last year of Norwegian upper secondary school equaled the Freshman year in the US. I now work in international education, and I’m glad that US schools will consider the admission of three year bachelor degrees from abroad. However, don’t forget the very things that make a US education truly unique!

A Norwegian, at 6:45 am EST on November 17, 2006

Secondary ed. grads not what they are purported to be

Having taught more than 20 years in a number of countries outside the USA where I received the bulk of my education, I still find it curious how very little the Europeans and the Asians know about secondary education in the USA and yet are still confident to make broad assertions about its poor quality. They think of it as if it is one high school for everyone. It is simply irrational. I am also astounded how very little academicians in the USA know about pre-tertiary education over seas. The students that make it to the States from Asia and the Commonwealth for instance, are not the average students. For the most part, they are well above the average. Right now most secondary school graduates in New Zealand or Japan, for example, are very poor readers or writers. They go to tertiary education institutions unprepared just as do many secondary graduates in the States. So, no, the three-year degrees they do are not just deleting the freshman year, they are simply not getting to the senior year at all. The reason why there are so many qualified freshmen entering the better tertiary schools in the States is precisely because there are so many graduating with a good education from high schools in the States. And many others are not prepared, just as they are not prepared in Japan or the Republic of Georgia, or New Zealand or Australia or France or wherever. There is simply no truth to any claims of a higher and more homogenous quality of education in any of the countries criticising the tertiary and secondary institutions in the States. They have not achieved anything like a higher standard in their secondary schools.

Thomas SImmons, Dr., at 10:25 am EST on February 18, 2007

European secondary schools superior? Nah

I am an American with a 4-year American undergraduate degree followed by a whole slew of Scandinavian graduate degrees. On top of that I have a recent M.A. in education from a reasonably well known American institution. In my day job I am employed by the same Scandinavian country’s government agency dedicated to teaching and learning in higher education.

I must say that I am not impressed by secondary education in this country and most college teachers of first year students aren’t either. In fact it is (internally) recognized as a failure. Outwardly they like to say that the last year in “gymnasium” is equivalent to the first year on an American college. What they fail to say is that they also start primary school one year later than American children do. They also spend much less “time on task” than the average American high schooler. (Source? My teenagers.) The subject “composition” is non-existent at all educational levels and writing skills in their own language are pretty low. Graduate education leads to some slight improvement in composition skills but not as much as you would expect. (Source? I earned extra money as a grad student doing scientific editing for professors and grad students and found that the major problem was that the original texts in their own language were often pretty flawed.). Let’s not even talk about math skills. Teachers I meet talk about a decline in math skills among incoming freshmen that is so large as to be significantly noticeable from one year to the next.

The respondents who are making the equation “lack of general education in an undergraduate program equals one year shorter program degree” are hitting pretty close to the mark. Subjects like “logic", “ethics", and “rhetoric” are slowly sneaking their way into natural science, engineering and medical curriculum in small dribbles but these programs are still four to five years anyways. “Calculus for the humanities", “Physics for history majors” etc. are conspicuously absent because most humanities and social science degrees are going the three year route. The national discourse around liberal education (which only got started five years ago give or take a year) still smells appallingly like an attempt by the old elite to maintain some kind of status quo in the face of politically correct massification of the higher education system in this country. It is my impression that the majority of the participants in this faltering discussion don’t have the faintest idea what it is all about anyways. Conclusion: Scandinavian education (might I even say European?) system produces lots of highly specialized “nerds” in practically all fields. If you find a Renaissance “person” here it is someone who got that way despite the educational system. Personal skills/properties that would have shown through no matter where that person ended up. Definitely not the result of the education system.

Yes, the level of variation among both incoming college freshmen and prospective North American graduate students varies wildly in the US. This is not strange given the educational variation found in the US. The trouble is that the level of variation in the same European groups is much larger than you would expect given the smaller variation among European secondary and undergraduate education. Not to mention the vast amount of funding the European Union is pouring into standardization programs like the “Bologna process.” Go figure.

Maybe there is strength in diversity after all.

Pete, at 10:55 am EDT on March 12, 2007

Secondary Education in the US

From my own observation as a person who attended a public high school in the states (public NYC magnet school), I was amazed at how most college classmates from American high schools were so woefully unprepared for work at a private East Coast university ranked in the bottom of the US News’ top 100 national universities. Though I was a C student in high school, I found college work at that uni to be much easier in comparison. Even after transfering to a top 25 SLAC, I still felt the college level work was more managable than what I encountered in high school.

Those who feel that foreigners are unfairly bashing American K-12 education should go to a random sampling of K-12 schools to see for themselves the wide variance in quality among those institutions. We really need to fix the K-12 education system as it has been producing college freshmen who can’t read, perform elementary arithmetic, and/or write a coherent sentence. Interestingly enough, some classmates who exhibited such lack of preparation came from private secondary institutions. It is not only a public school issue, folks. When this serious problem has become so common that universities have remedial classes for college freshmen, it is a sign that American K-12, whether public or private, is failing to graduate students who are literate, competant writers, and able to use simple arithmetic needed in common daily errands of life.

exholt, American College Grad, at 3:50 am EDT on May 22, 2007

Making Sense of Bologna

I have taught: in 4 universities in the US, in “Gymnasium” (high school)in Germany (Fulbright grant), at university in Germany (medical school), at university in France (graduate school), at university in the UK (graduate and undergraduate — two different universities). I have settled in France and my children are growing up in the French school system. My sister is a department chair in a biology/chemistry dept in high school in California. Trying to integrate all that with your discussion, I would say: The US secondary school system (at best) does not teach the General Education requirements asked by virtually all universities in the US. The “European system” does. The University in Europe therefore does not require this Gen Ed requirement at university while it is necessary in the US.Thus, the US bachelor’s degree is 4 years and the European (Bologna) one is three years.

David Tudor, Dr., at 12:30 pm EDT on June 8, 2007

Jobs Related to Making Sense of 'Bologna Degrees'

or search for jobs directly.

Assistant Professor, Mathematics
Frederick Community College

Frederick Community College, a premier comprehensive student-centered Learning College where students, faculty, and staff ... see job

Maintenance Technician III, HVAC
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Faculty Counselor
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

ECONOMICS: Temporary Faculty Pool
Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania

The Department of Economics at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania is establishing a two-year, temporary faculty teaching ... see job

Short Term and/or Temporary Teaching Specialist/Lecturer
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job

Assistant Professor of Jewish Literature
University of Colorado

Posting Description: The Department of Germanic and Slavic Languages and Literatures and the Program in ... see job

Research Assoc-Monitor & Eval Specialist
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

The MEASURE Evaluation Project in the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is a ... see job

Procurement Analyst II
Princeton University

Position Summary: As a member of the PPPL procurement team, the Procurement Analyst will work closely with ... see job

Program Director Upward Bound Math & Science
University of Texas, Brownsville

Position Number: FY 09-8 Reports to: Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs Scope: UTB/TSC invites applications for the ... see job

Section Head of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics
University of Colorado at Denver and Health Sciences Center-Downtown Denver

Posting Description: The Department of Pediatrics at the University of Colorado at Denver and Health ... see job