Document Sample
Descriptors Powered By Docstoc
					Quality Management in
Cross-border Education

                    Mitra Moghadassian/Christina Dosse
                    Survey of the State of the Art

                    European, National and Local Quality
                    Management Systems and Guidelines

                                                          Saarland University

                            The project is funded under
                            the Socrates Programme of
                            the European Community
Table of Contents

1. Introduction                                                               1
2. Quality in Higher Education                                                1
   2.1 Definitions, Basic Concepts and Models                                 1
      Quality                                                                 1
      Quality Management                                                      2
      Quality Assurance                                                       2
      Quality Concepts and Models                                             4
   2.2 Instruments of Quality Assurance and their Impact on Saar-Lor-Lux-
       Wall                                                                   4
      Quality Assurance Instruments in Universities                           5
      Quality Assurance Instruments originating in Business                   6
      The situation in Germany                                                8
      The situation in French-speaking Belgium                                8
      The situation in France                                                 9
      The situation in Luxembourg                                             9
   2.3 General International and European Frameworks                         10
      The Bologna Seminars and their Effects on the Development of
      Integrated Courses of Study                                            10
      Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area
      (EHEA)                                                                 12
      EUA: “Golden Rules” (Results of the EUA Joint Master’s Project 2002-
      2004)                                                                  13
      Follow-up to the Joint Master’s Project: European Master’s New
      Evaluation Methodology, EMNEM (2005-2006) - Guidelines for Quality
      Enhancement in European Joint Master Programmes                        14
      European Standards and Guidelines (ESG)                                15
      OECD-UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border
      Higher Education                                                       16
   2.4 Level- and Subject-specific European Frameworks                       17
      Eurobachelor and Euromaster in Chemistry                               17
      EUR-ACE: Implementation of a European System for Accreditation of
      Engineering Education                                                  17
      UNIQUe - European University Quality in eLearning                      17
      QUESTE – Quality System of European Scientific and Technical
      Education –Labellization and Scoring                                   18
      Euro-Inf – European Accreditation of Informatics Programs              18
      QUALITY: Quality Assurance and Accreditation of International Master
      Degree Programmes in Life Sciences and the Rural Environment           18
      Accreditation in European Professional Music Training                  18
      EPAS - EFMD Programme Accreditation System                             18
      Q3E: Quality of Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Model,
      Referential and Assessment                                             18

3. Cross-border Higher Education                                                   19
   3.1 Definitions of Double and Joint Degrees                                     19
        What are double diplomas and joint degrees?                                19
        Erasmus Mundus                                                             19
        Recommendations on the Recognition of Joint Degrees (Council of
        Europe/UNESCO)                                                             20
        Survey on Master Degrees and Joint Degrees in Europe (by C. Tauch
        and A. Rauhvargers)                                                        20
        Glossary of the Bologna-Bergen Homepage                                    20
   3.2 University Networks                                                         21
        Transnational University Networks                                          21
        University Networks in Cross-border Regions                                22
4. Quality Provision in Double and Joint Degree Programmes                         24
   4.1 Surveys on Double Degree Programmes                                         24
        Survey on Master Degrees and Joint              Degrees    in    Europe
        (Tauch/Rauhvargers 2002 for the EUA)                                       24
        Results of the Survey on Study Programmes awarding Double,
        Multiple or Joint Degrees (by Friedhelm Maiworm 2006)                      25
   4.2 Case Studies of Double Degree Programmes                                    26
        Double Degree and Doctorate Programmes in Saar-Lor-Lux-Wall
        (Status as of 09/2008)                                                     26
        Further case studies of double degree programmes                           26
   4.3 Existing Support programmes‟ quality criteria                               27
        Erasmus Mundus: Cooperation- and Mobility Programme                        27
        Erasmus Mundus Criteria for an Integrated Program of Study                 27
        DAAD: Integrated, Binational Courses of Study with Joint Degrees           28
        Franco-German University                                                   30
        CIDD - Consortium      of   International   Double   Degrees    Business
        Administration                                                             31
5. International and European Quality Initiatives and Projects                     32
        European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA): Principles              for
        Accreditation Procedures regarding Joint Programmes                        32
        TUNING Project                                                             32
        ENQA: “Transnational European Evaluation Project I and II”                 33
        Quality Procedures in European Higher Education: An ENQA Survey            33
        Quality Convergence Study Project                                          33
        ENQA review of the accreditation and quality assurance practices in
        the Portuguese higher education (EPHE)                                     33
        Transatlantic Degree Programs Project (TDP)                                33
        Aquarius: Quality assurance in international student exchange              34
6. Conclusions                                                                     35

Bibliography                                                                       35
Links                                                                              42
Appendix                                                                           46

1.   Introduction

The issue of quality assurance in cross-border education has attracted much
attention by international institutions and initiatives. The UNESCO, the Council of
Europe, the OECD as well as the International Associations of Universities have
published policy statements or recommendations related to this topic.

In the context of the Bologna reforms, there are a number of European initiatives
promoting transnational quality standards and the development of double or joint
degrees. In particular the activities of the Joint Quality Initiative and of European
associations for quality assurance and accreditation (EUA, ECA, ENQA, and
INQAAHE) contributed significantly to a common understanding of quality in higher

However, complementing these activities of external institutions, there is a need to
support the quality assurance systems within the universities. The Berlin
communiqué emphasizes that the primary responsibility for quality assurance in
higher education lies with each institution itself. This internal quality culture does not
replace external quality assurance systems like accreditations but provides the
necessary basis for effective degree programmes. There is still the question how to
deal with quality assurance in case of joint programmes, if various national
regulations have to be complied with. The aim is to develop principles to be applied
to quality assurance of joint programmes, taking into account the specific
translational nature of these programmes, and the shared responsibilities for matters
such as course development, delivery and student services.

This publication is a state of the art overview report on evaluation and quality
assurance measures in cross-border higher education. Its main purpose is to give
quick access to the most relevant information to those interested in that topic.

This report is an outcome of the QUACE project, carried out by the Saarland
university, the university of Luxemburg, and the university of Liège, and funded
under the Socrates Programme of the European Community.

More information on this project may be found on

2. Quality in Higher Education

2.1 Definitions, Basic Concepts and Models

With an eye to fashioning a fundamental approach to the notion of quality, the
following sections introduce basic concepts and models, along with an analysis of
definitions already available in the literature.

Quality is difficult to define. Despite decades-long use of the word “quality” in
academia, there is still disagreement about how the term should be defined and
about what concept of quality should serve as a basis for its definition. In this
context, one finds the most diverse attempts at clarification: Neave (1986) describes
it as “elusive,” Harvey and Green (1993) note that it is “slippery” and “value-laden.”
Scott (1994) asserts that “no authoritative definition of quality in higher education is
possible.” And in “Was ist Qualität?” (What is Quality?) (2005), Ulrich Teichler writes:
“‟Quality‟ is that which cannot be defined, but about which everyone is in

agreement.” This observation makes clear that, while the meaning of quality is
shared by all, (as with the terms “game” and “language”) a comprehensive and
exhaustive definition appears to be impossible. According to the philosophy of
Ludwig Wittgenstein, exactly these types of terms are distinguished by their “family
resemblance”: in the end, they are not clearly definable, but everyone understands
what the term is about.1

Quality is above all a multidimensional, relative and dynamic concept that depends
on its purpose and the various interests of stakeholders. In other words, quality is
not a unitary concept; it is open to multiple perspectives. Different interest groups or
stakeholders have different priorities. It can only be stated relational, as a kind of
„fitness for purpose”. A meaningful identification of objectives (“fitness of purpose”)
is thereby assumed. In the context of higher education, it is judged in terms of the
extent to which an institution has achieved its set goals, mission or objectives. Thus,
“quality” relates to a process, for example the quality of the educational process
experienced by students.

Quality Management

What is Quality Management?
Quality management (QM) in the universities is a system of successive methods,
processes, procedures, competencies and insurances for the assurance, control,
improvement and coordination of quality.2 In the DIN Standard EN ISO 8402, it
refers to “all activities of total management that determine quality politics, goals and
responsibilities, as well as means such as quality planning, quality assurance/QM
analysis and quality improvement.”3 Authors like Müller-Böling take the view that QM
is to be understood as a comprehensive concept and a model that is still to be
completed (Müller-Böling 1995, p. 45).4

In the meantime, a number of universities are developing a QM system concerned
with “integrating the factor of „quality‟ more intensively and effectively in the
decision-support and action systems on account of its growing strategic significance”
(Nickel 2008).5

Quality Assurance
As part of quality management, quality assurance (QA) in higher education consists
of three levels:

       1. Institutional level: Internal quality
       One of the central activities for quality assurance in higher education
       institutions is evaluation. It can be seen as an internal quality process that
       evaluates and assesses an institution or its programmes in relation to its aims
       and objectives, its recognized standards, and its own goals in order to bring
       about a continous improvement of quality.
  Jethro Newton (2007): p. 14.
   In France „quality management‟ has often been used in place of „quality assurance‟ in the translation of
the ESG, with the intention of instilling a sense of responsibility to the academics to manage quality for
themselves. Cf. Detlef Müller-Böling (2004).
  Cf. Detlef Müller-Böling (1995).
  Cf. Detlef Müller-Böling (1995).
  Cf. Sigrun Nickel (2008).

The evaluation procedure is carried out either internally or externally.
The process of internal evaluation comprises:

    systematic survey of administrative data
    questioning/interview of students and alumni

In the context of the external evaluation, an agency or individuals external to
the programme or institution evaluate the quality or the standards set by the

2. National level: External accountability procedures
An external quality review process results in the establishment, legitimacy or
appropriateness of an institution, programme or module of study and is called
accreditation. Thus, accreditation is an a priori decision. The study programmes
and the conducting institutions have to fulfil minimum standards set from the
outside. At the same time, the concept of the planned programme, in which the
self-set goals have been formulated, will be reviewed. Success results in an
accredited institution and/or programme. Approximately four years after the
first accreditation a second follows and gets successively the character of an

3. European level: Promoting the development of a European dimension for quality
At the European level, standards, procedures and guidelines for quality
assurance in higher education have been developed which have been adopted
by the ministers responsible for higher education in Bergen in 2005. The
possibilities of creating peer-review-systems, accreditation agencies and a
European Register for QA agencies were analysed as well.
The internationalisation of accreditation is not fully developed, even though
international standards are already implicitly considered in the process of
accreditation. So, most of the national accreditation agencies are members of
the European Network for Quality Assurance (ENQA) and other international
networks. It is aimed at recognising quality certificates mutually. Aside, it shall
be possible that foreign agencies perform accreditations in Germany. That is
especially essential for international double-degree programmes and
programmes with study phases abroad. Such study programmes prefer an
international certification because they attach more importance to international
acceptance than to national quality certificates.
Another important European development is the adoption of a recommendation
by the European Parliament and Council in February 2006 that includes the
recommendation to member states that higher education institutions are able
to turn to any agency listed in the European Register, provided it is allowed by
their governmental authorities.
In 2006 for the first time an annual European Forum for Quality Assurance was
organised. The QA Forum brought together QA agencies and higher education
institutions at a European level in order to bring forward a European QA agenda
based on a broad understanding of what constitutes best QA practices in the
context of European higher education trends.
The second European Quality Assurance Forum 2007 explored how to
implement external and internal quality assurance processes and how to use
the outcomes. The focus was on perspectives and frameworks for action and

       the exchange of examples of how to undertake evaluations. The European
       Standards and Guidelines were examined as a guide to helping the
       implementation process, especially in the light of the London meeting of
       ministers in May 2007. Furthermore it explored progress to date in
       implementing the standards and guidelines in higher education institutions and
       quality assurance agencies and aimed at developing a common understanding
       of ways to develop further a European dimension for quality assurance.

Quality Concepts and Models
At this point in time, five to eight quality concepts can be identified in higher
education. These concepts are distinguished by differing characteristics. As regards
the current university landscape, there has been a perceptible shift away from
individual performance to focus on the performance of institutions.

The quality concepts currently in practice in the universities are:

       Excellence: This refers to an input-oriented concept, in which the connection
        of extraordinary individual achievements and outstanding institutional
        conditions create an incentive that attracts exceptional students, professors
        and researchers.
       Fitness for purpose: In higher education in this regard, quality is measured by
        the extent to which the educational goals are achieved. Permissibility of the
        goal (“fitness of purpose”): The first step towards the “fitness of purpose”
        concept is always the question about the quality of the goals.
       Fulfilment of formal guidelines (“compliance”): While this aspect is losing
        more and more influence on the national level as a result of European
        integration and “Europeization,” the fulfilment of formal guidelines in the form
        of laws and outline requirements is a quality criterion in the EU.
       Fulfilment of standards (“standards/threshold”): Uniform standards are
        achievable, externally fixed criteria, whose fulfilment is the foremost goal of
        this concept.
       Client/customer satisfaction: The fulfilment of client expectations is the focus
       Value for money: In interplay with the concept of fitness for purpose, the
        universities must adapt according to similar situations in the marketplace, in
        which the available means are employed effectively.
       Accountability: The accountability and transparency of the universities with
        respect to the usage of means provided by financial backers is likewise a
        quality concept.
       Transformation: Here, the focus is on the transformation of knowledge
        through an academic process of exchange between professors and students
        as well as within academic circles.
       Capacity for institutional change (“capacity for change”): Processes of change
        in the structures, in the organization of work processes, and in the cultures
        are also regarded as a quality concept.

2.2 Instruments of Quality Assurance and their Impact on Saar-Lor-Lux-

There is a considerable variety of methods used in quality assurance at the national
level in Europe, which are also subject to constant change. Though two main types of
quality review processes can be identified that play a significant role in higher
education institutions: evaluation and accreditation.

Quality Assurance Instruments in Universities
In its Beiträgen zur Hochschulpolitik 8/2007, the German Rectors Conference (HRK)
differentiates between seven university-specific instruments and six quality
assurance processes that originated in the realm of commerce:6

Internal and External Evaluation
The internal evaluation is a critical self-evaluation of the faculties and departments
with respect to what is achieved; this is carried out in the form of an appraisal that
considers self-determined goals. In the external evaluation, this appraisal is subject
to peer-review. This two-stage process is often undertaken by consulting agencies
or university organizations.

Teaching Reports
According to legal stipulations in the German states, universities are required to
produce information on performance in academic studies and teaching. This takes
place in the form of teaching reports, which are primarily composed of a mixture of
self-reports as well as evaluations from students, graduates or peers. There is,
however, some lack of clarity with respect to the goals, addressees and
consequences of these reports. This confusion also applies in many cases to the
reports‟ combination with other instruments.

Course Evaluation
Course evaluations offer students the opportunity to evaluate the organisation,
didactics, and implementation of courses in the form of a questionnaire. This type of
evaluation is widespread in German universities as a method of improving courses.

Accreditation of Courses of Study
For the accreditation of B.A. and M.A. programs, the quality of education,
accessibility and workplace-relevance are of utmost importance. Accreditation takes
place through certified accreditation agencies that carry out a formal process
according to the regulations of the German accreditation board.

Meanwhile,       accreditation    has    undergone     expansions       such   as   the   following:

      Cluster accreditation (accreditation of multiple courses of study at a university
      or a faculty/department)
     Process accreditation (accreditation of the procedural order of a course of
     System accreditation (accreditation of a quality assurance process that is
      internal to the university, as opposed to the accreditation of a course of
     Quality audit (systematic internal or external evaluation of a quality system)
System accreditations also take place at the European level. As a result, the
European University Association (EUA) offers an appraisal of the internal processes
through an international commission via its “Institutional Evaluation Programme.” In
this way, the decision-making processes, organizational structures, potential for
academic innovation, as well as the total strategy are the main focuses of attention.


University Rankings
Rankings have likewise established themselves as instruments of quality. For this,
inter-university performance comparisons are created with an eye to all areas of
research and teaching at the universities, against the background of developed

Agreement on Objectives
In order to better control, plan and coordinate changes at the universities,
agreements on objectives are a suitable tool. They foster the transparency,
commitment and accountability of quality-assurance systems and their
enhancement. Agreements on objectives conclude multiple internal and external
evaluations and therefore increase the development capability and willingness of the

There are three processes of the agreements on objectives, which are distinguished
by the initiator and the effective direction. If the initiative stems from the university
(the university presents content recommendations for the departments/faculties and
predominantly remains the primary influence in the process), this is known as a top-
down process. On the other hand, if the recommendations come from the
faculties/departments and are directed at the university administration, this is
referred to as a bottom-up process. The mixed-planning process as a third method
includes the collaboration of university institutions, the administrations and the
faculties/departments. This occurs in the interdisciplinary governing bodies of the

Indicator-Controlled Distribution of Funds
This tool can be understood as an incentive system, since the universities receive
apportioned funds based on their performance. The most important indicators for the
teaching are the number of students as well as the number of graduates. Thus, the
attractiveness of the university on the one hand, and the success of its education on
the other are to be considered. Currently, however, the main concentration during
the apportionment of funds is on the number of students at the university in the
general study period.

For research, two indicators are primarily considered: Third-party funds and the
number of dissertations.

Quality Assurance Instruments originating in Business

The concept of “benchmarking” describes a process of the competitive comparison
analysis of processes, methods and practices between the business areas of one
company with those of another company, in order to learn from others and thus
increase performance capability (“best practice”).

Balanced Scorecard
The balanced target system (“scorecard”) is a management tool with which
companies can clearly analyse their results in light of their vision and goals, in order
to come up with statements about its efficacy.

In this process, relevant key data for the company are reported, which demonstrate
how the goals and vision of the company are connected and how they are to be put

into practice. In this way, the company is observed from the four most important

    financial perspective,
    client perspective,
    internal process perspective, and
    learning and growth perspective.
The focus in this system is on both strategic and human perspectives, since the key
data comes about through and is produced by, the collaboration of all parties

ISO EN 9000ff.
The DIN-EN-ISO Standards 9000ff are aimed at broad access to quality assurance;
the standards are a comprehensive system of rules for the most diverse application
areas, from production to services. It was developed by the German Institute for
Standardization and the International Standards Organization for the systematization
of quality assurances. The goal is to recognize errors by means of a procedural
monitoring and, as a result, to prevent an erroneous production.

Total Quality Management (TQM)
TQM (Total Quality Management) deals with the systematic and consequent
application of specific methods and processes, as well as the modification of
behavioural patters within a company structure organized around quality and client
satisfaction. The basic assumption of the TQM approach is that management and all
participants do their utmost to achieve the company goals. In this way, regular self-
evaluations initiate a continuous improvement process.

European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM)
The EFQM model is based on the self-evaluation of the organization's members and
is designed for the regular, comprehensive and systematic testing of work processes
and results. In this way, the continuous character of the concept is made clear,
which should lead to consistent top performances.

Knowledge Balance
Knowledge balances function as a systematic representation of the intellectual capital
of an organization as well as the further development of that intellectual capital; they
are an integral component of company report.

Change Management
In order to structure change in an organization, change management is to effectively
and sustainably control procedural and structural changes.

Learning Organization
Learning organizations are distinguished by a continuous preparedness for change, in
that they make use of internal and external experiences for further development.

Organizational Development (OD)
Organizational development (OD) is meant to initiate a long-term development and
change process for organizations and the people that work for them. The goal of the
process is to improve the performance capability of an organization (including the
flexibility, transparency, preparedness for change as well as the capability for

innovation), and the quality of the working life of the people employed there. The
organizational development faces the challenge of striking a good balance between
the goals of the company and the goals of the individuals.”

The situation in Germany
Since the end of the 1990s the regular evaluation and examination of the
performances of higher education institutions in the areas of teaching, study and
research have been regulated by federal state laws as well as decisions of the
Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) and the accreditation council.

The main responsibility for quality assurance lies at the universities themselves.
Primarily, two procedures are consensually employed: evaluation and accreditation.
Surveys from the HRK regularly completed at German universities demonstrate that
the course evaluations are carried out in two-thirds of the departments. Over half of
the institutions questioned indicated that they used other evaluation processes.
Processes such as ISO and TQM are only seldomly employed in the universities.

Quality assurance has been performed by using several instruments, though a
systematisation emerges towards a quality management system. In the last 10-15
years the higher education system in Germany developed from a mainly teaching
and research based evaluation to a quality management system encompassing all
parts of a university. Currently, few universities are implementing institutional
quality management systems.

In December 2007, the Kultusministerkonferenz (KMK) decided the accreditation of
quality management systems in teaching and study, shortly “system accreditation”
(KMK 2007). The implementation of the system accreditation bases upon a catalogue
of criteria and codes of practice that the German accreditation council passed in
February 2008 and which are strongly aligned to the “European Standards and
Guidelines” (ESG).

The situation in French-speaking Belgium7
The Francophone Rectors‟ Council (CRef) has set up a programme to evaluate the
quality of courses. This programme sets out to evaluate the courses of all
universities over a six to seven year cycle, covering each individual discipline in a
process consisting of self-evaluation and external evaluation by panels of experts.
The panel of experts in each discipline visits all universities offering corresponding
study programmes and, as a priority, examines their teaching programmes but also
their research activities and administrative management practices with an impact on
their educational provision. The entire operation is coordinated by an academic
secretariat established by the Rectors‟ Conference. Evaluation reports are forwarded
via the secretariat to the rectors of the institutions concerned on a strictly
confidential basis.

The government of the French Community of Belgium established an „Agence pour
l'Evaluation de la Qualité de l'Enseignement Supérieur‟ (educational quality
evaluation agency) in 2002 with the aim to contribute to the quality improvement of
higher education teachings. The agency organizes independently evaluations in
universities and other higher education institutions in the French-speaking
community in order to improve progressively the quality of higher education by
exchanging information about best practices, burdens and problems.

  Cf. Francois Tavenas (2003): Quality Assurance. A Reference System for Indicators and Evaluation
Procedures. EUA: Brüssel.

The situation in France
The French government set up the Comité national d’évaluation (CNE, or national
evaluation committee) in 1984. Its task is to evaluate public institutions of an
academic, cultural or vocational nature that are the responsibility of the Minister of
Higher Education. The CNE, whose members are appointed by the government,
enjoys a considerable degree of autonomy, drawing up its own programme of
activities and devising the methodology for its evaluations. Following an initial phase
in which it undertook evaluations at the request of institutions, it now operates on a
much broader basis, with the result that all universities and some 60 higher
specialist “schools” have been evaluated. The CNE also conducts site evaluations
covering all institutions in a given area, as well as crosssectional evaluations of
specific academic fields. CNE evaluation procedures have been the subject of
consultation with the Conference of University Presidents. In all cases, the
evaluations consist of self-evaluation and external evaluation by a peer committee.
Peer committee reports are confidential to the institution concerned, but the final
CNE evaluation report is made public, as is the response by the head of that
institution to the report. In the field of research, the Comité national d’évaluation de
la recherche (CNER, or national committee for the evaluation of research) is
responsible for appraising the implementation and results of national policy for
research and technological development drawn up by the government. Consisting of
10 members appointed by the council of ministers and supported by a network of
experts, it evaluates research organisations, programmes and incentives of all kinds.
These organisations may be public or private. The CNER may be asked to offer an
appraisal by a minister (mainly the minister for research) or by those responsible for
public institutions or business or industrial concerns, but it may also act on its own
initiative in the case of certain subjects for which it is responsible. In recent years, it
has produced reports on technology transfer arrangements, animal research in
human health, French research evaluation procedures, and the evaluation of a
research organisation (INRIA) in the field of information and communication
technology. For two years it has carried out evaluations that complement those of
the CNE and in partnership with it. Thus, it has produced two reports on the regional
organisation of research in Grenoble and Montpellier. The Observatoire des sciences
et des techniques publishes statistical indicators as well as reports on research
activity. These reports provide for evaluations of the level of activity and productivity
of the university research system on a regional basis and with respect to the major
branches of research rather than by institution. In addition, research units attached
to the CNRS are evaluated when undertaking the budgetary allocations of this

The situation in Luxembourg
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is in the process of establishing the University of
Luxembourg. Articles 41 and 42 of Chapter V of the law on the founding of the
university refer to the mechanisms planned for the internal and external evaluation
of the university. The evaluation will cover all teaching, research and administrative
activities. It will be carried out every four years in the case of units and programmes,
and every two years in the case of researchers, as well as being the subject of public
reports. The rector will be responsible for preparing detailed evaluation procedures. 8

This short overview of the situation illustrates the growing decentralisation and
corresponding increase in autonomy the higher education institutions gain in
evaluating their teaching, study and research activities.


2.3 General International and European Frameworks

The Bologna Seminars and their Effects on the Development of Integrated
Courses of Study
The biennial Bologna Seminars were important events for the creation and
recognition of joint courses of study as well as the development of quality assurance.
The seminars make clear the significance that joint courses of study possess for the
attainment and attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area; moreover,
they illustrate how the theme of “quality” is gaining in importance.

However, even before the introduction of the Bologna Process, there had been
attempts to increase the international mobility of students. The Convention on the
Recognition on the Recognition of Credits and Qualifications - known by most as the
Lisbon Convention - made major contributions to this attempt, which were
developed by the Council of Europe and UNESCO and approved by national
representatives at a meeting in Lisbon in April 1997. 9 They were ratified by most
European countries and contain the following as their most important basic

       Holders of qualifications issued in one country shall have adequate access to
        an assessment of these qualifications in another country.
     Each country shall recognise qualifications – whether for access to higher
        education, for periods of study or for higher education degrees – as similar to
        the corresponding qualifications in its own system unless it can show that
        there are substantial differences between its own qualifications and the
        qualifications for which recognition is sought.
     Recognition of a higher education qualification issued in another country shall
        have one or both of the following consequences:
        a) access to further higher education studies, including relevant examinations
           and preparations for the doctorate, on the same conditions as candidates
           from the country in which recognition is sought;
        b) the use of an academic title, subject to the laws and regulations of the
           country in which recognition is sought. In addition, recognition may
           facilitate access to the labour market.
     All countries shall encourage their higher education institutions to issue the
        Diploma Supplement to their students in order to facilitate recognition. The
        Diploma Supplement is an instrument developed jointly by the European
        Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO that aims to describe the
        qualification in an easily understandable way by relating it to the higher
        education system within which it was issued.
Joint courses of study are not explicitly dealt with in these basic principles and
cannot be unconditionally categorized under “national qualifications.” In order to
rectify this problem, the Council of Europe together with UNESCO approved the
“Recommendations on the Recognition of Joint Degrees” in June 2004 and appended
them to the Lisbon Convention.10

Two years after the signing of the Bologna Declaration, the European Ministers of
Education went to Prague in 2001, in order to discuss the goals and further
measures for the creation of the European Higher Education Area. In their final
report, they reinforced the significance of the European dimension of higher

  „Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region“
Lissabon, April 11, 1997. The full text is available under

     Recommendations on the Recognition of Joint Degrees, passed on June 9, 2004.

education and called upon the universities to “to increase the development of
modules, courses and curricula at all levels with „European‟ content, orientation or
organisation. This concerns particularly modules, courses and degree curricula
offered in partnership by institutions from different countries and leading to a
recognized joint degree.” 11 Also, as regards quality assurance, the ministers
appealed to more cooperation on the European level and called on all quality-
relevant institutions “to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference
and to disseminate best practice […] and to design scenarios for mutual acceptance
of evaluation and accreditation/certification mechanisms.”12

On May 30 and 31, 2002, a seminar on the development of joint degrees took place
in Stockholm, which resulted in, among other things, a list with new criteria that
could apply as common denominators for the organization of joint (or integrated)
courses of study; the list also thematized quality assurance: 13 „Documented quality
assurance is necessary to guarantee the international acceptance and
competitiveness of joint degrees on the world education and employment markets.
On the basis of mutual trust and general acceptance of national assurance systems,
principles and general standards for quality assurance and accreditation should be

The Bologna Seminar in Mantua in 200315 concentrated on the curriculum
components of joint degree programs. Taking as a starting point the fact that “Joint
degree programmes based on integrated curricula are one of the major priorities for
the building of a European “identity” within the common European Higher Education
Area”, the closing report included the following recommendations:
     “Legal obstacles to the awarding and recognition of joint degrees should be
        removed in all countries. […]
     The development of European joint degree programmes should be based on
        the criteria identified in the Stockholm conclusions. Moreover, a clear
        distinction should be made between joint and double degree programmes, in
        terms of their curricular objectives and organizational models, also with a
        view to protecting the learners/users.”
With respect to quality assurance, the following was added: “Adequate quality
assurance procedures should be jointly developed and activated by partners in a
joint programme, and made explicit to learners/users.”

The report from the 2004 Stockholm workshop on the theme of “Joint Degrees -
Further Development,” emphasized the need to record the experiences of higher
education institutions and students with respect to the concepts and formats of joint
degree programs.16

   This list possesses a high compatibility with the criteria that Tauch and Rauhvargers have cited in their
overview of Master and Joint Degrees. Cf. Tauch, C./Rauhvargers A. (2002): Survey on Masters Degrees
and Joint Degrees in Europe, 2002.
    Ministry of Education and Research (2002): „The Stockholm Conclusions – Conclusions and
recommendations of the Seminar on Joint Degrees within the framework of the Bologna Process”,
    Ministry of Education, University and Research (2003): Seminar about „Integrated Curricula –
Implications and Prospects“, Final Report, Mantua.
   Ministry of Education and Research (2004): „Bologna Follow-Up Seminar Joint Degrees – Further
Development“, Stockholm. Pavel Zgaga (2004): „Bologna Follow-Up Seminar Joint Degrees – Further
Development. Report by the Rapporteur”, Stockholm/Ljubljana.

The Bergen-Communiqué, composed in May 2005, refers clearly to the appendices
to the Lisbon agreement and issued the following mandate to the Bologna Seminar
for the further development of joint degrees:
“We [...] call upon all national authorities and other responsible parties to recognize
joint qualifications that were granted in two or more countries of the European
Higher Education Area […] In particular, we expect progress on: […] the awarding
and recognition of joint degrees, also at the doctoral level.”

On September 21-22, 2006, a further Bologna Seminar took place in Berlin, at
which questions and strategies related to the awarding of joint degrees in the
European Higher Education Area (EHA) were discussed.
The most important recommendations from this meeting were:

       to establish a specific financing and support system for joint (integrated)
        programs at the national or European level
     “to create a legally binding list of “appropriate criteria” (or “golden rules”),
        which could be drawn from the documents formed in the seminars in
        Stockholm, Mantua, Berlin and other locations.”
     to create the legal framework: The ministers were called upon “to incorporate
        at least the written option of the awarding of joint degrees (under
        consideration of the descriptions of the Lisbon agreement) into their national
        university law, and to guarantee that quality is assured according to national
        specifications and European principles and regulations that were already
        agreed to.
     “With regards to quality assurance, both the introduction of the ENQA
        standards and guidelines that were adopted in Bergen, as well as the further
        development of a European registry for quality assurance agencies that
        facilitate the mutual recognition of QA decisions in the states that
        undersigned in Bologna, are furthermore significant, in that they should work
        in the Bologna context to facilitate and make quality assurance more
        transparent, while avoiding a multiplicity of QA processes. Moreover, specific
        criteria for the evaluation of the increase in value of joint degrees in contrast
        to that of national degrees must be developed.”
The London Communiqué from 2007 again reinforced all previous
recommendations; with respect to joint programs of study, it also emphasized in
particular the following: the support of an appreciable increase in courses of study
with joint degrees, the organization of flexible curricula, and cooperation in the area
of quality assurance.

The next Bologna Seminar will take place in Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve in

Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA)
The framework for qualifications of the European Higher Education Area represents
an overriding framework for the simplification of transparency, recognition and
mobility in the international context. Moreover, it is conceived of as a “meta-
framework,” which should improve communication and compatibility between the
national frameworks. It is not, however, a replacement for a national framework. For
implementation, it contains an apparatus on cycles with corresponding descriptors.

These   descriptors include:
       First cycle (higher education) qualifications
       Second cycle (higher education) qualifications
       Third cycle (higher education) qualifications

The “Dublin Descriptors” as the accompanying descriptors are interdisciplinary,
general statements on qualifications and capabilities such as workload, level,
learning outcomes, competencies and profiles that students have gained at the
completion of a Bachelor‟s, Master‟s or doctoral degree. The descriptors were
developed at the informal workgroup of the “Joint Quality Initiative” and
recommended for use in the context of the Graz Convention of the European
University Association (EUA) from May 29-31, 2003. The intention was to create a
context for comparable and compatible university degrees. In the areas of
accreditation and evaluation, they are being increasingly drawn upon as

EUA: “Golden Rules” (Results of the EUA Joint Master‟s Project 2002-2004)
Built upon the results of EUA's Survey on Master Degrees and Joint Degrees in
Europe, which highlighted considerable diversity of structures among degree
programmes as well as legal recognition difficulties for joint programmes, the Joint
Master‟s Project17 was designed to gain an in-depth understanding of the actual
operation of these programmes.

The project selected 11 programmes to participate in a process of self-evaluation
and research, internal development, and sharing of findings. The aim was to help
existing networks improve their programmes, while also highlighting recommended
practices for networks wishing to develop such programmes. The report discusses
both incentives and obstacles to the development of Joint Master‟s programmes in
Europe, describes key features of existing programmes, and outlines recommended
practices. The project was co-funded with the European Commission in the
framework of the Socrates programme.

According to recommendations from the final report of the EUA on their Joint
Master‟s Project the EUA has set up “10 Golden Rules” for developing programmes
that will lead to joint degrees:

          a) Be sure of your motivation
          b) Select your partner carefully
          c) Develop clear goals with your partner for the joint degree programme as
             well as learning goals to be achieved by the students
          d) Make sure that the necessary institutional support for the programme is
          e) Make sure that sufficient academic and administrative personnel capacity
             is provided for the programme
          f) Make sure that sustainable financial planning exists for the programme
          g) Make sure that information about the programme is easily accessible
          h) Schedule an adequate number of meetings with the partners
          i) Develop a common language strategy for the joint degree programme and
             encourage learning the local language(s)
          j) Clearly define the responsibilities between the partners


Follow-up to the Joint Master‟s Project: European Master‟s New Evaluation
Methodology, EMNEM (2005-2006) - Guidelines for Quality Enhancement in
European Joint Master Programmes18
Based on the lessons learned from EUA‟s Joint Master‟s Project and the continued
interest in developing and sustaining Joint Master‟s, EUA undertook a project with
the aim to generate a detailed European quality assurance methodology.

As Joint Master Programmes have gained increased importance in the European
Higher Education Area, EUA received funding from the European Commission under
the Erasmus Mundus programme to develop a new methodology with a European
perspective on assuring internal and external quality for Joint Master‟s. EUA oversaw
the project development; specifically, EUA contributed to the experience gained in
the EC Socrates-funded Joint Master Project, which identified important issues in
creating and running joint programmes, and with the ongoing Institutional Evaluation
Programme and Quality Culture Project, which has developed a methodology to
implement internal quality assurance mechanisms in higher education institutions.

The final report, in the form of Guidelines, was published in May 2006. The
Guidelines aim to provide different stakeholders involved in joint Master‟s with a
clear set of questions and issues, which they could usefully address in their daily
work. Information and advice are provided for anyone involved or interested in the
quality assurance of joint Master‟s.

One of the main concerns revealed in EUA's Joint Master‟s Project (2002-2004) is the
often weak anchoring of Joint Master‟s programmes within their network institutions.
The programmes are sometimes primarily linked to committed individuals that have
established the programmes and who keep them alive, while the institution as a
whole does not endorse the programme sufficiently. This in consequence may lead to
a weak sustainability of programmes. Another factor of concern is the increased
running costs of Joint Master‟s in general.

Another important finding in EUA‟s Joint Master‟s Project was the incompatibility of
the national mandate of Quality Assurance agencies with the transnational nature of
joint degrees. In addition, with regard to internal quality processes, the nature,
maturity and standards of the institutions involved on which they are based vary
across Europe. This situation poses great difficulties both to prospective students
who need to appraise and to be assured of the quality of these programmes and to
academics, who require a sustainable link between research and teaching within the
European Research Area. The situation is also problematic for institutions to assure
and maintain the quality of their programmes in a way that is recognised all over
Europe, and for employers who need to recognise the added value that such Joint
Master‟s programmes can offer.

The specific objectives for this project were to develop an evaluation methodology
that was especially targeted at the particularities of Joint Master Programmes.

The project objectives were to:

         Strengthen institutional anchoring of joint master programmes by developing
          internal procedures that involve a variety of institutional stakeholders and
          that develop the strategic value of joint programmes for the institution.


      Design a methodology with a European outlook and a quality culture which
       could be internalised and managed by the network of participating
     Strengthen sustainability of joint programmes: ensure that evaluation criteria
       examine their funding and administrative structures, their link between
       research and teaching and their internal quality procedures in place.
     Strengthen accountability of joint programmes: develop a robust and credible
       evaluation procedure to serve the need of students and the public.
In the long-term the methodology developed by the project to become the standard
methodology in Europe to evaluate Joint Master programmes. 19

European Standards and Guidelines (ESG)
In 2005, the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)
developed in cooperation with the EUA, EURASHE, and ESIB an agreed set of
standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance, which were adopted by
the Bologna Process ministerial summit in Bergen. They have been developed for the
use of higher education institutions and quality assurance agencies working in the
EHEA, containing generic principles and reference points for quality assurance of
higher education in Europe.

“The purpose of these standards and guidelines is to provide a source of assistance
and guidance to both higher education institutions in developing their own quality
assurance systems and agencies undertaking external quality assurance, as well as
to contribute to a common frame of reference, which can be used by institutions and
agencies alike. It is not the intention that these standards and guidelines should
dictate practice or be interpreted as prescriptive or unchangeable.”20

The standards are structured in three parts covering the different levels of quality

        internal quality assurance of higher education institutions
        external quality assurance of higher education, and
        quality assurance of external quality assurance agencies.

Part 1: European standards and guidelines for internal quality assurance within higher
education institutions
         a)   Policy and procedures for quality assurance
         b)   Approval, monitoring and periodic review of programmes and awards
         c)   Assessment of students
         d)   Quality assurance of teaching staff
         e)   Learning resources and student support
         f)   Information systems
         g)   Public information

Part 2: European standards for the external quality assurance of higher education
         a) Use of internal quality assurance procedures

Verzeichnis von Joint Master Programmen in Europa, zusammengestellt von der European University
Association (EUA)
     See    the   full text  under 050221_

          b)   Development of external quality assurance processes
          c)   Criteria for decisions
          d)   Processes fit for purpose
          e)   Reporting
          f)   Follow-up procedures
          g)   Periodic reviews
          h)   System-wide analyses

Part 3: European standards for external quality assurance agencies
      a) Use of external quality assurance procedures for higher education
      b) Official status
      c) Activities
      d) Resources
      e) Mission statement
      f) Independence
      g) External quality assurance criteria and processes used by the agencies
      h) Accountability procedures
The ESG strengthen the European dimension of QA and pave the way from mutual
understanding to mutual recognition, enabling the emergence of a “European Quality
Assurance Area”.

OECD-UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education
In cooperation with UNESCO, the OECD approved recommendations for quality
assurance in cross-border higher education in 2005 in response to the growing
commercialization and internationalization of education and the lacking national and
international coordination frameworks for these developments. The goal of these
guidelines is “to protect students and other stakeholders from low-quality provision
as well as to encourage the development of quality cross-border higher education
that meets human, social, economic and cultural needs”.21 The guidelines are based
on six groups of players (governments, universities/providers, student groups,
quality assurance and accreditation agencies, academic recognition locations and
professional associations) and call them to action in order to:

       protect students from the risks of “of misinformation, low-quality provision
        and qualifications of limited validity”
    make qualifications legible and transparent, so as to increase their
        international validity and transferability
    create transparent, coherent, fair and accessible recognition processes, so
        that no obstacles stand in the way of the mobility of students, professors and
        administrative representatives, as well as to
    improve the international collaboration between quality assurance and
        accreditation agencies.
Here, recommendations for the development of double diplomas and joint
qualifications of the HRK are also named, and were likewise approved in 2005. They
are meant to serve as a support for the universities that are working on the
development of integrated courses of study. 22


2.4 Level- and Subject-specific European Frameworks

Eurobachelor and Euromaster in Chemistry
The European Chemistry Thematic Network (ECTN) is an establishment of Socrates-
Erasmus and consists of higher education institutions, national chemical societies as
well as chemical and software companies. There are currently over 120 members of
the network coming from 30 different European countries with associate members
world-wide. One of the important tasks of the ECTN is to provide a European
framework for first- and second-cycle degrees in Chemistry.

The Eurobachelor23 was adopted in 2003 as part of the TUNING project of the
European Commission, the Euromaster in 2005.

The Eurobachelor qualification is to provide a European degree in chemistry which
will be recognised by other European institutions as being a standard which will
provide automatic right of access (though not right of admission, which is the
prerogative of the receiving institution) to chemistry Master programmes, whereas
the Euromaster qualification is to provide a second cycle degree which will provide
automatic right of access to chemistry doctoral programmes and allows the
graduates to obtain the status of European Chemist.

At present, the network develops criteria for a “Eurodoctorate” Framework.

EUR-ACE: Implementation of a European System for Accreditation of Engineering
In the context of the EU-funded project “European Accredited Engineering” (EUR-
ACE)24, the accreditation agency ASIIN and numerous European partners have
developed outcome standards for Bachelor‟s and master graduates in European
engineering programmes as well as standards for European accreditation procedures.
These are documented in the “EUR-ACE Framework Standards for the Accreditation
of Engineering Programmes”, published in 2006.

On substantial compliance with the standards, the European Network for the
Accreditation of Engineering Education (ENAEE) awards the EUR-ACE label as a
Europe-wide recognized quality label for engineering programmes in the first and
second cycle as well as integrated study programmes.

UNIQUe - European University Quality in eLearning
UNIQUe is the development of a European quality label that certifies quality of
eLearning-related processes and costs and facilitates improvement of ICT adoption
and integration strategy of European universities. The UNIQUe label is being built by
combining the peer review methodology, developed in MASSIVE, the “Program
accreditation for technology enhanced learning” (CEL) and the European Quality
Mark for eLearning (EQM) developed by EFMD. The Label will be awarded to Higher
Education bodies for outstanding work in the use of ICT with regards to learning
resources, learning processes and learning contexts. The pilot testing of the UNIQUe
Label was conducted by 12 universities in autumn 2007 and launched in 2008.


QUESTE – Quality System of European Scientific and Technical Education –
Labellization and Scoring
As an EU initiative promoted by ENQHEEI - European Network for Quality of Higher
Engineering Education jointly with EFMD, QUESTE is the development of a European
quality label for programmes and institutions in higher Scientific and Technical
education and research. It aimed at training technical managers and scientists. For
this purpose an agency and foundation were created.

Euro-Inf – European Accreditation of Informatics Programs
ASIIN promotes the European joint project Euro-Inf for the creation of outcome
standards for graduates of Bachelor‟s and Master programmes in informatics as well
as the setting up of a framework for a European system for accreditation of
informatics education at the First Cycle and Second Cycle level from October 2006
until September 2008.

QUALITY: Quality Assurance and Accreditation of International Master Degree
Programmes in Life Sciences and the Rural Environment
The development of a Quality Assurance process for international European master
degree programmes relating to the applied life sciences and the rural environment,
and the development of ICA (the Interuniversity Consortium for Agricultural and
Related Sciences in Europe) as an Accreditation Agency for the award of the ICA
European Quality Label in these disciplines, is been called QUALITY. In this context
quality assurance benchmarks (criteria) and indicators were defined to be used to
assess the quality of provision (from entry level to excellence) of international
European master degree programmes delivered at one or more institutions.

Accreditation in European Professional Music Training
The „Accreditation in European Professional Music Training‟ project aimed at
improving the overall quality of professional music training in higher education in
Europe and to facilitate the national and transnational recognition of studies and
qualifications in the field of music. A set of common European standards and
procedures for external quality assurance and accreditation in music study was

EPAS - EFMD Programme Accreditation System
EPAS is a programme accreditation system for international degree programmes in
business and management on Bachelor‟s Master, MBA, PhD and DBA level, operated
by EFMD. The process involves a review in depth of individual programmes through
international comparison and benchmarking. For this purpose, it established a
programme accreditation committee and board.

Q3E: Quality of Entrepreneurship Education in Europe: Model, Referential and
A model for higher entrepreneurship education as well as the setting up of

referentials was established to be tested among companies and pilot institutions.
Using a quality system within EFMD and ENQHEEI, this framework will give way to a
management/business and engineering label.

3. Cross-border Higher Education

3.1 Definitions of Double and Joint Degrees

In the following, different approaches to the concepts of double and joint degrees will
be introduced.

What are double diplomas and joint degrees?
As provided by the German Rectors‟ Conference in their “Recommendations for the
Development of Double Diplomas and Joint Degrees” the terms Double diploma and
Joint Degree refer to a higher education degree which is awarded jointly by at least
two universities on the basis of study programmes exhibiting all or at least most of
the following characteristics:

     The courses of study are developed and/or acknowledged jointly by the
      participating universities;
    Students from one university study for a part of the programme at the other
    The duration of the study visits are of comparable length;
    Phases of study and exams that were taken at one university will be
      recognised automatically by the other university;
    University instructors of one university also teach at the other university,
      work together on curriculum and form joint commissions for admission and
    The difference between a double diploma and a joint degree: the form of
In general, only one academic degree can be awarded for a single scholarly work.
The specific quality of the completed course of study must be clearly documented:

      Double Diploma: Each university issues a certificate, whereas both certificates
       are linked in such a way that they constitute essentially one certificate in
      Joint Degree: Both universities issue one certificate jointly, irrespective of the

Erasmus Mundus
A joint degree is defined as a single diploma issued by at least two of the institutions
offering an integrated study programme. (A double or multiple degree is defined as
two or more nationally recognised diplomas issued officially by two or more
institutions involved in an integrated study programme.) Erasmus Mundus Master
Courses are integrated study programmes. What does course integration mean?
Delivery of a jointly developed curriculum OR full recognition by the Erasmus Mundus
consortium of modules which are developed and delivered separately, but which
together make up a common standard master course.

Recommendations            on    the    Recognition      of   Joint    Degrees     (Council   of
A joint degree should be understood as referring to a higher education qualification
issued jointly by at least two or more higher education institutions or jointly by one
ore more higher education institutions and other awarding bodies, on the basis of a
study programme developed and/or provided jointly by the higher education
institutions, possibly also in cooperation with other institutions. A joint degree may
be issued as – a joint diploma in addition to one or more national diplomas, – a joint
diploma issued by the institutions offering the study programme in question without
being accompanied by any national diploma, – one or more national diplomas issued
officially as the only attestation of joint qualification in question.

Survey on Master Degrees and Joint Degrees in Europe (by C. Tauch and A.
Joint degrees are normally awarded after study programmes that correspond to all or
at least some of the following characteristics:

         the programmes are developed and/or approved jointly by several
         students from each participating institution study parts of the programme at
          other institutions;
         the students‟ stays at the participating institutions are of comparable length;
         periods of study and exams passed at the partner institution(s) are
          recognised fully and automatically;
         professors at each participating institution also teach at the other institutions,
          work out the curriculum jointly and form joint commissions for admission and
         After completion of the full programme, the student either obtains the
          national degrees of each participating institution OR a degree (in fact usually
          an unofficial „certificate‟ or „diploma‟) awarded jointly by them. 26

Joint programmes do not necessarily lead to joint degrees. Different practices:

         real joint degree – single degree certificate awarded in the name of both or all
          participating institutions is very rare (UK, IT);
         double (multiple) degree as the award of two/more separate degree
          certificates is the most common practice;
         the award of a single degree certificate in the name of the participating
          institution at which the student is registered, also present.

Glossary of the Bologna-Bergen Homepage
A joint degree should be understood as referring to a higher education qualification
issued jointly by two or more higher education institutions on the basis of a joint
study programme. A joint degree may be issued as

         a joint diploma in addition to one or more national diplomas,
         a joint diploma issued by the institutions offering the study programme in
          question without being accompanied by any national diploma,
         one or more national diplomas issued officially as the only attestation of the
          joint qualification in question.

25 06054837.pdf

Summarizing it can be stated that joint degrees correspond to at least some of the
following characteristics:

      jointly developed/approved programs;
      joint admission and examination boards;
      studies at all (or some) partner institutions;
      comparable length of periods abroad and home;
      studies automatically recognized among partners;
      staff also teach at partner institutions,
      awards: a degree awarded jointly or national degrees of each partner

3.2 University Networks

These networks support and develop the individual student‟s mobility. Common
structural projects and lectures (e.g. summer schools) as well as study courses are
an important instrument of the international cooperation.

Transnational University Networks

The Utrecht Network

The Utrecht network is a European-wide network representing thirty-three
universities in 28 countries that cooperate in the area of internationalisation. It is
particularly committed to such areas as student and staff mobility, summer schools,
the internationalization of curricula, joint curricula and double/joint degrees.
The member universities provide on the network‟s website a database with an
overview of all the master programmes and summer schools, offered by the 33
higher education institutions. A wide range of student and teacher mobility
programmes are offered within Europe within the LLP programme. The cooperation
with the United States is carried out within the framework of an agreement with Mid-
America universities International consortium (MAUI), with Australia with an
agreement with Australia Europe Network (AEN).
In 2008 the network intends to initiate new activities on:
     student mobility
     researcher‟s mobility
     administrative staff mobility and
     internships

Worldwide Universities Network (WUN)

The Worldwide Universities Network is a partnership between 16 research-led
universities from Europe, North-America, South East Asia and Australia, fostering
collaboration between member universities by
     supporting the building and sustainment of research committees through the
       provision of research funding, through international networking and through
       support for the development of communication tools such as websites,
       videoconferencing etc.
     supporting a Research Mobility Programme (RMP) which allows postgraduate
       students and staff at WUN member universities an exchange with other
       institutions within the network.

      developing     an   e-learning    theory  which     further   encourages  the
       internationalization of curricula
      organizing regular online seminars, available to staff and students at member

Unica Network

The Unica Network is a cooperation network between forty-one universities from the
capital cities of Europe, promoting academic excellence, integration and cooperation
among member universities. It also aims at fostering the Bologna process and the
integration of Eastern European universities into the European higher education area.
The network functions as a stakeholder of member views to the EU institutions,
national, regional and municipal governments. On the other side, it provides
information on European initiatives and programmes as well as support in
cooperative projects.

Other transnational university networks:

Campus Europae - European University Foundation

University Networks in Cross-border Regions

European Confederation of Upper Rhine Universities Conféderation Européenne des
Universités du Rhin Supérieur (EUCOR)

Seven universities of the upper Rhine region joined together in 1989 to form a cross-
border federation under the name European Confederation of Upper Rhine
Universities (EUCOR):
    Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
    Universität Karlsruhe (TH)

    Universität Basel

    University   Louis Pasteur (Strasbourg I)
    University   Marc Bloch (Strasbourg II)
    University   Robert Schuman (Strasbourg III)
    University   of Haute-Alsace, Mulhouse-Colmar

The aims of the confederation are to promote cooperation in all fields of education
and research by fostering student, teacher and researcher mobility, by launching
joint courses of study and common scientific projects with reciprocal recognition of
study achievements. In addition, young researchers can benefit from an
international research education, particularly within joint PhDs in a large range of
disciplines. The EUCOR network currently offers the following trinational

      Collegium Beatus Rhenanus (CBR) (
      Neuroscience Upper Rhine Network (

      Upper Rhine Graben Evolution and Neotechnics (
      Competence Network for “Skandinavistik”
      EUCOR English Network
      Life Sciences

The Neisse-University

The Neisse University is a network of cooperation between the three universities:

          Technical University of Liberec,
          Wroclaw University of Technology and the
          University of Applied Sciences Zittau/Görlitz in Germany

With the aim of creating a joint higher education area in the cross-border region Euro
region Neisse (Czech Republic, Poland and Germany), the three universities
cooperate in two joint degree programmes: A three-year Bachelor‟s course on
“Information and Communication Management”, in which the students stay one year
at each of the three universities as well as a joint M.Sc. on Environmental Health and
Safety Risk Management, an English joint master programme that was created in
October 2006 and in which each semester will be run in an other of the three
The Neisse-University as network has been accredited by ACQUIN in 2004.

The Finnish-Russian Cross-Border University (CBU)
The Finnish-Russian Cross-Border University is a cooperative network between 9
universities. Five in Finnland: University of Helsinki, University of Joensuu, University
of Kuopio, Lappeenranta University of Technology, University of Tampere, and four in
Russia: St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical
University, Petrozavodsk State University, European University at St. Petersburg
The member universities offer six joint master programmes: business and
administration, forestry and environmental engineering, history, information and
communications technology, international relations, public health. The master
programmes can be studied equally in both countries, within two years and with joint
ECTS points.

Further university networks in Europe
Polo Universitario Transfronterizo (PUT)
Portugal Centro/Castillia-Leon

Universities Ireland

Oresund University


University Charta Saar-Lor-Lux-Wallonien-Rheinland-Pfalz

Alma (4 universities Maas-Rhein)

Hora-Est (11 universities of applied sciences Maas-Rhein)

EMOTIS (3 universities of applied sciences Enschede - Münster - Osnabrück)

Projekt CUNE (development of integrated study programmes)

Coimbra Group

Bulgarian Romanian Interuniversity Europe Center

4. Quality Provision in Double and Joint Degree Programmes

4.1 Surveys on study programmes awarding double degrees

Survey  on   Master   Degrees    and   Joint                        Degrees        in    Europe
(Tauch/Rauhvargers 2002 for the EUA)
This survey represents the first attempt to describe and analyse systematically the
present state of the art in respect of Master level degree programmes and joint
degrees offered across Europe. The results show that in these two important, and
often interrelated areas, further reflection and action are needed to clarify and define
both the architecture of Master degrees and the ´joint degree` concept in Europe.
The EUA Survey revealed especially a lack of knowledge of reality and legal obstacles
to award and recognise joint degrees.

There is a wide variety in ways and consequently in the quality of cooperation:

         institutionalized joint degrees (“transnational universities”)
         double degrees between 2 partners
         joint degree partnerships of several members
         huge consortia awarding Joint Degree or Double degree
         joint curriculum with little mobility
         situation close to franchise

The study revealed a set of problems restraining the development of joint degrees:

         National and international recognition of joint degrees: “When a joint degree
          is awarded as a national degree, it is recognised nationally and regarded
          internationally like any other foreign degree. However, if it is a real joint
          award, it falls outside the framework of both national and international
          legislation and therefore encounters problems of recognition.” 28
         Quality assurance: three possible ways that should be explored: national
          quality assurance measures accounted on joint programmes or quality

27 06054837.pdf
     Tauch, C./Rauhvargers, A. (2002), p. 27.

           assurance in conjunction with European cooperation in subject area or “using
           the results of national quality assurance across Europe as an agreed basis for
           recognising the quality of joint degrees”.29
          National legal framework: regulations for the award of degrees and national
           quality assurance should be amended that eliminate the obstacles for the
           development of joint degrees
          A common definition (and typology) of joint degrees: clear definition, also of
           added values for students, institutions and employers.

Results of the Survey on Study Programmes awarding Double, Multiple or Joint
Degrees (by Friedhelm Maiworm 2006)30
The study was carried out from April 2006 until August 2006 by DAAD in cooperation
with the Association for Empirical Studies (Kassel) in the context of the Bologna
project “Joint Degrees – a Hallmark of the European Higher Education Area”
supported by the European Commission the German Academic Exchange Service

Altogether, slightly more than 300 programme directors participated in the survey
and returned the filled-in questionnaire to the German Academic Exchange Service
(DAAD) by the end of August, 2006 (see Chart 1). About 40 percent of the
respondents were from Germany, about 8 percent from France, Belgium and Poland
respectively, and 6 percent from the United Kingdom.

Quality Assurance Measures
Almost all universities participating in the survey had undertaken specific activities to
assure the quality of their joint and double degree programmes. Nearly two thirds of
the programmes are accredited or in the process of accreditation by national bodies
(46%), by international bodies (8%) or by both, national and international bodies

About one third of the programme directors confirmed an accreditation of the
programme in all countries involved.

A further mean to assure quality is the evaluation of programmes by internal experts
from the university or by external experts such as professors from partner
universities. Overall, about two thirds of the respondents stated an evaluation of the
programme in which, in most cases, not only internal but also external experts were

However, evaluation of programmes in non-EU/EFTA countries and in the new
member states is slightly more often executed by internal experts alone. The
performance of teachers is also evaluated in most of the programmes (69%).
Universities from EU-15/EFTA countries place particularly high emphasis on this
mean of quality assurance (72%). Participants in ERASMUS Mundus programmes
less often stated an accreditation by national or international bodies than other
programmes but more frequently made use of evaluation measures.

Special quality agreements with partner universities were reported by two thirds of
the respondents. Most often common admission standards (53%) and use of the
same credit system in all participating universities (53%) are mentioned. Common
study or examination regulations are less frequent and reported by only about one

     Tauch, C./Rauhvargers, A. (2002), p. 27.

third of the participants. ERASMUS Mundus programmes more often have introduced
special agreements between the partner universities than other programmes.

The vast majority has defined common admission standards (80%) and makes use
of the same credit system (83%). Additionally, common study and examination
regulations are more frequently agreed upon between participating universities than
in other programmes. On average, representatives from each partner university
come together to discuss academic and administrative issues of the programme two
times per year. About one quarter meet only one time per year, one third two times
and 40 percent more than two times.

4.2 Case Studies of Double Degree Programmes

Double Degree and Doctorate Programmes in Saar-Lor-Lux-Wall (Status as of
The region Saar-Lor-Lux-Wall has a variety of internationally oriented courses of
study that are carried out in cooperation with European universities. The total of 43
courses of study is concentrated on the scientific-technical fields, the law and
business fields, as well as the humanities. It is striking that the natural sciences are
most strongly represented (4 double diploma, 10 Bachelor‟s, 12 Master‟s and 4 PhD
programs); next are the fields in the humanities (1 teaching certification, 2
Bachelor‟s and 5 Master‟s programs, as well as 1 PhD program); followed by law and
business (1 double-diploma course of study, 1 Bachelor‟s program and 3 Master‟s
programs). The number of cooperating universities varies between 2 and 7
universities according to the course of study; for the PhD programs, the variance is
even between 2 and 25 universities. All in all, it is clear that the majority of the
courses of study are taken on by cooperating partners within the larger region.31

Further case studies of double degree programmes
Cross-border University-Project. Case of Joint Degree Programs development.
   Retrieved April 30, 2007

Dondelinger, G., Kohler, J./Labonte-Roset, C. (2003): Accreditation in Europe - Two
   Case Studies: Campus Europae and the Case of the Joint Master‟s Programme
   MA CESS. In Hopbach, A. (Ed.), Qualitätssicherung im Zuge des Bologna-
   Prozesses. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.

Guinamard, I./Abdelmalki, L. (2006): How to develop double diplomas in a French
   University of Human Sciences: three cases. In G. Makrides & E. Jung (Eds.),
   Eracon 2005 Erasmus Conference Proceedings, S. 82 – 89. Retrieved April 30,
   2007 from

Lischka, G. (2006): Double and Joint Degrees with special reference to the Vienna
    University of Economics and Business Administration. In G. Makrides & E. Jung
    (Eds), Eracon 2005 Erasmus Conference Proceedings, S. 39 – 48. Retrieved April
    30, 2007 from

Trice, A.G. (2005): Navigating in a Multinational Learning Community: Academic
    Departments‟ Responses to Graduate International Students. Journal of Studies
    in International Education, 9(1), 62-89.

  A list with study programmes and further information on partner institutions and degrees is available in
the appendix.

4.3 Existing Support Programmes’ Quality Criteria

Erasmus Mundus: Cooperation- and Mobility Programme32
Erasmus Mundus is the cooperation and mobility programme of the European Union
in the field of higher education with the aim of enhancing the visibility and
attractiveness of European higher education in third countries. It supports European
top-quality Master‟s Courses and provides EU-funded scholarships for third-country
nationals participating in these Master‟s Courses, as well as scholarships for EU
nationals studying in third countries.

The programme's overall purpose is to enhance the quality of European higher
education by fostering cooperation with third countries. Its ambition is to improve
the development of human resources and to promote dialogue and understanding
between peoples and cultures. The programme's specific objectives are:

         to promote a quality offer in higher education with a distinct European added
          value, attractive both within the EU and beyond its borders;
         to encourage and enable highly qualified graduates and scholars from all over
          the world to obtain qualifications and/or experience in the EU;
         to develop more structured co-operation between EU and third-country
          institutions and to encourage outgoing EU mobility as part of European study
         to improve the accessibility of higher education and to enhance the profile
          and the visibility of European higher education throughout the world.

Erasmus Mundus Criteria for an Integrated Program of Study33
An Erasmus Mundus Master‟s program is an integrated program of study that must
demonstrate the following characteristics:

         Integration of the Program of Study
         The consortium offers a jointly developed teaching plan, or recognizes
         separately developed and offered teaching modules that then form a common
         Master‟s program of study. Each university institution participating in the
         consortium is to play an active roll and have a clearly defined function.
         Unified Admission and Testing Criteria
         Students must be able to apply for a single program of study with unified
         admission requirements, a unified admission process and a joint process for the
         selection of students that is in line with the national legal specifications. The
         participation requirements must be clearly defined and apply to the entire
         Master‟s program.
          Potential Applicable Tuition Fees
         They must apply to the entire course of study and not depend on the university
         at which the student begins, continues or ends the program. Different tuition
         fees for European students and students from third-party countries are
         permitted. All students from third-party counties must, however, be treated
         equally - regardless of whether or not they have an Erasmus Mundus grant.
         Examinations Taken
         Examinations taken at one institution of the consortium will be completely and
         automatically recognized by the other institutions in the consortium. Here, the


          ECTS grading scale or a similar tool for the conversion of the students‟ marks
          will be used.
           Mobility
          The students must complete study stages in at least two of the three
          participating institutions (and in two different participating countries). These
          visits to a second institution in the consortium may not be replaced by virtual
          mobility or by a visit to an institution that is not part of the consortium. The
          sequence of the study stages in the various guest institutions, as well as the
          various possibilities for combination must be known at the time of application
          to the Master‟s program and be communicated in advance.
           Language Aspects
          During the study stages, the student must have the opportunity to use at least
          two European languages that are spoken in the member states. The use of two
          languages does not imply, however, that two different teaching languages must
          be used. The institutions are also not obliged to use the national language as
          the language of instruction.
           Service
          The consortia must possess high-value institutions and services in order to
          accept and provide for students and guest academics from third-party
          countries; these services and institutions might include an international
          students‟ office with adequate opening times and language-competent
          employees, accommodation options, coaching, language courses, activities
          aimed at social integration, help for visa and social insurance applications, etc.

DAAD: Integrated, Binational Courses of Study with Joint Degrees34
New courses of study at the universities and speciality schools will be supported with
funds out of the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) as part of the
program “Integrated Binational Courses of Study with Joint Degrees.” These new
courses of study, after the completion of studies carried out partly in German and
partly in foreign universities, will lead to both national degrees. (as a joint degree =
the awarding of one common degree; or as a double degree = the possible awarding
of the degrees of both partner schools). The maximum support period is 9 years,
which is divided into three phases: 1-2 of preparation; up to 4 years of a trial phase;
and up to 3 years of an establishing phase.

In the 2006/2007 academic year, there are a total of 72 programs of study in the
system, of which 46 lead to a Master‟s degree, 19 to a Bachelor‟s and only 7 to a
diploma. An integral component of the course of study is a minimum one-year visit
to a foreign partner school during the Bachelor‟s degree or a minimum one-semester
visiting abroad during a Master‟s. The study at the partner university progresses
according to a study plan set by both universities. If possible, German participants
study at the partner university at least partly with those students of their academic
year participating in the joint diploma program.

There is no limitation regarding the partner countries, with the exception of France -
here, the German-French university is responsible. Preferred partner countries are
currently Poland, Spain, Italy, China and the Russian Federation. In a transatlantic
context, the TDP Project of the Free University of Berlin and the DAAD offers
additional information on the formation of joint study programs with American and
Canadian universities.


Subsidies can be made available for three development stages of the integrated
course of study, named below. The maximum subsidy period is eight years. In the
decisions regarding subsidies, selection criteria and subsidy conditions are

       Selection Criteria according to Phases
Preparation phase:
     Letter of intent from the participating universities for the joint course of study
     Academic quality of the course of study (teaching content corresponds to the
        “state of the art” of the field of study)
     Administrative general conditions
Trial phase (absolutely required):
     a joint agreement signed by both universities that describes the binational
        curriculum, provides the required credits of the respective module, explains
        the study progress plan and names the respective national or binational
     the curriculum comprises a complementary academic and inter-cultural
     student exchanges in both directions;
     in general, common age groups, that study alternately at both universities;
     academic and non-academic support of the students;
     (academic) language preparation
     guarantee of the continuation of the course of study
Establishment phase:
     accreditation
     joint study and testing regulations
     exchange of at least five students in both directions per academic year

       Subsidy conditions
The program can be used for all courses of study at specialized schools and
universities. Previous experience demonstrates that very different models can be
conceived. All double diploma courses of study supported in this program must
contain the following elements after the end of the preparation phase:

       a curriculum agreed upon by both universities for the joint course of study,
        including the qualification profile;
       as much as possible, an equal ratio of study time at the two universities
        (minimum period: one semester);
       The duration of study corresponding to that of a conventional German course
        of study must be maintained as much as possible;
       The study periods abroad must take place in blocks separated by intervals of
        at least one semester; a more frequent exchange between the individual
        study locations (e.g. as a result of shorter distances) is therefore neither
        possible nor applicable for subsidy;
       Agreements on the admission of students to joint courses of study and on the
        joint implementation of the final examination;
       Agreements on credit transfer (e.g. for Erasmus countries, ECTS) for the
        calculation of the study credits earned abroad;
       an intensive language preparation for the exchange student and guarantee of
        an adequate level of the language of instruction (and a basic knowledge of
        the national language). As much as possible, the predominant portion of the
        seminars are to take place in the national language;

      awarding of the degrees from both partner universities (double degree) or a
       joint degree pursuant to the successful conclusion of the integrated course of
      Explanation of the qualifications in the form of a diploma supplement;
      a regulated study and testing arrangement jointly issued from both
       universities at the start of the establishment phase at the latest;
      Furthermore, for the courses of study supported in this program, the mutual
       exemption from tuition fees should be guaranteed.

Franco-German University
The Franco-German University (FGU) based in Saarbrücken, consists of a group of
affiliated member universities from both France and Germany. The university is an
international institution and was established by means of an intergovernmental
agreement in 1997 (“Weimar Agreement”). The FGU has also the possibility of
expanding its programmes to third countries (ten such projects have already been
awarded financial support).

One of the fundamental tasks of the FGU is the initiation, coordination and financing
of courses of study between French and German partner universities. In doing so,
those programmes, which meet the criteria laid down by the FGU, are taken into
account. The FGU is currently promoting more than 120 binational and trinational
courses of study

In addition, the FGU offers mobility grants to postgraduates studying for a doctor‟s
degree/PhD at Franco-German postgraduate colleges (Graduiertenkollegs/ Ecoles
doctorales) established by the German Research Foundation (DFG) or by other
research institutions offering a structured postgraduate education and by the
Ministère de l‟Education Nationale, de l‟Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche

Since the autumn of 2005, the binational university grants scholarships, socalled
“cotutelles de thèse”, for Franco- German dissertation projects. A cotutelle de thèse
is carried out under the joint supervision and assessment by a German and a French
lecturer. It also includes a prolonged stay for research purposes at the French or
German partner university and the doctoral examination being taken in both
languages before an examination board consisting of an equal number of German
and French members.

The FGU-Criteria
To be acknowledged by the FGU, a course of study must meet the following quality
criteria: The bi-national course of study must lead to a double or joint degree. Both
the acquisition of certificates required to proceed with the course and the length of
the course of study must be divided equally between the two universities. The course
of study at the partner university is to last at least 3 semesters (2 for a Bachelor‟s
degree). Moreover, the Franco-German University expects its partners to offer a joint
course of study.

      Integrated curriculum, jointly developed with complementary modules
      Full recognition of credits (ECTS)
      Joint study regulations respecting national and local frame (Joint examination
       board, admission conditions, assessment)

       The time of study spent at the partner university should, as a general rule, be
       at least three semesters (two semesters for a Bachelor‟s degree).
     Language- and intercultural preparation offer, support for incomings
     Accompanied exposure to both educational and cultural different systems
     Joint group of French and German students with a minimum number of
     Practical training (abroad)
In regular intervals of 2 and 4 years, the adherence to the quality criteria will be
evaluated by the DFH (new programs every 2 years -established programs every 4
years). This is a multi-stage process, based on peer-review, i.e. the testing by
representatives from other universities with relevant competencies, and on review by
binational, bilingual appraisal teams that are completely independent from the
executive organs of the DFH.

Multi-stage process:
          Call for review
          Formal and administrative appraisal
          Content appraisal and ranking with binational appraisal teams
          Decision
          Experiences (feedback loop back to the calls for review, which include
           knowledge from the last round of experiences as well as pending
           modifications from over the course of the Bologna Process).

Problems, difficulties
          Structural diversity concerning the BA / MA conversion: BA / MA 3 + 2 system
           in France, 3 to 4 + 1 to 2 system in Germany
          different academic years and exam periods
          restrictive handling of given European 2-tier frame by some national
          Bologna-process: different transition dynamics to BA/MA structure
          exemptions for state regulated professions (e.g. Staatsexamen)
          transnational Quality Assurance
          3-year Bachelor‟s as mobility „avoidance‟?
          tuition fees

CIDD - Consortium of International Double Degrees Business Administration
The Consortium of International Double Degrees (CIDD) 35 is a non-government
consortium of public and private university business schools with the purpose to
value international business education that offer member institutions the opportunity
to co-operate in projects. 2006 a six-pages check list for joint and double degree
programmes was published, providing helpful practice-oriented questions in three
main chapters: “fundamental decisions”, “curriculum development”, and “quality
assurance”. They are intended for all those who are in the process of negotiating and
developing joint and double degree programmes.


5. International and European Quality Initiatives and Projects

European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA): Principles for Accreditation
Procedures regarding Joint Programmes
An important contribution to the passing of unified guidelines for the accreditation of
common, transnational study programs was afforded by the principles for
accreditation processes with respect to joint study programs; these principles were
formed by the European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA) 36 in June 2007. The ECA
is a union of 13 European accreditation agencies at present, and has the goal of
facilitating the recognition of qualifications and the mobility of students in Europe
through the mutual recognition of accreditation decisions.

The consortium has formulated criteria for the accreditation process of joint study
programs, which are divided into the following 5 categories:

     1.   Information sharing and transparency
     2.   The composition of the expert panel
     3.   The assessment process
     4.   The accreditation decision
     5.   The introduction of new joint programmes

TUNING Project
The TUNING project was a pilot project of European universities supported by the
European Commission in the context of the Socrates Program; its intention was to
“tune” educational structures and study content Europe-wide.

Through the collaboration of the participating universities, the implementation of the
Bologna Process - i.e. the comparability of university degrees, the formation of a
two-stage system of study, as well as the introduction of a credit transfer system
(ECTS System) - is to be approached coordinately.37 In the first project phase
(2000-2002), approximately 100 European educational institutions took part. The
primary goal of the project was to create easily compatible and comparable curricula
and qualifications through the sharing of general and subject-specific learning
outcomes and study goals in the undergraduate and graduate studies in a number of
study areas. These learning and study outcomes serve as points of reference for the
coordination of the universities with one another during the compilation and
evaluation of curricula; at the same time, they allow flexibility and autonomy in the
planning of curricula. Moreover, they offer a common language for the description of
the curricula‟s objectives.

The second phase of the project (2003-2004) concentrated on the area of learning,
teaching, evaluation and achievements in light of quality assurance and quality
evaluation. Furthermore, it lead to consolidation in collaboration with a number of
interest groups (professional associations, employers, quality-assurance institutions,
etc.) as well as to the expansion of the project‟s scope to include application and
acceding countries; other areas of study (interdisciplinary and career-oriented
studies) were included under this expansion as well.

  Seven subject areas have participated in the development of commonly accepted learning outcomes:
Business, Chemistry, Education Sciences, Geology, History, Mathematics and Physics.

ENQA: “Transnational European Evaluation Project I and II”
The “Transnational European Evaluation Project I+II” (TEEP I + II) was a pilot
project of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA); its goal was to create a process for external evaluations of common,
transnational Master‟s programs through the development of common criteria.

TEEP I, which was carried out from June 2002 to October 2003, developed common
criteria for external evaluation processes based on the European Standards and
Guidelines and the Dublin Descriptors. The development of these common criteria
created the possibility of comparing study areas from different disciplines. The
following subjects served as case studies: History, Physics and Veterinary Medicine.
As a subsequent project to TEEP I, TEEP II developed a transnational evaluation
process for Joint Master‟s Programs, comprised of: self evaluation, expert teams
(peers), site visits, public reports and follow-ups.

According to these common criteria, these three joint Master‟s programs were
evaluated: 1) Euro Hydro-Informatics and Water Management (Euro-Aquae); 2)
European Master of Arts in Media, Communication and Cultural Studies (CoMundus);
3) European Master in Law and Economics (EMLE).

Quality Procedures in European Higher Education: An ENQA Survey
ENQA initiated and coordinated, in cooperation with its member agencies, the
European University Association (EUA), the National Unions of Students in Europe
(ESIB) and the European Commission, a Survey on Quality Procedures in European
Higher Education. The project was completed in 2002. 38

Quality Convergence Study Project
The Quality Convergence Study Project was a follow-up to the ENQA Survey on
Quality Procedures in European Higher Education. The main objective of the project
was to study the possibilities for convergence of national quality assurance systems
in Europe through six samples, aiming to obtain identifiable reference points for
transnational quality evaluations. The study was carried out between September
2003 and October 2004, with the final report being published in March 2005. 39

ENQA review of the accreditation and quality assurance practices in the
Portuguese higher education (EPHE)
ENQA participated in the overall assessment and quality review of the Portuguese
higher education system together with OECD, EUA and EURASHE. The project was
financed by the Portuguese Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education
(MCTES). ENQA reviewed the present accreditation and quality assurance practices in
the Portuguese higher education. The exercise took place between December 2005
and November 2006.40

Transatlantic Degree Programs Project (TDP)
The “Transatlantic Degree Programs” (TDP) project41 sets out to envision innovative
ways of collaboration between US, Canadian and German instutions of higher


“Co-operation in higher education between Northamerica and Germany has been
based so far to a great extent on traditional student and faculty exchange programs.
These have enabled many to experience the other side of the Atlantic, thus creating
long lasting links and a profound understanding of the respective country and
culture. Nonetheless, they show only limited effectiveness in building lasting
institutional bridges between universities on both sides of the Atlantic.”

A serial of four workshops are at the core of the TDP Project. They focus each on a
different academic discipline; Engineering, Business Education, Social Sciences and
Humanities, and Law respectively. The discussion topics include i.a.:

          legal and administrative matters
          curricular integration
          marketing of joint programs
          search for partner institutions
          accreditation of joint and double degree programs.

Aquarius: Quality assurance in international student exchange
In the framework of the Erasmus Mundus-Programme „Enhancing attractiveness of
European Higher Education‟ a group of international officers from universities in
Germany, France, Poland, Cyprus, the UK, and the USA worked together for two
years on the definition of the main mission that the international student exchange
office should provide:42
     Provide the greatest possible number of students with an international
        education experience.
     Provide these students with the best possible international learning
     Provide all services and information listed in the „student exchange life cycle‟
        on-time and with the best possible quality.
The target group is the staff who deals with international student mobility: Staff in
International Offices, academic advisors in university departments and

The international student should benefit from receiving better and more clearly
structured support at both universities – home and host institution. The question is
what service will be needed at this specific point in time, whether the student is at
home or abroad.

According to the project‟s outcome an effective implementation of quality assurance
in international exchange service is mainly supported by the following Quality
management tools:
    Benchmarks
    Guidelines for exchange programme development (check-list)
    Questionnaire for cooperating universities to assess the relationship

As an example the timeline for the international student exchange process offers
criteria, in part applicable to intregrated cross-border programmes. They are based
on following basic assumptions:

          Arrangements between central and decentral units are to be made in order to
           distribute tasks and agree to mutual proposal


         Decentral organised facilities should be announced to the central responsible
          unit of host university
         Distribution of task should be harmonised according to the respective process

6.       Conclusions

As shown in this state of the art overview, quality assurance is a manifold field. Not
only the concept has made great demands on both theorists and practical persons,
but also the implementation of a system which should help to assure quality.

Thus, European universities are implementing different quality assurance systems.
With a view to cross-border education there is so far a number of initiatives at the
international and European level, which regard transnational quality standards, the
development of double and joint degrees, and the quality assurance of those
programmes. Besides, it can be stated that there is an increase of interlinking in
European border regions resulting for example in university networks. Regardless of
several pilot projects in this area there is still no established generally accepted
procedure to the accreditation and evaluation of double and joint degrees across

Concerning the central question of how a quality assurance system should be ideally
designed for joint programmes no definite reply can be given. In particular, this is
due to the basic debate on the approach of how to create such a system. One side
holds the view that a quality assurance system must combine the different national
regulations. But the different national structures and procedures complicate this
plan, so that the creation of and agreement on common principles and standards are
considered as the biggest impediments. The other side suggests a quality assurance
system which does not base upon the national concepts, but is developed for the
concrete purpose. On this occasion, the difficulties are the bureaucratic costs and the
possible development of double structures. Finally it is to say that an overall and
universally approved quality assurance system for double and joint degrees is a
future task of the European higher education system.


I. General European Frameworks

Bologna Working Group on Qualifications Frameworks (2004). A Framework for
   Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area. Retrieved February 20,
   2007,     from

Council of Europe (2006). Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning
   Higher Education in the European Region. CETS No.: 165. Retrieved February 19,
   2007,     from

Crozier, F. & Curvale, B. (2006). Terminology of Quality Assurance: Towards shared
   European Values? Retrieved April 30, 2007, from http www enqa eu files
   terminology_v01 pdf

European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education - ENQA (2006).
   European Standards and Guidelines in a Nordic Perspective. Retrieved February
   12, 2007, from

ENQA (2005). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European
   Higher Education Area, Helsinki. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from Bergen Report.pdf .

ENQA (2005). Quality Convergence Study. A contribution to the debates on quality
   and convergence in the European Higher Education Area. ENQA Occasional
   Papers 7. Helsinki. Retrieved March 14, 2007, from
   Quality Convergence Study.pdf

ENQA (2003). Quality procedures in European Higher Education. Retrieved March 14,
   2007, from

ESIB - The National Unions of Students in Europe (2004). General Paper on Agreed
   Set of Standards, Procedures and Guidelines at European Level. Adopted at the
   46th Board Meeting Banja Luka, April 2004. Retrieved March 15, 2007, from

ESIB - The National Unions of Students in Europe. European Student Handbook on
   Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from

European Commission (2006). From Bergen to London. 22 December 2006/rev2.
   Retrieved April   23, 2007, from

European Commission (2004). Key Competences for Lifelong Learning. A European
   Reference     Framework.      Retrieved     February     28,    2007, from

European Comission (2000). Memorandum on Lifelong Learning. Retrieved March 20,
   2007, from

European Commission / Council of Europe / UNESCO-CEPES. The Diploma
   Supplement. Retrieved March 20, 2007, from

European Parliament and Council (2006a). Recommendation of the European
   Parliament and of the Council on Further European Cooperation in Quality
   Assurance in Higher Education. Official Journal of the European Union, 3.6.2006,
   L64, 60-62.

European Parliament and Council (2006b). Recommendation of the European
   Parliament and Council on the Establishment of the European Qualifications
   Framework for Lifelong Learning. Retrieved March 21, 2007, from

EUA (2006a). Quality Culture in European Universities: A Bottom-Up Approach
   Report on the Three Rounds of the Quality Culture Project 2002-2006. Retrieved
   March    19,   2007,    from

Ferdinande, H. (2004). European Quality standards? In Hopbach, A. (Ed.),
   Qualitätssicherung an Hochschulen. Neue Herausforderungen nach der Berlin-
   Konferenz. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann.

Maassen, P. A. M. (1997). Quality in European Higher Education: Recent Trends and
   Their Historic Roots. European Journal of Education, 32(2), 111-27.

Ministry of Education and Research (2002): The Stockholm Conclusions –Conclusions
   and recommendations of the Seminar on Joint Degrees within the framework of
   the Bologna Process, Stockholm. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from

Ministry of Education and Research (2004): Bologna Follow-Up Seminar Joint
   Degrees – Further Development, Stockholm. Retrieved September 15, 2008,

Ministry of Education and Research (2003): Seminar about „Integrated Curricula –
   Implications and Prospects“, Final Report, Mantua. Retrieved September 15,
   2008       from

Reichert, S. & Wächter, B. (2000). The Globalisation of Education and Training:
   recommendations for a coherent response of the European Union. Academic
   Cooperation Association [ACA]. Retrieved from March 21, 2007, from

Saarinen, T. (2005). 'Quality' in the Bologna Process: from 'Competitive Edge' to
   Quality Assurance Techniques. European Journal of Education 40(2), 189–204.

Schwarz, S. & Westerheijden, D.F. (Eds.) (2004). Accreditation and Evaluation in the
   European Higher Education Area. Berlin: Springer.

Tauch, C. (2006). Ein Qualifikationsrahmen für den Europäischen Hochschulraum. In
   HRK, Erfahrungen und Lehren aus 10 Jahren Evaluation - Dokumentation zur
   gleichnamigen Veranstaltung des Projekts Q am 3./4.11.2005, Beiträge zur
   Hochschulpolitik 8/2006.

Tavenas, F. (2004). Quality Assurance: A Reference System for Indicators and
   Evaluation Procedures. Prepared for the ELU (Latin European Universities group).
   Retrieved February 6, 2007, from upload/

Wende, M.C. van der & Westerheijden, D.F. (2001). International Aspects of Quality
  Assurance wth a Special Focus on European Higher Education. Quality in Higher
  Education, 7(3), 233-245.

Westerheijden, D.F. & Leegwater, M. (2003). Working on the European Dimension of
  Quality. Report of the Conference on Quality Assurance in Higher Education as
  Part of the Bologna process, Amsterdam, 12-13 March 2002. Retrieved March 12,
  2007,     from

Westerheijden, D.F. & Wende, M.C. van der (2001). Who says B also has to say A?
  From Bologna to Accreditation: Design Requirements for Quality Assurance in
  Europe. Paper presented at the INQAAHE Conference, Bangalore.

Zgaga, Pavel (2004): Bologna Follow-Up Seminar Joint Degrees            –   Further
   Development. Report by the Rapporteur, Stockholm/Ljubljana.

II. Subject- and Level-specific European Frameworks

Chemistry Eurobachelor/Euromaster-Framework. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from

EFMD Programme Accreditation System. Standards and criteria. Retrieved April 23,
   2007, from

European Commission (2006). Quality Assurance in Teacher Education in Europe.
   Retrieved February 28, 2007, from

European Commission (2005). Common European Principles for                  Teacher
   Competences and Qualifications. Retrieved February 28, 2007, from

EUA (2005). Doctoral Programmes for the European Knowledge Society. Results of
   EUA Doctoral Programmes Project. Retrieved March 22, 2007, from

EUR-ACE Framework. Standards for the Accreditation of Engineering Programmes –
   Final 17/11/2005. Retrieved April 23, 2007, from

Graham, J. & Barnett, R. (1996). Models of Quality in Teacher Education. Oxford
   Review of Education, 22(2), 161-179.

Joint Quality Initiative (2005). General Descriptors- Criteria for Academic
    Bachelor‟s‟s and Master‟s Curricula. Eindhoven: University of Technology.
    Retrieved March 5, 2007, from

Joint Quality Initiative (2004). Shared „Dublin‟ descriptors for Short Cycle, First
    Cycle, Second Cycle and Third Cycle Awards. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from

Tuning Educational Structures in Europe Project. Quality Enhancement at
   Programme Level: The Tuning approach. Retrieved January 26, 2007, from

III.    Quality Provision    in   Transnational     and    Cross-border     Higher

Antony, S. (2006). Quality Assurance of Cross-border Higher Education. Quality in
   Higher Education, 12(3), 257-276.

De Groof, J. (2004). Transnational Models of Accreditation. Aspects of International
   Cooperation in the Field of Quality Assurance. Yearbook of Education Law, pp.

Duda, Gerhard (Ed.) (2005). Trans-Uni. Herausforderungen des Managements bei
   der internationalen Hochschulzusammenarbeit in den Grenzregionen. Bonn: HRK.

ENQA (2004). Transnational European Evaluation Project (Pilot project).
   Methodological Reflections. ENQA Occasional Papers 6, Helsinki. Retrieved March
   14, 2007, from

EUA (2006b). Guidelines or Quality Enhancement in European Joint Master
   Programmes. EMNEM - European Master‟s New Evaluation Methodology.
   Retrieved March 19, 2007, from

EUA (2004). Developing Joint Master‟s Programmes for Europe. Results of the EUA
   Joint Master‟s Project, March 2002 - January 2004. Retrieved March 22, 2007,

EUA (2003). Recommendation on Joint Degrees. Version as approved by the ENIC
   Network on May 2003 for submission to the Lisbon Recognition Convention
   Committee.    Retrieved  March   22,   2007,     from
   /eua/jsp/en/upload/FAQ_Recommendation on Joint Degrees.1070637590566.pdf

Friedrich, H.R. (2006). Joint Degrees. A Hallmark of the European Higher Education
    Area? Die neue Hochschule 47(6), 14-16. Retrieved March 29, 2007, from

Graubohm, H. (2005). Akkreditierung bei Doppeldiplom- und integrierten
   Studiengängen. In A. Hopbach (Ed.), Qualität messen - Qualität managen,
   Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik 6/2005.

Hodson, P.J. & Thomas, H.G. (2001). Higher Education as an International
   Commodity: ensuring quality in partnerships. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
   Education, 26(2), 101-112.

Hunger, A. & Skalberg, I. (2007). Promotion of Quality Culture in International
   Cooperation With Special Focus on Joint Programmes. In EUA, Embedding quality
   culture in higher education. Papers from the 1 st european forum for quality
   assurance. 23-25 Nov „07 in Munich. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from

IAU (2004). Sharing Quality Higher Education Across Borders. A Statement on Behalf
   of Higher Education Institutions Worldwide. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from

Knight, J. (2006). Cross-border Higher Education: issues and implications for quality
   assurance and accreditation. In IAU, Higher Education in the World 2007:
   Accreditation for quality assurance. What is at stake? Palgrave Macmillan.

Machado dos Santos, S. (2002). Regulation and Quality Assurance in Transnational
   Education. Tertiary Education & Management, 2, 97-112.

Maiworm, F. (2006). Results of the Survey on Study Programmes Awarding Double,
   Multiple or Joint Degrees. Kassel: HRK.

Melecký, W. (2006). Joint Degrees and Their Role in the SOCRATES – ERASMUS
   Scheme. In G. Makrides & E. Jung (Eds.), Eracon 2005 Erasmus Conference
   Proceedings.   Retrieved   April  30,    2007    from   http://www.eracon.

Middlehurst, R. & Campbell, C. (2003). Quality Assurance and Borderless Higher
   Education: finding pathways through the maze. London: Observatory on
   Borderless Higher Education.

Müller-Böling, Detlef (Ed.) (1995): Qualitätssicherung in Hochschulen. Gütersloh

Müller-Böling, Detlef (2004): „Qualität, Qualitätsentwicklung, Qualitätssicherung“.
   In: Benz, Winfried / Kohler, Jürgen / Landfried, Klaus (Eds.): Handbuch Qualität
   in Studium und Lehre, Berlin).

Newton, Jethro (2007): What is Quality?, in: Bollaert, Lucien et. al. (Eds.):
   Embedding Quality Culture in Higher Education. EUA Case Studies, p. 14 – 20.

Nickel, Sigrun (2008): Beiträge zur Hochschulforschung, issue 1, volume 30.

OECD (2004). Quality and Recognition in Higher Education : the cross-border
   challenge./ Qualité et reconnaissance des diplômes de l'enseignement supérieur.

OECD (2005). Guidelines for Quality Provision in Cross-border Higher Education /
   Lignes directrices pour des prestations de qualité dans l‟enseignement supérieur
   transfrontalier. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from

Sonntag-Krupp, R. & List, K. (Eds.) (2006). AQUARIUS – Quality Assurance in
   International Student Exchange. Handbook of Practical tools. Retrieved April 30,
   2007, from

Schade, A. (2005). Akkreditierung von Studiengängen mit Doppeldiplomabschlüssen
   und joint degrees. In A. Hopbach (Ed.), Qualität messen - Qualität managen,
   Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik 6/2005.

Schüle, U. (2006). Joint and Double Degrees within the European Higher Education
   Area. Towards Further Internationalisation of Business Degrees. Consortium of
   International Double Degrees CIDD: Papers on International Business Education.
   No 1/06. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from

Tauch, C. & Rauhvargers, A. (Eds.) (2002). Survey on Master Degrees and Joint
   Degrees in Europe. Retrieved February 8, 2007, from

Yelland, R. (2000). Supranational Organizations and Transnational Education. Higher
    Education in Europe, 25(3), 297-303.

Woodhouse, David (2006). The Quality of Transnational Education: A provider view.
  Quality in Higher Education, 12(3), 277-281.


Quality Assurance in Higher Education, Institutions and Initiatives


Consortium Linking Universities of Science and
Technology for Education and Research

Consortium of International Double Degrees

Global Alliance for Transnational Education

International Association of Universities (IAU)

Internationalisation Quality Review (IQR)

International Network for Quality Assurance
Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)

OECD, IMHE Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) – Education



Academic Cooperation Association (ACA)  

Association for Teacher Education in Europe

Bologna Process: Bergen - London website

Campus Europae                          

Central and Eastern European Network for
Quality Assurance in Higher Education

Charte Saar-Lor-Lux-Wal                           www.uni-

Deutsch-Französische Hochschule         
Université Franco-allemande (DFH-UFA)

ELU (Latin European Universities group  
within the EUA)

EU (European Union, Bologna-Process)   

European Association for International 
Education (EAIE)

European Association for Quality Assurance in
Higher Education (ENQA)

European Association for ERASMUS coordinators
Eracon Erasmus Conference

Erasmus Students Network (ESN)         

EUR-ACE Framework standards            

Euregio Maas-Rhein                     


Eurydice – the information network on  
education in Europe

European Center for Strategic Management of

European Commission, Directorate-General
Education and Culture

European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA)

European Foundation for Management     
Development (EFMD)

European Network for Quality Assurance in
Higher Education (ENQA)

European Students‟ Union (ESU)         

European University Association (EUA)  

Grande Region                          

HORA-EST (11 Universities of Applied Sciences
in the Maas-Rhine Region)

Joint Network of European National Information
Centres (ENIC) and National Academic
Recognition Information Centres (NARIC)

Joint Quality Initiative (JQI)         

Tuning Educational Structures in Europe


ALMA (Uni Liège, Maastricht, Aachen etc.)

Conseil des recteurs des universités  
francophones (CREF)

Conseil Interuniversitaire de la Communauté
française de Belgique (CIUF)

Direction générale de l‟enseignement non
obligatoire et de la recherche scientifique
(Communauté française de Belgique)

Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie
Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands
and Flanders (NVAO)


Comité national d‟évaluation (CNE)    

Ministère de l‟Education              


Agentur für Qualitätssicherung durch  
Akkreditierung von Studiengängen (AQAS)

Akkreditierungs-, Certifizierungs- und
Qualitätssicherungs-Institut (ACQUIN)

Akkreditierungsagentur für Studiengänge der
Ingenieurwissenschaften und der Informatik
Akkreditierungsrat (DE)               

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung

Centrum für Hochschulentwicklung (CHE)

Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Evaluation  

Deutsche Hochschulrektorenkonferenz –
Projekt Qualitätsmanagement

Deutscher Wissenschaftsrat         

Foundation for International Business
Administration Accreditation (FIBAA)

HRK, Hochschulrektorenkonferenz Rectors‟
Conference Germany

Netzwerk Qualitätssicherung und    
Qualitätsentwicklung an deutschen
Hochschulen (EvaNet)

Verbund Norddeutscher Universitäten

Zentrale Evaluations- und          
Akkreditierungsagentur Hannover (ZEVA)


                       Double/Joint Degree Higher Education Programmes in Saar-Lor-Lux-Wall

                                                  (Version as of 09-29-08)

                                                           1st and 2nd degree
Programme                                   Partner Institutions                            Degree
Integrierter Studiengang Physik, Cursus     Saarland University                             Bachelor
intégré Saar-Lor-Lux en physique            University of Luxembourg
                                            Université de Nancy
Integrierter Studiengang in Chemie mit      Saarland University                             Diplom
Doppeldiplom Strasbourg-Rennes-             University of Stuttgart
Saarbrücken-Stuttgart-Dresden               TU Dresden
                                            Ecole nationale supérieure de chimie de
                                            Rennes (ENSC)
Cursus européen en génie des matériaux      Saarland University                             Diplom
                                            Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
                                            Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine
Master Académique en Ingénierie :           University of Luxembourg                        Master
Construction & Design                       TU Kaiserslautern
in Structural, Mechanical and               Ecole Supérieure des Sciences et
Building Engineering                        Technologies de l‟Ingénieur de Nancy
Energie und Ressourcenmanagement            University of Luxembourg                        Master
European Course in Computer Science (ECS)   Hamburg University of Applied Sciences          Bachelor
                                            Université Paul Verlaine - Metz (+ Université
                                            Francois Rabelais de Tours/Blois)
                                            Instituto Politécnico de Coimbra
                                            Universidad de Burgos
                                            Turku University of Applied Sciences
                                            University of Huddersfield
Joint Master in European Integration &      European Institute of Public Administration     Master

Regionalism (EURAC)                            (Antenne du Luxembourg)
                                               Karl-Franzens-University of Graz
                                               Faculty of Law – University of Zagreb
                                               Autonomous University of Barcelona in co-
                                               operation with the European Academy of
                                               Bolzano and the European Institute of Public
                                               Administration (Antennae Luxembourg and
Bachelor‟s académique en Cultures              University of Luxembourg                        Bachelor
Européennes - Philosophie                      Université de Metz
Master Académique en Philosophie et            University of Luxembourg                        Master
Rationalités                                   Université de Nancy
                                               Université de Metz
IMPALLA, International Master in Social Policy University of Luxembourg                        Master
Analysis                                       Katholieke Universiteit Leuven
Master professionnel en communication et       Saarland University                             Master
coopération transfrontalières, Deutsch-        University of Luxembourg
französische Studien: Grenzüberschreitende     Université de Metz
Kommunikation und Kooperation
Romanische Kulturwissenschaft und              Saarland University                             Bachelor
Interkulturelle Kommunikation mit
Schwerpunkt Frankreich
Materials Science – AMASE European Master‟s Saarland University                                Master
programme                                      Institut National Polytechnique de Lorraine
                                               Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC)
                                               Technical University of Catalonia
                                               Luleå tekniska universitet (LTU) - University
                                               of Technology
Civil and Structural Engineering Europ.        University of Luxemburg                         Bachelor
Baumanagement / Filière Génie Civil /          HTW Saarbrücken
Bachelor‟s professionnel en ingénierie –       Université de Metz
urbanisme et aménagement du territoire
European Master in Nuclear Fusion Science      University of Gent                              Master
and Engineering Physics (FUSION-EP )           Stuttgart University

                                              Université Henri Poincaré Nancy
                                              Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan (Stockholm)
                                              Universidad Carlos III (Madrid)
                                              Universidad Complutense de Madrid
                                              Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Double Degree Master in Mathematics           Université de Liège                             Master
                                              Université de Montpellier II
                                              The Jagiellonian University (Krakow)
Double Degree Master in Mathematics           University of Luxembourg                        Master
                                              Université de Liège
Master 2 en Mathématiques Fondamentales       Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)             Master
Artois-Lille-Littoral-Valenciennes / Master 2 Université de Liège (ULg)
de Mathématiques Appliquées Lille-Littoral-   Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL)
Valenciennes / DEA interuniversitaire en      Faculté Polytechnique de Mons (FPMs)
Mathématique de la communauté française de Université de Mons-Hainaut (UMH)
Belgique                                      Facultés Universitaires Notre-Dame de la Paix
                                              de Namur (FUNDP)
Double Diplôme à l'Université de CRANFIELD    Université de Liège                             Master
                                              Cranfield University (UK)
Cursus intégré “Saar-Lor-Lux-Wal” en          Saarland University                             Bachelor
Mathématiques                                 University of Luxembourg
                                              Université de Liège
                                              Université Paul Verlaine Metz
Bachelor‟s en Sciences Physiques en           University of Luxembourg                        Bachelor
Communauté française de Belgique -            Université de Liége
Bachelor‟s académique en sciences et
ingénierie, spécialisation physique
Deutsch-Französischer Studiengang - Cursus Saarland University                                Bachelor, Master
Franco-Allemand                               University of Luxembourg
                                              Université de Liège
                                              Université de Kaiserslautern
                                              Université Nancy 1
Master Mundus en Philosophies allemande et University of Luxembourg                           Master
française dans l‟espace européen, EuroPhilo   Université Catholique de Louvain-la-Neuve
                                              Ruhr University Bochum

                                                Ludwig Maximilian University Munich
                                                Université de Toulouse 2 Le Mirail
                                                Charles University Prague
                                                University of Wuppertal
integriertes deutsch-französischen              Saarland University                       Zertifikat für bilingualen Unterricht
Lehramtsstudium Geschichte/Geographie -         Université Paul Verlaine de Metz          training qualification
Option franco-allemande pour l'enseignement
de l'histoire et de la géographie
integrierte juristische Studien im deutschen,   Saarland University                       Dreisprachiges Zertifikat
französichen & englischen Recht - Certificat    Université de Lille
Trilingue d'études juridiques intégrées en      University of Warwick
droit allemand, français et anglais (CEJI)
European Master‟s Program in Language and  Saarland University                            Master
Communication Technologies (LCT)           University of Nancy 2
                                           Faculty of Computer Science at the Free
                                           University of Bozen-Bolzano (FUB)
                                           Department of Computer Science and
                                           Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Science,
                                           University of Malta
                                           Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles
                                           University in Prague
                                           EM European Master‟s Program in LCT in
                                           Groningen, Faculty of Arts, University of
Studiengang Doppeldiplom ESC/Uds (Diplôme Saarland University                             Master
de l'ESC de Lyon / Diplom-Kaufman/Diplom   Ecole de Management de Lyon
Double degree Program Between ESC Rouen    Saarland University                            Master
(Master in Management Grande Ecole         ESC Rouen
Program) and Saarland University (Kaufmann
Mechatronics Engineering                   Saarland University                            Dipl. Ing.   /   Diplôme    d‟Ingénieur   BA/MA
                                           Université de Valenciennes, École Nationale    2008/09
                                           Supérieure d'Ingénieurs en Informatique
                                           Automatique Mécanique Energétique et

                                            Electronique ENSIAME

Sciences de Gestion / Betriebswirtschaft    HTW Saarbrücken        Bachelor
                                            Université de Metz
Sciences de Gestion / Betriebswirtschaft    HTW Saarbrücken        Master
                                            Université de Metz
Filière Génie informatique / Studiengang    HTW Saarbrücken        Bachelor
Informatik                                  Université de Metz
Filière Génie informatique / Studiengang    HTW Saarbrücken        Master
Informatik                                  Université de Metz
Filière Génie électrique / Studiengang      HTW Saarbrücken        Bachelor
Elektrotechnik                              Université de Metz
Filière Génie électrique / Studiengang      HTW Saarbrücken        Master
Elektrotechnik                              Université de Metz
Filière Logistique / Studiengang Logistik   HTW Saarbrücken        Bachelor
                                            Université de Metz
Filière Génie Mécanique / Studiengang       HTW Saarbrücken        Bachelor
Maschinenbau                                Université de Metz
Filière Génie Mécanique / Studiengang       HTW Saarbrücken        Master
Maschinenbau                                Université de Metz

Programme                                       Partner Institutions                              Degree
Europäisches Graduiertenkolleg - Réseau         Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor            PhD
Européen de Formation de Doctorants -           (Luxembourg)
European Postgraduate School                    Saarland University
“ Physikalische Methoden in der Strukturellen   Université Louis Pasteur (Strasbourg, France)
Charakterisierung Neuer Materialien “           Ecole Européenne de Chimie, Polymères et
                                                Matériaux, ECPM (Strasbourg, France)
                                                Institut National politechnique de Lorraine
                                                (Nancy, France)
                                                Université de Metz (France)
Pharmaceutics                                   Saarland University                               Euro-PhD certificate
GALENOS Network in pharmaceutical sciences      university    departments      and    corporate   doctoral degree
(Advanced Drug Delivery)                        organisations in 25 European countries
History and Civilization studies:               University of Luxembourg                          PhD - Doctoral degree cotutelle
Cross-border research training programme /      University of Gent
Quadrinationale Doktorandenschule (Neuere       Saarland University [in the framework of
Geschichte/ interdisziplinär)                   PIEMES, Ecole doctorale, Univ. de Metz]
                                                Université de Metz
The Postgraduate Studies in Psychobiology       University of Luxembourg                          PhD
                                                Division of Clinical Physiology, Prof. Hartmut
                                                Schächinger, MD Fachbereich I - Universität
The International Research Training Group       Saarland University
“Language    Technology   and     Cognitive     University of Edinburgh

This document was generated in the context of the Quace project, funded under the
Socrates Programme of the European Community (Agreement N° 2006 – 1447 / 001
SO2 81AWB). Sole responsibility lies with the author(s). The Commission is not
responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.


Shared By: