10 YEARS OF THE ERASMUS PROGRAMME IN POLAND (1998 - 2008)
Publication financed from the budget of the Lifelong Learning Programme
Š Foundation for the Development of the Education System Warsaw 2008
The Foundation bears full responsibility for the contents of this publication
Prepared by: Ewa Kolanowska Contributions from: the Erasmus Team in the Polish National Agency for the Lifelong Learning Programme
Graphics and layout: Eliza Goszczyńska
ISBN: 978-83-87716-59-2
Foundation for the Development of the Education System Polish National Agency for the Lifelong Learning Programme ul. Mokotowska 43, 00-551 Warszawa www.frse.org.pl www.erasmus.org.pl
Dear Readers, During its 20-year lifetime in Europe, the Erasmus Programme has strengthened its high position not only on the European but even world education market. It is recognisable, liked and highly regarded for its contribution to the process of building common Europe. On the one hand we are happy that Polish universities have already participated in the Programme for 10 years; on the other hand, we feel a little sorry that they have had a chance to contribute towards the international education space only for 10 years. 10 years of the Erasmus Programme in Poland have been a period of efforts to enhance the volume and role of transnational mobility and improve its quality at Polish universities. Its is beyond question that the participation of universities in student exchange, teacher exchange and multilateral transnational projects in the area of teaching under the Erasmus Programme has had an impact on the current state of higher education in Poland. This is demonstrated by both the multi-fold increase in the numbers of incoming and outgoing students and teachers, and the number of study programmes where the so-called European dimension is present and visible “to the naked eye” – whether in the form of curricular contents updated as a result of Polish teachers’ international contacts or in the form of programmes developed jointly with foreign universities. Improving the quality of education and internationalisation of education are the priorities of Polish higher education for the coming years. Active participation of our universities in the Erasmus Programme in future years, as well as more extensive use of all opportunities that it offers, will certainly help us achieve the aims set.
Prof. dr hab. Barbara Kudrycka Minister of Science and Higher Education
Dear Readers, The last two years have brought two anniversaries which are important to the Erasmus Programme. Last year we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Programme in Europe, and this year marks the end of the first 10-year period of participation in the Programme for Poland and several other “new” Member States. On this occasion, we present to you our anniversary publication “10 years of the Erasmus Programme in Poland”. Its main aim is to give you an insight into the outcomes achieved by Polish universities during 10 years of the implementation of the Programme and its impact on their internationalisation. The impact of the Erasmus Programme on the internationalisation of Polish universities is unquestionable. We were particularly concerned to show its impact on universities with different traditions and of varying sizes, using a parameter approach based on certain criteria and indicators. Did we succeed? Is the impact of the Erasmus Programme indeed visible and felt? You are invited to read the publication or its selected chapters to find answers to these questions. We would like to extend our warm thanks to all those who spared some time to fill in our questionnaire which provided a basis to measure and analyse the impact of the Erasmus Programme on the internationalisation of universities in Poland. Our analysis of outcomes would certainly be even more complete with more universities responding to our request. We would like to thank the co-author of the publication who since the early 1990s has followed closely and with a penetrating eye changes taking place in Polish higher education in connection with Poland’s participation in international programmes in the field of education and training. We are grateful for her right conclusions concerning the outcomes of the Erasmus Programme and her suggestions for us, the Erasmus Team, for our work in the years to come. We would like to give our thanks for the work done, the commitment and the warm-hearted feelings for the Programme shown by all those who are involved in its implementation – from Institutional and Faculty Erasmus Coordinators, university and national authorities to representatives of the academic community, including both students and staff within universities sympathetic to the ideas which the Erasmus Programme has promoted for 20 years in Europe and 10 years in Poland. Their involvement often extends beyond the limits of official job descriptions. But that’s exactly what Erasmus is like – if you come to know the Programme, get emotionally involved, see its tangible and intangible values (friendship, dialogue, common values, a sense of belonging to a community, etc.), you will no longer think about hard effort, problems and hindrances that others sometimes fail to notice. Erasmus has built a lasting relationship with European higher education and is now beginning to export its ideas to other continents. Erasmus is highly valued in the context of intercultural dialogue and educating citizens with an open mind and heart, sometimes with a clearly defined system of values and ambitious aims. Satisfaction from active participation in the process will remain with Erasmus people forever.
Erasmus Team Foundation for the Development of the Education System
TABLE OF CONTENTS I
21 years of the Erasmus Programme in Europe (1987-2008)
9
I.1 Tough beginning: a battle for student exchange I.2 Increasingly wide opportunities within an increasingly wide framework: three
9 10
phases of the Programme (1987-1995, 1995-2006, 2007-2013) I.3 Headquarters and terminals: management of the Programme
15
I.4 Expansion of Erasmusland and Erasmus believers: geographical reach and scale
17
of the Programme II
10 years of the Erasmus Programme in Poland (1998-2008)
21
II.1 National Erasmus framework: programme management, student support and
21
programme budget II.1.1 Joint effort at four levels: management of the Programme
21
II.1.2 Students for students: support from student organisations
22
II.1.3 Measurable gains from EU membership and the participation rate in higher
24
education: budget of the Programme II.2 Institutional Erasmus framework: from strategies and regulations to various
26
arrangements related to student mobility II.2.1 Erasmus and strategic thought: mainly, but not only about EPS
26
II.2.2 Mobility and quality-of-service guarantees: regulations and other arrangements
29
related to the Programme II.2.3 Nearly 8.5 million euro from the university pocket: extra funding for student
31
and teacher mobility II.2.4 About those who give more than they get: extended job description of
33
university administration II.2.5 About Erasmus within universities and about universities under Erasmus:
35
information and promotion activities II.2.6 Under the watchful eye and special care: arrangements related to student
38
mobility
II.3
Erasmus for the statistician and the patient amateur: quantitative outcomes with
45
extensive commentary II.3.1 Already more than half of all: universities participating in the Programme
45
II.3.2 Already over 11,000 per year, but still below the European average: outgoing
47
Polish students II.3.3 Already almost 4,000 per year, but still below “the absorption capacity”:
59
incoming foreign students II.3.4 Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of „the absorption capacity”: the ratio
64
of outgoing to incoming students II.3.5 Already more than 2,000 and above the European average: outgoing Polish
70
teachers II.3.6 Already almost 1,500 and the fifth position in Europe: incoming foreign
78
teachers II.3.7 A matter of sustained efforts: the ratio of outgoing to incoming teachers II.3.8 An extra prop for student mobility: introduction of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) II.3.9 Selective choice from an extensive menu: universities’ involvement in projects II.4 Erasmus’ lasting mark: qualitative outcomes with examples II.4.1 Europeans of the Erasmus generation: outcomes of a study period abroad in
80 82 82 84 84
the eyes of students II.4.1.1 Almost all in one: Polish students about their studies and life in other
86
European countries II.4.1.2 Close encounters in the land of dragons: foreign students about their
100
studies and life in Poland II.4.2 Erasmus’ teaching islands: impact of the Programme on higher education II.5 More and less likeable faces of Erasmus: strengths and weaknesses of the
106 117
Programme in the eyes of universities II.6 Erasmus and internationalisation of universities: summary of the main outcomes of the Programme in a broader context
118
I
21 years of the Erasmus Programme in Europe (1987-2008)
Erasmus, the EU flagship programme in the field of
these years Erasmus has undoubtedly become an
education and training, has worked tirelessly for
iconic symbol of European integration. Though the
more than 20 years to integrate the European higher
Programme is certainly not perfect, few would dare
education community, supporting mobility of higher
today to challenge its meaning and no one could
education students and staff, as well as projects
probably imagine it without students. However, its
involving
launch phase was by no means easy.
universities*
and
other
institutions
or
organisations concerned with higher education. Over
I.1
Tough beginning: a battle for student exchange
The proposal for the Erasmus Programme (European
budget of the Programme proposed by the European
Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students)
Commission, and in particular the amount envisaged
was developed on the basis of experience gained in
for student grants which five Member States considered
the implementation of EC-supported pilot student
excessively large. Thus the Vice-President of the
exchange projects between 1981 and 1986, and
Commission responsible for education and training,
in line with the recommendations on the promotion
Manuel Marin Gonzalez, withdrew the proposal,
of mobility in higher education drawn up by the EC
arguing that the Programme would thus need to be
Council of Ministers and the European Parliament
launched without student exchange, which was
between 1983 and 1985. Despite some reluctance
“unthinkable”. As a result of strong reactions to the
on the part of several big countries then forming the
deadlock from many associations concerned with
European Community, which had their own large-scale
education and other European organisations, the
exchange programmes, most of the key aspects of the
Commission’s original proposal was again put on
future programme were already agreed at a certain
the table and approved at the next meeting of the
moment, and the proposal was expected to be
Council on 18 December 1986. However, since
approved at the meeting of the EC Council of Ministers
several Member States then challenged the procedure
on 28 November 1986.
for the adoption of the decision, and the problem needed to be resolved by the European Court of
In
final
Justice, the Erasmus Programme was finally adopted
consensus was not reached during that meeting;
spite
of
widespread
expectations,
the
by the decision of the EC Council of Ministers on
what turned out to be the controversial issue was the
15 June 19871 .
* The term „university” is used throughout the text to denote all types of higher education institutions, including both university-type and non-university institutions (translator’s note). 1 S. Corradi, “Erasmus Programme: the origin, preparatory years (1963-1986) and foundation of the European Union initiative for the exchange of university students, reported and documented by the scholar who first conceived of it”, Rome, 2006, http://www.lifelong.it/library/erasmus_en.doc; a note about Manuel Marin Gonzalez, College of Europe Alumni Association, http://www.coleurop-alumni.org; note on the Erasmus Programme, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ERASMUS_programme.
I.2
Increasingly wide opportunities within an increasingly wide framework: three phases of the Programme (1987-1995, 1995-2006, 2007-2013)
Originally developed as a separate programme,
education (Comenius) to higher education (Erasmus)
Erasmus was gradually integrated into increasingly
and adult education (Adult Education/Grundtvig) – as
wide
European
well as several horizontal aspects not related to the
cooperation in the field of education and training.
specific education sector. These supra-sectoral aspects
However, like several other EU programmes launched
included the promotion of foreign language learning
earlier which are now part of the larger EU Lifelong
(Lingua), the use of ICT in education (Open and
Learning Programme, Erasmus has retained both its
Distance Learning/Minerva) and the exchange of
name and identity. From the formal point of view,
information and experience on education policies
the entire past and still unwritten history of Erasmus
and systems (e.g. Eurydice, Arion and Naric). In its
may be divided today into three main phases which
current third phase (2007-2013), Erasmus is part of
are defined by the framework for the Programme and
a still larger Lifelong Learning Programme4. In addition
the successive decisions of the competent bodies of
to the above-mentioned parts of Socrates, some of
the European Community, and then of the European
which have a different name and content today, the
Union2.
Lifelong Learning Programme has incorporated two
objectives
and
programmes
for
other previous EU programmes, also slightly changing In the first phase, between 1987 and 1995 (or, more
their content: Leonardo da Vinci which focuses on
precisely, 1987-1989 and 1989-1995), Erasmus was
vocational education and training, and Jean Monnet
a separate European Action Scheme for the Mobility
which addresses European integration issues. Like
of University Students. The second phase, between
in Socrates, each part of the framework Lifelong
1995 and 2006 (or, more precisely, 1995-1999 and
Learning Programme concerns a specific level or
2000-2006), was a period when Erasmus operated as
aspect of education, and they jointly cover all stages
part of a wider EU cooperation programme, Socrates I
of lifelong learning.
and Socrates II3. Socrates incorporated programmes or sub-programmes which focused on each level of
As early as in its first phase (1987-1995), despite its
education – from pre-primary, primary and secondary
slightly narrower name, Erasmus was not confined to
2 Phase I, 1987-1995: Council Decision No. 87/327/EEC of 15 June 1987 adopting the European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (Erasmus); Council Decision No. 89/663/EEC of 14 December 1989 amending Decision No. 87/327/EEC adopting the European Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students (Erasmus); Phase II, 1995-2006: Decision No. 819/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 1995 establishing the Community action programme “Socrates”; Decision No. 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education „Socrates”; Phase III, 2007-2013: Decision No. 1720/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning. 3 For further information on the Socrates Programme, see the websites of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu., and the Foundation for the Development of the Education System/ National Socrates Agency in Poland, http://www.frse.org.pl. 4 For further information on the Lifelong Learning Programme, see the websites of the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu/education, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, http://eacea.ec.europa.eu., and the Foundation for the Development of the Education System/National Agency for LLL in Poland, http://www.frse.org.pl.
10
student exchange. However, the first of its objectives
tion for students who could not undertake a period of
was indeed to increase substantially the number of
study abroad. As regards the content of the Programme,
students undertaking a study period in another
Erasmus retained its key elements, including student
EC Member State, and thus to create an enhanced
and staff mobility, joint curriculum development,
supply of graduates with direct experience of the
intensive programmes and ECTS, but they were
economic and social life in another country. Moreover,
organised in a slightly different way. Moreover, other
Erasmus aimed to facilitate the mobility of academic
aspects of cooperation in the area of teaching were
teachers, among other things, to improve the quality
incorporated into a new type of projects called
of higher education, and broader cooperation between
“thematic networks”.
universities in all EC Member States. Consequently, Erasmus grants were awarded mainly for the following
Erasmus operating as part of the Socrates I Programme
activities: Inter-University Cooperation Programmes
between 1995 and 1999 was divided into two
(ICPs), covering student and teacher exchange,
actions: Action 1 (Support to universities to enhance
joint development of curricula together with other
the European dimension of studies) and Action 2
universities and intensive programmes; individual
(Student mobility grants). Action 1 was subdivided
mobility grants for students and staff going abroad
into two actions: Action 1.A – Activities within the
outside the framework of ICPs; and, from 1989
Institutional Contract and Action 1.B – Thematic
onwards, for the pilot implementation of the European
Networks.
Credit Transfer System (ECTS)5. Furthermore, Erasmus supported cooperation between higher education
As part of their Institutional Contracts signed with the
associations, activities related to the recognition of
European Commission under Action 1.A, universities
study periods and qualifications, and publications
were awarded grants for the following types of
presenting tested-and-proven models of cooperation in
activities: • organisation of student mobility to other
the field of higher education.
European universities; • teaching staff assignments of short (1 to 7 weeks) and medium (2 to 6 months)
In the second phase (1995-2006), under Socrates’
duration in order to undertake a period of teaching in
wings, Erasmus set out to enhance “the European
another European university; • organisation of intensive
dimension” of higher education as an aim linking
programmes (between 10 days and 3 months)
its various activities. This meant not only providing
involving
further considerable support for student mobility, but
countries, and concerned with topics which are
also placing greater emphasis on the fact that teacher
normally not included in curricula; • preparatory visits
mobility was aimed at “Europeanising” higher educa-
in order to make arrangements for future coopera-
teachers
and
students
from
various
5 European Credit Transfer System/European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS): a credit system which was first used to transfer credits between universities as part of international student exchange, thus facilitating the recognition of a study period completed abroad by the home university. At present, ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) is also used as a credit accumulation system by students of a given university in order to obtain a degree. For further information on ECTS, see: the websites of the European Commission, http://ec.europa.eu./education/programmes/socrates/ects/index_en.html, and the Foundation for the Development of the Education System, http://www.erasmus.org.pl, section “ECTS”.
11
tion under the Erasmus Programme; • introduction of
Commission on the basis of an application submitted
ECTS; and • multilateral projects focusing on joint
by a university. Unlike the Institutional Contract, which
development of curricula in cooperation with other
was a financial arrangement, the EUC was – and still is
European universities. Multilateral projects covered
in the third phase of the Programme – “an entry ticket”
both the adaptation of existing, and the development
which every university needs in order to have access to
of
the Programme and where it undertakes to respect the
new,
curricula
at
initial,
intermediate
and
advanced level, European modules devoted to European
rules adopted in the Programme.
issues (historical, political, economic, cultural and institutional aspects) for various fields of study and
Under Action 1 (European inter-university cooperation)
integrated language courses (discipline-specific courses
of the Erasmus/Socrates II Programme, universities
integrated into a curriculum in a given field).
could apply for grants for the following activities: • multilateral
curriculum
development
projects,
As part of Thematic Networks in Action 1.B, universities
covering joint development of study programmes and
could, for example, jointly analyse and evaluate
European modules, as well as implementation and
the state of development of specific disciplines or
dissemination of outcomes of completed projects;
knowledge of specific interdisciplinary areas, identify
• organisation of intensive programmes for students and
directions for the development of a given discipline and
teachers; • introduction of ECTS; and • organisation
implement recommendations based on such analyses
of student and teacher mobility supported under
into curricula.
Action 2.
Action 2 grants were allocated for the mobility of
Grants under Action 2 (Student and Teaching Staff
students included by universities in their Institutional
Mobility) were awarded to students to undertake a
Contracts. Students could go to a university abroad for
study period of 3 to 12 months at a university abroad
a study period lasting between 3 and 12 months.
which had a cooperation agreement under Erasmus with the student’s home university, and to teachers
Between 2000 and 2006, within the framework of
to undertake a teaching assignment at a foreign
Socrates II, Erasmus was, in turn, divided into three
university lasting between 1 week and 6 months.
actions which again combined the activities outlined
12
above in a slightly different way. Student and teacher
Like in the Socrates I/Erasmus Programme, projects
mobility was incorporated in one action, whereas
under
broader cooperation in the area of teaching was
universities
divided into two actions. Preparatory visits, already
and organisations to discuss and work jointly on
included in the previous phase, were supported
“the European dimension” of a specific discipline,
outside of these main actions. Moreover, as of the
a curriculum for a specific field of study or selected
academic
above-mentioned
interdisciplinary topics. However, this phase placed
Institutional Contract was replaced with the Erasmus
a greater emphasis on quality issues, e.g. the
University Charter (EUC), issued by the European
development of qualitative criteria and methods to
year
2003/04,
the
Action
3
and
(Thematic other
Networks)
participating
enabled
associations
assess the quality of higher education in selected fields
will now support universities in the crucial role which
of study, which reflected the growing importance of
they have to play in lifelong learning. Thus multilateral
education quality issues in Europe.
projects currently encourage universities not only to develop a lifelong learning strategy, but also to extend
In its third phase (2007-2013), as part of the
the range of part-time degree programmes, e.g. for those
Lifelong Learning Programme, Erasmus aims to
in employment, and continuing education courses
support the development of the European Higher
offered. Secondly, greater emphasis is put on the
Education Area
(EHEA)6
and contribute towards
opening of universities to the needs of the economy.
enhancing innovativeness, economic growth and job
These issues are tackled, for example, through a new
creation in the EU. These general aims are translated
type of projects focusing on cooperation between
into the following operational objectives: • improving
universities and enterprises. Another aspect highlighted
the quality and increasing the volume of student
in the present phase of Erasmus concerns the quality
and teacher mobility; • improving the quality and
and efficiency of higher education and of universities
increasing the volume of multilateral cooperation
as institutions; activities in this area are supported
between European universities; • increasing the degree
by new projects focusing on the modernisation of
of transparency and compatibility of qualifications
universities and a new type of structural thematic
awarded by universities; • improving the quality
networks. And thirdly, though universities have eagerly
and increasing the volume of cooperation between
used ICT in education for some time now, Erasmus
universities
and
and
has now placed even greater emphasis on this aspect,
exchanging
innovative
and
introducing
• developing ICT-based content, services and teaching
campuses.
enterprises;
• developing
teaching
practices;
special
projects
concerning
virtual
approaches and practices for lifelong learning. Like earlier on, universities wishing to join the The core of Erasmus has remained basically unchanged,
Programme should first apply to the European
but “the menu” for multilateral cooperation between
Commission
universities has been enriched with new types of
University Charter (EUC). Universities holding the
projects in the context of new wider objectives of the
EUC may obtain grants for activities which are divided
Programme, and objectives of all types of projects
into mobility, multilateral projects, thematic networks
have been extended and defined more precisely. Three
and accompanying measures. As part of the mobility
changes are worthy of note here. Firstly, Erasmus is
component, grants are awarded for: • student mobility,
now clearly integrated into the concept of “lifelong
including study periods at foreign universities holding
learning”, which has spanned all EU actions in the
the EUC and practical placements in enterprises,
field of education and training in recent years, and
training centres, research centres or other institutions
for
the
above-mentioned
Erasmus
6 The establishment of the EHEA by the year 2010, which refers to more comparable, compatible and coherent higher education systems in Europe, is the overriding aim of the Bologna Process, initiated by the Bologna Declaration which has so far been signed by the ministers responsible for higher education from 46 European countries. For further information, see the new official website of the Bologna Process (“From London to Benelux and beyond”) at: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/ bologna/.
13
(3 to 12 months); • staff mobility, including teaching
programmes and courses for employees, part-time
assignments at foreign universities and staff mobility
students and people interested in advanced-level
to undertake training in a foreign institution (1 to 6
vocational training; or • develop strategies promoting
weeks); • activities related to the organisation of student
cooperation between universities and enterprises.
and staff mobility; and • organisation of intensive programmes (short courses developed and run by
Within projects supporting the modernisation agenda
academic teachers from partner universities in various
for universities, universities develop strategies and
countries for multinational groups of students from
arrangements in various areas. These can include, for
these universities).
example, strategies aimed at: • improving governance and optimising funding; • extending information and
Like in the previous phases of the Programme, the
guidance activities; • enhancing the attractiveness
development of mobility is supported by Erasmus
of universities; • modernising and increasing the
Intensive Language Courses (EILC) for grant-holders
transparency
going to countries where less widely used languages
strategies.
are spoken.
arrangements which are designed to • improve the
of
curricula;
Projects
may
or also
• lifelong aim
to
learning establish
quality of universities’ performance or • facilitate Multilateral projects are divided into the following four
access to education for those who have acquired
types: • curriculum development projects; • projects
qualifications or skills as part of non-formal or informal
focusing on cooperation between universities and
education.
enterprises; • projects supporting the modernisation agenda for universities; and • virtual campus projects.
Virtual campus projects may cover, for example, • development and dissemination of methods to
14
Within curriculum development projects, universities
establish and maintain virtual campuses; • develop-
may revise, develop and introduce: • integrated
ment of on-line educational resources; • development
programmes covering a complete cycle of study at the
or revision of integrated programmes, covering a full
Bachelor’s, Master’s or doctorate level which lead to
cycle of study at the Bachelor’s, Master’s or doctorate
a recognised double or joint degree; • curricula or
level and leading to a recognised double or joint
modules for continuing education; or • European
degree, which enable virtual mobility of higher
modules. Special attention is given to cooperation
education students and teachers through the use of
with the professional world and the business world in
ICT; or • promotion of cooperation between those
this area.
responsible for virtual campuses.
Projects focusing on cooperation between universities
Thematic Networks are divided into Academic Net-
and enterprises may aim in particular to: • promote
works and Structural Networks. Academic Networks
various aspects of entrepreneurship as part of
may be designed to promote innovations in a specific
university curricula; • establish closer links between
discipline or interdisciplinary area. Some issues to
higher education and labour market needs; • develop
be tackled by universities and other participating
institutions or organisations have been “transferred”
of universities, strengthening quality assurance mech-
from the previous Erasmus phases, but new ones
anisms, etc.
have also been added. Activities of networks may focus on the following aspects: • assessing the state
Accompanying Measures provide support for activities
of development of higher education in a specific
related to the dissemination and use of cooperation
field; • quality assurance; • European cooperation
outcomes and the monitoring of projects carried out
issues; • defining and updating generic and sectoral
under the Erasmus Programme.
competences; or • developing closer links between teaching and research, or • links between education
At the end of this overview, it is worth emphasising
and society, including public- and private-sector
that student mobility has for a long time been the most
institutions,
the
“visible” action of the Erasmus Programme. This is the
professional world. Structural Networks aim to improve
element which has clearly attracted most attention
and modernise a specific aspect of higher education
both in official publications of institutions responsible
organisation, governance or funding, e.g. broadening
for the Programme and in materials published in
access to higher education, improving the management
various European and national media.
I.3
the
research
community
and
Headquarters and terminals: management of the Programme
The European Commission, which takes overall
strategic issues and supervises the implementa-
responsibility for various EC cooperation programmes
tion of programmes, whereas the EACEA is directly
at European level, has a long tradition of delegating
responsible for most of the so-called centralised actions
some of its tasks in this area to other institutions. To
or projects. Centralised actions or projects are those
administer programmes in the field of education and
managed at European level (as opposed to decentralised
training, the Commission “subcontracted” for many
actions or projects managed at national level).
years
private-sector
institutions
or
organisations,
for example, the Technical Assistance Office (TAO)
The two-tier management system at European level
responsible
Programme,
applies likewise to Erasmus as part of the Lifelong
including
for
the
Erasmus.
entire In
Socrates
Commission
Learning Programme. In cooperation with EU Member
established its own Education, Audiovisual and Culture
2005
the
States and upon approval from the LLP Committee
Executive Agency (EACEA). The EACEA has taken over
which it chairs, the European Commission determines
the responsibilities of private-sector subcontractors and
priorities for the programme, carries out information
now manages a large part of actions supported within
and promotion activities, endorses selection results
the framework of 15 EU programmes, including the
for centralised projects and is responsible for the
Lifelong Learning Programme (LLP).
evaluation of the Programme. The Executive Agency, in addition to assisting the Commission in information
Thus there are two management “tiers” at European
and promotion activities, provides full administrative
level. In brief, the Commission is concerned with
support for Erasmus centralised projects, including
15
multilateral projects, thematic networks and projects
of student mobility grants. Between 2000 and 2006
carried out as part of accompanying measures. Its “full
(Socrates II/Erasmus) they took over the responsibility for
service” includes, for example, publishing calls for
teacher mobility grants and grants for the organisation
project proposals, receiving and selecting applications
of student and teacher mobility; the latter could also
for project grants, awarding contracts to coordinators of
be used to support the introduction of the European
selected projects and monitoring on-going projects.
Credit Transfer System in individual universities. In the present phase of the Programme, covering the
16
At national level, the ministry of education or separate
period between 2007 and 2013 (Erasmus/LLP), the
ministries responsible for school education and higher
agencies administer, in addition, grants for currently
education are the European Commission’s counterpart
decentralised intensive programmes and intensive
for all EU programmes in the field of education and
language
training. National educational authorities appoint
national agencies carry out exactly the same tasks
the institution which acts as “the national executive
as the Executive Agency in centralised actions, rang-
agency” for a given programme and are responsible
ing from the publication of calls for project proposals,
for overall supervision over EU programmes, and thus
selection of applications and award of contracts to the
also over national agencies.
monitoring on-going projects.
courses.
In
decentralised
actions,
the
Such national agencies were established in all 31
In addition to these two “levels of authority” in each
countries
Lifelong
country, there are two other management levels
Learning Programme. Some countries have one
without which one could hardly imagine efficient
agency responsible for the entire programme, while
implementation of the Programme. These are Institu-
others set up several separate agencies concerned with
tional and Faculty/Departmental Erasmus Coordinators,
each of the programmes, e.g. Erasmus, implemented
appointed by participating universities themselves.
within its framework. Since the launch of the Erasmus
The Institutional Erasmus Coordinator is “the nerve
Programme the national agencies have invariably
centre” of the Programme at each university and
engaged in wide-ranging information and promotion
the first “liaison officer” for the national agency.
activities
Faculty/Departmental
currently
in
their
participating
countries.
As
in
the
regards
direct
Erasmus
Coordinators
have
responsibility for the management of the Programme’s
corresponding coordination responsibilities at faculty
actions, their tasks were extended during the last
or departmental level. Detailed job descriptions of
dozen or so years as the Programme evolved and
coordinators vary depending on the approaches
Erasmus activities were successively decentralised.
adopted in each country and at each university. The
Between 1995 and 1999 (Socrates I/Erasmus) the
responsibilities of Erasmus Coordinators at Polish
agencies were responsible solely for the management
universities are outlined in Chapter II.1.1.
I.4
Expansion of Erasmusland and Erasmus believers: geographical reach and scale of the Programme
In 1987 Erasmus started modestly with the then twelve
ECU in the first phase (Erasmus, 1987-1995) to
Member States of the European Community, and
ca 1.7 billion euro in the second phase (Socrates/
during the next 20 years its territory has been extended
Erasmus, 1995-2006) and ca 3 billion euro in the
beyond the Community’s borders to cover 31 countries.
third phase (Erasmus/Lifelong Learning Programme,
Today the countries participating in the Erasmus
2007-2013). The average annual Erasmus budget
Programme include not only the 27 Member States
slightly exceeded 34 million ECU in the first phase and
of the European Union, but also three EFTA/EEA
is more than 400 million euro in the present phase,
countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, and
which means almost a twelve-fold increase.
Turkey as an EU candidate country. Each country acceding to the EU automatically joins its programmes.
Since its very beginning, Erasmus has been most
Since the mid-1990s the EU has gone through three
generous and increasingly generous to students.
stages of enlargement, but Erasmusland has expanded
Student mobility grants accounted for ca 60% of the
faster than the EU itself. It was already in the early
Erasmus budget in the first years of the Programme
1990s that the Programme opened its doors for the
and ca 70% in the next phase, and today have an
non-EU EFTA/EEA countries. The 12 countries,
almost 80% share in the budget. The “student share”,
including Poland, which acceded to the EU only
amounting to ca 290 million euro in 2007, seems
in 2004 or 2007 joined the Erasmus Programme
huge. However, one should bear in mind that the
between 1998 and 1999. Turkey, which is now an EU
amount was used last year to support the mobility
applicant country, has participated in the Programme
of over 150,000 students, and the average Erasmus
since 2004. Furthermore, as of the academic year
tudent grant, which covers only additional costs related
2009/2010 the Programme is likely to cover Croatia,
to the stay and study period abroad, has not exceeded
the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and
200 euro per month to date. In 2007 ca 6% (ca 21
Switzerland.
million euro) was allocated for teacher mobility. In addition to student and teacher mobility itself, Erasmus
Although, as mentioned earlier on, the first budget
supports various activities related to the organisation of
proposal for Erasmus was reluctantly approved by
mobility at universities, as well as Erasmus Intensive
several EC Member States in 1986, for many years
Language Courses (EILC) for Erasmus students
now the European Union has eagerly made substantial
undertaking a period of study or practical placement
investments in education and training programmes
in the countries where less widely used languages
(with the EFTA/EEA countries which are not EU
are spoken. These costs represented ca 7.5% (ca 28
members financing their participation from their own
million euro) and 0.4% (ca 1.5 million), respectively,
budgets). Thus it is not surprising that the territorial
of the budget for 2007. In total, the amounts related to
expansion was accompanied by the budget expansion.
mobility added up to over 90% of the budget (ca 340
The total Erasmus budget grew from ca 277 million
million euro). This means that the Programme focuses
17
heavily on supporting mobility. Universities wishing to
Erasmus managed to “dispatch” abroad only 3, 244
cooperate with their partners under various projects
students, but the target set was already achieved in
outlined earlier on must settle for a much smaller share
1992/93, when 51,694 students went on exchange
of the funding available. In the 2007 budget slightly
under the Programme. The target was exceeded
less than 3% (ca 11 million) was envisaged for multi-
in 1994/95, with as many as 73,407 students
lateral projects, slightly more than 2% (7.9 million) for
participating
intensive programmes and slightly less than 2% (ca 7
years later, in the academic year 2006/07, Erasmus
million) for thematic networks7.
exchanges among European universities involved
in
the
Erasmus
exchange.
Twelve
159,324 students. The millionth Erasmus student All 31 countries in Erasmusland jointly have around
went for a study period abroad in 2002/03, and in
5,000 universities which are eligible to participate in
total 1,683,928 students completed a study period
the
Programme8,
and as many as 90% of European
at a foreign university between the beginning of the
universities do actually take part in the Programme9.
Erasmus Programme and the end of the academic year
One could hardly find among them a university that
2006/07. To illustrate the volume of mobility, the total
does not exchange students and/or teachers with other
number of Erasmus students from all countries is only
universities holding the Erasmus University Charter,
slightly smaller than the number of students enrolled
but many of them have also applied successfully for
at all Polish universities in the academic year 2001/02
grants for various joint projects.
(1.7 million). Taking a different point of comparison, the population of students who went on Erasmus
As the largest share of the budget is allocated for
exchange between 1987/88 and 2006/07 is almost
mobility and the largest portion of this share is taken
as large as the population of Budapest and only slightly
by students, the scale of the Programme can be best
smaller than that of Warsaw or Hamburg.
illustrated by the volume of their mobility. Before the launch of the Erasmus Programme, only a handful
In the Decision establishing the Lifelong Learning
of students went for a period of study to other EC
Programme,
countries. Those who designed the first phase of
European Parliament and the European Council set
Erasmus aimed to increase the number of mobile
a target for the Programme to involve a total number of
students tenfold to 50,000 per year. Due to the
3 million Erasmus students by 2012. It may, however,
tight schedule of activities in the first year, 1987/88,
be difficult to reach the target because this means that
which
now
includes
Erasmus,
the
7 Budget for student mobility grants in the first phase of Erasmus: S. Corradi, “Erasmus Programme: the origin, preparatory years (1963-1986) ….”, Rome, 2006, http://www.lifelong.it/library/erasmus_en.doc; budget in the second phase (Socrates I/Erasmus): European Commission, “Final Report from the Commission on the implementation of the Socrates Programme 1995-1999”, Brussels, 2001, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/education_culture/evalreports/education/2001/soci-expost/ soc1xpCOM_en.pdf; indicative breakdown of the 2007 budget: European Commission, presentation “Action Programme in the field of Lifelong Learning, 2007-2013”, January 2007, http://www.ulb.ac.be/unica/docs/IRO-2007-Ljubljana-LLP_Erasmus_Puigpelat.ppt. 8 Based on the list of eligible universities updated in 2006/07 by the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency which manages the Programme at European level on behalf of the European Commission. The Programme uses a broad definition of “university”, including all types of higher education institutions and other establishments which, in accordance with the national legislation or practice, award officially recognised degrees or provide education at higher education level. The decision on the eligibility of institutions to participate in the Programme is taken by the educational authorities in each country. 9 European Commission, DG Education and Culture, “Erasmus – Success stories – Europe Creates Opportunities”, Brussels, 2007.
18
the number of mobile students should increase by
much smaller than “the Erasmus student cohort”.
ca 9-10% each year, while this is not the case. The
While 7,797 teachers went abroad in 1997/98,
European Commission’s annual reports show that,
their number doubled to 15,872 in 2001/02 and
despite the continuous increase in the number of
increased to 25,809 in 2006/07. Between 1997/98
Erasmus students, the rate of growth has declined
and 2006/07, a total number of 166,673 teachers
in recent years. During this period, the academic
carried out an Erasmus teaching assignment at other
year 2003/04 saw the biggest increase of 9.4% as
European universities. This group is almost twice as big
compared to the previous year; the rate of growth
as the total population of teachers working at all Polish
exceeded 6 or 7% in the next two years, whereas
universities in recent years. Moreover, successive years
the number of Erasmus students in 2006/07 was only
saw an increasing rate of growth in the number of
by 3.2% larger than in 2005/06.
mobile teachers as compared to the previous year, e.g. from 7% in 2002/03 to over 12% in 2004/05 and
For several years now students going for a period
2005/06, but a slight decline to 10% was recorded
of study to another European university in a given
in 2006/07. Recent years have also been a period of
year have represented on average 0.8% of the total
steady increase in the number of Erasmus teachers as
student population in 31 countries participating in the
a proportion of the total number of European teach-
Programme. Assuming that the normal duration of
ers. In 2006/07 Erasmus mobile teachers represented
higher education studies ranges from four to five years,
ca 1.9% of the total academic teacher population in
ca 3% of European students participate in the Erasmus
the 31 countries participating in the Programme.11
exchange during their studies. If, in turn, the number
These figures would suggest that teachers are more
of graduates at Bachelor’s and Master’s levels in 2005
mobile than students, but one should bear in mind
is compared with the number of Erasmus students in
that the average duration of teacher mobility was 6.5
2006/07, Erasmus students represent ca 4% of all
days, whereas students went abroad on average for
graduates.10
6.5 months.
As a result of changes in the financing system and,
The Programme is open to all fields of study or
consequently, the fact that historical data are not
disciplines, and each area is represented in Erasmus
available, the volume of teacher mobility can be
either through student and/or teacher exchange or
illustrated by figures concerning the last decade.
through various types of projects. However, Erasmus
Like in the case of students, the number of teachers
does not have an equally visible presence in all
undertaking an Erasmus teaching assignment at
areas, but this depends solely on how eagerly and
another
steadily
effectively individual faculties, teachers and students
increasing, but “the Erasmus teacher corps” is, naturally,
apply for grants from the budget of the Programme.
European
university
has
been
10 European Commission, DG Education and Culture, “Socrates II Programme. Erasmus Programme 2006/2007. Overview of National Agencies’ final reports 2006/07”. 11 Ibid.
19
Due to changes in the financing system, aggregate
and “social sciences” have represented, respectively,
data concerning various types of Erasmus projects,
ca 20-21%, 15%, 11% and 11-12% of the total
including
curriculum
Erasmus student population, and teachers, in slightly
development projects and thematic networks, in
different proportions, ca 11%, 13,5-14%, 13% and
a breakdown by area are not available. Various
almost 9% of the total Erasmus teacher population.
available
intensive
breakdowns12
programmes,
show, however, that Erasmus
projects have covered all areas – ranging from science,
The extent of involvement in various Erasmus actions
engineering and technology to humanities and arts
varies naturally between countries. Some countries
– but a large proportion of them are concerned with
clearly predominate in inter-university cooperation
social sciences, engineering and technology, business
projects. The same or other countries send and
studies, as well as medical sciences. According to the
host a similar number of students and/or teachers,
European Commission’s annual reports, representatives
whereas the exchange balance sheet in still other
of the first three areas, as well as those of languages
countries shows a large “surplus” of outgoing students
and philological sciences, are also most active in
as compared to incoming students or conversely. Such
student and teacher exchange. In recent years students
figures are given in Chapter II.2 as a comparative
in four area groups, “business studies”, “languages and
background for the data concerning the participation of
philological sciences”, “engineering and technology”
Poland in the Erasmus Programme.
12 Evaluation of the Socrates I Programme: U. Teichler, J. Gordon, F. Maiworm, “Socrates 2000 Evaluation Study”, November 2000, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/ education_culture/evalreports/; ISOC: database of Socrates II projects: http://www.isoc.siu.no/isocii.nsf.
20
II
10 years of the Erasmus Programme in Poland (1998-2008) Polish
universities*
EC
mid-1990s the academic community had impatiently
programmes in 1990 when joining the Tempus
awaited the green light to join the Erasmus Programme
Programme.
their
as this change meant a symbolic passage from the stage of assistance to the phase of partnership-based
the higher education reform in the countries of Central
cooperation. Poland joined the Socrates Programme,
and Eastern Europe and financed as part of PHARE,
and thus also the Erasmus Programme as part of the
a wider EC assistance programme for the region.
former, in February 1998, which was the pre-final
Tempus offered substantial funding for cooperation
year of the first phase of Socrates (1995-1999). Polish
with universities in other European countries, and
universities engaged in Erasmus activities for the first
the programme involved, to a greater or lesser extent,
time in the academic year 1998/99.
universities.13
on
the
in
Erasmus
II.1
modelled
debut
Programme, Tempus was specially launched to support
most Polish
Though
made
Nevertheless, from the
National Erasmus framework: programme management, student support and programme budget II.1.1
Joint effort at four levels: management of the Programme
Like in other countries, the management of the
The
Erasmus Programme in Poland involves four key
information and promotion activities and administers
Erasmus
levels. The ministry responsible for higher education,
grants for the decentralised Erasmus actions, the
currently the Ministry of Science and Higher Education,
latter now including the organisation of student and
exercises overall supervision over the Programme, and
teacher mobility, student and teacher mobility grants,
the Foundation for the Development of the Education
intensive programmes, Erasmus intensive language
System (FDES) has been directly responsible for the
courses (EILC) and preparatory visits. Information and
implementation of Erasmus at national level since
promotion activities are not confined to publishing all
Poland joined the Programme. At present, the FDES
information and materials concerning the Programme
is the national agency for the entire Lifelong Learning
on the FDES website and distributing them among
Programme and several other EU programmes,
universities. The Erasmus Team organises conferences,
including „Erasmus Mundus”, „Tempus”, „European
seminars
Language Label” and „Youth in Action”.
information and promotion events organised by
and
Team
training
at
the
FDES
sessions,
undertakes
participates
in
* English names of Polish universities given in part II of this publication are taken from their websites or applications for Erasmus grants submitted to the Foundation for the Development of the Education System. However, as universities spell differently the names of Polish cities and towns (e.g. Lodz or Łódź), for the sake of consistency Polish fonts are used here in all names of Polish cities and towns (translator’s note). 13 Poland ceased to participate in the Tempus Programme as a country receiving EU assistance in the academic year 1999/2000 (the year when the last projects involving Polish universities were launched), but since its accession to the EU in 2004 it has participated in the programme as an EU Member State. For further information about the Tempus Programme, see the website of the Foundation for the Development of the Education System/Tempus National Contact Point in Poland, http://www.tempus.org.pl.
21
universities
and
higher
the Programme for university authorities (for example,
education, and provides information and guidance in
rules for the recruitment and selection of applicants
response to individual queries. Moreover, the Team
or for the award of top-up mobility grants), and
produces detailed annual reports on the mobility
then ensure that their universities conform to the
of Polish students and teachers under the Erasmus
arrangements adopted. Throughout the academic year
Programme, the Newsletter devoted to Erasmus and
Institutional Coordinators coordinate, of course, all
other programmes for higher education, as well as
activities related to the Programme at institutional
special publications, for example, to celebrate the
level. At the end of the academic year, they are
20th anniversary of Erasmus in Europe in 2007. The
responsible for the production of various reports on
management of the decentralised actions covers, as
the participation of their universities in the Programme
mentioned in the previous chapter, “full service� re-
for the FDES and their own institution. Universities
lated to these actions. The Team receives applications
prepare extensive reports for the FDES, including
submitted every year by Polish universities, assesses
detailed responses to the questionnaire concerning
them internally or, depending on the type of action,
student
organises external expert assessment, awards grants
management levels, some activities related to the
to selected applicant universities, concludes contracts
implementation of the Programme are decentralised
with
their
within universities. Thus, within the framework
implementation. The FDES gives a full account of its
established at institutional level, Faculty or Depart-
activities in annual reports submitted to the Ministry
mental Erasmus Coordinators carry out responsibilities
of Science and Higher Education and the European
which are similar to those of Institutional Coordinators
Commission.
at their respective levels. Some faculty or departmental
individual
organisations
universities
active
and
in
monitors
and
teacher
mobility.
Like
at
higher
coordinators are also involved in decisions on the The key partners for the FDES at Polish universities
recognition of study periods completed by students
are Institutional Erasmus Coordinators who have been
abroad under the Programme.
appointed by Rectors at all universities participating in the Programme. Institutional Erasmus Coordinators are
Coordinators are not, of course, left on their own –
in most cases heads or staff of international relations
a great deal of work related to the Erasmus Programme
offices or, less frequently, Vice-Rectors responsible for
is done by university administration, and in particular
student or academic matters, or academic teachers
by international relations offices, but also various
with international experience. Institutional Erasmus
other administrative and support units. This aspect is
Coordinators draft proposals concerning key aspects of
discussed in more detail in Chapter II.2.4.
II.1.2
22
Students for students: support from student organisations
The implementation of the Programme is supported
the field of higher education, who engage in various
by hundreds of people, both within universities and
information and promotion activities. All institutions
in various institutions and organisations active in
and organisations involved could not possibly be listed
here, but one must at least touch upon the role of
Częstochowa (To be Erasmus), the University of Łódź
student organisations as students are the largest group
(Student Cooperation Centre) or the University School
of the Programme’s “users”.
of Physical Education in Wrocław (Erasmus Club).
The student organisation which has been definitely
Since 2004 student exchange within the framework of
most active in the Erasmus Programme is the Erasmus
the Erasmus Programme has also been actively, though
Student Network (ESN), a pan-European organisation
so far only locally, supported by the Polish branch of
with its branches in individual countries, including
another European student organisation, the European
Poland, and local sections in individual universities,
Youth Exchange (EYE). Since 2007 this branch,
including 29 Polish universities situated in big cities.
established at the Technical University of Łódź (TUL),
The ESN undertakes various activities related to
has also operated as one of the 29 local sections of
student exchange, in particular within the framework
the ESN. EYE Poland organises a number of events
of the Erasmus Programme, under the banner of
for students in cooperation with the TUL’s International
“Students
network
Relations Office. Students coming to the university can
branches in other countries, the ESN Poland provides
helping
students”.
Like
the
learn more about the university, the city of Łódź and
students with information and guidance, facilitates the
Poland, for example, during the regularly organised
integration of foreign students in Polish universities and
“Introductory Week” as well as meetings and trips.
the reintegration of Polish students after an exchange abroad, and collects and analyses their feedback
Both of the above-mentioned branches of international
on Erasmus studies. Findings from ESN surveys are
networks, other lesser known organisations or student
published in reports which are also referred to in
self-government organisations at universities, as well
this publication. Moreover, the Polish branch of the
as students who are not members of any organisation,
network organises or co-organises various events,
are also extensively involved in the organisation of
such as the photo-contest “Discover Europe” or the
various events promoting the Erasmus Programme.
football tournament “Erasmus Cup”. In a dozen or so
These include, for example, annual or anniversary
universities, ESN sections operate at the same time as
Erasmus Days at individual universities, or regional
associations of former Erasmus students.
or national conferences for former and prospective beneficiaries of the Programme. Moreover, Polish
In addition to, or instead of, “associations” within the
students take care of incoming foreign students on
ESN, former Erasmus students in a few universities
a “friend-helping-friend” basis, for example, as part of
have established separate associations and now
Buddy, Mentor or Tandem Programmes. The support
support outgoing and incoming students with their
that foreign Erasmus students can rely on in everyday
knowledge and experience. Such associations exist,
life is particularly important for their integration in the
for example, at the College of Foreign Languages in
academic and local communities.
23
II.1.3
Measurable gains from EU membership and the participation rate in higher education: budget of the Programme
The total budget of the Erasmus Programme, which
from 3.9 million euro in the academic year 1998/99 to
provides funding for the participation of all 27 EU
32.1 million euro in 2007/08. The preliminary budget
Member States14, is divided between centralised and
for 2008/09 is 35.4 million euro. While the budget
decentralised actions. Funds for centralised actions
remained stable and relatively low between 1999/
(now including multilateral projects and thematic
2000 and 2003/04, our “national share” increased
networks and earlier on also intensive programmes)
considerably in the academic year 2004/05 and since
are a “common European share” which is not sub-
then has been steadily increasing every year. This can
divided into “national portions”. A group of universities
be explained by several factors. Firstly, as a result of
and, where applicable, additional partners, representing
Poland’s accession to the EU in 2004, our budget is
a minimum number of countries, apply jointly at
based on, among other things, the size of the higher
European level for a grant for a multilateral project or
education student and teacher populations. Secondly,
thematic network. By contrast, funds for decentralised
following the accession to the EU, Polish universities
actions (the organisation of mobility, mobility grants for
can cooperate under the Programme not only, as it
outgoing students and teachers, and now also intensive
was before, with the then 15 EU Member States, but
programmes and EILCs coordinated by a university in
also with the other new Member States of the enlarged
a given country) are sub-divided into “national shares”
Union and non-EU countries. The extension of the
in accordance with algorithms adopted by the European
geographical reach of our potential cooperation was
Commission. These algorithms are based mainly on
reflected in a proportionally larger budget. Thirdly, each
the total number of higher education students and
year has so far seen new universities joining the Polish
teachers in a given country, the extent of the parti-
national team in the Erasmus Programme, which
cipation of a given country in the Programme to date,
increases the annual number of outgoing students
and the demand in a given year as estimated on the
and teachers and, consequently, has an impact on the
basis of the average rate of its growth.
budget for the next year. As another factor contributing to an almost quarter of a million euro increase in the
The Erasmus budget for activities involving Polish
budget for 2007/08, the menu of decentralised actions
universities (Figure 1), in so far as it can be separated
was extended to include intensive programme.
from the total EU budget15, grew almost eight-fold
14 The participation of non-EU countries is financed on the basis of separate agreements. EFTA/EEA countries finance their participation from their own budgets, whereas participation costs of EU candidate countries are in most cased covered, at least partially, by a wider EU assistance programme for a given country. 15 Poland’s budget given here comprises funding for student and teacher mobility grants, the organisation of student and teacher mobility (including grants for the introduction of ECTS), intensive language courses and, as from the academic year 2007/08, intensive programmes. Since teacher mobility grants and the organisation of student and teacher mobility were initially financed as centralised actions (see: the section on programme management in Chapter I.3), the budgets for the periods 1998/99-1999/2000 and 1998/99-2002/03, respectively, include estimated amounts for these activities. The budgets managed to date by the Foundation for the Development of the Education System are as follows: € 3.2 million in 1998/99, € 5.6 million in 1999/2000, € 5.7 million in 2000/01, € 5.4 million in 2001/02, € 5.7 million in 2002/03, € 6.6 million in 2003/04, € 15.2 million in 2004/05, € 19.5 million in 2005/06, € 25.0 million in 2006/07, and € 32.1 million in 2007/08.
24
Figure 1. Budget of the Erasmus Programme in Poland, 1998/99-2007/08 (million euro) 35 32,1 30 24,9
25 19,5
20 15,2
15 10 6,5
6,5
6,6
6,2
6,5
3,9
5
8 20
07
/2
00
7 20
06
/2
00
6 20
05
/2
00
5 20
04
/2
00
4 20
03
/2
00
3 20
02
/2
00
2 20
01
/2
00
1 20
00
/2
00
0 00 /2 99 19
19
98
/1
99
9
0
Source: Data based on various materials of the European Commission and the Foundation for the Development of the Education System’s reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 1998-2000 and 2001/02-2006/07.
At present, our Erasmus budget is the fourth largest
82.0% in 1998/99 to 90.4% in 2006/07. In the wider
national budget as Poland is at the top of the European
budget for 2007/08 (which for the first time includes
league in terms of the number of students, and thus
grants not only for student and teacher mobility, the
also the number of teachers. The Spanish, French and
organisation of mobility and intensive language
German budgets are 1 to 3 million euro larger because
courses, but also for intensive programmes), student
these countries have a slightly smaller or larger number
mobility accounts for 85.7%, teacher mobility for
of students and a larger number of teachers, but also
7.5%, the organisation of mobility for 5.6%, intensive
because their students and teachers are more mobile
programmes for 0.7%, and intensive language courses
than their colleagues in our country. The United King-
for 0.2%.
dom, with a one-million smaller budget, ranks right behind Poland as its students, though their population
In fact, even larger funds are allocated for mobility,
is as large as in the first three countries, are much less
and in particular student mobility, under the Erasmus
mobile than in the top four countries.
Programme,
because
Polish
universities
have
themselves provided extra support for mobility for Like in the total EU Erasmus budget and other
many years. Amounts invested in mobility by Polish
“national shares”, the largest part of our budget was
universities are fairly substantial in the context of the
invariably taken by student mobility grants, and the
modest overall budget of the Polish higher education
student grant share also increased gradually from
sector – for details, see: Chapter II.2.3.
25
II.2
Institutional Erasmus framework: from strategies and regulations to various arrangements related to student mobility
Some of the elements discussed in this chapter, which
legislation and still others on the universities’ own
set a context for the Programme within each university,
initiative. All of them determine to a large extent
were brought or inspired by the Erasmus Programme
efficient implementation of the Programme and
itself, others were introduced in line with national
outcomes achieved by individual universities.
II.2.1
Erasmus and strategic thought: mainly, but not only about EPS
Erasmus Policy Statement and broader internationa-
and “arrange their thoughts” about international
lisation strategies.
cooperation. At the same time, the questionnaire survey shows that
WAll universities participating in the Programme have
at more than one-fourth of universities (27%) Erasmus
prepared an Erasmus Policy Statement (EPS; formerly,
works within the framework of a broader inter-
European Policy Statement), outlining their strategy
nationalisation strategy designed in recent years on the
for European cooperation under the Programme. The
universities’ own initiative. These are in the form of
EPS is a compulsory part of an application for the
a separate internationalisation strategy (for example,
Erasmus University Charter which gives access to the
“Internationalisation strategy” or “Internationalisation
Programme. A questionnaire survey carried out by
of education”) or a separate part in overall institutional
the Foundation for the Development of the Education
development programmes or strategies. Such documents
System (FDES) among Polish Erasmus universities
are available at both public and non-public universities
in summer 200816 shows that the EPS is the only
which have participated in the Erasmus Programme
strategic
co-
since the very beginning or almost since the beginning
operation in the majority of universities (73%). The
(1998/99, 2000/01 or 2001/02), and at universities
EPS is in itself a precious outcome of the Programme
which joined the Programme between 2002/03
at
and 2004/05 or even only between 2005/06 and
these
document
concerning
universities
as
international
Erasmus’
admission
requirement prompted them to identify priorities
2007/08.17
16 The questionnaire on “The impact of the Socrates-Erasmus Programme on the internationalisation of universities” was sent by the FDES to Institutional Erasmus Coordinators in 217 universities which had signed a contract with the FDES for Erasmus activities in the academic year 2007/08. The questionnaire was completed by 77 (35.5%) of universities, most of which had participated in the Programme at least since 2005/06. 17 Universities with the longest period of participation in the Programme: Poznań University of Economics, Radom Higher School, University of Szczecin, Nicolaus Copernicus University, University of Warsaw, Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Academy of Finance in Warsaw, Wrocław University of Technology and University of Business in Wrocław. Universities with a medium-duration participation in the Programme: College of Foreign Languages in Częstochowa, State Schools of Higher Vocational Education in Kalisz, Legnica and Nowy Sącz, Cardinal August Hlond Upper Silesian College of Pedagogical Education in Mysłowice, Lazarski School of Commerce and Law and Polish Open University in Warsaw, and University of Lower Silesia in Wrocław. Universities with the shortest period of participation in the Programme: University of Economy in Bydgoszcz, Silesian College of Economics and Administration in Bytom and Upper Silesian Academy of Entrepreneurship in Chorzów.
26
Strategic consultations within universities
Aims of Erasmus Policy Statements
Erasmus Policy Statements and/or broader internationa-
Each university’s EPS describes, among other things,
lisation strategies are approved by university authorities,
its strategy and objectives for Erasmus activities,
but most often emerge as a result of internal discussions
measures planned to promote the Programme and
involving
faculty/departmental
arrangements designed to ensure high quality in student
authorities, academic staff, administrative staff and/or
and teacher mobility activities. Current Erasmus Policy
students. The value of such discussions cannot be
Statements set a strategic context for the Programme
overestimated as they contribute towards creating an
between 2007 and 2013, and their effects could only
“internationalisation culture” within universities. The
be seen in the coming years. However, a summary of
FDES survey referred to above shows that the EPS
the aims identified in them may be useful for readers
or other international cooperation strategy at almost
who have never had a look at such documents.
three-quarters of universities is an outcome of
A review of selected statements shows that most
discussions involving at least two of the above-
universities participating in the Programme aim to
mentioned groups (all four groups at over 24%
increase the volume of student and teacher mobility,
of
university
universities18,
and
three groups at over 23% of
and to extend the range of programmes or courses
universities, and two groups at 26% of universities).
offered through broader participation in Erasmus
Only less than one-fourth (22%) of universities have
projects. Moreover, in line with the new wider
a policy or strategy developed solely by university and
objectives of the Programme (see: Chapter I.2), the
faculty/departmental authorities. Apart from university
development of closer links between programmes
and
most
offered and labour market needs or, in broader terms,
frequently involved in discussions are academic
between the university and its external environment,
and administrative staff (both groups at 59.8% of
including enterprises, professional associations and
universities). Regrettably, though the Bologna Proc-
research institutions, has now emerged as a major aim
ess calls for the participation of students in various
for a large number of universities. Some universities
activities undertaken by universities and students
also clearly focus on extending the range of courses
are in the majority among beneficiaries of the Eras-
taught in foreign languages, Polish language courses
mus Programme, this group is invited to take part in
and/or courses promoting our country for foreign
strategic discussions by only less than one-third of
students.
universities (31.2%).
where the proportion of incoming students is already
faculty/departmental
authorities,
those
This
group
includes
both
universities
18 Medical University of Białystok, Stanislaw Staszic College of Public Administration in Białystok, Silesian College of Economics and Administration in Bytom, Upper Silesian Academy of Entrepreneurship in Chorzów, College of Foreign Languages in Częstochowa, Business and Administration School in Gdynia, Academy of Fine Arts in Katowice, Institute of Public Administration in Kielce, Cardinal August Hlond Upper Silesian College of Pedagogical Education in Mysłowice, State Higher Vocational School in Nysa, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Szczecin University of Technology, Angelus Silesius State School of Higher Vocational Education in Wałbrzych, University of Warsaw, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Polish Open University in Warsaw, Polish-Japanese Institute of Information Technology in Warsaw, University School of Physical Education in Wrocław and College of Management “Education” in Wrocław.
27
much larger than our national average (e.g. Cracow
at enabling 7% of its full-time students to under-
University of Economics or Leon Kozminski Academy
take a study period abroad. The College of Foreign
of Entrepreneurship and Management in Warsaw)
Languages in Częstochowa aims to have 10% of
and those which only now intend to achieve equally
outgoing students and to achieve the ratio where
good results (e.g. University of Gdańsk or State Higher
incoming students represent half of outgoing students.
Vocational School in Nysa).
Likewise, the Business and Administration School in Gdynia intends to send 10% of its students abroad,
In the part of the EPS concerning programme-
and in addition to have all of its newly established
related
degree
information
and
promotion
activities,
programmes
involved
in
the
Erasmus
universities outline both activities which have already
Programme and to offer one integrated set of courses
become a “standard package” in Poland, for exam-
taught in English to incoming and local students. The
ple, printed or web-based publications and meetings,
target set by the Karol Lipinski University of Music in
and various special events. Such information and
Wrocław is to send as many as 50% of all students
promotion activities, undertaken by universities on the
for a study period abroad. The strategy of the Warsaw
basis of their EPS’s for previous years, are described in
University of Life Sciences covers not only student
more detail in Chapter II.2.5 below. In turn, the part
mobility, where at least 15% of graduates should have
of the EPS setting the framework for mobility gives
an opportunity to undertake at least a three-month
an insight into how universities intend to organise
study period abroad, but also teacher mobility, with
the mobility of their students and teachers and host
at least 10% of teachers going abroad each year
incoming foreign students and teachers. How this
as the target proportion. In turn, the strategy of the
aspect has been dealt with to date is discussed in
Kwidzyń School of Management specifies not only the
Chapter II.2.6 below.
target number of outgoing and incoming students (30 in each direction per year) and teachers (10 in each
Internationalisation targets in EPS’s or broader
direction), but also the target number of programmes
internationalisation strategies
(4) and courses (20) taught in a foreign language.
Both
Erasmus
Policy
Statements
and
broader
Review of strategy implementation
internationalisation strategies contain varying levels
28
of detail. Some universities identify general priority
The same questionnaire survey shows, however,
directions for cooperation or types of activities, while
that almost one-fourth of universities do not review
others indicate specific fields of study or programmes,
the implementation of their international cooperation
or countries which should be the focal point in their
strategies. At most of over three-quarters of universities
international cooperation. Responding to the FDES
(77.9%) where such reviews are undertaken, regard-
questionnaire,
of
less of various forms of on-going assessment, the
universities reported that their strategies also set
less
than
one-fifth
(18.2%)
implementation of the strategy is reviewed once
specific targets for internationalisation. For example,
a year during a meeting of the Senate, the Rectors’
the strategy of Collegium Civitas in Warsaw is aimed
College or the competent Senate/University Committee.
At several universities (e.g. University of Warmia and
international activities is an element of the periodical
Mazury in Olsztyn, University of Łódź, Technical
teacher performance appraisal. Some universities have
University of Łódź and University of Warsaw), the
already gone or plan to go even further. For example,
Senate,
International
the staff policy of the Warsaw University of Life
Relations and/or the Erasmus Committee review the
Sciences is designed to give preference in staff
implementation of the strategy at least twice a year.
promotion to young academic teachers (within five
the
Senate
Committee
for
years of the doctorate) who have completed a training Other documents related to international cooperation
period abroad. In turn, the newly established Office for Quality of Education at the University of Warsaw
Slightly less than half of the universities which
is now revising the periodical performance appraisal
completed the FDES questionnaire (42.9%) have
sheet for teachers so that it covers to an even larger
also designed a staff development policy or plan for
extent their achievements in the area of teaching,
academic and/or administrative staff. At ten of these
including courses taught in a foreign language at the
universities19, the policy in this area is linked with
university and/or abroad.
international cooperation in so far as involvement in II.2.2
Mobility and quality-of-service guarantees: regulations and other arrangements related to the Programme
Some issues of key importance to international
and procedure for the transfer of student learning
cooperation have only recently been included in the
achievements, which introduced the European Credit
national legislation. Arrangements existing earlier on
and Transfer System (ECTS) in Poland as of January
depended on universities’ own free will or initiative
2007. This Regulation is a spin-off effect of the
and creativity. The Act of 27 July 2005, The Law
Erasmus Programme itself which has promoted this
on Higher Education (LoHE), provided a guarantee
credit system for many years (see: an overview of
for the transfer and recognition of student learning
activities supported under the Programme in Chapter
achievements between the student’s home and host,
I.2). Moreover, LoHE provided a legal basis for de-
including foreign, university or, in other words, for the
gree programmes to be offered jointly by Polish and
recognition of a study period or programme completed
foreign universities and for awarding degrees to their
at another university. These general provisions were
graduates.
then translated into specific arrangements in the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher
Internal university regulations incorporate national
Education of 3 October 2006 on the requirements
legislation provisions, but cover, of course, a much
19 Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice, University of Łódź, University of Szczecin, University of Agriculture in Szczecin, University of Warsaw, Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw and Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences.
29
wider spectrum of issues related to international
Moreover, half of universities responding to the
cooperation, including the Erasmus Programme, and
institutional FDES questionnaire (50.6%) guarantee
in particular student mobility. First of all, as the above-
appropriate quality of “services” for outgoing and
mentioned FDES survey among Institutional Erasmus
incoming students in their regulations or other
Coordinators shows, academic or other regulations
documents. The latter include, for example: academic
at the huge majority of universities (92%) formally
regulations;
guarantee the very possibility for students to undertake
relations offices; arrangements for the selection of
a study period abroad. The equally huge majority of
students
universities (92%) transferred the provisions of the
concerning the participation in, or international
MSHE Regulation on the recognition of learning
exchange under, the Erasmus Programme; information
achievements from another university in accordance
packages or guides on Erasmus student exchange.
with the ECTS principles into their academic or other
These documents cover various key aspects of mobility,
internal regulations. Moreover, the FDES survey among
ranging
Faculty/ Departmental Erasmus Coordinators20 indi-
preparation for students and support during their
cates that internal regulations at a large, though still not
stay abroad to the recognition of a study period, as
a sufficiently large, number of faculties/departments
well as mentoring for incoming students. Like in other
(69.4%) lay down a procedure for taking decisions
areas, universities which have “put things in order” in
on the recognition of a study period abroad and on
this area do indeed owe a lot to the Programme itself.
missing credits to be obtained by students, where
Regardless of the volume of mobility, which prompts
necessary. Recognition decisions are taken in most
universities
cases by the Dean and/or the person authorised
Erasmus has simply introduced “standards” defined
by the Dean or the Faculty Board, a committee or
in “The European Quality Charter for Mobility”. These
a group of authorised staff, and only in isolated cases
standards concern, for example, linguistic and/or
by the teacher responsible for a given course at the
cultural preparation for students, where necessary,
students’ home faculty/department. These regulations
practical information about hosting countries or
ensure transparency and equal treatment of all
support from the home university during a study period
students. They also reflect great credit to Erasmus
abroad and mentoring for incoming students. Various
as the volume of student mobility under the Programme
arrangements adopted in this area are discussed in
prompted universities to replace earlier ad-hoc and
more detail in Chapters II.2.5 and II.2.6.
rules
for
of
study
from
to
procedure periods
selection
establish
for
international
abroad;
criteria,
regulations
pre-departure
formalised
procedures,
discretionary approaches with formalised procedures.
20 The questionnaire on “The impact of the Socrates-Erasmus Programme on the internationalisation of universities” was sent by the FDES to Institutional Erasmus Coordinators in 217 universities which had signed a contract with the FDES for Erasmus activities in the academic year 2007/08. IECs were requested to forward the questionnaire to Faculty/Departmental Erasmus Coordinators. The questionnaire was completed by 85 organisational units (faculties, departments or chairs) in 33 universities (15.2%). Because of the low response rate, findings from the survey can hardly be regarded as representative and thus are referred to in this publication for illustrative purposes only.
30
II.2.3
Nearly 8.5 million euro from the university pocket: extra funding for student and teacher mobility.
Universities carrying out centralised Erasmus projects
case of teachers, for insurance and subsistence. Ex-
are required to cover one-fourth of their costs from
cept in the first “start-up� year, university top-up grants
sources other than the budget of the Programme,
in five successive years accounted for 18% to 19%
whereas student and teacher mobility is supported
of the Erasmus grant for student mobility and for ca
with top-up grants on a voluntary basis. Information
30% to 48% of the Erasmus grant for teacher mobility
on sources and level of co-funding for projects is not
(in amount, respectively, from over 900,000 to 1.03
published at European level, and data on projects
million euro and from almost 136,000 to over 220,000
involving Polish universities are not available in
euro). Between 2004/05 and 2006/07, the amounts
Poland. As regards teacher mobility, where it is indeed
were slightly larger (from 1.2 to 1.4 million euro for
supported, universities most often dip into their
students and from over 220,000 to ca 250,000 euro
budgets, whereas top-up grants for students, who
for teachers), but the extra funding as a proportion
receive extra funding in most countries, come mainly
of the Erasmus grant decreased from 9% to 6% for
from four sources.21 The student share in the Erasmus
students and from nearly 25% to nearly 20% for
budget is increased by funding from national financial
teachers.
support schemes, special national funds, regional or local funds and/or university budgets. Poland together
The sharp percentage decline in extra funding after
with Bulgaria, Finland, Greece and Hungary are among
2004/05 results mainly from the fact that, while
the countries where universities supporting mobility
universities did not suddenly grow wealthier as a result
and taking good care of their students may only rely
of Poland’s accession to the EU in 2004, the Polish
on themselves.
Erasmus budget leapt after the accession from 6.5 million euro in 2003/04 to 15.2 million euro in
Though far from being wealthy themselves, Polish
2004/05 and has been steadily growing since then
universities provide extra funding for both student and
(see: Chapter II.1.3). In the case of students, our
teacher mobility. Between 1998/99 and 2006/07, 60
advancement in budgetary terms made it possible not
to 70% of universities participating in the Programme
only to increase the number of grants, but also to raise
found extra funds in their institutional, faculty or
significantly the average level of an Erasmus student
departmental budgets. Their investments in mobility
grant (see: Figure 7 in Chapter II.3.2). Thus the
during this period added up to a total of over 8.4
percentage decline in extra funding from university
million euro. A share amounting to over 7 million
budgets may indicate that universities are already
(83.3%) was taken by students, and over 1.4 million
draining their budgetary reserves and/or that significant
(16.7%) by teachers. Extra funds were most often
financial involvement on their part is no longer
used to cover fully or partially travel costs and, in the
necessary.
21 Information published in annual reports of the European Commission which give an overview of reports from the national agencies.
31
Between 1998/99 and 2006/07, the level of extra
ranked first in terms of outgoing student and teacher
funding at individual universities varied as much as the
numbers, and Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań,
number of outgoing students and teachers. The level
the second biggest “exporter” of students, amounted
of extra funding as a proportion of the Erasmus grant
to over 500,000 euro and over 400,000 euro,
was inversely proportional to the volume of outgoing
respectively,
mobility – the greater were the outgoing numbers, the
corresponding amounts at the three above-mentioned
lesser was the extent of support, which also shows
universities ranged from over 170,000 to almost
that university budgets are indeed of a limited size.
200,000 euro.
during
the
last
three
years.
The
However, the extra funding amounts were most impressive at universities which sent abroad largest
Those appearing among the leading “percentage”
numbers of students and teachers.
supporters of student mobility in the rankings for the last three years were mainly non-public universities
For example, during the last three years the extra
which sent 1 to 7 students and two universities with
funding
10
a larger and much larger number of outgoing students.22
universities in terms of outgoing student numbers,
It should also be noted here that the top 30 universities
including mainly the largest and large universities
which, in percentage terms, were most generous to
(see: Figure 4 in Chapter II.3.2), accounted for 0 to
their students in 2006/07 alone included only two
20% of the Erasmus student grant. In percentage
public universities, the Jan Amos Komeński State
terms, the Warsaw University of Technology and the
School of Higher Education in Leszno (extra funding
Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice stood out
amounting to 52% of the Erasmus grant, 4 outgoing
from this group, consistently supporting their students
students) and the Szczecin University of Technology
at the level of a dozen or so percent of the Erasmus
(42.5%, 84 students).
for
students
provided
by
the
top
grant. However, the number of outgoing students at these two universities was almost or more than
Universities contributing the largest amounts from
twice smaller than that at the top three universities.
their budgets as a proportion of the Erasmus grant
Likewise, the Silesian University of Technology and the
for teachers during at least two of the last three years
University of Łódź offered more generous support, in
are non-public universities sending in most cases
percentage terms, to their teachers during that period
1 to 6 teachers and public universities with 10 to 40
than the other eight leaders (ca 30% to over 60%
outgoing teachers. This group includes, for example,
and ca 40 to 45% respectively). At the same time, for
the Higher School of Pedagogy of the Society of Public
example, the total extra funding for student and
Knowledge in Warsaw (with extra funding accounting
teacher mobility at the University of Warsaw, which
for 130% to over 300% of the Erasmus grant during
22 Non-public universities sending a maximum of 7 students and providing extra funding at a level above or slightly below 100% of the Erasmus grant: School of Management and Marketing in Sochaczew, University of Humanities and Economics in Włocławek, Higher School of Public Administration and Higher School of Applied Arts in Szczecin, Collegium Medicum in Bydgoszcz, Stanisław Staszic College of Public Administration in Białystok and Białystok School of Economics. Universities with largest outgoing student numbers: Higher School of Pedagogy of the Society of Public Knowledge in Warsaw: 10 to 16 students, extra funding at a level of over 55% to over 85% of the Erasmus grant; Szczecin University of Technology: over 80 to over 100 students, extra funding accounting for 40% to 50% of the Erasmus grant.
32
all three years), the Polish Open University in Warsaw
It is also worth mentioning here that the group of
(over 200%) and the Opole University of Technology
non-public universities sending few students and/or
(invariably over 100% of the Erasmus grant). At the
teachers in recent years, while providing considerable
other highest ranked public and non-public universities,
support as a proportion of the Erasmus grant, includes
teachers could count on support reaching at least over
a number of those where outgoing numbers decreased
50% of the Erasmus
All of those public and
or remained the same or nearly the same in the next
non-public universities were also among the top 30
year. This means that their problems with developing
in terms of the extra funding rate in 2006/07 alone,
student or teacher exchange do not result from their
with the group comprising roughly equal proportions of
lack of commitment, but rather from their still limited
public and non-public universities.
capacity in the area of international cooperation.
II.2.4
grant.23
About those who give more than they get: extended job description of university administration
„The International Relations Office responsible for this
support units, including in particular finance offices,
programme does an excellent job, as demonstrated by
public relations offices, central academic affairs depart-
the fact that its staff are eager to take on extra work
ments and dean’s offices, as well as ICT centres.
instead of – which is an enduring characteristic of the clerks profession – precisely defining and under no
Administration’s effort needs to be recognised not only
circumstances going beyond the scope of their powers
because Erasmus has brought a lot more work for
and responsibilities. Thus I am fully confident about
all these units, but also because it is not particularly
the future of this programme.” This is a “first-class
fair at the same time, “endowing” them much more
honours” diploma that the International Relations
generously with duties than with grants. Although
Office responsible for Erasmus at the University of
administrative staff may apply for Erasmus training
Warsaw received from their
Vice-Rector.24
High
grants, the pool of such training grants is rather small,
efficiency and a “non-clerk” approach to work are also
and many universities only now begin to recognise the
distinctive features of international relations offices at
role of administration and invest in the development of
many other Polish universities. International relations
their administrative staff.
offices are at the very centre of Erasmus activities, but some “specialist” tasks under the Programme are
What are the new or extended responsibilities of
also carried out by other university administrative and
university administration brought by Erasmus? Firstly,
23 Public universities: Poznań University of Technology, Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice, Karol Adamiecki University of Economics in Katowice and AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow. Non-public universities: Częstochowa University of Management, Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw, Business and Administration School in Gdynia, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów, Poznań School of Logistics and Academy of Business in Dąbrowa Górnicza. 24 „Solidna podstawa – dobry punkt odniesienia” (Solid basis – a good point of reference), A. Lompart’s interview with Prof. Wojciech Tygielski, Vice-Rector of the University of Warsaw for research and international relations, Pismo Uczelni (University Journal), April 2006, http://www.uw.edu.pl, section “Pismo Uczelni” (available in Polish only).
33
administration, and in particular international relations
with necessary information in other forms. For further
offices, but also public relations offices at some
details, see: Chapter II.2.6 below.
universities, organise various activities promoting the Programme within the academic community of
Fourthly, again mainly international relations offices,
their university. Moreover, they engage in increasingly
and likewise often in cooperation with other units,
extensive activities promoting their universities abroad,
organise Polish language courses for incoming foreign
which are also largely linked with the universities’
students at their own university or make arrangements
participation in the Programme. In this area, inter-
for students to attend such courses outside of their
national relations offices and/or public relations offices
university. Moreover, international relations offices
are very often supported by student organisations which
together with local students introduce incoming
encourage students to take part in the Programme, as
students to their new environment and support them in
well as by ICT centres which, for example, take care
various ways throughout their study period at a given
of university websites. Information and promotion
university. These activities are discussed in more detail
activities undertaken by universities are discussed in
in Chapter II.2.6.
more detail in Chapter II.2.5 below. And fifthly, administration provides, of course, full Secondly, as the FDES survey (see: footnote 16)
administrative support for the Programme. Relevant
shows, administration, and in particular international
units,
relations offices and/or academic affairs departments,
academic affairs departments and dean’s offices,
at the great majority of universities (81.8%) carry out or
prepare and register various documents related to
take part in the selection of students who have decided
outward and inward student and teacher mobility, and
to apply for an Erasmus grant. In turn, university
finance offices do all the work to account for Erasmus
reports for the FDES show that administration also
grants. In carrying out these tasks, they are supported
supports
university
and/or
including
international
relations
offices,
faculty/departmental
by ICT centres which, as the FDES survey shows,
authorities in the process of approving applications
even developed special software for the Erasmus
for Erasmus grants from teachers (at institutional level
Programme at a dozen or so universities. For example,
at 60% of universities and at faculty/departmental level
the Poznań University of Economics developed on-line
in over 40% faculties or departments).
application forms for Erasmus applicants and foreign students, as well as software applications for the
Thirdly, mainly international relations offices, but not
management of student grants and student selection.
infrequently in cooperation with other units, make
The scale of these administrative tasks, resulting
arrangements
preparation
from the number of outgoing and incoming Erasmus
(foreign language courses) and/or cultural preparation
for
so-called
linguistic
students and teachers, is illustrated by “quantitative
(classes introducing students to the realities and culture
outcomes” of the Programme in Chapter II.3.
of the host country) for students who have been
34
selected for Erasmus exchange. Students who do not
Extending the job description of university administration
wish to attend such classes are, in turn, provided
in this way, Erasmus prompted, as the FDES survey
shows, over half (54.5%) of universities to establish
national relations with new equipment (66.2% and
a new unit or section responsible for international
68.8% respectively). At some universities (13%),
relations, and the great majority of universities to hire
Erasmus also increased the number of staff at finance
extra staff and provide the units responsible for inter-
offices.
II.2.5
About Erasmus within universities and about universities under Erasmus: information and promotion activities
Activities promoting Erasmus and mobility among
The largest proportion of universities produced various
university students and staff
publications (48%) or organised conferences, seminars or workshops (44.1%) and/or organised Erasmus Days
Annual reports prepared by universities for the
(41.6%). Erasmus Days, which are in most cases
Foundation for the Development of the Education
an outcome of collaborative effort by international
System (FDES) show that some activities undertaken to
relations offices and student organisations, mainly
disseminate information about the Erasmus Programme
university-based sections of the Erasmus Student
and mobility opportunities under the Programme have
Network (see also: Chapter II.1.2), offer a full “menu”
already become a “standard approach” at the great
of events focusing exclusively on information about
majority of Polish universities. The standard set of
the Programme and its promotion. Publications listed
activities, which are organised mainly by international
by universities include, for example: information
relations offices, include publishing information on the
brochures about Erasmus, annually updated guides
university website, organising information meetings
for students, CDs with information about mobility
for students and teachers, and providing information
opportunities, bulletins for students and staff or articles
and advice on an individual basis. The great majority
and interviews in university journals, as well as in local
of universities also promote the Programme through
and national media. In turn, the category of conferences,
leaflets or posters, with these activities being targeted
seminars and workshops comprises a wide variety
mainly at students. At more than half of universities,
of meetings and events. These range from meetings
information about the Programme is also distributed to
with former Erasmus students (organised likewise with
individual faculties or departments.
considerable support from student organisations) or events held to celebrate various occasions within
In addition, as the above-mentioned FDES survey
the framework of Erasmus to international open days
shows, the great majority of universities (76.6%), or
and local, regional and international conferences on
in practice mainly their international relations offices,
various topics related to mobility.
promoted mobility among their students and/or teachers in other ways. More than half of universities
One-fifth of universities (19.5%) responding to the
(58.4%) carried out at least some of such activities
FDES questionnaire organised competitions promoting
within the framework of Erasmus or in connection with
mobility; for example, the Warsaw School of Economics
their participation in the Programme.
initiated a competition Discover Europe which is now
35
held at national level. And finally, one-third (33.8%)
special incentives, see also: Chapter II.2.1). For
of universities undertook other promotion activities.
example, the University of Warsaw runs language
These include, for example: an event promoting
courses at various levels for all staff which are largely
Erasmus among the local community on the occasion
financed from the institutional budget. At smaller
of Poland’s accession to the EU in 2004 (University of
universities (e.g. Upper Silesian Academy of Entrepre-
Finance and Management in Białystok); the European
neurship in Chorzów and Poznań Trade and Commerce
Day (Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in
College), information is disseminated not only during
Warsaw); or a concert given by Erasmus students
various meetings, but also among individual teachers.
to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Programme
The College of Management “Education” in Wrocław
in
offers extra pay for participation in international activities,
Europe
(I.J.
Paderewski
Academy
of
Music
in Poznań).
and the Kwidzyń School of Management provides support in the development of teaching materials in
At the three-fourths of universities which engaged
a foreign language.
in the above-mentioned activities in addition to “the standard Erasmus information and promotion
Activities promoting universities abroad
package”, the campaign encouraging participation in international cooperation and mobility was indeed
Recent years have also been a period of very intense
carried out extensively. This is confirmed by the fact
activities aimed at promoting Polish universities abroad.
that slightly less than one-third of the universities
At national level, even the Conference of Rectors of
(29.9%) responding to the FDES questionnaire
Academic Schools in Poland itself (which brings
engaged in at least three of the above-mentioned
together the Rectors of university-type higher education
activities25,
institutions) set out to promote programmes offered
9% in four types26, 14.3% in three types), and over
by its member universities. The CRASP runs a project
one-fourth (28.6%) in two types of such activities.
“Study in Poland” and publishes „A Guide to English-
Nearly one-fifth (18.2%) used one of these methods.
language courses of study at Polish institutions of
types of activities (6.5% in all five types of
higher education (CRASP members)” every year.27 In The activities outlined above were targeted mainly at
several big university cities, universities pool resources
students, but the FDES survey also shows that more
to undertake jointly various activities in the area of
than half of universities (52%) make in parallel special
public relations, which are designed, among other
efforts to encourage the participation of their teachers
things, to increase the number of incoming foreign
in international cooperation, including mobility (for
students. Recent years have seen, for example, the
25 University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, University of Warsaw, Warsaw School of Economics and Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw. 26 College of Foreign Languages in Częstochowa, University of Łódź, Technical University of Łódź, Cardinal August Hlond Upper Silesian College of Pedagogical Education in Mysłowice, State Higher Vocational School in Nysa, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and Poznań University of Economics. 27 http://www.studyinpoland.pl/; http://www.howtostudyinpoland.pl.
36
emergence of local initiatives such as “The Consor-
tyn, “The Erasmus Student Calendar” of the University
tium of Cracow Universities”, “The Network of Public
of Szczecin or “The International Student Guide” of the
Universities in Poznań” which runs a promotion
Wrocław University of Technology).
campaign under the banner of “Study in Poznań – better than at home”, the project “Study in Wrocław”
The slightly smaller but also great majority of
based on an agreement between universities in
universities (76.6%) participated in international
Wrocław or the programme “Study in Łódź” promoting
promotion events; for example, EAIE fairs or edu-
the universities in Łódź and the region. In addition,
cational fairs in various European countries as well as
extensive
in Morocco, China, India or the United States. A much
and
increasingly
extensive
promotion
activities are undertaken by individual universities.
smaller number of universities (14.3%) organised such international promotion events themselves.
“Heightened animation” in the area of promotion is also confirmed by findings from the FDES survey
Some universities (11.7%) created joint Internet
among Erasmus Institutional Coordinators where
portals or promoted their programmes in international
the huge majority of universities (98.7%) confirmed
portals. For example, the Warsaw School of Economics
their engagement in such activities (again carried out
created a joint information portal together with other
mainly by university international relations offices and
universities which are members of the Community
public relations offices). The survey also shows that
of European Management Schools and International
promotion efforts taken by the great majority of
Companies (CEMS), and Collegium Civitas in Warsaw
universities (74%) were aimed in particular at
presented itself in the specialised “EdMedia” portal.
attracting a larger number of foreign students and/ or teachers. At least some of these activities were
Finally, almost half of universities (45.4%) undertook
carried out by the equally great majority (74%) within
various other promotion activities. A number of
the framework of Erasmus or in connection with their
universities were involved in the above-mentioned
participation in the Programme.
projects run by the CRASP and/or local university consortia. Some Polish universities, mainly those
Like in the case of activities promoting mobility
situated
in
bigger
among Polish students and teachers, most universities
experienced in international cooperation, also promote
produced publications in a foreign language (as
themselves continuously through their participation
many as 93.5%) and ECTS Information Packages/
in international networks. These include, for example,
Course Catalogues (89.6%). Some of them are
the Compostela Group of Universities and Campus
more comprehensive university guides, folders or
Europea (University of Łódź), UNICA – Network of
prospectuses targeted at potential partner universities,
Universities from the Capitals of Europe (University
whereas others focus on foreign students (for example,
of Warsaw), the above-mentioned association CEMS
guides such as “I want to study at TUL” at the Techni-
(Warsaw School of Economics) or the Santander
cal University of Łódź, “Survival Guide” of the ESN sec-
Group (University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn).
tion at the University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsz-
Moreover,
some
university
universities
cities
use
and
various
more
other
37
“international
channels”,
Coopera-
that the great majority of universities (76.6%) were
tion Window projects under the Erasmus Mundus
engaged in at least three of the six above-mentioned
Programme (University of Warmia and Mazury in
types of activities (3.9% in all six types of activities28,
Olsztyn, University of Warsaw), international university
7.8% in five types29, 35% in four types, and 29.9% in
rankings
which
three types). Nearly 17% of universities were involved
participated in the last two Financial Times rankings)
in two types of promotional activities, and over 5%
or the organisation of cultural and research events
used one of these methods for promotion.
(Warsaw
e.g.
School
External
of
Economics
together with foreign diplomatic missions (Collegium Civitas). Furthermore, some “specialised” universities
Some credit for enhancing the image of our universities
use their specific assets or means of expression
can also be taken by faculties and departments. The
for promotion purposes. For example, the Fryderyk
FDES survey among Faculty/Departmental Erasmus
Chopin Academy of Music in Warsaw organises
Coordinators (see: footnote 20) shows that promotional
a series of concerts “Foreign Guests of the University”,
activities have been undertaken in recent years by
and the University School of Physical Education in
over 40% of faculties or departments, with more than
Wrocław produced sports clothes with the university
one-fourth engaged in such activities within the
logo for every foreign student. In addition, outward
framework of Erasmus or in connection with their
teacher and student mobility and visits from foreign
participation in the Programme. At this level, activities
guests at our universities were, naturally, used as
included mainly the participation in international fairs,
another opportunity for promotion.
conferences and academic events, various forms of promotion during international teacher and student
The extent of universities’ involvement in „foreign
exchanges, and the dissemination of information and
public relations” is also demonstrated by the fact
promotion materials via foreign partner universities.
II.2.6
Under the watchful eye and special care: arrangements related to student mobility.
Students are „the beating heart” of Erasmus and in
Preparation for outgoing students
many respects most Polish universities take proper students.
As mentioned in the chapter about the responsibilities
However, there are still some aspects of student
of university administration under Erasmus, universities
mobility which are worth improving or need to be
make sure that outgoing students have a good
improved in so far as it is possible.
command of the language in which classes are taught
care
of
both
outgoing
and
incoming
28 University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, University of Warsaw and Warsaw School of Economics. 29 AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Kraków University College in Cracow, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Collegium Civitas in Warsaw, and College of Management “Education” and University of Lower Silesia in Wrocław.
38
at hosting foreign universities. The above-mentioned
hosting universities. “The other ways” include in
FDES survey among Institutional Erasmus Coordina-
particular
tors (see: footnote 16) shows that 40% of universities
materials about the hosting country (84.4% of
organise special language courses for their students.
universities) and organising meetings with former
Several universities offer financial support for such
Erasmus students (85.7%). Still other ways of getting
courses taken by students outside their university, and
first-hand advice are available to students at universities
several other universities which have only recently
(18.2%) which have a former Erasmus student
joined the Programme plan to organise such courses
association, e.g. a section of the Erasmus Student
in the future. Where special language courses are
Network (see: Chapter II.1.2).
providing
students
with
information
not organised, this is most often because there is no demand among students; language proficiency is one
Monitoring of a study period abroad
of the criteria in the selection of applicants for Erasmus exchange, and selected students are already proficient
In the survey carried out by the FDES among
in the language of instruction of the hosting university.
Faculty/Departmental
Students from other Polish universities take such
footnote 20), nearly all faculties or departments30
courses at hosting universities. However, several
confirmed that they used at least one method to
universities responding to the FDES questionnaire
monitor their students during their study period abroad.
pointed to organisational problems (for example, when
Most universities use at least two methods and over
the period between the selection and departure is too
half of them three methods for monitoring.
Erasmus
Coordinators
(see:
short or dates convenient for all concerned cannot be arranged) and/or financial problems (insufficient
The great majority of faculties and departments
funding for the organisation of mobility which should
responding to the questionnaire (77.6%) appoint
also cover a number of other expenses).
a special tutor for this purpose. Students are most often supervised in a “distance monitoring system” through
Most universities (70.1%) provide practical and/or
email and/or telephone (95.2%), but more than half
cultural preparation to their students, organising
of faculties or departments (55.3%) also arrange
special courses which give an insight into the realities
teachers’ visits during their students’ study period at
of the hosting country and/or university. The minority
foreign universities. In turn, students from several
where such courses are not organised give various
faculties or departments are monitored either through
reasons; these range from the lack of demand as
contacts between the home faculty or department and
students obtain such information in other ways or the
the coordinator at the host university or on the basis
too small or too large number of outgoing students
of the student’s report on progress in their study or
to the fact that such courses are organised for their
a review of the student’s project portfolio.
students by another university in the same city or by
30 In fact, these could include all faculties/departments because several faculties/departments which have no outgoing students did not mention this fact in their questionnaire.
39
Recognition of a study period completed abroad
(over 15% of faculties/departments where the first option is combined with the second one).
Comparing data in universities’ annual reports for the
The remaining faculties/departments indicated one of
FDES for the last five years, one can clearly see that
the last three options or a combination of two or three
the situation with respect to the recognition of Erasmus
of the four available options, with the fourth option of
study periods has been gradually improving, but it
“other arrangements” indicated only in isolated cases.
could certainly be better. Between 2002/03 and
Regrettably, for example, at over one-fifth of faculties/
2004/05 students at ca 36% to 40% of universities
departments (over 21%) indicating the second option
reported recognition problems to their Institutional
alone, the proportion of students who are required
Erasmus Coordinators, whereas the corresponding
to obtain missing credits, though without attending
figure for the last two years was “only” 27% or 28%.
courses, ranges from 50% to 100%. Moreover, at
In these cases a discussion with the Dean or an
20% of faculties/departments indicating the second
intervention through the Rector most often proved to
option combined with the third one, the proportions of
be an effective solution.
students who are required “only” to obtain additional credits or also to attend non-completed courses vary
Faculty/Departmental Erasmus Coordinators respond-
considerably, but are nevertheless too large, ranging
ing to the FDES survey could choose between the
from 90% : 10%, 70% : 30% or 60% : 40% to 20% :
following options describing the situation in this area:
80%. Those with the heaviest burden of additional
1) all or the great majority of students have their study
credits to be obtained are students of medical sciences.
period fully recognised, without being required to
This results from the fact that it is absolutely necessary
obtain missing credits (or take examinations) for
for them to complete certain courses not only
courses which are included in the curriculum of the
because of the so-called minimum degree programme
home faculty/department, but were not completed
requirements (national standards) in Poland, but also
abroad; 2) students are required to obtain missing
because they should be prepared to practise their
credits, but do not have to attend classes as part of
profession in a responsible manner in the future.
a given course; 3) students are required not only to
40
obtain missing credits, but also to attend classes as
Findings from the survey also confirm that problems
part of a given course; 4) other arrangements. Although
with the recognition of Erasmus study periods result
findings from the survey can hardly be considered
mainly
representative (see: footnote 20), it is indeed a cause of
students’
concern that students at only less than half of faculties/
(75.3%), the latter being related to, among other
departments have no problems with the recognition of
things, the minimum curriculum requirements in
their Erasmus study periods (almost 26% of faculties/
Poland. Furthermore, more than half of faculties/
departments indicating the first and best option) or at
departments (51.7%) pointed out in this context
least a small proportion of students, though required to
that they did not have access to detailed information
obtain missing credits, do not have to attend classes
about programmes offered at foreign universities. For
as part of the course which was not completed abroad
a much smaller number of faculties/ departments,
from
curricular
home
and
differences host
between
the
faculties/departments
recognition problems result from too general provisions
for this purpose, among other things, information and
in the Learning Agreement (15.3%) or the absence
promotion materials forwarded by Polish universities.
of clear procedures for making recognition decisions
However, then our universities take over the baton to
at the home faculty/department (9.4%). Moreover,
continue the preparation phase.
14% mentioned various other reasons. These range from delays in sending relevant documents or relevant
First of all, universities’ annual reports for the
documents not being sent at all by the host faculty,
Foundation for the Development of the Education
or the withdrawal of courses included in the Learning
System and the FDES questionnaire survey among
Agreement after the student’s arrival to the specificity
Institutional Erasmus Coordinators show that the great
of certain courses which cannot be completed abroad
majority (over 80%) of universities organise Polish
(e.g. a translation or interpreting course) or simply the
language courses for foreign students or make
fact that students themselves did not obtain credits or
arrangements for them to take such courses outside of
pass an exam at the host university.
the university.
It should also be noted here that recognition problems are encountered by Erasmus students in all countries
Findings from the FDES survey also confirm that nearly
participating in the Programme. The latest Erasmus
all universities (94.8%) provide incoming students
Student Network’s report31 shows that in 2007 only
at the beginning with information about academic
over half of students (58%, as compared to 52% in
regulations at a given university. To do so, universities
2006) had all of their courses taken abroad recognised
most often organise special meetings (76.6% of
by their home universities. One-fourth of Erasmus
universities)
students obtained recognition for most of the courses,
(75.3%) and/or website addresses where they can find
11% for only few courses, and 6% did not have
useful information (80.5%). Nearly half of universities
even one course from their study programme abroad
(49.3%) provide such information in other forms. For
recognised at home.
example, at a dozen or so universities, those taking
or
give
students
printed
materials
the role of such “informants” are university sections Regardless of any possible recognition problems,
of the Erasmus Student Network or individual mentors
increasing numbers of Polish students go abroad for
or tutors appointed for foreign students. At a dozen or
an Erasmus study period (see: Chapter II.3.2) and are
so other universities, information is provided during
eager to talk about various benefits from their exchanges
individual
when returning home (see: Chapter II.4.1).
officers or the Erasmus Coordinator. Another dozen
meetings
with
international
relations
or so universities have chosen electronic media for Final preparation stage for incoming students
this purpose: in most cases students receive such an information package through email or in the form of
Appropriate preparation for foreign students is ensured,
a CD, and the Warsaw School of Economics has
of course, by their home universities which, in fact, use
a special web-based platform for foreign students. At
31 V. Boomans, S. Krupnik, E. Krzaklewska, S. Lanzilotta, “Generation Mobility. Results of ESN Survey ‘07”, Erasmus Student Network, 2008.
41
the great majority of universities (72.7%), students
Academic, practical and other arrangements for
have clearly no reason to complain about being
incoming students
“under-informed”, because information on academic regulations is provided to them in at least three of the
An overview of arrangements outlined in the FDES
above-mentioned forms (in all four forms at 27.3% of
surveys by Institutional and Faculty/ Departmental
universities, and in three forms at 45.4% of universities).
Erasmus Coordinators shows that most universities
A smaller number of universities (14.3%) provide such
provide “tender loving care” for incoming students. It
information in two forms, and a still smaller number
seems, however, that because of the still too limited
(7.8%) only in one form.
range of courses taught in foreign languages, foreign students have wider opportunities to integrate with
The equally huge majority of universities (94.8%)
Polish students after classes than during classes.
provide incoming students with practical information about the stay in Poland and/or a given city or town. Again, to do so, universities most often organise special meetings (72.7%) or provide students with printed materials (77.9%) and/or website addresses where they can find useful information (80.5%). A large number of universities (44.1%) provide such information in other forms, mainly in the same way as in the case of information about academic regulations. A few universities (e.g. Cracow University of Economics, University of Łódź, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Warsaw University of Life Sciences and Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences) also organise special introductory courses, days or weeks such as “Orientation Course”, “Orientation Days”, “Orientation Week” or “Welcome Week”. These activities are also intended to help foreign students integrate into the new environment – for further details, see below. Like in the case of information on other aspects, most universities (64.9%) provide necessary practical information to incoming students in at least three of the above-mentioned forms (28.6% of universities in all four forms, and 36.4% in three forms), a slightly smaller number (22%) in two forms, and a still smaller number (7.8%) in only one form.
42
Marcin Kluczek, University of Warsaw
First of all, suitable conditions for after-class integration
have no integration problems during classes in the
are provided by the great majority of universities
faculties/departments which offer degree programmes
(81.8%) where, in so far as possible, foreign students
in the field of foreign languages or other fields of study
are accommodated together with local students. An
where courses are taught in foreign languages (31.8%
even greater number of universities (89.6%) provide
of those which completed the questionnaire for Faculty/
extra everyday care for incoming students, most often
Departmental Erasmus Coordinators, including 12.9%
appointing a mentor or tutor for them. Tutors or mentors
which offer programmes in fields other than foreign
are in most cases Polish students, and additional
languages; see also footnote 20). In these cases
support may be offered by the Erasmus Coordinator,
foreign students simply join Polish and, where
the international relations office and/or the Erasmus
applicable, other foreign students attending regular
Student Network section, where the latter exists.
courses. However, in the fields of study where Polish
At several universities the task of supporting foreign
is normally the language of instruction, only slightly
students has been entrusted in full to the ESN
more than one-third of faculties/departments (37.6%)
section. Some universities have more “formalised”
organise special courses taught in a foreign language
support arrangements such as the Buddy System or
which are attended by both foreign and Polish students.
Mentor, Tutor or Tandem
Programme.32
In addition,
Nearly 46% of faculties/ departments organise special
over half of universities (58.4%) organise special
courses taught in a foreign language for foreign students
integration events for foreign students. Apart from the
which are normally not attended by Polish students.
above-mentioned “orientation” activities or events in
Over one-fourth of faculties/departments (25.9%) have
which foreign students take part immediately upon
adopted other arrangements. Almost half of faculties/
arrival, those organised throughout their stay include,
departments use two of these approaches, depending
for example, international or Polish days, evenings or
on the field of study or the topic of the course. “Other
weeks; joint sightseeing tours around the city, outings
arrangements” include both more and less “integrative”
to the theatre or visits to museums, integration trips,
approaches. For example, foreign students in several
integration parties and joint outings to restaurants
faculties/departments participate in courses taught in
and pubs, events celebrating various occasions (e.g.
Polish, but the teacher uses a foreign language when
Juwenalia student festivities, Miner’s Day, Christmas
speaking to them, or they have a personal interpreter
or Easter), and sporting contests and activities.
or receive handouts and have additional tutorial hours in a foreign language; another approach is to launch
Special academic tutors for foreign students are
a course taught in a foreign language which may be
likewise appointed by the great majority of faculties/
taken as optional by Polish students. In turn, foreign
departments (74.1%). Obviously, foreign students
students in several other faculties/ departments have
32 Stanisław Staszic College of Public Administration in Białystok (Buddy System), President Stanislaw Wojciechowski Higher Vocational State School in Kalisz (Buddy System), Poznań University of Economics (Buddy System), Poznań University of Life Sciences (Buddy System); Technical University of Łódź („Mentor Programme – Take care of a foreign student”), Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań (Tutor, Buddy and Tandem Programmes), University of Warsaw (Mentor and Tandem Programmes in cooperation with the ESN section), Collegium Civitas (Tutor Programme) and Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences (Mentor Programme).
43
tutorials on an individual basis (including individual
stay more suitable to the needs of students, as well as
projects), obtain credits for courses taught in Polish on
for promotional purposes.
the basis of individual work or write final theses under the supervision of appointed teachers.
In addition, feedback from foreign students is collected by over 63% of faculties/departments, some of them
Feedback
on
courses
and
stay
collected
from
within universities where students are also requested to give their feedback at institutional level. Only over
incoming students
one-fourth (29.4%) carry out questionnaire surveys While the great majority of universities take good
for this purpose. Over 15% of faculties/departments
care of students during their stay, the FDES survey
collect
shows that a slightly smaller number of universities do
evaluation questionnaire which is completed by both
indeed care about how foreign students evaluate their
Polish and foreign students; over 4% through a special
experience at the end of their stay. Only slightly more
course evaluation questionnaire completed only by
than half of universities (51.9%) collect and ana-
foreign students; and over 9% through a special
lyse at institutional level the feedback from incoming
questionnaire
students on the courses taken at the university and
(organisational, financial, etc.) aspects of the stay
their stay in Poland; and only one-fifth (20.8%) of
completed only by foreign students. Almost all other
them collect feedback in a more standardised and
faculties/departments
formalised manner, i.e. through a questionnaire33. The
incoming students during an individual discussion
latter include the University of Warsaw which even
held by the Dean, Erasmus Coordinator or a teacher,
intends to incorporate the questionnaire for foreign
or a discussion involving a larger group of students.
feedback
through
covering
a
both
collect
“standard”
courses
oral
and
feedback
course
other
from
students into the institutional student evaluation questionnaire
system
supervised
by
the
newly
Regardless of whether and how universities collect
established Office for Quality of Education. At the
feedback, incoming students’ experiences are un-
majority of other universities, Institutional Erasmus
doubtedly encouraging, because Polish universities
Coordinators, international relations officers, teachers
host an increasing, though still not large enough,
and/or students hold discussions with foreign students,
number of foreign students (see: Chapter II.3.3). As
and foreign students at few other universities are
various surveys show, foreign students come to Poland
requested to make comments in writing. Regardless
mainly for so-called “non-academic reasons” and
of the method chosen, the feedback collected is used
what they value most highly is exactly the so-called
to improve the quality of services for students and the
“social dimension” of their stay – for further details, see:
organisation of exchange, to make the programme of
Chapter II.4.2.
33 University of Finance and Management in Białystok, Silesian College of Economics and Administration in Bytom, University of Łódź, State Higher Vocational School in Nysa, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań University of Economics, University of Agriculture in Szczecin, Angelus Silesius State School of Higher Vocational Education in Wałbrzych, University of Warsaw, Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Lazarski School of Commerce and Law and Collegium Civitas in Warsaw, and University School of Physical Education, University of Business and College of Management “Education” in Wrocław.
44
II.3
Erasmus for the statistician and the patient amateur: quantitative outcomes with extensive commentary
NData given in this part cover, in so far as possible,
well. Key data illustrating the volume of Polish student
the period between 1998/99 and 2006/07, except for
and teacher mobility are discussed against data which
data concerning the number of universities participating
the European Commission collects every year from all
in the Programme, which cover the year 2007/08 as
II.3.1
European countries participating in the Programme.
Already more than half of all: universities participating in the Programme
Poland entered the Programme with a team of 46
with other European universities within the framework
universities in the academic year 1998/99. During ten
of Erasmus (Figure 2) grew over five-fold to 256 in
years, the number of Polish universities cooperating
2007/08. In the first year of the decade, institutions clearly predominating within the Erasmus team were public universities (42, over 91%), and those in the majority among them were universities and technical universities – not only the largest group in the public higher education sector, but also the one which then had most extensive experience in European cooperation. In
the
following
universities,
years,
including
other
types
universities
of
of
public
economics,
agricultural, medical and pedagogical universities, schools of art and higher vocational education schools, featured increasingly prominently in the Programme. In turn, the years after 2003/04 saw an increasing number of non-public universities vigorously joining the Programme. As a result of these gradual changes, public and non-public universities already had an almost equal representation in the Programme in terms of numbers (97, i.e. 52%, and 90, i.e. 48% respectively) in 2004/05, and since 2005/06 the number of non-public universities has exceeded the number of public Erasmus universities. The 256 universities on the Polish Erasmus map in 2007/08 include 115 public universities (45%) and 141 nonpublic universities (55%).
45
Figure 2. Number of Polish universities participating in the Erasmus Programme, 1998/99-2007/08
25
6
300
21
7
24
0
250
14 5 11
4 10
1 90
97
88
81
63
73
60
Public universities
Non-public universities
8 20
07
/2
00
7 20
06
/2
00
6 20
05
/2
00
5 20
04
/2
00
4 20
03
/2
00
3 20
02
/2
00
2 20
01
/2
00
1 00 20
00
/2
00 /2 99 19
19
98
/1
99
9
0
0
4
14
22
27
39
46
42
50
10
0 10
99 77
74
100
11
12
6
0
13
6
150
1
15
1
18
7
200
Public and non-public universities, total
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 1998-2000 and 2001/022006/07.
At present, the 256 universities participating in the
The questionnaire survey conducted by the Foundation
Erasmus Programme represent over 57% of all (448)
for the Development of the Education System (FDES)
Polish universities. However, the proportion is much
in summer 2008 (see: footnote 16) shows that the
larger in the public sector alone as 115 (88%) of all
majority of Polish Erasmus universities, regardless
130 public universities are involved in the Programme.
of their size, have most or the great majority of their
By contrast, the 141 non-public Erasmus universities
faculties (or departments at universities with a different
represent only 44% of all 318 non-public universities.34
internal structure) involved in the Programme. At some
During the last ten years, the total number of non-
universities, all or most faculties or departments joined
public universities was growing much faster that the
the Programme at once
number of those among them which were joining the
Economics, Poznań University of Economics or Adam
Programme.
Mickiewicz University in Poznań). At other universities,
(e.g. Cracow University of
34 Data concerning the number of Polish universities for the academic year 2006/07: „Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w 2006 r.” (Higher education institutions and their finances in 2006”), Central Statistical Office, Warsaw, 2007.
46
the number of faculties or departments involved grew
State Higher Vocational School in Nysa: one of 10
considerably or very considerably as compared to
departments in 2004/05, and all 11 departments
the first year of the university’s participation in the
today; University of Warsaw: 5 of 18 faculties in
programme (e.g. Cracow University of Technology:
1998/99, and all 18 faculties today).
1 of all 7 faculties in 1998/99, and all 7 faculties today; II.3.2
Already over 11,000 per year, but still below the European average: outgoing Polish students
Numbers and percentages at national level and in
During nine years, the annual number of outgoing
international comparisons
students increased almost eight-fold from 1,426 in 1998/99 to 11,219 in 2006/07 (Figure 3), and a total
The questionnaires completed by Polish universities for
number of 53,530 students have already undertaken
the FDES show that the interest in Erasmus exchange
a study period at European universities. To illustrate
among students is growing every year at the majority of
the volume of mobility, all Polish Erasmus students
universities. Findings from the surveys are confirmed by
are a slightly larger group than all students currently
the actual number of Polish Erasmus students under-
enrolled at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań
taking a study period at other European universities,
and a slightly smaller group than all students at the
which grows on average by one thousand every year.
University of Warsaw, the largest Polish university.
Figure 3. Number of outgoing Polish students, 1998/99-2006/07 12 000
11 219 9 974
10 000 8 388 8000 6 278 6000
5 419 4 322 3 691
4000 2 813 2000
1 426
20 07 06 / 20
20 06 05 / 20
20 05 04 / 20
20 04 03 / 20
20 03 02 / 20
20 02 01 / 20
20 01 00 / 20
20 00 99 / 19
19
98 /
19 99
0
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, report „Erasmus in Poland in the academic year 2006/07”
47
Polish Erasmus students represent ca 3.2% of all
but their „delegations” among Erasmus students
students from all 31 participating countries who
(ca 3.2%) represent only slightly less than a half of the
undertook a study period abroad under the Programme
Polish student team. However, for example, students
during 20 years, between its launch in 1987/88
from the United Kingdom, which has a total number
and 2006/07. However, such data do not give
of over 2 million students, represented only 4.5% of
a meaningful picture, because countries have a longer
all European Erasmus students in 2006/07 and, in
or shorter “period of service” in the Programme
contrast to the continuous growth in Poland, their
and vary considerably in terms of their total student
proportion has not increased steadily in recent years.
populations, and thus also the potential volume of
period
Likewise, the number of our outgoing Erasmus
between 1998/99 and 2006/07, during which Polish
student
mobility.
Analysing
only
the
students as a proportion of all students in Poland is
universities were already involved in the Programme,
not particularly impressive as compared to that in
one can clearly see that we have been steadily
other countries. Polish Erasmus students represented
increasing our share in the European population of
0.11% in 1998/99, 0.33% in 2003/04 and 0.58%
Erasmus students. Polish students undertaking a study
of the total student population in Poland in 2006/07.
period under the Programme represented ca 1.4% of
In spite of the increasing volume of mobility in terms
European Erasmus students in 1998/99 and already
of numbers and percentages, we are still below the
7% in 2006/07. As a result, in 2006/07 Poland
European average of ca 0.8% for recent years.
ranked fifth in terms of the number of outgoing
In 2006/07 the number of Erasmus students as
students among all 31 countries participating in the
a proportion of the total student population in a given
Programme. We were outdistanced by Germany,
country was equal to, or larger than, the European
France, Spain and Italy.
average in 18 of all 31 countries participating in the Programme, and smaller than the European
48
However, our figures compare much less favourably
average in 13 countries. Apart from Liechtenstein and
with those in other European countries when the total
Luxembourg (which, “of necessity”, send many
number of students in each country is taken into
students abroad because of the limited range of higher
account. The size of the student population in the four
education programmes available there), the countries
countries that outdistance us is similar to that in Poland
which can be most proud of their ratios are Austria
(1.8 to 2.2 million in these countries, and 1.9 million
(1.6%), the Czech Republic (1.5%) and Malta (1.4%).
in Poland). Nevertheless, in 2006/07 Germany, France
Poland is now in the second group in the company of
or Spain had two times (14% to 15%) and Italy one-
half of other new EU Member States (Bulgaria, Cyprus,
and-a-half times (11%) as many students as Poland
Hungary, Latvia, Romania and the Slovak Republic),
among the total European population of Erasmus
old and older Member States (Denmark, Greece,
students. Our achievements look equally modest when
Sweden and the United Kingdom), as well as Norway
compared to those of smaller countries. For example,
and Turkey. Thus the dividing lines do not go along the
the number of students in Belgium and the Czech
borders between the old and new part of the Union or
Republic is almost five times smaller than in Poland,
between the EU and other European countries.
Map of universities sending students
in 2006/07. For example, 61% of universities sending students abroad in 2006/07 had between 1 to 25
At national level, our fairly small number of Erasmus
outgoing students, 24% of universities between
students as a proportion of the total student population
26 and 100 outgoing students, and nearly 15% of
can be partly explained by the fact that figures include,
universities between 101 and over 400 outgoing
naturally, part-time students. During the last decade,
students. In total, between 1998/99 and 2006/07,
this group represented over half of the total student
outgoing students from over 16% (ca 30) of over
population in Poland, whereas the proportion of
200 universities sending students abroad represented
part-time students was much smaller in other countries,
ca 75% of all outgoing students.
though mainly in the old EU Member States. Part-time students, who “inflate” our total number of students,
Neither in annual breakdowns nor in the overall
very rarely undertake an Erasmus study period for fear
rankings for the period 1998/99-2006/07 are varying
of losing their job or because of the nature of their job
numbers merely a reflection of differences in size
and/or family duties.
between universities. Nearly each band of 10 universities in the rankings according to outgoing
Moreover, some of the 57% of all Polish universities
student numbers, and in particular the highest bands,
involved in the Programme did not send students for
include smaller universities which sent a relatively
a study period to other European universities. Between
larger number of students. The overall rankings
1998/99 and 2006/07, the proportion of universities
for the period 1998/99-2006/07 are, of course,
sending students ranged from over 75% to over 90%,
determined by each university’s “period of service”
with a gradual decline in recent years to 77.5% in
in the Programme. This is one of the reasons why
2006/07. The decline results mainly from the fact
the top 30 universities which jointly sent ca 75% of
that no students went abroad from a relatively large
students include only those that joined the Programme
number of non-public universities which were joining
in 1998/99 or 1999/2000. The top 10 universities
the Programme from 2003/04 onwards. In total, over
in the overall rankings (Figure 4 below) are mainly
200 universities sent their students for an Erasmus
the largest and large public universities with the total
exchange during this period.
student population ranging between ca 30,000 and over 50,000. Each of them sent abroad almost 1,500
Varying numbers and percentages at individual
to almost 4,500 students. As befits the largest Polish
universities
university, the University of Warsaw never stepped down as the first among the top 10 Polish universities,
What one can find, however, behind the figures which
and was also among the top 20 European universities
are averaged out at national level is a very diverse
sending largest numbers of students in 2004/05.
landscape at university level. From the first year of
However, the top 10 Polish universities also included
our participation in the Programme, outgoing student
the Technical University of Łódź, which is smaller
numbers varied very considerably among universities,
than the other eight universities, and the even much
ranging from 2 to 176 in 1998/99 and from 1 to 950
smaller Warsaw School of Economics. Moreover, these
49
two universities outdistanced a few larger ones in the
more than 1,000 students, the Jan Matejko Academy
second band which had also participated in the Pro-
of Fine Arts in Cracow, ranked among the top 30
gramme for eight or nine years.
universities in terms of outgoing student numbers. In turn, the number of outgoing students at three pub-
The second and third bands of ten include almost
lic higher vocational education schools (University of
exclusively public universities, the great majority of
Applied Sciences in Gorzów Wielkopolski, State
which have over 12,000 to over 34,000 students.
Higher Vocational School in Krosno and State Higher
The number of outgoing students at these universities
Vocational School in Nysa) in 2006/07 ranged
ranged from over 1,400 to over 950 and from over
between a dozen or so to over 30 – many more than
400 to over 900 respectively. In accordance with the
at other public higher vocational education schools
principle of “proportional representation”, those at
and non-public universities of a comparable size.
the top of the second band are universities with over
As compared to the overall rankings for the period
34,000 students, the Nicolaus Copernicus University
1998/99-2006/07, one can hardly see any significant
in Toruń and the University of Silesia in Katowice.
changes in the lowest band of the rankings for 2006/07
Again, however, a few universities in both the second
alone because of the very small number of outgoing
and third band which have between 10 and 20,000
students. However, there was some “reshuffling” among
students (e.g. Universities of Economics in Cracow,
the top 30 universities. The Nicolaus Copernicus
Poznań and Katowice, and Poznań and Gdańsk
University in Toruń and the University of Silesia in
Universities of Technology) were well ahead of a few
Katowice climbed up from the top 20 to the top 10
larger universities. A few equally large universities were
band, replacing the Warsaw School of Economics
also outdistanced by the Leon Kozminski Academy of
and the Silesian University of Technology in Gliwice.
Entrepreneurship and Management in Warsaw which
Another change worthy of note here is that a few
has only slightly more than 6,000 students.
“new” universities moved into the top 30 band. These include,
50
for
example,
the
Opole
University
of
From the beginning, those with smallest outgoing
Technology, University of Rzeszów, Lazarski School of
student numbers were, of course, smaller and the
Commerce and Law in Warsaw, Pedagogical University
smallest universities. This group includes a large
of Cracow and Szczecin University of Technology.
proportion of non-public universities, in particular
The Lazarski School of Commerce and Law had only
those which have only recently joined the Programme,
four years of experience in the Programme, but this
public higher vocational education schools, as well as
was a period of increasingly extensive involvement,
schools of art and universities of physical education.
while „new” public universities have consistently
Again, however, the size is not a decisive factor among
increased the number of outgoing students in recent
smaller universities either. A school of art with slightly
years.
Position
Figure 4. Universities with largest numbers of outgoing students, 1998/99-2006/07
University
Total number of Erasmus students, 1998/992006/07
Proportion of all Polish Erasmus students, 1998/992006/07 (53,530)
Number of Erasmus students, 2006/07
Proportion of all Polish Erasmus students, 2006/07 (11,219)
Total student population, 2006/07
Erasmus students as a proportion of the total student population, 2006/077
1.
University of Warsaw
4 414
8,25%
950
8,47%
56 633
1,68%
2.
Adam Mickiewicz University
3 407
6,36%
685
6,11%
50 964
1,34%
3.
Jagiellonian University
3 238
6,05%
730
6,51%
44 208
1,65%
4.
University of Wrocław
2 854
5,33%
649
5,78%
39 061
1,66%
5.
University of Łódź
2 330
4,35%
363
3,24%
37 945
0,96%
6.
Technical University of Łódź
2 029
3,79%
339
3,02%
20 171
1,68%
7.
Warsaw School of Economics
1 757
3,28%
282
2,51%
11 507
2,45%
8.
Warsaw University of Technology
1 676
3,13%
304
2,71%
29 847
1,02%
9.
Wrocław University of Technology
1 603
2,99%
302
2,69%
32 821
0,92%
10.
Silesian University of Technology
1 491
2,79%
234
2,09%
30 452
0,77%
24 799
46,32%
4 838
43,13%
353 609
1,41%
Total/average
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 1998-2000 and 2001/022006/07; Central Statistical Office, „Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w roku 2006” (Higher education institutions and their finances in 2006), 2007.
In the context of „participation rates in Erasmus”,
of all students at the participating universities.35
outgoing student numbers as a proportion of the total
Erasmus students at ca 5% of universities represented
student population are, however, more relevant than
over 10% to over 30% of students in one year of study
absolute numbers. And again, Polish universities
(i.e. over 2% to over 6% of the total student population
differ considerably in this respect. Up-to-date data
at a given university). The top five percent included
concerning Erasmus students as a proportion of the total
as many as five public schools of art (Academies of
student population are not available for all universities
Fine Arts in Cracow (32%), Warsaw (19%), Katowice
“exporting” their students. However, in 2004/05
(17.4%) and Wrocław (16.6%) and Academy of
universities calculated the number of Erasmus students
Music in Cracow (14.7%), two non-public universities
as an approximate percentage of all students in one
(Tischner European University in Cracow (17.9%)
year of study. The average percentage was 2.67%; if the
and Collegium Civitas in Warsaw (15,4%) and the
average duration of studies is taken into account, this
Warsaw School of Economics (10.5%).
means that Erasmus students represented ca 0.56%
35 The average duration of studies as given by universities was 4.8 years. The proportion given by universities was higher than the national average of 0.44% for 2004/05, the latter being calculated as the number of Erasmus students in relation to the total student population in Poland. The „inflated” percentage given by universities results most probably from the fact that universities’ calculations were based on different numbers of students.
51
Among those above the national average, there were
first of all, that if we aim to achieve the European
also almost 20% of universities where the proportion
average, ca 75% of universities below or around
of Erasmus students ranged from over 4% to 10%
our current national average would need to increase
(i.e. over 0.8% to ca 2% in relation to the total student
substantially the number of outgoing students in the
population). The percentages at ca 12% of universities
coming years.
fluctuated around the national average, varying from over 2.6% to over 3% (i.e. from over 0.5% to over
Varying progress over the years
0.6% in relation to all students). Both groups were comprised of public as well as non-public universities
As mentioned earlier on, a total number of over 200
of different sizes. Those in the above-the-average
universities were sending students abroad between
band were, among others, most of the universities
1998/99 and 2006/07. These universities may be
(in addition to the Warsaw School of Economics
divided into three groups according to changes in
mentioned above as one of the record holders) which
outgoing student numbers in successive years. The
are the leading “exporters” of students (for the top
first group of over 100 universities (over 50%) includes
10 universities, this is also confirmed by the data for
those which have participated in the Programme for at
2006/07 in Figure 4). Regrettably, the below-the-
least three years and have consistently increased the
average band was broad enough to include the
number of outgoing students since the first year of their
majority of universities, i.e. ca 63%, with roughly
participation. These universities are the first to claim
equal proportions of public and non-public universities.
credit for the fact that the annual number of outgoing
At more than half of these universities, the percentages
students grew almost eightfold at national level during
were lower than 1% (or lower than 0.2% in relation to
nine years of Poland’s participation in the Programme.
the total student population at a given university).
The group can be sub-divided into “the record-beating subgroup” and “the reliable subgroup”. However, this
Recent years have been “a transition period” for
distinction is made here for illustrative purposes only
Polish Erasmus. A large proportion of universities with
and with no pretence to being fair. This is because the
increasingly extensive experience have been steadily
records beaten depend on “the period of service” in the
increasing the absolute number and the proportion of
Programme and the number of outgoing students in
outgoing students; some universities with a slightly
the first year, while the latter may have been very small
shorter “period of service” are increasingly active
as compared to the actual “student export capacity” of
in the Programme; others are lagging behind; and
the university concerned.
in the meantime new universities are joining the student
“The record-beating subgroup” includes over 20
exchange at a widely varying pace. Nevertheless, one
universities (over 10% of all universities sending
can assume that the percentage bands for 2004/05
students) where the number of outgoing students
given above are, at least as a crude approximation,
increased ten-fold to more than fifty-fold between the
translatable into the current situation. This means,
first year of their participation in the Programme and
Programme
52
and
only
now
developing
2006/07.36 Most of them are public universities which
Programme. Again, the great majority of universities
first gained experience in European cooperation under
in this subgroup are public universities which, in
the Tempus Programme and then joined Erasmus in
general, clearly predominated in the Polish Erasmus
the first or second year of Poland’s participation in the
team during the first years of our participation in the
Programme. Thus they had plenty of time to develop
Programme; those predominating among both public
student exchange. However, there are also a few, both
and non-public ones are universities with least six or
public and non-public, universities in the subgroup
seven years of experience in the Programme. In addition
which joined Erasmus between 2000/01 and 2003/04
to the 10 universities with the largest total number
or even only in 2004/05. Universities in this subgroup
of outgoing students (Figure 4), public universities in
had, of course, varying numbers and percentages of
this subgroup include universities of various types and
outgoing students, thus contributing to varying extents
sizes situated in bigger and smaller university cities
towards our “enhanced performance” in Erasmus at
and towns. For example, the number of outgoing
national level. For example, the Warsaw School of
students grew more than seven-fold at the University
Economics and the University of Gdańsk entered the
of Physical Education in Warsaw, the University of
Programme in 1998/99 and 1999/2000, respectively,
Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn and the University
with over 20 students, and already had over 250
of Silesia in Katowice, and more than five-fold at the
outgoing students in 2006/07. In turn, the number of
Szczecin University of Technology, the Gdynia Maritime
outgoing students grew from 3 in 1998/1999 to 87
University or the Academy of Music in Cracow. As
in 2006/07 at the Pedagogical University of Cracow,
regards non-public universities, the group of Erasmus
from 5 in 2000/01 to 119 in 2006/07 at the Białystok
students was growing more rapidly, for example, at the
Technical University, and from 1 in 2003/04 to 29
Poznań School of Banking and the Higher School of
in 2006/07 at the Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow
Pedagogy in Warsaw (eightfold increase), the Nowy
University College.
Sącz School of Business – National-Louis University and
the
Warsaw
School
of
Social
Psychology
“The reliable subgroup”, including over 80 universities
(sixfold increase) or the Leon Kozminski Academy of
(over 40% of all universities sending students),
Entrepreneurship and Management in Warsaw (more
recorded a less spectacular, but equally steady increase
than fourfold increase). Moreover, this subgroup
in the number of Erasmus students; many of them did
includes three non-public universities mentioned above
not fit into “the record-beating subgroup” only because
in the context of absolute numbers or percentages
they already sent abroad a relatively large number of
of Erasmus students (Collegium Civitas in Warsaw,
students in the first year of their participation in the
Tischner European University in Cracow and Lazarski
36 More than twentyfold to fifty-one-fold increase: Wrocław University of Economics, Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski Krakow University College in Cracow, Pedagogical Univeristy of Cracow, Kielce University of Technology, Białystok Technical University, Silesian School of Economics and Languages in Katowice, Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw and Pedagogical University in Kielce. Tenfold to twentyfold increase: Cracow University of Technology, Poznań University of Medical Sciences, John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, State Higher Vocational School in Nysa, University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów, Koszalin University of Technology, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Stanisław Staszic College of Public Administration in Białystok, Karol Adamiecki University of Economics in Katowice, Academy of Fine Arts in Poznań, University of Gdańsk, University of Rzeszów, Gdańsk University of Technology, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin and Warsaw School of Economics.
53
School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw). Though
beginning. Ca 40 universities sent no more than one to
the number of Erasmus students at these three
several students every year; some of them had one or
universities increased only twofold or less than two-
two more outgoing students as compared to the previous
fold, they had a relatively large proportion of outgoing
year; others had exactly the same number of outgoing
students throughout the period of their participation
students throughout the years, and still others sent an
in the Programme.
even smaller number of students than in previous years. In turn, though overall slightly larger, the number of
The second group includes ca 15% (ca 30) of
outgoing students at ca 10 universities “bounced” up
universities
be
and down in successive years, and in a few cases even
assessed at the moment because they began sending
returned in 2006/07 to the level recorded in the first
students abroad only in 2005/06 or 2006/07. Some
years of their participation in the Programme.
whose
performance
can
hardly
universities with a two-year “period of service” in the Programme increased more or less substantially the
This overview shows that even smaller and/or less
number of outgoing students as compared to the first
experienced universities may impress others with
year, while others sent the same number of students in
their numbers, percentages or progress. The number
the second year.
and proportion of outgoing students are, of course, determined by many factors. However, to put it simply,
Among universities of the two groups discussed above
it all boils down to “the will”, which is not only the
which have only recently joined the Programme, a few
interest among students themselves, but also the
flagship cases are worth highlighting as they prove
university’s pro-European policy or culture favouring
that good results can be achieved even in a short time.
mobility, and “the capacity” or, in other words, all that
The State Higher Vocational School in Nysa joined the
enables the university to attract prospective hosting
Programme in 2004/05, sending first only 2 students,
universities for our students and then to establish
and already had as many as 32 Erasmus students in
cooperation with partners and work together efficiently.
2006/07. The State Higher Vocational School in Krosno,
One-fourth of universities lagging behind others in one
participating in the Programme since 2005/06, has
respect or another still need to put in some extra effort
already tripled the number of outgoing students from
to improve one or both of these elements. It seems
9 to 27. In turn, the Gdańsk School of Banking joined
that, at least at some of the one-fourth of universities
Erasmus only in 2006/07 and right away sent 31
with no significant increase in outgoing student
students abroad.
numbers, the problem does not lie so much in the lack of commitment as in the still limited capacity in the
54
The common feature of over 50, mainly non-public,
area of international cooperation. This is confirmed by
universities (over 25%) in the third group is that their
the fact that at least some them have already designed
outgoing student numbers in successive years do not
development strategies covering international relations
indicate a clear upward trend. Most of these universities
and provide extra funding for student mobility even at
joined the Programme at least three or four years ago,
a level of almost or over 100% of the Erasmus student
and some were even already involved at the very
grant (see: Chapters II.2.1 and II.2.3).
To give a full picture, one should also mention here
Countries hosting Polish students
a number of difficulties reported by Institutional Erasmus Coordinators at Polish universities which may
The list of countries where Polish students under-
discourage some of potentially interested universities
took a study period between 1998/99 and 2006/07
and students. Those most often mentioned include the
(Figure 5) includes all countries participating in the
following: lack of detailed and up-to-date information
Programme,
about degree programmes at partner universities, which
which are most often chosen, Germany ranked first for
also makes it difficult to agree a study programme for
years, hosting in total over 27% of all 53,530 Polish
students; no courses offered at partner universities in
students. A smaller, but still fairly large, group of
the languages indicated earlier; poor knowledge of
Polish Erasmus students completed a study period in
foreign languages, English in particular, among
France (12.4%), Spain (8.7%), Italy (7.5%) and the
students; mismatch between agreements with partner
United Kingdom (6%). These five countries attracted
universities and student expectations; no places
jointly over 61% of Polish students. Four of them are
available at partner universities; and problems with
also the most popular destinations among students
the recognition of a study period completed abroad
from all 31 Erasmus countries, though the rankings
at the home faculty. However, these problems do
are slightly different here, with Spain still in the lead,
not seem to be a decisive factor, because others are
followed by France, Germany and the United Kingdom.
wrestling with the same problems, including both
To be precise, it is worth adding that the limits to the
outstanding Polish universities and universities in the
freedom which students in all Erasmus countries have
countries which rank higher than Poland in terms of
in choosing their hosting country and university are set
“the participation rate in Erasmus”.
by agreements between their home universities and
except
Liechtenstein.
Among
those
other European universities or, in practice, by teachers as those most often initiating them.
Krzysztof Lisicki, Technical University of Lodz, „Friends from the student hostel”, Lyon, France
55
Figure 5. Number of outgoing Polish students by destination country, 1998/99-2006/07
Germany
14 554
France
6 647
Spain
4 683
Italy
4 004
UK
3 241
Denmark
2 849
Belgium
2 817
Netherlands
2 691
Finland
2 389
Sweden
2 080
Portugal
1 915
Austria
1 300
Greece
995
Czech Republic
684
Ireland
636
Norway
327
Turkey
315
Slovak Republic
310
Lithuania
246
Hungary
214
Slovenia
205
Bulgaria Latvia
133 89
Estonia
72
Romania
48
Cyprus
45
Iceland
23
Malta 16 Luxembourg 2 Liechtenstein 0 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, report „Erasmus in Poland in the academic year 2006/07�.
Areas of study represented by students
philological sciences, social sciences, and engineering and technology. These four areas of study were also
56
In 2006/07 those figuring most prominently among
represented by the largest number of Polish Erasmus
Erasmus students from all 31 countries participating in
students both in 2006/07 alone and during nine years
the Programme were students of business, languages/
of our participation in the Programme (Figure 6). In
a breakdown by area for the period 1998/99-2006/07,
12.1% in languages/philological sciences. Students
the proportions of students in the four areas were as
in these areas represented jointly 60.1% of all Polish
follows: 20.1% in business studies, 15.1% in social
Erasmus students.
sciences, 12.8% in engineering and technology, and Figure 6. Number of outgoing Polish students by area of study, 1998/99-2006/07
10 743
Business studies Social sciences
8 082 6 866
Engineering, Technology Languages, Philological sciences
6 469
Law
3 145
Natural sciences
3 134
Mathematics, Computing
2 359
Architecture, Planning
2 279
Medical sciences
2 084
Art and Design
2 004 1 646
Humanities Geography, Geology
1 511 1 158
Education, Teacher training
986
Agricultural sciences
571
Communication and Information Sciences Other areas
493 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10 000
12 000
14 000
16 000
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, report „Erasmus in Poland in the academic year 2006/07”.
Erasmus study areas are not fully translatable into
of Polish students in specific fields of study. Comparing
the groups of fields of study as classified in Poland.
figures for 2006/0737, one can clearly see that the
Thus only selected groups of fields can be taken as an
top three Erasmus areas with the strongest student
example to assess whether Polish Erasmus students
representation are also among the groups of fields in
are a proportional representation of the total number
the Polish classification (business and administration,
37 Data concerning the number of students in Poland by group of fields of study in the academic year: “Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w 2006 r.” (Higher education institutions and their finances), Central Statistical Office, Warsaw, 2007.
57
social and behavioural sciences, and engineering
Duration of a study period abroad
and engineering trades) which are “staffed” by the largest number of students. In social sciences and
Between 1998/99 and 2006/07, Polish students
engineering, the Erasmus student team (17% and
went for a study period to other European universities
10.6%, respectively, of Polish Erasmus students in
on average for 6 months. The average duration of an
2006/07) was several percent bigger since all students
Erasmus study period for students from all participating
in these fields of study represented 14.5% and 7.2%,
countries is 6.5 months and thus minimally longer.
respectively, of the total student population in Poland.
The European average includes, in fact, durations
By contrast, the Erasmus crew was several percent
of study periods which vary fairly significantly
smaller in the area of business studies (18%), with
between countries from 4.9 months in the case of
22.6% of all Polish students enrolled in these fields
Bulgarian students to 7.5 months in the case of Irish
in 2006/07.
students.
Agricultural
sciences
had
an
almost
perfectly
Level of a student grant
proportional student representation in Erasmus (1.8% of all Polish Erasmus students, and 2% of the total
An Erasmus grant is intended to cover, as mentioned
student population in Poland). Students of law were
earlier on, only additional costs related to the stay and
a relatively larger group among Polish Erasmus
study abroad. The average monthly grant awarded
students (5.6%) than among all Polish students (3%),
from the budget of the Programme to Polish Erasmus
whereas medical sciences showed reverse proportions
students decreased steadily from 375 euro in 1998/99
(4.4% and 5.3% respectively). In turn, there is
to 148 euro in 2003/04, then rose substantially and
a striking disproportion in the area of education and
continued to rise to 323 euro in 2006/07. The average
teacher training. In 2006/07 students in these fields
monthly grant curve is similar for Erasmus students
represented as many as 12.2% of the total student
from all 31 participating countries, but the average
population in Poland as compared to only 2% of Polish
European grant (e.g. 192 euro in 2006/07) was
Erasmus students. Education and teacher training
always much lower than the average grant for a Polish
are one of the three areas that have been most
student (Figure 7). Moreover, many Polish Erasmus
underrepresented since the first year of our participation
students receive extra support from their home
in the Programme. Proportions in this field are likewise
universities. For a few years now extra funding for
highly unbalanced throughout Europe. However, the
student mobility under the Programme has been
disproportion suggests that students of education and
provided by ca 60% of Polish universities, and their
teacher training have substantial “reserves of strength”.
contribution accounts for several percent of the
Thus, if only more actively involved in Erasmus
Erasmus budget for student grants. This aspect is
activities, they could make it easier for us to achieve
discussed in more detail in Chapter II. 3 concerning
the above-mentioned European average which shows
the institutional framework for Erasmus.
the ratio of Erasmus students to the total number of students in a given country.
58
Figure 7. Average monthly grant for Erasmus students (euro), 1998/99-2006/07 400
375 334
350
323
300 264
281
266
250 208 200
170 148
150 140
100
138
135
192 157
140
124
50
7 20
06
/2
00
6 20
05
/2
00
5 20
04
/2
00
4 20
03
/2
00
3 20
02
/2
00
2 20
01
/2
00
1 20
00
/2
00
0 00 /2 99 19
19
98
/1
99
9
0
Average monthly grant for Polish
Average monthly grant for students from
students
all participating countries*
* Data concerning the average monthly grant for students from all participating countries are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, report „Erasmus in Poland in the academic year 2006/07”; European Commission’s statistical breakdowns.
II.3.3
Already almost 4,000 per year, but still below “the absorption capacity”: incoming foreign students
Numbers and percentages at national level and in
further on). In total, between 1998/99 and 2006/07,
international comparisons
Polish universities hosted 13,630 foreign Erasmus students. While, as mentioned before, the total number
Erasmus students coming to Poland from other
of Polish Erasmus students is approaching the number
European countries are clearly outnumbered by
of students enrolled at the largest Polish university,
Polish outgoing students, but their number grew
the group of foreign Erasmus students whom we
almost seventeen-fold from 220 in 1998/99 to 3,730
have hosted so far is already bigger than the student
in 2006/07 (according to the European Commission’s
population of several medium-size Polish universities
figures – see: Figure 8) or, more optimistically, almost
such as the Technical University of Radom or the
eighteen-fold from 220 to 3,913 (according to the
Rzeszów University of Technology.
figures given by universities which are also quoted
59
Figure 8. Number of incoming foreign students, 1998/99-2006/07 4000 3 730 3500 3 063
3000
2500
2 332
2000 1 459
1500 996
1000 614
466
500
750
220
7 20
06
/2
00
6 20
05
/2
00
5 20
04
/2
00
4 20
03
/2
00
3 20
02
/2
00
2 20
01
/2
00
1 20
00
/2
00
0 00 /2 99 19
19
98
/1
99
9
0
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, report „Erasmus in Poland in the academic year 2006/07”.
In 2006/07, like in the previous years, Poland ranked
The European Commission measures the absorption
fourteenth among all 31 countries participating in
capacity on the basis of the number of students in
the Programme in terms of the number of incoming
a given country as a proportion of the total student
students. The top five countries hosting largest numbers
population in the 31 countries as compared to the
of students in 2006/07 were Spain, France, Germany,
number of incoming students in a given country as
the United Kingdom and Italy. The number of foreign
a proportion of the total Erasmus student population
Erasmus students in these countries was almost four
in the 31 countries. In 2006/07 Polish students
to over seven times larger than in Poland. This is
represented 10.1% of all students in 31 countries,
worthy of note because, as the European Commission’s
whereas incoming students in our country represented
comparative breakdowns show38, Polish universities
2.3% of all European Erasmus students. Only Turkey
have only slightly lower or even slightly higher
had a bigger disproportion between the two figures:
“absorption capacity” than universities in these five
11.0% to 0.8%. The corresponding ratios for the top
countries. “Absorption capacity” is, of course, measured
five countries were as follows: 8.4% : 17.2 in Spain,
only in quantitative terms.
10.3% : 13.0% in France, 10.7 : 11.2% in Germany,
38 European Commission, DG Education and Culture, “Socrates II Programme. Erasmus Programme 2006/2007. Overview of National Agencies’ final reports 2006/07”.
60
10.9% : 10.4% in the United Kingdom, and 9.5% :
the proportion of universities hosting foreign students
9.3% in Italy. Universities in the other 22 countries
remained largely unchanged for years. “Stagnation”
(excluding Liechtenstein and Luxembourg where both
results mainly from the fact that universities joining the
proportions are 0.0%) generally have much lower
Programme in recent years and engaging in student
“absorption capacity” than in the above-mentioned
exchange focused exclusively on outward student
seven countries, including Poland and Turkey, as
mobility. The great majority (ca 70%) of ca 50
students there represent only 0.1% to 3.9% of the
universities which have sent, but have not hosted
total European student population. However, 14 of
students in recent years are non-public universities,
these countries, including five new EU Member
and those in the majority among the minority of
States, do indeed exploit to the full their more modest
public
potential, or even “exceed the targets”, hosting at least
education schools.
universities
are
public
higher
vocational
an equally large or even larger proportion of European Erasmus students. For example, the corresponding
Varying numbers at individual universities
proportions were 1.2% : 2.4% in Austria, which hosted a number of students comparable to that in Poland in
Like in the case of outward student mobility,
2006/07, and 1.6% : 1.9% in the Czech Republic.
universities differ widely in terms of the number and
In this context, it is not surprising that the European
proportion of incoming foreign students. Incoming
Commission included Poland among the countries
student numbers ranged from 1 to 88 in 2000/2001
which could host a much larger number of students.
and from 1 to 369 in 2006/07. For example, 55%
In other words, we can still greatly improve our
of 138 universities with foreign Erasmus students in
“actual absorption rate”. This requires, however, not
2006/07 hosted 1 to 10 students, 27% of universities
only extending the range of programmes taught in
between 11 and 50, 13% between 51 and 100, and
foreign languages, but also placing greater emphasis
4% more than 100 students. Again like in the case
on “a mobility culture” at Polish universities.
of outgoing students, incoming students were largely concentrated in a small number of universities. Between 2000/01 and 2006/07, less than 15% of
Map of universities hosting students
nearly 140 “hospitable” universities hosted jointly Like in the case of outward student mobility, not all
ca 75% of all incoming students.
Polish universities have yet hosted foreign students. Between 2000/2001 and 2006/0739, we had almost
To an even greater extent than in the case of outward
140
(as
student mobility, the rankings of universities in terms of
compared to over 200 universities sending students),
incoming student numbers demonstrate that numbers
i.e. over 55% of Polish universities participating in the
are not merely a reflection of the size of a university.
Programme. Unlike in the case of outgoing students,
In other words, the size alone does not determine
universities
hosting
Erasmus
students
39 Data concerning the number of incoming students in a breakdown by university are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
61
“the absorption capacity” of a university. The top 10
of outgoing students. Others that made their presence
universities in the overall rankings for the period
felt here were the Cracow University of Economics
2000/01-2006/07 (Figure 9) include no more than
and the University of Economics in Katowice which,
five universities with the total student population of
though much smaller than the leading universities, did
over 30,000 to over 50,000 students. Moreover, some
also stand out among the top 20 universities sending
of them were even outdistanced by smaller universities
students.
which have between 10 and 20,000 students.
exceptional “absorption capacity” was the Academy
Nevertheless, like in the case of outgoing students, the
of Fine Arts in Cracow, the last one among the top
biggest of the biggest, the University of Warsaw held
10, which has only slightly more than 1,000 students
onto its number one position among the top 10
(also ranking among the top 30 universities in terms
throughout the years. Seven of the top 10 universi-
of outgoing student numbers).
Another
university
demonstrating
an
ties are also among those which had largest numbers
Position
Figure 9. Universities with largest numbers of incoming students, 2001/02-2006/07*
University
Total number of foreign Erasmus students, 2000/012006/07
Proportion of all foreign Erasmus students, 2000/012006/07 (12,944)
Number of foreign Erasmus students, 2006/07
Proportion of all foreign Erasmus students, 2006/07 (3,913)
Total number of students, 2006/07
Total number of students as a proportion of the total student population in Poland, 2006/07 (1.94 million)
1.
University of Warsaw
1 456
11,25%
369
9,43%
56 633
2,92%
2.
Jagiellonian University
1 218
9,41%
354
9,05%
44 208
2,28%
3.
University of Wrocławi
833
6,44%
239
6,11%
39 061
2,01%
4.
Warsaw School of Economics
809
6,25%
210
5,37%
11 507
0,59%
5.
Cracow University of Economics
799
6,17%
155
3,96%
18 758
0,97%
6.
University of Łódź
381
2,94%
99
2,53%
37 945
1,96%
7.
Technical University of Łódź
362
2,80%
94
2,40%
20 171
1,04%
8.
University of Economics in Katowice
357
2,76%
98
2,50%
13 006
0,67%
9.
Adam Mickiewicz University
347
2,68%
109
2,79%
50 964
2,63%
10.
Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow Total/average
315
2,43%
61
1,56%
1 036
0,05%
6 877
53,13%
1 788
45,70%
293 289
15,12%
* Data concerning the number of incoming students in a breakdown by university are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 1998-2000 and 2001/022006/07; Central Statistical Office, “Szkoły wyższe i ich finanse w roku 2006” (Higher education institutions and their finances in 2006), 2007.
62
The first among the next 20 universities hosting largest
Copernicus University in Toruń and the Wrocław
numbers of students during the last seven years are
University of Technology, with the PUE being much
the Poznań University of Economics, the Nicolaus
smaller than the other two. Among the top 20 and 30,
these were followed by a dozen or so other universities
Except that the University of Rzeszów joined others
which have over 10,000 to 30,000 students and hold
in the top 30 band in 2006/07, the group includes,
a similar position in the rankings according to outgoing
in fact, the same universities as the overall rankings.
student numbers. However, it is worthy of note here
However, numerous changes occurred within the top
that this group also includes three schools of art,
30 band; for example, the Warsaw University of Life
the Academies of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Poznań and
Sciences climbed up to number ten position, held by
Wrocław, with only 1,000 to 1,500 students. The
the Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow in the overall
next two, fairly high, positions are occupied by two
rankings. This and other similar changes result from
non-public universities, the Academy of Humanities
the fact that a number of larger and medium-size
and Economics in Łódź (ca 30,000 students) and the
universities, despite their fairly long “period of service”
Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and
in the Programme, have only recently begun hosting
Management in Warsaw (where the total number of
a number of students which is more proportional to
students is approximately five times smaller than at
their size, and thus are now outdistancing smaller but
the AHE). Another university which deserves to be
hitherto more active universities.
mentioned here is the Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw, with only around 7,000 students.
Countries represented by foreign students
The Lazarski School ranks among the top 30 even though, unlike the great majority of other universities in
Between 1998/99 and 2006/07, Polish universities
the lead, it began hosting students only in 2003/04.
hosted students from all countries participating in the Programme, except Cyprus (Figure 10). Like in
Among over 50 universities hosting smallest numbers
the case of our outgoing students, the total number
of
2006/07,
of 13,630 incoming students is, of course, unevenly
non-public universities slightly outnumbered pub-
students
between
2000/01
and
divided among individual countries. During this period,
lic ones. “Actual absorption rates” in this group are
the largest “delegations” were sent to Poland by the
disproportionately low as compared to the total
same four countries that hosted largest numbers of
number of their students. A large proportion of these
Polish students, including Germany: 22.1%, France:
universities have a few thousand students, but hosted
16,0%, Spain: 11.4% and Italy: 8.97%. Number five is
only between 1 and 5 foreign students.
Portugal (8.0%) which holds a slightly lower position in the geographical breakdown of Polish outgoing
Differences between the overall rankings of universities
students.
according to incoming student numbers between
represented jointly over 66% of all incoming students
Students
from
these
five
countries
2000/01 and 2006/07 and the rankings for 2006/07
in Poland. Like in the case of Polish outgoing students,
alone are similar to those concerning outgoing Polish
the geographical breakdown of incoming students
students. One can hardly see any changes within the
reflects the map of cooperation agreements signed
group of universities hosting the smallest number
by universities, and thus mainly the preferences of,
of students so far precisely because the numbers
or links established by, teachers initiating them.
themselves, and thus changes therein, are insignificant.
63
Figure 10. Number of incoming foreign students by country of origin, 1998/99-2006/07 Germany
3 017
France
2 192
Spain
1 561
Italy
1 222
Portugal
1 103
Turkey
730
Belgium
545
Finland
434
UK
401
Czech Republic
331
Netherlands
325
Austria
254
Sweden
242
Lithuania
237
Slovak Republic
171
Greece
166
Denmark
118
Hungary
102
Romania
93
Slovenia
92
Bulgaria
86
Latvia
80
Ireland
54
Norway
49
Estonia
15
Luxembourg
6
Liechtenstein
2
Malta
1
Iceland
1
Cyprus
0 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 1998-2000 and 2001/022006/07.
II.3.4
Quantitative and qualitative dimensions of „the absorption capacity”: the ratio of incoming students
outgoing to
Percentages at national level and in international
numbers of outgoing and incoming students. The
comparisons
data given earlier on show that the number of foreign students coming to Poland grew more rapidly than the
64
In line with the aims of the Erasmus Programme, all
number of Polish students going to other European
participating countries should strive to have balanced
countries. As a result, except in one year, incoming
students represented an increasingly large proportion
proportion is to increase by only several percent each
of outgoing students: 15.4% in 1998/99, 23.2%
year, as has been the case in recent years, we would
in 2003/04 and 34.9% (according to universities’
still need a dozen or so years to achieve “full reciprocity”
figures, or 33.2% according to the European Commis-
in student exchange.
sion’s figures) in 2006/07 (Figure 11). However, if the Figure 11. Incoming students as a proportion of outgoing students, 1998/99-2006/2007
Academic year
Number of outgoing students
Number of incoming students
Incoming students as a proportion of outgoing students
1998/1999
1 426
220
15,4%
1999/2000
2 813
466
16,6%
2000/2001
3 691
614
16,6%
2001/2002
4 322
750
17,3%
2002/2003
5 419
996
18,4%
2003/2004
6 278
1 459
23,2%
2004/2005
8 388
2 332
27,8%
2005/2006
9 974
3 063
30,7%
2006/2007
11 219
3 913
34,9%
Total/average
53 530
13 813
25,8%
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for1998-2000 and 2001/022006/07.
The data given earlier on show that, in addition to the
countries
number of outgoing students as a proportion of all
outgoing students showed less significant differences
where
incoming
students
outnumber
students in Poland and all Erasmus students in Europe
(Cyprus, Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway and
still being too small, we certainly host a much too small
Spain) or achieved an almost even balance (Belgium,
number of foreign students. Consequently, in terms
Portugal). Poland belongs to the second group
of the proportion of outgoing to incoming students,
together with all other new EU Member States, except
Poland again compares unfavourably to many other
Cyprus and Malta, as well as Austria, Greece, France,
countries participating in the Programme. In 2006/07,
Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Turkey.
13 of the 31 participating countries hosted a larger
However, Austria had almost fully reciprocal student
number of students than they sent abroad, whereas
exchange, and incoming students in France, Estonia,
18 countries had a “surplus” of outgoing students in
Italy, Germany and Slovenia represented more than
their student exchange balance sheet. Five countries
70% of outgoing students. Outgoing and incoming
in the first group (Denmark, Ireland, Malta, Sweden
tudents were in less and much less even proportions
and the United Kingdom) had at least two incoming
in the Czech Republic (60.2%), Hungary (56.4%),
students for every outgoing student. The other
Slovenia (48.7%), Latvia (46.2%) and Lithuania
65
(38.8%). Poland ranked below these countries, with
of students from this rather small “mobile population”
its proportion of incoming students (34.9%) being
in order to balance the number of outgoing students. In
larger than in Bulgaria (31.5%), Turkey (29.8%),
this respect, our quantitatively measured “absorption
Romania (23.6%) and Luxembourg
(14.1%)40.
capacity” turns out to be a rather heavy burden for us.
Outgoing students outnumber incoming students in
Regardless of “the absorption capacity” in quantitative
all countries of Central and Eastern Europe. This can
terms, the problem common to Poland and the other
undoubtedly be explained by the fact that only recently,
countries in our region is the qualitative dimension of
and especially after the accession of these countries to
“the absorption capacity” or, in other words, the range
the EU in 2004 or 2007, have students in the older
and/or quality of programmes and courses offered to
part of the Union begun to recognise and discover this
foreign students. Even the best Polish universities are
region as belonging to the European higher education
not among the leaders or even do not often figure at
community. As confirmed by various materials about
all in international rankings (but it is worth noting here
Erasmus, it is only recently that increasing numbers
that the Warsaw School of Economics, which first held
of Western European students have been flocking
the 35th position in the Financial Times rankings of
under the “Go East” banner, and the new EU Member
masters programmes in 2006, already climbed four
States have been actually developing into a “trendy”
positions in 2007). While opinions on what they are
place for studies under the Programme. The growing
worth may vary, a more prominent position in the
interest is also fuelled by increasingly extensive
rankings would certainly make it much easier for us to
promotion activities undertaken by universities in
attract students. This is something that we could not
these countries, including Poland, also as part of the
and will probably not be able to change in the coming
Erasmus Programme itself (see: Chapter II.2.5).
years. However, within our capacity limits, what
However, this is all only now beginning to pay off.
appears to be more relevant is that, considered countrywide, the range of our full degree programmes
At the same time, if one compares the achievements of
and at least selected modules or courses in foreign
the different new Member States alone, it seems that,
languages, English in particular, is still too limited.
in general, it is slightly easier for the countries with
The countries which have even “a surplus” of incoming
smaller higher education systems to benefit from the
students are not only those where English is the
new favourable trends and gradually achieve a proper
national or official language (United Kingdom, Ireland
balance in student exchange. The number of European
and Malta), but also Denmark and Sweden. Students
students who wish to, and can, participate in exchange
in these two countries may choose from a wide range
is, after all, relatively small, and students in some
of programmes and courses taught in English at all
European countries are not at all so mobile. Bigger
levels. According to the Conference of Rectors of
countries need to attract a proportionally larger number
Academic Schools in Poland (bringing together rec-
40 The very small proportion of incoming students in Luxembourg results mainly from the very limited range of higher education programmes offered in this country.
66
tors of university-type higher education institutions),
students. Incoming students in the leading group of
Polish university-type institutions offer 160 full degree
universities represented 100% to 1,300% of outgoing
programmes and almost 2,000 courses taught in
students.
English41.
Progress in this area has been made mainly
in recent years and, combined with the “Go East” trend
The most striking feature of the rankings for all four
and more extensive promotion activities undertaken
years is that nearly each percentage band, except the
by universities, is now beginning to pay off. Similar
highest one, includes both universities with very large
changes have not occurred yet on a equally large
or large outgoing student numbers and universities
scale at public and non-public non-university higher
sending abroad a smaller or even a very small number
education institutions which have an increasing strong
of students. The wide dispersion here confirms that
representation in the Erasmus Programme.
“the absorption capacity” is not determined solely by the number of students enrolled at a given university.
Varying percentages at individual universities The great majority in the highest band, where Regardless of the fact that, as mentioned above, the
incoming students represented at least 100% of
number of universities hosting students was smaller
outgoing students, were universities where outgoing
than the number of those sending students, individual
student numbers ranged from 1 to 10, with most or
universities contributed to varying extents to our
many of them sending only 1 to 3 students abroad.
national figures. As far as the proportion of outgoing to
In the latter majority group, the Elbląg University of
incoming students is concerned, the Polish university
Humanities
landscape is even more diverse as well as different than
spectacular result, sending 1 student abroad in one
in the case of outgoing or incoming students alone.
year and hosting as many as 13 students, i.e. 1,300%
and
Economy
achieved
the
most
of outgoing students. The make-up of the leading An analysis of breakdowns comparing outgoing and
group confirms that a large size of a university and,
incoming student numbers for the last four years,
as it is often the case, a relatively large number of
2003/04-2006/07, shows that over 40% to over
outgoing students as reflecting the size are, at least
50% of universities can claim credit for achieving the
to some extent, a barrier to achieving a proper
proportion of outgoing students which was larger than
balance in student exchange. Only once during the
the national average for a given year. A number of
four years did the minority of universities with larger
universities, including ca 8% of universities in
outgoing and incoming student numbers include the
2003/04, ca 10% in 2004/05, over 17% in 2005/06
Cracow University of Economics where the ratio of
and ca 12% in 2006/07, achieved most desired
outgoing to incoming students was 163 : 164. The
perfect balance or even a “surplus” of incoming
other universities engaged in a larger-scale student
41 CRASP Guide and database “How to Study in Poland – A Guide to English-language courses of study at Polish institutions of higher education (CRASP members)”, 2008, http://www.howtostudyinpoland.pl.
67
exchange are the Academies of Fine Arts in Cracow
of foreign students. The make-up of the leading group
and Poznań, the Technical University of Radom and
and the ranking of individual universities change
the Academy of Humanities and Economics in Łódź,
every year. However, Figure 12 shows 13 universities
which sent over 30 to over 60 students abroad in
where incoming students represented at least 100% of
a given year and hosted a proportionally larger number
outgoing students in at least two of the last four years.
Figure 12. Universities with incoming students representing at least 100% of outgoing students in at least two recent years, 2003/04-2006/07
University
2003/2004
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
OS
IS
IS : OS
OS
IS
IS : OS
OS
IS
IS : OS .
OS
IS
IS : OS
55
55
100,00%
-
-
-
45
59
131,11%
40
61
152,50%
Skarbek Graduate School of Business Economics in Warsaw
8
11
137,50%
-
-
-
19
19
100,00%
18
22
122,22%
Ludwik Solski State Drama School in Cracow
1
3
300,00%
-
-
-
-
-
-
4
8
200,00%
School of Marketing and Business in Łódź
2
3
150,00%
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
4
200,00%
Częstochowa University of Management
5
6
120,00%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Academy of Music in Bydgoszcz
2
2
100,00%
6
6
100,00%
-
-
-
-
-
-
Academy of Humanities and Economics in Łódź
-
-
-
42
62
147,62%
42
51
121,43%
46
54
117,39%
Academy of European Integration in Szczecin
-
-
-
3
4
133,33%
4
4
100,00%
5
5
100,00%
European School of Law and Administration in Warsaw
-
-
-
3
4
133,33%
6
8
133,33%
-
-
-
Institute of Public Administration in Kielce
-
-
-
1
1
100,00%
1
1
100,00%
-
-
-
University of Management and Law in Warsaw
-
-
-
1
1
100,00%
1
2
200,00%
-
-
-
University of Humanities and Economics in Włocławek
-
-
-
1
1
100,00%
2
4
200,00%
-
-
-
Alcide de Gasperi University of Euroregional Economy in Józefów
-
-
-
-
-
-
7
9
128,57%
7
15
214,29%
Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow
OS: number of outgoing students; IS: number of incoming students; IS : OS: incoming students as a proportion of outgoing students.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 2003-2007.
68
As various types of universities are widely “scattered”
Arts in Cracow, which fell into the “100% and above”
among various percentage bands, it is not possible
or “50% and above” band during the four years
to give a more detailed insight into the make-up of
considered here, three universities of economics
the other groups with more or less balanced propor-
(Cracow
tions. However, a few comments should be made here
Economics in Katowice and Warsaw School of
about the position of the 13 universities which stood
Economics) achieved much better results than our
out from the others in the previous chapters in terms
national average. At all three universities, sending
of their outgoing and/or incoming student numbers
ca 100 to over 250 students abroad, incoming
alone (Figure 13). In addition to the Academy of Fine
students represented already more than 50% of
University
of
Economics,
University
of
outgoing students in the last two years. Likewise, three
on the university and year, the proportion of incoming
universities, the Jagiellonian University in Cracow and
students ranged there from over 30% to almost 50%.
the Universities of Warsaw and Wrocław, which sent
At other universities falling into the top bands in terms
over 300 to over 900 students between 2003/04
of outgoing and incoming numbers, incoming students
and 2006/07, had an above-the-average proportion
represented a slightly or much smaller proportion of
of foreign students during all four years. Depending
outgoing students.
Figure 13. Incoming students as a proportion of outgoing students at universities sending and/or hosting largest numbers of students, 2000/01-2006/07*
Outgoing numbers, 2000/012006/07
Incoming numbers, 2000/01-2006/07
Incoming students as a proportion of outgoing students, 2000/012006/07
Outgoing numbers, 2006/07
Incoming numbers, 2006/07
Incoming students as a proportion of outgoing students, 2006/07
University of Warsaw
3 973
1 456
36,6%
950
369
38,8%
Adam Mickiewicz University
3 126
347
11,1%
685
109
15,9%
Jagiellonian University
3 012
1 218
40,4%
730
354
48,5%
University of Wrocław
2 663
833
31,3%
649
239
36,8%
University of Łódź
2 075
381
18,4%
363
99
27,2%
Technical University of Łódź
1 835
362
19,7%
339
94
27,3%
Warsaw School of Economics
1 586
809
51,0%
282
210
74,5%
Warsaw University of Technology
1 467
239
16,3%
304
63
20,7%
Wrocław University of Technology
1 422
278
19,5%
302
78
25,8%
Silesian University of Technology
1 260
211
16,7%
234
53
22,6%
Cracow University of Economics
1 113
799
71,8%
237
155
65,4%
University of Economics in Katowice
925
357
38,6%
145
98
67,6%
Academy of Fine Arts in Cracow
362
315
87,0%
40
61
152,5%
University
* The table covers only the period 2000/01-2006/07 because data concerning incoming students in a breakdown by university are not available for previous years.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 2001/02-2006/07.
Finally, others worthy of note here are a few non-public
Louis University and the Tischner European University
universities which, though much smaller and engaged
in Cracow. The proportion of incoming students at all
in student exchange on a proportionally smaller scale,
these universities is already larger than the national
figured in the previous chapters in the context of
average, and was more than 50% at the first of these
various more impressive ratios. This group includes
universities during all four years considered here.
the Leon Kozminski Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management in Warsaw, the Lazarski School of
Regrettably, apart from the CRASP database mentioned
Commerce and Law in Warsaw and Collegium Civitas in
earlier on, there is no national database covering full
Warsaw, the Nowy Sącz School of Business – National
degree programmes and courses taught in foreign
69
languages. Thus there is no way of checking whether
cycle programmes. Moreover, some of them offer such
the availability or unavailability of such programmes
programmes as a joint programme together with
and courses does indeed translate in each case into
foreign universities. Still unsatisfied with their ratios
a larger or smaller number of incoming students and,
of outgoing to incoming students, even though these
consequently, into a better or worse ratio of outgoing to
are better than the national average, some universities
incoming students. However, the fact remains that the
have taken special measures to extend significantly
great majority of universities with good or very good
the range of courses taught in foreign languages. For
ratios do already provide full degree programmes in
example, the University of Warsaw has established
foreign languages in selected fields of study. At a few
a special Teaching Innovations Fund for this purpose.
of them, these include both first-cycle and second-
II.3.5
Already more than 2,000 and above the European average: outgoing Polish teachers
Numbers and percentages at national level and in
undertaking a teaching assignment abroad increased
international comparisons
more than five-fold from 359 in the academic year 1998/99 to 2,030 in 2006/07 (Figure 14). Overall,
Polish
academic
teachers,
like
students,
Erasmus provided grants to 9,436 teachers going to
were
other European countries during this period.
increasingly mobile every year. The number of teachers
Figure 14. Number of outgoing Polish teachers, 1998/99-2006/07 2500 2 030 2000
1 740
1 394
1500
1000 678
605 500
946
884
800
359
07 20
06 /
20
06 20
05 /
20
05 20
04 /
20
04 20
03 /
20
03 20
02 /
20
02 20
01 /
20
01 20
00 /
20
00 20 99 / 19
19
98 /
19
99
0
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland� for 1998-2000 and 2001/022006/07.
70
Polish teachers represent 5.9% of all European teachers
to 7.1% (Czech Republic) of all academic teachers.
undertaking a mobility period under Erasmus between
Those least mobile under Erasmus are teachers in
1998/99 and 2006/07. Like in the case of students,
Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and
the proportion of Polish teachers increased steadily
Sweden (between 0.9% and 1.4%).
from 3.4% in the academic year 1998/99 to 7.9% in 2006/07. In 2006/07, Poland ranked fourth in terms
Map of universities sending teachers
of outgoing teacher numbers among all 31 countries participating in the Programme. Like the fifth position
In recent years 70% to 90% of Polish universities
in the case of students, this result reflects above all
participating in the Programme have sent their
the size of our higher education system. Among the
teachers abroad. In 2006/07 the proportion declined
other five countries comparable to Poland with respect
by several percent, which results from the fact that
to the size of their higher education systems, the first
universities
three positions were held by Germany (10.5% of all
Programme do not as yet send teachers to other
outgoing European teachers), Spain (9.8%) and France
countries. In total, between 1998/99 and 2006/07,
(8.9%), whereas Italy (5.3%) and the United Kingdom
teachers from over 190 universities carried out
(5.3%) ranked below Poland.
teaching assignments at other European universities.
In 2006/07 Polish Erasmus teachers represented
Varying numbers at individual universities
that
have
only
recently
joined
the
2.1% of the total teacher population at Polish the
Like outgoing student numbers, outgoing teacher
proportion of mobile students (0.58% of all students),
numbers varied widely between universities from
one could say that Polish teachers are more mobile
the beginning – from 2 to 49 in the academic year
than students. However, these figures are incomparable
1998/99, and from 1 to 110 in 2006/07. For example,
because, as mentioned before, students went abroad
more than half of 164 universities sending teachers
on average for 6.5 months, while teachers for ca 6.5
abroad in 2006/07 had 1 to 5 outgoing teachers
days. Moreover, unlike students, academic teachers
(including as many as one-third with only 1 or 2),
can be awarded an Erasmus grant more than once.
less than one-fifth of universities between 6 and 10 or
In any case, unlike the proportion of mobile students,
between 11 and 20, and less than one-tenth between
the proportion of mobile teachers placed us above
21 and 50 or 51 to 110. Overall, between 1998/99
the European average of 1.9% for all countries
and 2006/07, mobile teachers at 20 universities (over
participating in the Programme. Nevertheless, nearly
11%) with the largest outgoing numbers represented
all other new EU Member States (except Bulgaria),
over 61% of all outgoing teachers at all universities
where almost since the beginning teachers have been
sending teachers abroad.
universities.
Comparing
this
proportion
to
generally much more mobile than their colleagues in the older part of the EU and other countries, achieved
The rankings of universities according to outgoing
an even better result. In 2006/07 outgoing teachers in
numbers changed slightly in successive years, but the
ten new Member States represented 2.7% (Hungary)
largest and large public universities always figured
71
among top ranking ones. Unlike in breakdowns for
ten universities (over 140 to almost 250 outgoing
outgoing students, smaller but more active universities,
teachers) as well as in the next upper bands in the
sending a relatively larger number of teachers abroad,
rankings. An exception among numbers 11 to 20 is
were a rare exception to the rule in the highest bands
the University of Bielsko-Biała which, though much
of the rankings. The top 10 band in the overall
smaller than its neighbours in the rankings, had over
rankings for the period 1998/99-2006/07 includes,
140 outgoing teachers during this period.
among others, seven universities which were also among the leading “exporters” in student exchange
The lower band in the overall rankings includes over
and which have participated in the Programme since
40% of all universities sending teachers abroad, which
the very beginning. Again like in student exchange,
had only 1 to 5, and in most cases 1 to 3, outgoing
the one in the lead among the top 10 is the largest
teachers every year from the beginning of their
Polish university, the University of Warsaw, which was
participation in the Programme. The majority in this
also among the top 20 European universities with the
group are non-public universities which are situated
largest outgoing teacher numbers in 2004/05. Each
in smaller university towns and have a three- or four-
of the top 10 universities sent in total almost 250
year “period of service” in the Programme. In turn, the
to over 600 teachers abroad (Figure 15). Outgoing
majority among the minority of public universities
teachers at these universities represented over 40%
alone are higher vocational education schools, schools
of all Polish teachers going abroad between 1998/99
of art (very active in student exchange), universities of
and 2006/07. Likewise, larger universities and public
physical education and medical universities.
universities clearly predominate among the next
72
A major change in the rankings for 2006/07, like in
Pedagogical University of Cracow and the University
those for the last few years, is that several universities
of Bielsko-Biała, the former being slightly smaller and
consistently increasing the number of their outgoing
the latter much smaller than many universities holding
teachers for years joined the groups of top 10 or
lower and much lower positions, and the University of
20 universities. These include, for example, the
Rzeszów.
Position
Figure 15. Universities with largest numbers of outgoing teachers, 1998/99-2006/07
University
Number of outgoing teachers. 1998/99-2006/07
As a proportion of the total number of outgoing teachers, 1998/99-2006/07 (9,436)
1.
University of Warsaw
635
6,73%
2.
Gdańsk University of Technology
471
4,99%
3.
Wrocław University of Technology
443
4,69%
4.
University of Łódź
439
4,65%
5.
Silesian University of Technology
357
3,78%
6.
Jagiellonian University
352
3,73%
7.
University of Wrocław
352
3,73%
8.
University of Silesia
316
3,35%
9.
Warsaw University of Technology
287
3,04%
Nicolaus Copernicus University
249
2,64%
3 901
41,33%
10.
Total
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland” for 1998-2000 and 2000/012006/07.
Varying progress at individual universities
a large proportion of which were also involved in student exchange to a limited extent.
The most striking feature of the overall breakdowns of outward teacher mobility at institutional level in
In a small group of universities (ca 25%), outgoing
successive years is that the great majority of universities
teacher numbers increased steadily or a decline in one
(ca 75%) have not made any steady progress to date
year was then “compensated” by a significant increase
– outgoing teacher numbers fluctuated significantly
in recent years. This group, comprised mainly of public
over the years, remained roughly the same or even
universities, is likewise very diverse in terms of the
decreased in some cases. The group in itself is very
size of universities, outgoing teacher numbers and the
diverse in terms of the size of universities, outgoing
period of participation in the Programme. It includes
teacher numbers and the period of participation in the
six universities which were among the top 10 in
Programme. Moreover, it includes both universities
the overall rankings (Figure 15) and where outgoing
which are almost “invisible” and those which stand
numbers ranged from over 50 to over 100 in 2006/07,
out from the rest in student exchange. However,
as well as universities which had between 8 and 90
approximately half of the group are above-mentioned
outgoing teachers last year. In addition to the three
universities with the lowest outgoing teacher numbers,
universities mentioned above in the context of the
73
2006/07 rankings, those consistently increasing the
teacher performance appraisal at only ten universities
number of outgoing teachers for a longer time include:
(see: Chapter II.2.1).
six universities of technology (AGH University of Science and Technology in Cracow, Gdańsk and
The absence of a proper staff policy, no link between
Koszalin
Technical
staff policy and international cooperation or the lack
University of Łódź, Opole University of Technology
Universities
of
Technology,
of capacity in the area of international cooperation
and Technical University of Radom); two universities
could explain the situation only at a small proportion of
(John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin and Cardinal
universities. However, universities less engaged in
Stefan Wyszynski University in Warsaw); the Warsaw
teacher mobility include likewise prestigious ones
University of Life Sciences; the Fryderyk Chopin
which have been successfully involved in international
Academy of Music in Warsaw; and the Jozef Pilsudski
activities for years. The fact that no progress can be
University of Physical Education in Warsaw. In turn,
seen in outward teacher mobility results, to a large
two universities which have only a three-year “period of
extent, from problems reported by Institutional Erasmus
service” in the Programme, but have already increased
Coordinators, which are in fact similar to those
substantially the number of outgoing teachers, are the
encountered by teachers in other countries. In Poland,
Pedagogical University in Kielce (increase from 1 to
as a result of these problems, teachers often cancel
15 outgoing teachers) and the State Higher Vocational
their planned assignments abroad and universities
School in Nysa (from 1 to 8).
return a part of their Erasmus grants. Major obstacles most frequently mentioned by European teachers
The information given here shows that the majority
are that an Erasmus assignment is not valued by the
of universities, which differ from one another widely
educational authorities or universities themselves
in many respects, have yet to use the opportunities
as part of teachers’ career development, the lack of
offered by Erasmus as extensively and/or consistently
complementary funding for mobility and incompatible
as in the case of students. For many Polish universities,
academic calendars at home and host universities.42
Erasmus has not served yet as an instrument for the upgrading of teachers’ skills, though teaching
In Poland the low status of teaching as compared to
assignments at partner universities are an excellent
research has been a well-known problem for years. As
opportunity to do so. As the FDES survey mentioned
a result, for example, there are no specific and strong
earlier on (see: footnote 16) shows, even though
incentives at national and, in many cases, university
more than half of universities take various measures
levels for teachers to upgrade their teaching skills,
encouraging teachers to participate in international
except for compulsory teacher performance appraisal.
cooperation (see: Chapter II.2.5), involvement in
Thus it is not surprising that Erasmus teaching
international activities is an element of the periodical
assignments
are
not
as
attractive
as
research
42 European Commission, DG Education and Culture, “Socrates II Programme. Erasmus Programme 2006/2007. Overview of National Agencies’ final reports 2006/07”.
74
assignments, and the extent of teachers’ involvement,
the lack of complementary funding from other sources.
as reported by Polish universities themselves, is
However, we also have other problems in Poland which
in many cases limited when compared to mobility
partly explain the limited involvement of teachers
opportunities offered under the Programme at a given
in international exchange. A major obstacle for Polish
university. Again like in other countries, our universities
teachers is their heavy workload in addition to their
point to problems with arrangements concerning
compulsory teaching hours. Moreover, many teachers
the timing and topics of guest lectures and classes,
have yet to speak a foreign language fluently enough
problems with the availability of teachers resulting
to teach classes at foreign universities. Finally, some
from teaching duties at the home university, and to
teachers just have yet to recognise the value of international mobility. Countries hosting teachers Between 2000/01 and 2006/0743 Polish teachers carried out Erasmus teaching assignments in all countries
participating
in
the
Programme,
ex-
cept Liechtenstein (Figure 16). Like in the case of tudents, the largest number of teachers went to Germany (24.7% of all 8,473 outgoing teachers during these years), France (12.2%), Italy (9.2%), Spain (9.0%) and the United Kingdom (5.8%). It is also worth noting here that the new EU Member States which are our neighbours hosted likewise a relatively large number of Polish teachers: the Czech Republic (2.9%, a larger proportion than Austria, Denmark or Sweden), the Slovak Republic (2.1%) and Lithuania (1.5%).
These
are
relatively
large
proportions
considering the fact that, unlike the old Member States, these countries could for the first time be our partners in teacher exchange only after our accession to the EU in 2004. To a larger extent than in the case of students,
this
geographical
breakdown
reflects
teachers’ actual preferences as it is only or mainly them who choose partner universities.
43 Data concerning outgoing teacher numbers in a breakdown by destination country are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
75
Figure 16. Number of outgoing Polish teachers by destination country, 2000/01-2006/07* Germany
2 093
France
1 037
Italy
783
Spain
764
UK
488
Portugal
419
Belgium
376 341
Finland Czech Republic
245
Greece
241 231
Austria Netherlands
221
Sweden
207
Denmark
191
Slovak Republic
179
Lithuania
127 115
Turkey Ireland
71 69
Latvia Slovenia
64
Bulgaria
61
Hungary
56
Norway
37 33
Romania Estonia
11
Cyprus
9
Iceland Malta Luxembourg Liechtenstein
2 1 1 0 0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
* Data concerning outgoing teacher numbers in a breakdown by destination country are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, report „Erasmus in Poland in the academic year 2006/07
Areas of study represented by teachers
tween 2000/01 and 2006/07 jointly (Figure17)44. In the overall breakdown, the three areas take the fol-
In a breakdown covering all 31 countries participating
lowing shares: 21.0% in engineering and technology,
in the Programme, the largest group in 2006/07 were
16.0% in languages and philological sciences, and
teachers representing languages and philological sci-
11.2% in business studies. Again like in the case of
ences, engineering and technology, and business stud-
students, representatives of social sciences (8.6%) are
ies. These are also the areas which were most strongly
the next largest group. Erasmus teachers in these areas
represented in the Programme by Polish teachers (as
represented jointly 56.8% of all Polish teachers going
well as by students) both in 2006/07 alone and be-
abroad under the Programme between 2000/01 and
44 Data concerning outgoing teacher numbers in a breakdown by area of study are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
76
2006/07. Regrettably, relevant data are not available
area have a nearly perfectly proportional representation
to see whether outgoing teachers are a proportional
in Erasmus as compared to the total number of
representation of all Polish teachers in individual areas
students in these areas). Students are less heavily
of study.
outnumbered by teachers in the following seven areas: engineering and technology, languages and
However, a comparison between breakdowns of
philological sciences, natural sciences, mathemat-
outgoing teacher and student numbers by area of study
ics and computing, art and design, humanities, and
shows that teachers are more mobile than students in
geography and geology. The proportions of teachers and
nine areas. In percentage terms, teachers outnumber
students are very similar in medical sciences. In turn,
students by more than or almost two to one in
students have a stronger representation than teachers
education and teacher training and in agricultur-
in the following areas: business studies and social
al sciences (while students in the former area are
sciences (one-and-a-half times stronger), law as well
significantly underrepresented and those in the latter
as architecture and planning (two times stronger).
Figure 17. Number of outgoing Polish teachers by area of study, 2000/01-2006/07*
Engineering, Technology
1 777
Forein languages,
1 360
Bisiness studies
950
Social sciences
725
Natural sciences
606
Mathematics, Computing
453
Education, Teacher Training
387
Art and Design
367
Humanities
344
Geography, Geology
301
Medical sciences
297
Agricultural sciences
293
Law
248
Architecture, Planning
184
Others area
115 66
Communication and Information Sciences 0
200
400
600
800
1 000
1 200
1 400
1 600
1 800
* Data concerning outgoing teacher numbers in a breakdown by area of study are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland� for 2001-2007.
77
II.3.6
Already almost 1,500 and the fifth position in Europe: incoming foreign teachers
Numbers and percentages at national level and in
from 488 in the academic year 2000/01 to 1,406
international comparisons
in 2006/07 (Figure 18)45. During this period Polish universities hosted a total number of 6,173 foreign
In the last seven years the number of teachers coming
Erasmus teachers.
to Poland under the Programme grew almost three-fold Figure 18. Number of incoming foreign teachers, 2000/01-2006/07* 1600 1 406
1400
1 291
1200 1 026 1000 749
800
640
573 600
488
400
7 20
06
/2
00
6 20
05
/2
00
5 20
04
/2
00
4 20
03
/2
00
3 00 20
02
/2
00 /2 01 20
20
00
/2
00
1
0
2
200
* Data concerning incoming teacher numbers for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, report „Erasmus in Poland in the academic year 2006/07�.
In 2006/07 Poland ranked fifth among all countries
than in Poland. However, Poland was only slightly
participating in the Programme in terms of incoming
ahead of the United Kingdom and Finland, and the
teacher
largest
other two countries hosting more than one thousand
numbers of teachers were Germany, France, Italy and
teachers in 2006/07 were the Czech Republic and
Spain. The number of incoming teachers in the four
Portugal. These comparisons indicate that incoming
countries was one to one-and-a-half thousand larger
teacher numbers are only to a limited extent related to
numbers.
The
countries
hosting
45 Data concerning incoming teacher numbers are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
78
the size of higher education systems, as measured by
Programme. However, again like in the case of
the number of students and teachers, because higher
outward teacher mobility, a few universities appear to
education systems in Portugal, Finland and the Czech
be coping more effectively with such problems and
Republic are smaller or much smaller than in the
thus figure at the top in the rankings for successive
United Kingdom and Poland.
years. These include, for example, the Gdańsk University of Technology, the Białystok Technical
Numbers at universities
University and the Technical University of Łódź, the University of Silesia in Katowice and Adam Mickiewicz
Available data concerning incoming teachers in
University in Poznań, the University of Bielsko-Biała
a breakdown by university cover only the last three
and the Academy of Humanities and Economics in
years, i.e. 2004/05-2006/07.46
Łódź.
Like in the case of incoming students, incoming teacher
However, again, to some extent, like in the case of
numbers varied considerably between universities, for
outgoing teachers, another major reason for many
example, from 1 to 32 in 2004/05 and from 1 to 53
Polish universities is most probably that teaching
in 2006/07. During all three years ca 70% of
assignments carried out by foreign teachers have yet
universities providing relevant data hosted 1 to 5
to be part of a consistently implemented strategy. This
teachers. Universities hosting the smallest numbers of
option is offered under the Programme so as to give
teachers, in most cases one or two in a given year,
students who are unable to go abroad an opportunity
were those which are also in the lower bands of the
to “taste” the European dimension of studies. The
rankings according to outgoing and incoming student
randomness of incoming teacher numbers may
numbers and outgoing teacher numbers.
suggest that many universities have yet to attach more weight to this aspect of internationalisation as part of
Like in the case of outgoing teachers, the rankings
their international activities in general, or their activities
for each year show a large degree of “randomness” in
within Erasmus in particular. In this context, the
incoming teacher numbers – some universities pop out
biggest losers are universities which for various
at the top in one year to be found in a much lower band
reasons send a very small number of their students
in the following year and conversely. Undoubtedly,
and teachers abroad.
these variations reflect, to some extent, the abovementioned problems of ensuring that teachers are
Countries represented by incoming teachers
available and arranging mutually convenient dates for teaching assignments, which are major obstacles
Data concerning incoming teachers in a breakdown by
to teacher mobility in all countries participating in the
country are available only for the period 2002/2003-
46 Reports for the FDES show that not all Polish universities are able to register all incoming Erasmus teachers at institutional level. The number of incoming teachers given by Polish universities in their reports for the FDES is much smaller than the number of teachers going to Poland as given in reports from the countries sending teachers.
79
2006/07. Each year Polish universities hosted largest
new EU Member States, mainly the Czech Republic,
numbers of teachers from Germany and France and
but also, for example, Estonia, the Slovak Republic,
a fairly large group of teachers from the United
Slovenia and Hungary – the countries with which we
Kingdom, Spain and Italy. Since 2005/06 teaching
have been able to exchange students and teachers only
assignments at Polish universities have also been
since our accession to the EU in 2004.
carried out by an increasing number of teachers from
II.3.7
A matter of sustained efforts: the ratio of outgoing to incoming teachers
Percentages at national level and in international
ratios in teacher exchange between Poland and other
comparisons
countries participating in the Programme fluctuated between 2000/01 and 2006/0747 as much as outgoing
Like in the case of student exchange, the European
and incoming teacher numbers at many universities.
Commission, which takes overall responsibility for the
During this period incoming teachers represented on
Programme, pays attention to the ratio of outgoing to
average over 73% of outgoing teachers (Figure 19).
incoming teachers. Unlike in student exchange, the Figure 19. Proportion of outgoing to incoming teachers, 2000/01-2006/2007*
Academic year
Number of outgoing teachers
Number of incoming teachers
Incoming teachers as a proportion of outgoing teachers
1998/1999
359
b.d.
-
1999/2000
605
b.d.
-
2000/2001
678
488
72,0%
2001/2002
800
573
71,6%
2002/2003
884
640
72,4%
2003/2004
946
749
79,2%
2004/2005
1 394
1 026
73,6%
2005/2006
1 740
1 291
74,2%
2006/2007
2 030
1 406
69,3%
Total
9 436
6 173
73,2%
* Data concerning incoming teacher numbers are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
Source: Foundation for the Development of the Education System, reports „Erasmus in Poland� for 1998-2000 and 2001/022006/07.
47 Data concerning incoming teacher numbers are not available for the period 1998/99-1999/2000.
80
In 2006/07, 22 of all countries participating in the
the problem is not so much that we are unable attract
Programme hosted a larger number of teachers
foreign teachers as that we have yet to make more
than they sent abroad, whereas outgoing teachers
energetic and sustained efforts to do so, and that
outnumbered incoming teachers in 9 countries,
classes given by foreign teachers have yet to become
including Poland. However, 13 countries (Austria,
“a standard approach” to teaching at many Polish
Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary,
universities.
Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom) from both of these groups exchanged
Percentages at universities
teachers fully or largely in accordance with “the principle of reciprocity” – differences between outgoing
Like in the case of student exchange, the ratios of
and incoming teacher numbers did not exceed 10%
outgoing to incoming teachers varied widely at
in these countries. The countries with the largest
universities hosting teachers which provided relevant
“surplus” of incoming teachers were Italy (172% of
data48. Incoming teachers represented 7% to 100%
outgoing teachers), Portugal (161%) and Slovenia
of outgoing teachers in 2004/05, 3% to 100% in
(152%). In turn, as regards the countries where
2005/06 and 7% to 600% in 2006/07. Every year
outgoing teachers more heavily outnumbered incoming
the proportion of incoming teachers at approximately
teachers, the proportion of the latter in Poland (69.3%)
30% of universities hosting teachers was larger than
was smaller than in Lithuania, Bulgaria and Romania
our national average for a given year (cf.: Figure 19).
(over 75% to over 80%) and larger than in the Czech Republic and Turkey (63% and 48% respectively).
The rankings of universities in terms of the ratio of
The ratios of outgoing to incoming teachers in Europe
outgoing to incoming teachers changed every year
were similar over the last two years. The data suggest
– where the proportion of incoming teachers was
that, unlike in student exchange, the UE itself is not
much larger than the national average in one year, it
divided in teacher exchange into old and new Member
fluctuated around, or was much lower than, the
States.
average in the next year and conversely. Thus it is not possible to identify universities which “persistently”
One could hardly find any objective reasons why
figured at the top with most balanced ratios of outgoing
Poland should be a less attractive place for guest
to incoming teachers or equally “persistently” lagged
teachers to take a several-day assignment than Estonia,
behind others. Universities holding higher and lower
Hungary or Slovenia, and why the proportion of
positions in the rankings were both larger and smaller
teachers coming to our country has not increased
ones, those with longer and shorter “periods of
steadily over recent years. However, the information
service” in the Programme, and those hosting both
on inward teacher mobility suggests that, in general,
larger and smaller numbers of teachers. These
48 Available data cover only the period 2004/05-2006/07 and selected universities; see also footnote 46.
81
variations reflect above all varying numbers of
mobility combined with the fact that many universities
incoming teachers, which in turn results, as mentioned
have yet to make more persistent efforts to attract
in the previous section, from obstacles to teacher
foreign teachers.
II.3.8
The
An extra prop for student mobility: introduction of the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
European
Credit
Transfer
System49,
which
universities
(90
public
and
121
non-public
facilitates the recognition of study periods completed
universities), i.e. nearly 90% of all Polish universities
abroad, has already been for some time “a standard
participating in the Programme during this period. Over
arrangement” for all universities which send and host
60% of them introduced ECTS thanks to the support
students. Equally importantly, in accordance with
from Erasmus in at least two faculties. It is also worth
the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher
noting here that during the last two years grants for the
Education50,
ECTS is a national system for transferring
introduction of ECTS were awarded to, among others,
student learning achievements for Polish universities as
universities which had only just joined the Programme
of January 2007.
and until now have not yet been or have been only to
Between 1998/99 and 2006/07, Erasmus grants
a limited extent involved in student exchange.51
for the introduction of ECTS were awarded to 211
II.3.9
Selective choice from an extensive menu: universities’ involvement in projects
This section gives an insight into how Polish universi-
and 2006/07, all three types of projects were financed
ties featured in three types of projects, including cur-
as part of centralised actions52 and thus, regrettably,
riculum development or CD projects, intensive pro-
full data about the involvement of our universities in
grammes and thematic networks (for a description of
these projects are not available (Figure 20).
these actions, see: Chapter I.2). Between 1998/99
49 European Credit Transfer System (ECTS); currently, European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System. 50 Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 3 October 2006 on the requirements and procedure for the transfer of student learning achievements. 51 Academy of Computer Science and Management in Bielsko-Biała, Świętokrzyska University and School of Economics and Law in Kielce, College of Management in Legnica, College of Finance and Computer Science in Łódź, Olsztyn Academy of Informatics and Management, University of Business and Enterprise in Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski, European Career College in Poznań, University of Applied Sciences in Ruda Śląska, University College of Tourism and Ecology in Sucha Beskidzka, and Warsaw Academy of Computer Science, Management and Administration. 52 Universities participating in centralised projects submit their reports directly at European level without forwarding in parallel relevant information to the national agency of the Programme. Moreover, some breakdowns published at European level include both projects launched in a given year as well as projects launched earlier and only renewed in a given year.
82
Figure 20. Participation of Polish universities in Erasmus projects
Type of project
Number of projects involving Polish universities 1998/1999
1999/2000
2000/2001
2001/2002
2002/2003
2003/2004
2004/2005
2005/2006
2006/2007
6
12
15
22
16
n/a
12
12
39
Intensive programmes
11
26
36
35
46
n/a
65
65
65
Thematic networks
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
36
19
14
CD projects*
* Including projects concerning the introduction of European modules.
The number of projects alone does not, however,
the
give an idea of the extent of Polish universities’
Coordinators in summer 2008 (see: footnote 20) show
participation in projects, because many of them, and
that there are several reasons behind limited interest in
in particular thematic networks, have several Polish
CD projects. First of all, while as time-consuming as
university partners. For example, the “EUCEET III – Eu-
research projects, such teaching-oriented projects do
ropean Civil Engineering Education and Training III”
not play an equally important role in academic work
network involves five Polish universities of technology,
and career because of the low status of teaching as
and the „LE: NOTRE 2 – Landscape Education”
compared to research. In other words, the problem lies
network involves three Polish universities of technology,
in the lack of motivation. Moreover, Erasmus grants for
three
classical
CD projects are rather low and, regrettably, like less
universities. Until now Polish universities have been
costly and less time-consuming intensive programmes
by far more eager to engage in two types of projects,
and
intensive programmes and thematic networks. Every
funding amounting to one-fourth of their costs.
year these projects involved half or nearly half of our
Furthermore, teachers point to their regular teaching
Erasmus universities, and their projects covered a very
and organisational duties as being an excessively
wide spectrum of areas, ranging from humanities and
heavy workload and, in addition, are not confident
social sciences to natural sciences, medical sciences
of their success in competing for a project grant. The
and engineering and technology. CD projects involving
lack of confidence results, in turn, from the fact a few
Polish universities cover likewise a wide variety of
faculties or departments have already applied, some
areas, including social sciences, engineering and
even twice, for a CD project grant, but without success.
technology, environmental protection, management,
Other faculties point out that information about this
agriculture, foreign languages and European studies.
type of grants is not as detailed as in the case of
However, only approximately one-fourth of Polish
mobility opportunities under Erasmus and/or that this
Erasmus universities participated in them every year.
type of projects is not equally widely promoted. Finally,
agricultural
universities
and
two
FDES
among
thematic
Faculty/Departmental
networks,
require
Erasmus
complementary
in some cases the problem lies in the lack of staff Feedback given by universities during meetings with
with fluent command of a foreign language, lack of
the staff of the Foundation for the Development of
experience
the Education System and the survey conducted by
difficulties in finding foreign partners for such projects.
in
developing
such
projects
and/or
83
Those very heavily predominating among Polish
results in student and teacher exchange, and those
partners in all three types of projects are public
which are still less “visible” in student and/or teacher
universities situated in the biggest and bigger university
exchange. The former include, for example, the
cities which have more extensive experience in
University of Applied Sciences in Gorzów Wielkopolski
international cooperation. For example, the Jagiellonian
and the State Higher Vocational Schools in Krosno and
University in Cracow participated in 4 of 15 CD
Tarnów. The latter are represented, for example, by the
projects in 2000/01, 4 of 46 intensive programmes in
Częstochowa University of Management, the Pułtusk
2002/03 and in 11 of 36 thematic networks involving
Academy of Humanities, the Małopolska School of
Polish universities in 2004/05. It should, however,
Economics in Tarnów or the Warsaw Management
be emphasised that one could also occasionally find
Academy.
other Polish universities among CD project partners, including
both
universities
situated
in
smaller
university towns which have already achieved good
II.4
Examples of projects involving Polish universities are given in Chapter II.4.2.
Erasmus’ lasting mark: qualitative outcomes with examples
Some major qualitative outcomes of the Programme
This part deals separately with how students see their
already emerged in the part of this review concerning
benefits from the participation in the Programme,
the institutional framework for Erasmus (Chapter II.2).
and with the impact of Erasmus on higher education.
In brief, that chapter shows that Erasmus did actually
Students “deserve” to have a separate chapter not
inspire the majority of universities to design an inter-
only because they are the largest group of Erasmus
national cooperation policy, has made a substantial
beneficiaries, but also because a period of study and
contribution to the promotion of Polish universities
stay abroad is a unique experience for them. The
abroad, and has introduced various arrangements
second chapter in this part covers jointly outcomes
and standards to ensure high-quality organisation of
of various Erasmus projects and individual teacher
student mobility activities. These elements set a
mobility because the latter not only enrich outgoing
context for the implementation of the Programme at
teachers, but also translate indirectly into how their
university level, but at the same time are in themselves
home universities teach students.
a valuable outcome of the Programme. II.4.1
84
Europeans of the Erasmus generation: outcomes of a study period abroad in the eyes of students
Within the framework of Erasmus, European students
For every student, this is a period of study combined
normally go for a study period abroad for approximate-
with good fun, a period of discovering another world,
ly six months. Most or perhaps even all of them are
other people and oneself (not infrequently a different
first struggling to adjust, then are totally absorbed in
face of one’s self). Even though some media peering at
their new life and at the end are sad to be leaving.
Erasmus students are keen to highlight the “partying”
element, what Erasmus students themselves say
more detail below. Polish students lay slightly greater
suggests that learning – as part of study, sightseeing
emphasis on academic and/or career-related aspects,
and contacts with others – is indeed a central aspect
and when abroad discover that the whole European
of the period abroad. Besides, students have parties in
student community has so many shared values. In
their own countries as well, and one could hardly deny
turn, foreign students, most of them coming to our
them the right to have fun abroad, though moderation
country so far from Western European countries, go
is, of course, always advisable.
abroad mainly for non-academic reasons, and when already there discover, first of all, that Europe’s
As explained by Christophe Allanic, a clinical psycho-
frontiers extend further on than they could see before.
logist and expert in cases of exile, “Erasmus, it’s like a rite of passage [...]. You leave your hometown and
With these discoveries and close encounters, Polish and
then your parents, to find yourself in the unknown
other European Erasmus students and former Erasmus
amongst others’ fathers/friends, it’s a challenge”.53
students are now jointly part of what Prof. Stefan
This trial period has a very similar effect, called “the
Wolff, the frequently quoted German political scientist
Erasmus effect”, on all outgoing students, regardless
working at the University of Nottingham, calls “the
of the country which they come from. „The Erasmus
Erasmus generation” – a generation of people who
effect” means, first of all, recognising that Europe
really feel not only Poles, Germans, Greeks or Finnish,
is common space where one can travel, go on an
but also European. According to Prof. Wolff, „when this
exchange or eventually work.54 While many young
generation takes the reins in coming decades, both
people are aware of this, Erasmus students can
in Brussels and in national capitals, it could produce
experience that first-hand, which does indeed make
a profound cultural shift. ... Give it 15, 20 or 25 years,
a difference.
and Europe will be run by leaders with a completely different socialization from those of today. ... in the
All students are motivated to go abroad by their
future there will be less national wrangling, less
curiosity about the world and other cultures. Various
Brussels-bashing and more unity in EU policy
surveys and feedback from outgoing Polish students
making – even if that is hard to picture today.”55 These
and foreign students coming to Poland show, however,
are broader outcomes of Erasmus which, together with
that the former and the latter place emphasis on slightly
the hopefully accurate prophecy from a scientist, are
different aspects of their experience, as discussed in
also worth bearing in mind.
53 P. Antoine, “Post-Erasmus syndrome: SOS distress”, http://www.cafebabel.com/eng/article/22806/post-erasmus-syndrome-sos-distress.html. 54 A. Bordet’s interview with Michel Fize, a sociologist at the CNRS; http://www.cafebabel.com/eng/article/24649/eurogeneration-or-the-erasmus-effect.html. 55 K. Bennhold, “Quietly sprouting: a European identity”, International Herald Tribune, 26 April 2005.
85
II.4.1.1
Almost all in one: Polish students about their studies and life in other European countries
In questionnaires completed every year for the
has been growing every year, the financial aspect does
Foundation for the Development of the Education
not seem to be a decisive factor for students.
System (FDES), Polish students give several main reasons why they decided to go on an Erasmus
Like in the overall assessment, the great majority of
exchange. The rankings of these reasons in terms
over 85% to over 90% give “grade” 5 or 4 for their
of the proportion of students indicating them have
personal benefits from academic exchange. During
remained virtually unchanged in recent years. The
a few months at a foreign university, students not only
most frequently mentioned reason is eagerness to
acquire new knowledge and skills, but also assess the
gain “European experience”. It is worth adding in this
whole model of education and compare it with what
context that, according to an Erasmus Student Network
they saw at their home university before. There are
survey56,
Poland has the largest proportion of students
five recurring “themes” in students’ comments about
who identify themselves with Europe. The next ones
academic aspects of their exchange. Firstly, what
listed in the order of priority by students are cultural
students value very highly is that they gain or extend
reasons, or curiosity about other counties and cultures,
their practical knowledge as the focus on practical
and academic reasons. An only slightly smaller proportion
aspects is the prevailing approach to teaching in many
of students state that they wished to prepare better for
other European countries, and in particular in Western
their future career and learn about a new environment
Europe. At the same time and secondly, it is only
or test their ability to cope with a new environment.
during their studies abroad that students begin to recognise the value of thorough education that they at
Polish
universities.
Thirdly,
Does Erasmus fulfil students’ expectations? In an
receive
overall assessment of their study period abroad in the
because courses are practically oriented, students gain
same questionnaires for the FDES, over 85% to over
theoretical knowledge as part of their homework, thus
90% of students have invariably given Erasmus “grade”
developing their independent study skills. Fourthly,
5 or 4 on a scale of 1 to 5 in recent years. While an
excellently equipped laboratories and libraries do
Erasmus study period abroad does indeed fulfil various
themselves encourage students to gain knowledge
academic and non-academic needs of students, the
extending beyond compulsory curricular contents. And
Erasmus grant does not score equally well. In terms
fifthly, Polish Erasmus students learn about a slightly
of the extent to which the grant satisfies their financial
different, more “liberated”, approach to study. This
needs, only 20% of students give it “grade” 4 or 5; over
may turn out to be a dangerous trap for some, but
50% of students give it 3 and the remaining 30% even
others see it as a great lesson in how to develop
a lower “grade”. However, as the number of those who
independence, a sense of responsibility and self-
wish to go and those who actually go on an exchange
discipline.
56 V. Boomans, S. Krupnik, E. Krzaklewska, S. Lanzilotta, “Generation Mobility. Results of ESN Survey ‘07”, p. 26, Erasmus Student Network, 2008.
86
precisely
Moreover, students confirm in the FDES surveys that
That it is worthwhile to gain international experience
they obviously benefit from immersing themselves in
is also demonstrated by findings from an international
a foreign language. Students assessing their command
survey on the professional value of Erasmus mobility58
of a foreign language as very good or good after
carried out among former Erasmus students. More than
return to Poland are almost twice as many as before
half of students who went on exchange in 2000/01
departure, and they not infrequently learn less widely
and were surveyed in 2005 believe that their Erasmus
used languages. During their study period abroad,
study period had a positive impact on obtaining the first
some students even passed foreign language exams
job. Moreover, both approximately half of students and
which are recognised across Europe, and others were
one-third of their employers unanimously emphasise
encouraged by contacts with students of various
that international experience, in addition to computer
nationalities to learn a second or yet another foreign
skills and fluent command of a foreign language, has
language after their return to Poland.
become a major criterion in the recruitment of staff. The employers surveyed also value highly the qualities
Furthermore, in recent years between 90 and over
which
90% of students have stated in their questionnaires
a large extent, thanks to their “trial period” abroad,
former
Erasmus
students
developed,
to
that their Erasmus study period may be helpful in their
including adaptability, initiative, planning skills and
future career. Regrettably, one could hardly check to
assertiveness. Furthermore, more than one-third of
what extent these expectations are fulfilled because,
former Erasmus students believe that their exchange
as the survey conducted by the FDES among Erasmus
period had a positive impact on the type of work
Institutional Coordinators in summer 2008 (see:
itself. In turn, for future Erasmus students who would
footnote 16) shows, few universities (14.3%)57 collect
like to enrich their CV with international assignments,
information on the possible impact of an Erasmus study
it is also worth adding here that, after taking their first
period or placement on graduates’ employment. We
job, almost one-fifth of the 2000/01 Erasmus students
do, however, know from the feedback given by former
were regularly employed abroad, at least for some time.
Erasmus students through various channels that some
This proportion is several times as large as among
of them chose a more interesting topic for their final
non-mobile students.
thesis and others began an academic career when still on an Erasmus exchange. Still others extended
However, statistics fail to capture the whole “spiritual”
their stay abroad because they received an additional
or “learning” dimension of what students experience
grant for further studies at the hosting university or
during their studies and stay abroad, and this is, as
a placement in an enterprise.
mentioned earlier on, the core part of the exchange
57 For example, the Medical University of Białystok and the Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in Warsaw where a questionnaire survey is conducted by the university’s careers office; the College of Foreign Languages in Częstochowa and the Poznań Trade and Commerce College where information is collected through emails and individual discussions. 58 O. Bracht, C. Engel, K. Janson, A. Over, H. Schomburg and U. Teichler, “The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility“, International Centre for Higher Education Research (INCHER-Kassel), University of Kassel, Niemcy, 2006.
87
in the eyes of students. Moving abroad means, first
lesson in tolerance for students, but also an excellent
of all, getting out of a comfortable and safe rut and
opportunity for them to discover their Polish identity
confronting oneself in completely different realities.
and learn to appreciate what is “good even though it’s
Not infrequently, this is a clash that costs a lot but, as
Polish” or “good because it’s Polish”. Simultaneously,
confirmed
come
many students discover how much they have in
back more self-confident, more independent, more
common with those who grew up in a completely
resourceful and without complexes. Living abroad
different – though also European – culture. That’s
also involves everyday confrontations and clashes with
exactly what “a rite of passage” is about.
by
students
themselves,
they
a previously unknown culture. This is not only a practical All such generalisations always sound, however, somewhat empty and banal. Thus, as students themselves say, “the best thing to do is to go abroad and make it your own experience” and in the meantime give the floor to students, whose comments from various years are quoted below.59 Although we sought to group the comments according to various themes, “labelling” is not really possible in this case because the studies and life abroad are a “total” experience for students. Those who wish to get full stories are encouraged to read the essays of students winning awards in the Foundation for the Development of the Education System’s contest “Erasmus – what does it mean to me?”60. About why it’s worthwhile to go on an exchange generally “I would like to invite all future participants to take part in student exchange. A study period abroad is the greatest privilege that you can have during your studies. It is not possible to list all of its benefits, and requirements are not very demanding – it’s just enough to have the will. It’s the best way to learn about Maciej Julian Sobociński, Wrocław University of Technology, “Polar circle”, Finland, 2006/07
another culture, prove oneself, make friends and, first
59 http://www.socrates.org.pl/socrates2/index1.php?dzial=4; http://www.bielsko.biala.pl/1284.artykuly; Polish universities’ websites. 60 http://www.erasmus.org.pl/index.php/ida/88/, section “Publications”.
88
of all, really become a citizen of united Europe and
at LUT (Lappeenranta University of Technology) is
use rightfully the opportunities it offers”.
lecturers coming not only from Finland, but also
Przemysław, Częstochowa University of Technology
from Ireland, the United States, Estonia or Russia. Thus you can learn about the specificity of economic relations in these countries. … Though studying
About hardships of everyday life
at LUT does not differ much from what we have in [In France] “You need to have a lot of patience
Poland, there are a few interesting arrangements
to deal with administrative formalities; this may
which could perhaps be usefully introduced at our
sometimes throw you off balance, but it’s worthwhile
universities. In addition to regular classes once
to go through all this to appreciate the advantages of
a week, they offer intensive courses; a course lasts
the Polish system.”
for several days, 5 to 6 hours each day, and you take an exam “right off” or 3 to 4 days after the course
“Italy is a beautiful country. You shouldn’t worry that
has finished. This system requires that students put
for the moment you can’t get things moving – it’s
in extra effort and prepare for classes day by day, but
normal; a time will come when you certainly do.”
at the same time it ensures that they concentrate and
Students of the University of Warsaw
gain more in-depth knowledge of the topics studied. Moreover, students can participate in conferences and video-lectures organised at the university and
About studies only
take an exam at the end, thus earning a few credits. “...I am proud to say that, with the knowledge I gained
The university also organises so-called “study tours”:
at the University of Computer Engineering and
credit-bearing trips combined with a series of lectures
Telecommunications
easily
and visits to enterprises in Tallinn and St. Petersburg.
participate in classes at the St. Pölten University, and
in
Kielce,
I
could
Finnish language courses and Finnish culture courses
I was even better prepared for some courses in terms
are a great attraction; during the latter, apart from
of factual knowledge than my peers from Austria”.
learning about national customs and traditions, you
Katarzyna, University of Computer Engineering and
can savour Finnish delicacies or listen to Finnish
Telecommunications in Kielce
music (Freestyler), or even watch the famous Moomins in the original version. For those who prefer
“Universities
abroad
often
place
emphasis
on
to study at home, so-called literature exams may be an
a practical way of conveying knowledge, academic
interesting option; students do not attend classes, but
staff there have a captivating way of teaching classes,
study recommended reading items on an individual
professors are friendly towards students, they eagerly
basis and then take an exam.
engage in discussions during and after classes.”
Ewa, University of Szczecin
Paweł, Częstochowa University of Technology “Studies abroad gave me some insight into the “Apart from students coming from all over the world,
UK higher education system. Classes are shorter
what gives an international dimension to studies
and often serve only as an introduction to a given
89
problem. It’s up to the student to gain further
“Several months at the Chalmers University of
knowledge.
often
Technology enabled me to extend my theoretical
indicated by teachers themselves, are a rich source
Books,
articles
or
websites,
knowledge (an excellent library with a wide choice of
of information. In my opinion, this enables you to
specialist engineering journals and periodicals, not to
extend your knowledge in areas that you are specially
mention their collection of books), as well as to learn
interested in. However, this does not mean that you
practical skills in excellently equipped laboratories
are not required to complete all courses. You are
and
encouraged to gain information by a well-stocked
companies there.”
library, computer databases, electronic journals and
Justyna, Cracow University of Technology
during
numerous
discussions
in
chemical
articles from any journal in the world that you can order and have delivered within 2 weeks. Another
“Thanks to an Erasmus grant, I was a student of
thing worth mentioning is the unrestricted 24-hour
Napier
access to IT equipment and Internet resources.
opportunity not only to learn about plastics, as
Felicjan, Wrocław University of Technology
a chemistry student, but also to look at how things
Beata Gruźlewska, Wrocław University of Technology, “Waiting for Erasmus”, Spain, 2006/07
90
University
for
5
months
and
had
an
are organised within the university itself and how the
“... At UK universities students can choose courses
education system works within its framework. … This
and at the end get credits for each course. To
is an issue which has always interested me and was
complete a year, they have to obtain a required
one of the reasons why I applied for the grant. … So
number of credits. This system works perfectly. I could
I learned that:
choose courses and classes which really interested me.
• the time during tutorials is for students to work on
This fact and teachers’ innovative approach made
their own and ask the teacher questions; • exam papers are marked by the teacher and by an
studying really interesting and absorbing. Throughout the period I felt motivated to dig deeper for
external person (the teacher is not present during
knowledge.
exams);
Sebastian, Polish-Japanese Institute of Information
• exam papers from previous years are available in
Technology in Warsaw
the library, and you can get advice from the teacher when doing exercises.” Justyna, Warsaw University of Technology
“...Courses [...] were already finished after three months, so we had plenty of time to write the final project during the last two months of the stay. It was
“Before going abroad, I sent an outline of the project
a practically oriented project, i.e. it combined 4
which I wanted to carry out. When I arrived there,
subjects which we studied and was a real-life
accompanied by the Socrates Coordinator for the
application for a local company, plus an extensive
faculty of computer science and robotics, I had
report with a detailed description of the development
a series of discussions with various professors to find
process. We had two months to write the whole
a tutor. My project changed completely because
paper; I was in a two-member team, so we had to work
I chose a laboratory that I had not known about before
quite hard to meet the requirements, but everything
departure. Fortunately, the supervisor of my Master’s
went well – our project was among the best ones and
thesis in Poland approved the change. And thus
we got one of higher marks. I certainly learned a lot
I found myself in a computer vision laboratory, VisLab.
during that semester, mainly thanks to the approach
When looking for a tutor, I didn’t even dream that my
to teaching which is different from that in Poland. In
search would end in such a great place. All projects
Denmark they focus very heavily on practical training;
carried out at this laboratory were fascinating for me.
thus instead of writing several theoretical projects and
I could learn about them during week-long seminars,
take theoretical exams (like in Poland), we did what
where each member of the team presented in turn
employers will expect us to do in the future. (But the
results of their work. I had a place to work, access
fact remains that computer specialists from Poland
to materials and, most importantly, sincere support
are very highly regarded in the West, including
from the whole team. My working days were busy:
Denmark).”
I polished my technical English till lunchtime and then
Kamil, University of Information Technology and
worked on the project till evening.”
Management in Rzeszów
Klaudia, Koszalin University of Technology
91
About academic and professional spin-offs from the
Lublin University of Technology and Universidade
exchange
Portucalense, I spent next two semesters in Porto (outside of the Erasmus Programme).”
“... Portuguese traditions, the charming beauty of
Katarzyna, Lublin University of Technology
the landscape and architecture or simply the friendly approach of the Portuguese to life and people – that’s
“The stay in Kiel altered my plans for the future.
why I succumbed to the fascination of their culture.
I decided to take up postgraduate study at a German
As a result, my three-month exchange under the
university. My decision was determined above all by
Programme was not an end to my love affair with
the professionalism and friendliness of the German
Portugal. The time was coming for me to move on
academic staff, as well as by more pragmatic reasons:
to the fifth year of study and choose the topic for my
excellent library resources.
Master’s thesis. Interested in the problem of cultural
Olga, University of Wrocław
differences, which was inspired by my studies in Portugal, I decided to write about Portuguese business
“A merchant navy officer is by nature an international
culture. With the support from the authorities of the
profession. However, my education in Ireland or, more
Paulina Fiuk, Szczecin University of Technology, “Erasmus study period – Politecnico di Torino, Italy”, 2006/07
92
precisely, the contacts I made in the Irish maritime
“First classes at the university made it clear to me
sector, helped me in my career when I was still there.
that there was a chance of academic success. This
Thanks to support from some people, I was enrolled
was largely because of easy access to various, both
as a trainee on ships there and I hope to continue my
web-based and traditional, sources of information.
career in the now slightly sluggish, but still thriving
The library with enormous resources, as well as the
“Celtic tiger” economy.
neighbouring reading room, were a place which
Sławomir, Gdynia Maritime University
I frequently visited and where I spent long hours studying literature to write essays. Very often they
“... Traditionally, the fifth year of study is the time for
were the basis for awarding credits for tutorials. As
writing the Master’s thesis; for me, it turned out to
a result of the hours spent in the reading room, I got
be a period of intensive travelling and search centred
very good marks and even earned the “top of the
around contemporary British drama and the figure
semester” grade in one course. The latter was
of Sarah Kane. Painstaking study in the library and
a distinction for my interesting paper based on
meetings with British theatre artists enabled me to
extensive research. … Having settled into the
put together a biography of one of the most original
university, I decided to write an article for an English
dramatists of contemporary theatre. My Master’s
-language geographical journal. The article was to
thesis, concerning the works of Sarah Kane, was the
be devoted to the topic related to my Master’s the-
first attempt in Polish criticism to give a critical review
sis. It was concerned with UK investment locations in
of the phenomenon which has its origins in Kane’s
Poland. When I finished writing, my tutor at the
dramas and which is featuring prominently in Polish
University of Portsmouth corrected the article. What
theatre today. … The search in London paved the way
came out of our joint work was an article that is now
for my career in professional theatre. The pioneering
awaiting publication in the journal “Geography”.
topic of my Master’s thesis, focusing on the phe-
Michał, Adam Mickiewicz University
nomena which were not as yet explored thoroughly in our country at that time, and independence which
Again about learning, but in another way
I showed in my research on the development of British drama made my job application attractive. Thanks to
“Lectures,
specialist
my Socrates grant, my dream to work in the literature
language,
section of a theatre could come true: since January
Socrates
2002 I have worked as the Literary Secretary in the Jan
observation and modelling, looking at how people
Kochanowski Theatre in Opole, and thus can continue
from other countries behave in similar situations, and
my research on contemporary drama. Undoubtedly,
trying to adapt the arrangements you have seen when
the fact that I completed a course in Arts Management
back at home. … Large corporations invest millions
at Darlington College of Arts was an additional asset
of dollars in intercultural training. When you are
and makes it easier for me today to undertake effective
on an Erasmus exchange, the transnationality of
promotional and marketing activities.”
everyday emotions and interactions makes you
Justyna, Adam Mickiewicz University
sensitive
but is
to
also
about
terminology everyday learning
differences
in
in
a
foreign
communication through
–
examples,
communication
and
93
lifestyles, and you realise that the same words do not
to adapt to changing conditions, flexibility, teamwork
necessarily mean the same thing in different cultures.
and communication skills plus a large dose of specific
Erasmus mobility, not to mention organisational skills,
knowledge gained from courses and the language that
will certainly be useful in my future work. Socrates
you can really polish up. … Erasmus is about learning
creates numerous challenges and situations which,
through experience, atmosphere and emotions.”
when translated into the practical language of life,
Monika, University of Łódź
develop your ability to cope with crisis situations or make choices. Many things which would normally be
“Everyday life in „Erasmusland” is like individual and
a challenge are just part of everyday life for those on
collective frenzy of excitement to learn as much as
a Socrates exchange. ... Erasmus is, first all, about
possible, which turns your world upside down and
people. You can say that it’s like being involved in
never really ends in its complete restructuring … You
collective intercultural group work and deriving real
don’t have too much time for thinking about education
motivation to set further aims for oneself. Total and
during the exchange. It’s simply going on. In cultural
spontaneous exchange of experience and knowledge
and academic terms. A new language. At the
sharing! … Erasmus is also about testing your ability
university, at home, in the street and in the shop.
Bartłomiej Karolak, State Vocational School in Kalisz, “Istanbul, Turkey”, 2006/07
94
Classes taught with passion which awaken passion.
to collect materials for my Bachelor’s thesis, which
At least in my case. Tasting and enjoying a different
was to be devoted to illegal immigration. After the first
teaching style. ... And when you are back home, the
three months, I changed my topic to manifestations
feeling that you can achieve what’s unachievable”.
of Catalonian nationalism. […] To explore the topic,
Anna, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
I carried out countless interviews, read a lot and attended
lectures.
This
track
led
me
to
an
“Better education? Preparing for adult life? What it
organisation which aims to promote the idea of
means to me is, first of all, that you have knowledge
stateless nations and protect minority languages.
in the broad sense of the word, set some specific aims
There I began to look at Catalonia as a piece of
for yourself, have courage to achieve them and are
a larger puzzle. Grasping the complexity of the
ready to take responsibility for your actions. Did I get
political and social situation in Spain, I began to grasp
all this participating in the Erasmus Programme? This
the nuances of Europe. I learned about coalitions
as well. But this experience means more to me, and
of the stateless nations, congresses which they
I can hardly find words to express it. … For me,
organise, efforts made to ensure respect for their
participation in the Programme is also about getting
rights and recognise their status. I understood hopes
various kinds of information and learning about other
they were pinning on the proposed Constitution and
points of view on topics which seemed to have been
the European Parliament. Suddenly, I began to look
exhausted and not worth discussing again. But what’s
at those issues myself, more and more strongly
most important to me is the time I spent together
supporting Catalonians, Tyroleans, Scots. … I began
with other “Erasmuses”, when we learned about one
looking at Europe in a different way. I realised that
another, our cultures and languages. Thanks to those
I didn’t know much about it and that maybe I should
moments, I no longer look at nations from an historical
spend a bit more time on the old continent before my
angle and I have overcome prejudices which, though
dream trip to Latin America. Now I live in Sarajevo.
denied, were deeply rooted somewhere in my mind. At
I thought that it might be a good idea to see for
the same time, I recognised the richness of our native
myself what the famous “balkanisation” was about,
Polish culture by comparing it constantly to others.”
which politicians threaten us with when it comes to
Anna, Adam Mickiewicz University
discussing claims of stateless nations. I am a volunteer in an organisation which gathers evidence of genocide
“This is a very valuable experience which teaches us
in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
to be independent, resourceful and tolerant towards
Jagoda, Collegium Civitas
other ways of thinking. Paradoxically, we also learn a lot about Poland, Poles and ourselves, because it
About themselves, a test of character and a lesson
helps us notice things and differences which one does
in life
not think about when living in one’s own country.” A student of the University of Warsaw
“... But first of all, I learned to rely on myself, to be confident about my skills and abilities. After all, we
“...I went to Barcelona for an Erasmus study period
all have untapped reserves of energy which we can
95
discover in favourable circumstances, very often to
value. To develop and meet more and more new
our great surprise.”
people. … Because this world is too beautiful, too
Anna, Poznań University of Economics
interesting, too intriguing, because these people are so different and at the same time so very much alike
“... Going abroad? Completely alone? And studying?
that it’s worthwhile to learn about all this, to see it,
It’s beyond me! ... That’s exactly what I thought still
experience it!”.
in May last year. Today the thought would never even
Edyta, University of Bielsko-Biała
cross my mind …” Małgorzata, Poznań University of Economics
„My Erasmus was an Erasmus of a disabled person. Whatever disability means to others, it’s only a severe
“...Who am I now, after those several months spent
limitation for me. Imagine that you want so much to
abroad? I seem to be the same person, but thinking
do something, something that’s easy for others, but
in a completely different way! I wouldn’t find words
your body says a definite no. So you go on like this and
like “it can’t be done”, “impossible” or “never” in my
after some time let others do for you what you cannot
vocabulary. You need to fight. You need to know your
do yourself. Though a university student, you are still
Aleksandra Szmidt, Cracow University of Economics, “Erasmus students form Spain, Catalonia, Poland and Hungary”, Brussels, 2005/06
96
a child, a person that others need to take care of. …
style. But each of us tried as hard as others, put
My Erasmus was about freedom, transcending myself,
stereotypes and prejudices aside, learned again from
learning to live with my limitations, learning to live an
scratch to live and forge bonds. … I was learning to
adult life. My Erasmus was a school of life for which
think, to break away from fixed routines, only to ask
I am still grateful today. … The life of a disabled
questions, to question and to search for answers; to
“Erasmus” changes dramatically. During an exchange
work in a multicultural environment, to break down
one learns to overcome barriers, break out of one’s
communication barriers, to forget about misunder-
confinement, gain knowledge in one’s own way. It’s
standings. … I came back happy, with greater peace of
also about making contacts, new friends who become
mind, more self-confident. More open, more sensitive.”
your lifelong friends. And the cultural exchange
Karolina, Lazarski School of Commerce and Law in
aspect is not insignificant. It’s extremely important for
Warsaw
disabled people because in their own environment they are, to some extent, confined to a certain area,
.“… exchanges are a fantastic way to get to know
while on an Erasmus exchange the world is wide open
the world, other people, but also oneself; it’s the best
before them. You keep all this in your mind when
lesson in tolerance, […], showing that, despite great
back at home. It’s an unforgettable experience, an
differences, we have similar aims, that we can build
adventure and a sort of deposit for more such
a Common Europe in which everyone can find a place
exchanges.”
for themselves …”;
Paulina, University of Białystok
Liliana, Poznań University of Economics
About
familiarity,
strangeness,
community
and
“...It’s no ordinary trip abroad. When you are on an exchange, you get to know not only the country where
themselves
you live, its culture and its different traditions and “Though Erasmus is great fun, adaptation to the new
customs, the higher education system and students
environment is really difficult. You don’t have your old
there, but also, in a way, the whole Europe! How?
friends to drop by for a cup of coffee, your favourite
Thanks to other “Erasmuses”, of course! ... All of
bakery around the corner, the same desk, curtains
a sudden, you can speak all European languages
or cottage cheese.
You don’t have anything that’s
in one place, learn about German, British, French,
really yours and you need to learn how to domesticate
Spanish, Greek, Italian, Czech and other national
this strangeness, this otherness. It’s wonderful that
traditions and customs, see how people in these
once you have overcome hard days, the exchange
countries look at various things and behave. You don’t
will turn into something that you would never change
need to travel to exchange views and see how much
for anything else. … Never in my life have I worked
we differ from one another and, at the same time, that
so hard, done so much homework, spent so many
there is even more that we have in common. Noth-
hours on exercises, projects. With people who spoke
ing can compare to this, because it’s your own, direct
and thought in other languages, each of them with
and truly real experience! It teaches us to be respon-
a different cultural background, a different life-
sible, breaks down stereotypes and enables us to keep
97
a distance from our everyday life. It’s a test in life
five months. I proved to myself that I am able to follow
skills which, if passed successfully, boosts your
courses taught in a foreign language and can cope
self-confidence.”
well with my studies. I learned that I can make friends
Edyta, Cracow University of Economics
with Germans, Czechs, Swedes; I felt to be a real Pole, European and a citizen of the world; and I feel again
“... What did I learn? It’s worthwhile to test and
hopeful that the world we live in can go in the right
prove oneself, it’s worthwhile to break into a different
direction.
culture to feel that you don’t and, at the same time,
Wioletta Anna, Nicolaus Copernicus University in
do belong there; it’s worthwhile to be away from
Toruń
Poland to miss it. … Did I change? I still believe in the same ideals: goodness, truth, honesty, faithfulness,
About promoting Poland and our culture
patriotism; I still want to be a special education
98
teacher and take off my everyday mask for my
”.. We organised evenings during which we showed
children who expect me to be natural, so that I can
Kieślowski’s and Wajda’s films to the Spanish and the
discover anew the things that really matter in my life.
French. We gave them records so that they could listen
Something else has changed: I am enriched by these
to Polish music. We talked to them about literature,
for example, about Sapkowski. This was because, as
Erasmuses’ circle and go on an exchange: pack your
it turned out, they knew alarmingly little about the
suitcases and have a nice trip. BOA SORTE (GOOD
countries of Central or Eastern Europe. … For some
LUCK).”
Spaniards, Europe means Spain, Portugal, France,
Eulalia, University of Information Technology and
Germany perhaps, and what extends further beyond
Management in Rzeszów
is the land of dragons and Russians.” Students of the University of Bielsko-Biała
As a warning for students who only now plan to go on an Erasmus exchange, Christophe Allanic, the
Closing comments
clinical psychologist quoted before, advises that during the stay abroad “the thought of returning home […]
„...unfortunately, time passes inexorably, and the
[not be] forgotten”, because it may turn out that “It is
weak point of the Socrates-Erasmus exchange is that
easier to leave than it is to go back”. In scientific terms,
you can go for a study period abroad only once.”
the state of mind upon return is described as „the
Ewa, University of Szczecin
post-Erasmus syndrome”.61 In such cases, one can rely on other former Erasmus students, the Erasmus
“...There is just one thing I would like to tell all those
Student Network and other associations of Erasmus
who are wondering whether they should join the
veterans to provide emergency aid.
61 Ibid.
99
II.4.1.2
Close encounters in the land of dragons: foreign students about their studies and life in Poland
Foreign students in Poland decide to go on an exchange
Eastern European neighbours are doing, and in
mainly for non-academic reasons, as demonstrated by
particular we have been eager to know how things are
both findings from surveys conducted in various years
going in the West. Besides, Polish students have for
and students’ own comments available in the Inter-
long been aware that Poland did not need to return to
net. Students surveyed by the Education Research and
Europe. For many or even most students coming to our
Development Centre of the Academy of Humanities
country, mainly from Western European countries, but
and Economics (AHE) in Łódź in
2001/0262
were
also from, for example, Turkey, Poland – like other new
motivated, first of all, by their curiosity to learn about
EU Member States – has only recently emerged in the
another culture. Curiosity about different cultures was
place which they used to refer to as Europe. Thus their
also one of the three main reasons mentioned by
curiosity is, above all, linked with recent geographical
foreign students in a survey carried out by the Erasmus
discoveries and, at least partly, with the “Go East”
Student Network in 2005.63 An even larger proportion
trend mentioned earlier on (see: Chapter II.3.3).
of students surveyed by the ESN mentioned eagerness
In these cases, one can hardly say to what extent
to gain new experience and improvement of foreign
students choose Poland “randomly” from among new
language skills among their reasons for going abroad.
EU Member States or what exactly brings them here in
A smaller group of students listed the improvement of
the end. Even if we are not, as our students quoted in
academic knowledge among their major reasons, and
the previous chapter say, “a land of dragons” for foreign
an even smaller number of students saw their exchange
students, their knowledge about our country is limited
as a way of improving their employment prospects.
to short “encyclopaedic” entries. This is what foreign
Although surveyed students are not asked why they
students themselves say about their choice:
have chosen Poland, their various comments available in the Internet64 show that their choice is motivated
“... a friend of mine told me about erasmus. He had
mainly by three reasons. Firstly, they are driven to our
it all figured out: we would travel to Central Europe,
country by a slightly different curiosity than in the case
learn more about the new member states and their
of outgoing Polish students. It seems that, in general,
cultures …” – a student from Belgium.
olish students, like the majority of Poles, know more about their hosting countries. This is because we
“We had a choice between four countries: Slovenia,
have always been well aware of how our Central and
Slovakia, Latvia and Poland; I thought that Poland
62 T. Saryusz-Wolski, R. Figlewicz, A. Antosiak, D. Wodnicka, P. Ciołkiewicz, “Jak studiuje się w Polsce? Badanie zadowolenia studentów Erasmusa 2001/2002” (An Erasmus student satisfaction survey 2001/2002), Academy of Humanities and Economics in Łódź, 2003. 63 S. Krupnik, E. Krzaklewska, “Studenci Erasmusa w Polsce – raport z badania Erasmus Student Network 2005” (Erasmus students in Poland – a report on the Erasmus Student Network survey 2005): ESN Report 2006 published by the Foundation for the Development of the Education System. The survey was part of a more extensive survey of the ESN covering Erasmus students in Europe. 64 http://www.20erasmus.eu; http://www.cafebabel.com/pl/article.asp?T=T&Id=9696; http://www.iris.siu.no/iris.nsf; “UK Erasmus and Comenius Awards 2005”, UK Socrates-Erasmus Council, British Council; Polish universities’ websites. Foreign students’ comments are quoted in their original version.
100
was the best among them”. “Among the countries with
common question was “why Poland?”. And I was
which our university cooperates under the Socrates-
saying “why not?”. Because I didn’t have any other
Erasmus Programme, Poland seemed best to me in
right answer!” – a student from France.
many respects.” – students from Turkey. “Before leaving, I didn’t know much about Poland “Before I went to Poland as an Erasmus student, the
and especially about Katowice. They were like a black
only thing I know about Poland (Polish – Polska) it
closed box to me.” – a student from Italy.
was the geography facts and numbers: a country in Central Europe bordered by 7 countries, being the
“Frankly speaking, before coming here, I didn’t have
69th […] largest country in the world […] Still in my
too much information about Poland. All that I knew
imaginary, like a border between East and West. […]
was that it’s a Catholic country, a new member of
– a student from Portugal.
the European Union with the capital in Warsaw, the temperature is often low, and the majority of the
“Before leaving France everyone asked me “why
society are blond men with different eye colours.”
Poland?” And the only answer that I could give
– a student from Turkey.
was “why not?”. When I arrived in Poland the most
Marcin Kluczek, University of Warsaw
101
Secondly, some students, who are, at least as
for example, university courses or student services. In
“web-based studies” show, a much smaller group,
turn, the 2005 ESN survey referred to above shows
choose Poland because of their family connections,
that the level of satisfaction among students staying
though this does not seem to be a decisive factor:
in Poland was comparable to the average level of satisfaction
among
Erasmus
students
in
other
„It was a great thing to do, to have a change of
countries.
environment with all what that means. This exchange
numbers of Erasmus students at that time, Poland
was even more special to me due to my Polish origin...”
stood out from the others in terms of social and
– a student from Sweden.
Among
14
countries
hosting
largest
cultural aspects, the latter corresponding at the same time to the main reasons behind the choice of our country. We ranked first in terms of the atmosphere
And thirdly, we have hosted a small group of
of the city and country of the university hosting
„academically oriented” students whose choice of
Erasmus students (4.45 on a scale of 1 to 5) and the
Poland was linked with their field of study or the topic
contact with the culture of the host country (3.99), and
of their final thesis, but also, in some cases, by the
second in terms of contacts with local students (3.54).
high reputation of the Polish university concerned. This
As regards other aspects (e.g. information, local
is the case, for example, of economics, political sci-
language courses, courses at the university and
ence or history students.
teachers, university facilities and support from the relevant university services), the level of satisfaction
“... Poland and its market are very attractive for for-
among foreign students in Poland was identical with
eign investments and a Master’s degree from the best
that among students in other countries or differences
business school in the country will make the difference
were marginal (0.1 to 0.2).
for everybody.” – a student from Italy undertaking a study period at the Warsaw School of Economics.
“The social dimension” was also given the highest ratings (4.1) by Erasmus students in Poland alone.
“... Poland gave me knowledge about another life and
We earned slightly lower ratings for “the academic
country – integral to a Historian. How can you re-
dimension” (3.8) and “the practical dimension”
search a country’s history when you do not know what
(3.4). One of the main shortcomings within “practical
it is now? ...” – a student from the United Kingdom
dimension” was insufficient information about studying
undertaking a practical placement at the National
and living in Poland. This is quite surprising because,
Museum in Warsaw.
as the FDES survey shows, nearly all Polish universities provide incoming students with a full set of information concerning these aspects (see: Chapter II.2.6).
Students surveyed by the AHE in Łódź in 2001/02
The reason is perhaps that some of our universities
were „satisfied” or „rather satisfied” with their stay
produced various information publications in foreign
and study period in Poland, though some students at
languages only during the last three years.
a given type of university had objections concerning,
102
An Erasmus exchange in Poland is just the same “rite
students can be built quickly.” “The classes are
of passage” for foreign students as it is for outgoing
informal and pleasant.” – students from Spain.
Polish students. In line with their motivation, incoming students emphasise in the AHE and ESN surveys, first
“...We’ve noticed that Polish and Lithuanian teachers
of all, benefits linked with their personal development
are very different from each other. Teachers here are
and life experience. These include self-awareness,
very nice, friendly and natural in their attitude towards
independence, the ability to manage one’s life,
students. They do their best to ensure that students
proving to oneself that one can cope with a challenge
understand the course material covered, they like
and a new environment, as well as openness to
joking, and students feel at ease in their presence.
others, knowledge about another culture, tolerance
In Lithuania teachers are rather stricter and keep
and respect for another culture. Comments concerning
a distance.” – students from Lithuania.
academic aspects are as few as „academically oriented students”. The „non-academic” comments in the Internet confirm that hospitality and friendliness towards visitors are Likewise, „academic” comments can hardly be found
indeed our great national assets. In the great majority
on various websites. The few available refer mainly
of Internet comments, one can find opinions such as
to two aspects. Firstly, degree programmes in Poland
the following:
focus more on lectures and theoretical aspects, which Polish students complain about from the perspective
“...The people in Poland are warm and friendly; they
of their study period abroad and which, in turn, is
are always willing to offer a helping hand.” – a student
welcome by some foreign students.
from Spain.
“In Poland we had more lectures than in Finland
“The most important thing was that all Poles were
and less group work, which was great for a change.
very friendly and helpful; this was most important of
We also had oral exams which are not common in
all. …” – a student from Germany.
Finland. In Finland the learning methods are a bit more practical.” – a student from Finland.
“… I love Poland for the food, for the winter, for the University and PEOPLE. …” – a student from Italy.
And secondly, students highlight the fact that Polish
At the same time, another striking thing in many com-
teachers are friendly and direct, which, in turn, strikes
ments is “the pleasant surprise effect”. This confirms
Polish students as “a novelty” during their study period
that foreign students do indeed have scant knowledge
in other countries.
about our country before coming here and, consequently, that many more students still need to come
“...There are not so many students per class, and
to change various widespread views, prejudices and
the direct relations between the teachers and the
stereotypes.
103
“...My exchange was much better than I expected. ...”
a lot in common with our students, and that we are
– a student from the Netherlands.
closer to them than they thought before:
“...Since my arrival in Katowice I have been pleasantly
“...In one semester, I could only taste a bit of the Polish
surprised many times. ...” – a student from Spain.
culture. It’s a strange thing to be at the same time part and not part of something. To be a friend and
„...Now, after living here for 4 months, I can say to
a stranger. Even though I will never be truly Polish,
be greatly satisfied with the content of the box” – the
I will carry Poland with me in my heart. In the end, it
black box which we were to a student from Italy before
came down to meeting people who will be the truest
arrival (see: above).
friends in your life. …” – a student from Belgium;
„... I can advise to go abroad to one of the new
“...After some time passed I see that that is what
EU-Member-States. you will be very often very
we achieve after the Erasmus experience: unite
surprised…” – a student from Germany.
people in diversity, adding to an individual different viewpoints...” – a student from Portugal;
Having opened the black box, students study our
“[…] I learnt that Poland is as much a part of
culture as part of their „non-academic” activities...
Europe as the UK, and historically even more so. In this way my Erasmus exchange […] has fundamentally
“... At arrival I saw it will be few nine months. […] So
changed
I didn’t waste any time and started to discover the
– a student from the United Kingdom who went on
my
perception
of
Europe’s
frontiers.”
Polish rich thousand-year atmosphere immediately,
an Erasmus exchange to another country, but spent
checking the architecture, the folklore, and the art,
a part of his holiday in Poland, visiting Erasmus fellow
finding out that many world famous people were born
students.
there. With my home base in Poznan, I travelled across Poland (to Kornik, Rogalin, Kraow, Oswiecim, Wieliczka, Wroclaw, Gniezno, Warszawa, Krynica, Czluchow,
All these outcomes, important from the viewpoint of
Lodz, Gizycko, Bialystok, Olsztyn, Zamosc, Lublin,
both foreign students themselves and the promotion of
Torun, Kutno, Konin, Gdansk, Gdynia, Szczecin, Pila
our country, are best summarised by a comment from
[...], Sopot, Malbork, Bydgoszcz, Leszno, Zielona
an Italian student not yet quoted here:
Gora, Opole, Zakopane, Czestochowa, Katowice, Nowy Sacz, Rzeszow and others I was to … busy … to
“I left Italy with no idea of what I might bump into
remember)....” – a student from Portugal;
… my mind was a perfect blank … I found myself there, thousands of kilometres far from home, in an unknown country … Poland didn’t mean anything to
104
and, as part of other extracurricular activities, discover,
me before … But from the very beginning I got to
just like their Polish colleagues abroad, that they have
know how to appreciate it and then love it … I got to
know the history, people’s habits and even the lan-
nowadays?!? Erasmus is just learning to see the world
guage!!! Ok, I’ve got black hair, dark eyes and pretty
from another point of view without losing your own …
dark skin so nobody will ever mistake me as a Pole
Erasmus teaches a deep sense of brotherly respect
but I really enjoyed when a man asked me whether I
towards the other.”
had a double citizenship!!! after all what is citizenship
105
II.4.2
Erasmus’ teaching islands: impact of the Programme on higher education
Erasmus offers universities opportunities for broader
education is above all selective, though visible in
cooperation in the area of teaching under various
various aspects (for the introduction of ECTS, which is
types of projects, including curriculum development
not included here, see: Chapter II.3.8).
projects,
intensive
programmes
and
thematic
networks (see: Chapter I.2). However, as mentioned
This is confirmed by findings from the questionnaire
earlier on (see: Chapter II.3.9), the opportunities
surveys
offered have not been widely used to date by Polish
Development
universities for a number of reasons. Polish teachers
Institutional
went abroad under Erasmus to carry out teaching
Coordinators in summer 2008 (see: footnotes 16 and
assignments rather than upgrading their skills, but
20). Although, as reported by Erasmus Coordinators,
they did in fact extend their knowledge in a given
over 40% of universities and over 10.6% of faculties
area and improve their teaching methods as a result
or departments offer full degree programmes in
of the extra work to prepare for the assignment and
foreign languages in various fields of study other
the exchange itself. However, a large proportion of
than languages or philological sciences, only 7.8% of
outgoing teachers came from a rather limited number
universities and 3.5% of faculties or departments have
of universities (see: Chapter II.3.5). Furthermore,
introduced them as a result of their participation in the
a large number of Polish universities have not yet
Erasmus Programme (Figure 21). These include both
used consistently the opportunity to invite foreign
programmes launched directly under Erasmus and
teachers under the Programme in order to inter-
programmes which are an indirect or spin-off effect
nationalise classes for Polish students (see: Chapter
of Erasmus, introduced, for example, as a result of
II.3.6). Consequently, Erasmus’ impact on higher
cooperation established under Erasmus.
conducted of
by
the
and
the
Foundation
Education
System
Faculty/Departmental
for
the
among Erasmus
Figure 21. Full degree programmes offered in foreign languages by Polish universities as a result of participation in the Erasmus Programme* University
Field and level of study
Cracow University of Economics
IInternational Business – International Relations, first- and second-cycle programmes
University of Łódź
Administration, second-cycle programme
State Higher Vocational School in Nowy Sącz
Engineering, second-cycle programme
State Higher Vocational School in Nysa
Computer Science, Management and Finance (a module for foreign students)
University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn
Political science, second-cycle programme
Poznań University of Technology
Electronic Engineering and Telecommunications (level of study not indicated)
University of Warsaw
Second-cycle programmes in 5 fields of study: Management, Economics (3 programmes in English), International Relations, European Studies, Spatial Development and Environmental Protection (launched directly under the Erasmus Mundus Programme); Psychology, 5-year Master’s degree programme; Philosophy, first-cycle programme.
* Based on the surveys conducted among Institutional and Faculty/Departmental Erasmus Coordinators.
106
Erasmus “output” is equally modest as regards degree
However, they have been established as a direct or
programmes offered jointly with foreign universities.
indirect
Such programmes are provided by over 28% of
Programme at only 9.1% of universities and 2.3% of
universities and 10.6% of faculties or departments.
faculties or departments (Figure 22).
effect
of
participation
in
the
Erasmus
Figure 22. Joint degree programmes offered by Polish and foreign universities as a result of participation in the Erasmus Programme*
University
Field and level of study
Jan Dlugosz University in Częstochowa
Physics, specialism: Nanophysics, Master’s degree programme
College of Foreign Languages in Częstochowa
Postgraduate TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) course
University of Łódź
Programme leading to a diploma in French law
State Higher Vocational School in Nysa
Architecture, first-cycle programme (available as from 2008/09)
University of Warsaw
Second-cycle programmes in 5 fields of study: Management, Economics (3 programmes in English), International Relations, European Studies, Spatial Development and Environmental Protection (launched directly under the Erasmus Mundus Programme), and French Language and Literature Studies, second-cycle programme.
Warsaw University of Life Sciences
Degree programmes in 4 fields of study: Engineering and Environmental Management, second-cycle programme; Forestry, second-cycle programme; Economics, second-cycle programme; Animal Sciences, first-cycle programme.
Wrocław University of Technology
Chemistry, second-cycle programme, and most of the following programmes (incl. two launched under the Erasmus Mundus Programme): Information Management; Molecular nano-bio-photonics for telecommunication and biotechnologies (Erasmus Mundus); Minerals and Environmental Programme (Erasmus Mundus); Environmental Health and Safety Risk Management; Information Technology; Nanoengineering; Simulation and Modelling in Physics; Quantum Engineering; Business Administration.
* Based on the surveys conducted among Institutional and Faculty/Departmental Erasmus Coordinators..
A much larger number of faculties or departments
countries and/or EU institutions and operational
(29.4%) have been persuaded by Erasmus to introduce
procedures, as a result of their participation in the
selected courses or classes (other than foreign language
Erasmus
courses) in a foreign language for Polish students. Such
introduced mainly in humanities and social sciences,
courses or classes are regularly taught in various fields
but also, for example, in the field of Nursing at the
of study, ranging from tourism and leisure, philosophy,
Faculty of Health Sciences of the Nicolaus Copernicus
political science, sociology and economics to sciences
University in Toruń.
Programme.
Such
courses
have
been
and engineering and technology. As a result of projects and individual teacher mobility In turn, only slightly more than one-tenth of faculties
under the Programme, over one-third (36.5%) of
or departments (11.8%) have introduced so-called
faculties
European modules, i.e. courses on history, politics,
teaching methods, and almost one-third (31.7%)
economy or culture of Europe or selected European
have changed their approach to the teaching of
or
departments
have
introduced
new
107
a given course, for example, by placing greater
programme offered in a foreign language and/or jointly
emphasis on practical aspects or incorporating an
with foreign universities.
approach adopted at a foreign university. Some faculties or departments have introduced new courses
Nevertheless, one should also note here that foreign
into their existing curricula (17.6%) and/or changes
teachers’ visits, though undertaken mainly to teach
in curricular contents (15.3%). Participation in
students, are widely used as an opportunity for various
the Programme has resulted in the establishment of
meetings at hosting faculties or departments. As part
a modular system at few faculties or departments
of such exchanges, the great majority of faculties
(8.2%) or the transition to the three-cycle system in
or departments (74.1%) organise meetings, seminars
single faculties or departments (1.2%).
or thematic workshops in areas with which foreign teachers are concerned. Over half (57.6%)
Classes given by foreign teachers coming to Polish
organise meetings with students who are interested to
universities under Erasmus are always an integral part
undertake a study period at foreign teachers’ home
of the study programme at less than one-tenth (9.4%)
universities. For over one-fifth (23.5%) of faculties or
of faculties or departments and always an extra option
departments, foreign teachers’ visits are an opportunity
at more than half (54.1%) of faculties or departments.
to organise meetings, seminars or workshops on higher
Over one-fifth (21.2%) of faculties or departments use
education issues such as the Bologna Process or
both approaches. Ideally, students who are unable to
quality of education. Finally, some faculties or
undertake an Erasmus study period abroad should
departments (14.1%) organise various other meetings;
regularly have an opportunity to “savour” the European
for example, monographic lectures and presentations
dimension of studies. The “incidental” character of
concerning research conducted by teachers, joint
classes given by foreign teachers is, however, quite
workshops run by Polish and foreign teachers or
understandable as it reflects to a large extent problems
meetings with representatives of other university
related to teacher mobility (in particular, to the
faculties or departments.
availability of teachers and timetable arrangements – see: Chapters II.3.6 and II.3.7). Classes given by
To
foreign teachers could certainly be an integral part of
Programme in the area of teaching, examples of
study programmes at a larger number of faculties or
curriculum development projects, intensive program-
departments in more predictable circumstances; for
mes and thematic networks are given below.
example, should these be a fixed element of a degree
108
illustrate
various
outcomes
of
the
Erasmus
Curriculum Development Projects (CD Projects)
„COEUR – BCM – Competence in EuroPreneurship – Business Creativity Module”
Partners: Fachhochschule Mainz – University of Applied Sciences, Mainz, Germany (Coordinator) and universities and other institutions from the Czech Republic, France, Poland, Portugal and the United Kingdom; Polish partner: Wrocław University of Economics. Implementation period: 2005-2008
The primary objective of the project is to offer courses in European entrepreneurship (EuroEntrepreneurship) developing key entrepreneurial competences and skills necessary to operate in a multicultural business environment. Emphasis is placed on the first phase of business activity development, i.e. identification of problems and development of creative solutions for them. The project includes, inter alia, the following activities: • Developing a syllabus for COEUR – Business Creativity Module (BCM), ensuring high quality of the course; • Introducing the BCM module into the range of courses offered by the participating universities and allocating an appropriate number of ECTS credits to the module; • Disseminating the concept among European universities in order to enable the establishment of a network of institutions stimulating the development of European entrepreneurship. The Wrocław University of Economics (WUE) participated in discussions on the design of the BCM module at all stages of its development, prepared some documents for the module, organised a COEUR 2006 conference, and developed a syllabus and programme specifications for the thematic block Commercialisation Interface. The BCM module was introduced into the curriculum in the winter semester of the academic year 2006/07 as a pilot project at the WUE, and in the fifth semester of a first-cycle programme as part of an Englishlanguage track at the other partner universities. Students participating in the course are awarded 5 ECTS credits at all universities. The key outcome of the project is a programme offered in English, using an Internet platform. The module was incorporated into the standard set of courses taught in English as a specialisation course. The introduction
109
of the module increased the interest of WUE students to participate in classes which ensure comprehensive development of the graduate’s professional competences. Moreover, the module provides a ready-made approach to the teaching of classes which develop creativity in entrepreneurship and in work in a multicultural environment. This approach can be used in higher education, secondary vocational education and training courses designed to upgrade skills or develop new professional competences. At the same time, the introduction of the module in English facilitated the exchange of students between the WUE and other universities participating in the project, and extended the range as well as increased the attractiveness of the WUE’s courses offered to foreign students coming from other universities under the Erasmus Programme.
Methods to disseminate outcomes of the project: • international conferences devoted to various aspects of lifelong learning; • national conferences during which representatives of the WUE presented the objectives, implementation methods and organisational, methodological and curriculum-related experience in using the approach to teaching developed under the project; • project website (www.coeur-module.eu); • publications in specialist journals.
(Note based on FDES materials)
110
Intensive Programmes
“Visible and Invisible Context of Architecture”
Partners: Warsaw University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture (Coordinator), and universities from Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Implementation period: academic year 2005/06
The project aimed to develop students’ observation skills and sensitivity to the richness of natural and man-made environment, with the town of Kazimierz Dolny on the Vistula River used as an example by project participants. So-called Author’s Days were organised during the course, the programmes of which were specially prepared by teachers from six foreign partner universities. Each day began with an introductory lecture by a teacher and/or clarification and distribution of tasks. Then students carried out specific tasks, being supervised by the responsible teacher and assisted by other teachers. Activities included, for example, field exercises, as well as developing projects and improving the work done in a studio. All activities were an opportunity to exchange approaches and experience among students and teachers from the participating countries. Students participating in the course were awarded 3 credits (or an equivalent number, depending on the credit system used). Outcomes of the project were published on a CD sent to all participating institutions as well as on the website of the Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw University of Technology. Moreover, the course was presented in the monthly journal of the Association of Polish Architects (SARP) „Komunikat SARP” and the monthly journal of the Warsaw University of Technology „Miesięcznik Politechniki Warszawskiej”. The intensive programme in the form of summer school was also included in the set of optional courses offered as part of the university programme “META”.
(Note based on materials provided by the Coordinator)
111
“Entrepreneurship in the Context of Rapid Macrosocial Changes (entrepreneur now)”
Partners: Nowy Sącz School of Business – National-Louis University in Nowy Sącz (Coordinator), Optimus S.A. and Wiśniowski Co. firms in Nowy Sącz, and universities and other institutions from the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania and Sweden. Implementation period: academic year 2005/06
The project aimed to present macro-social changes in Europe and their impact on entrepreneurship and the process of economic integration at European level, as well as the impact of macro-social changes on the process of strengthening links between EU Member States with different economic, social and cultural traditions. The local entrepreneurship model from the Nowy Sącz region was used as a case study and point of reference for comparative analysis. Drawing on the experience of their own countries, course participants defined similarities and peculiarities of European transformation and worked on a common methodology in this area. As a practical outcome of their participation in the project, participants were better prepared for work in changing socio-cultural conditions and for dialogue and cooperation with those whose attitudes and professional experience were shaped by different conditions. Materials developed during the project are to be used in the development of courses which will be integrated into regular study programmes at partner universities in the future.
(Note based on FDES materials)
112
THEMATIC NETWORKS
„Inter}Artes – Quality in Higher Arts Education in Europe”
Partners: A. Zelwerowicz State Theatre Academy in Warsaw (Coordinator) and 48 other universities and institutions active in the field of art from all countries of the enlarged European Union Implementation period: 2004-2007
„Inter}artes” was the first network coordinated by a Polish university. The project was based on achievements of the 2000-2004 thematic network “Innovation in Higher Art Education” and was carried out in close cooperation with ELIA (European League of Institutes of Arts). The objective of the network was to carry out more thorough analysis of arts education in Europe in the context of increasing European integration, and in particular changes resulting from the Bologna Declaration. The network aimed to initiate activities in the area of self-evaluation, quality culture and all aspects of teaching and learning arts subjects. The work of the network was the first attempt to systematize elements of teaching in higher arts education institutions and develop so-called European Reference Points on this basis. The partners examined all aspects of learning and teaching and research in the area of art, focusing in particular on the following issues: • ensuring continued influence of higher arts education on the development of the society, art and culture; • building a strong identity for higher arts education across the European area; • a student-centred approach to learning and teaching; • cultural diversity and social environment, and arts education; • innovations inspired by cultural, artistic and educational traditions; • creating, designing, developing, presenting and exploring as purely artistic competences; • building a portfolio, and following artists’ unusual career paths. The network worked in four thematic streams: 1) Quality: topics such as ways of looking at quality of education and ensuring quality of education; accreditation and self-evaluation, evaluation criteria; meanings of the term “academic”; 2) Structures: topics such as formal education structures in Europe; compatibility of those structures and
113
their compliance with the structures proposed in the Bologna Declaration; 3) Innovations and Tradition: examples of innovations in teaching/learning processes, disappearing traditional arts and related skills, and innovations which result from return to traditional knowledge; 4) Professional Practice: links between artists’ education and professional practice and their role in the society; continuing education issues; maintaining contact with graduates; employment and selfemployment prospects. Outcomes of the network were presented in the Handbook published together with a DVD. Handbook includes: 1) Findings and Results: conclusions and articles on quality assurance and enhancement; tuning and qualifications frameworks; innovation and tradition in education, and professional practice; 2) Reference Documents and Toolkits: four Tuning Documents and a Reading Grid on knowledge, skills and competences for higher arts education; Guidelines for Quality Assurance and Enhancement; Toolkit for Student Tracking; and the „Emappa” plan for a European Master’s course/module on Advanced Professional Practice; 3) Case Studies on innovation building using artistic and cultural traditions; and 4) Narratives by active network partners. The DVD contains audiovisual materials on case studies, a film “Training and tracking the student artist”, Tuning Documents translated into French and German, and PowerPoint presentations and other materials. As of the academic year 2007/08, the work of the Inter}Artes network is continued as part of the ARTESNET Europe network, coordinated by the European League of Institutes of the Arts based in Amsterdam.
(Note based on materials prepared by the Theatre Academy in Warsaw and the FDES, and information on the network website: http://www.inter-artes.org)
114
„Chemistry in the European Higher Education Area”– ECTN4
Partners: École Supérieure de Chimie, Physique et Électronique de Lyon, Lyon, France (Coordinator) and universities and other institutions from all 31 countries participating in the Erasmus Programme; Polish partners: Jagiellonian University in Cracow, Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań and State Higher Vocational School in Tarnów. Implementation period: 2006-2009
ECTN4 is already the fourth joint project which brings together university faculties of chemistry and other institutions from the chemical sector cooperating with one another, inter alia, under the Erasmus Programme. The work of the network is targeted at all interested groups, institutions and organisations, i.e. students, teachers, chemical industry and professional associations. The project has the following objectives: • to enhance the employability of chemistry graduates at all levels, and in particular at the first-cycle level; • to improve professional/generic skills of doctoral students; • to evaluate innovative teaching methods; • to develop a European Qualifications Framework for the chemical sector; • to identify best practices in the development of study programmes combining chemistry and chemical technology; • to create an Internet-based test in biological chemistry; • to establish links between ECTS and other networks, for example, through participation in the establishment of an “archipelago” of science and engineering networks and the organisation of a joint summer school together with a chemistry research network; • enhancing outcomes of previous projects in chemistry under the Leonardo da Vinci and Socrates Programmes; • further involvement in the Tuning project (Tuning Educational Structures in Europe; further details at: http://tuning.unideusto.org/tuningeu/) where chemistry is one of key areas; • enhancing the public image of chemistry. The following activities and outcomes are envisaged in the project: • a study on the employment of first-cycle graduates in the field of chemistry, with conclusions relevant for education policies in this field;
115
• a report on best employability enhancing practices in chemistry programmes at all levels; • a website for chemists devoted to university and industrial placement opportunities; • Internet-based tests in biological chemistry; • a report on innovations in chemistry teaching; • a website for enhancing the image of chemistry; • a report on best practices in chemistry and chemical technology programmes; • a series of summer schools for students and junior university teachers; • participation in the organisation of TechnoTN forums for “the archipelago” of science and engineering networks; • student-led workshops leading to reports on benefits from mobility in the field of chemistry and benefits of chemistry for the public; • establishment of a group of Leonardo and Socrates project coordinators in the field of chemistry to disseminate outcomes of projects; • organisation of a conference to evaluate and disseminate outcomes of the network.
(Information published on the European Chemistry Thematic Network Association website: http://www.cpe.fr/ectn-assoc/)
116
II.5 More and less likeable faces of Erasmus: strengths and weaknesses of the Programme in the eyes of universities “egalitarian”, open and accessible for all. To have Many Polish universities cooperating with other
access, participants should, naturally, speak a foreign
European universities under Erasmus also participate
language but, as some universities point out, Erasmus
or participated in various other EU programmes
creates plenty of opportunities to improve language
(e.g. Erasmus Mundus, Tempus, Leonardo da Vinci),
skills as well.
regional programmes (e.g. CEEPUS) and multilateral or bilateral projects. Half of universities responding
Another unquestionable asset of the Programme in
to the FDES questionnaire in summer 2008 (see:
the eyes of universities is the clarity, transparency and
footnote 16) assessed strengths and weaknesses of
uniformity of its rules for all countries and universities,
Erasmus against this background.
combined with coherent standards and tested-andproven operational procedures. However, as regards
Beginning with the most general aspects, Erasmus’
procedures themselves, opinions are clearly divided.
strength in the eyes of universities is “the recognisable
Some universities praise Erasmus for little bureaucracy,
identity” and “the high reputation” of the Programme.
an easy way of applying for grants and simple
Indeed it was unmistakably identified by many people
procedures for the submission of applications and
still before Poland’s accession to the Programme in
reports. By contrast, other universities point to
1998, and recent years have widened considerably
excessive bureaucracy, increasing bureaucratisation
the circle of universities and individuals active in the
of activities related to the organisation of mobility,
field of higher education who are not only aware of
complicated
Erasmus’ existence, but also on familiar terms with
excessively complex questionnaire system to monitor
the Programme. Moreover, during its 20-year lifetime
mobility. According to the latter, administrative support
in Europe Erasmus has become a symbol of the
for the Programme is too time-consuming, thus leaving
Europeanisation of universities, and today participation
too little time for tasks related to the implementation of
in the Programme is simply an imperative for every
the Programme.
administrative
procedures
and
an
university to make their presence known in the European higher education community.
Many universities are unanimous in complaining about the level of funding available. Firstly, the Programme
Furthermore, Erasmus is highly regarded by universities
offers in any case funding to cover only partially the
for the fact that it is a stable and multiannual
costs of mobility and projects. Secondly, mobility grants
programme, offering at the same time ample scope
are lower than in other programmes. Thirdly, though
for activity, in particular wide mobility opportunities.
the average student grant has risen substantially and
Another big plus point in this context is the large scale
continues to rise at national level, some universities
of Erasmus; no other programme involves so many
are forced to reduce continuously the level of grants
students and teachers. Thus the Programme is also
awarded as part of their total Erasmus student
117
mobility grant in view of the large and steadily
Development of the Education System could not
increasing number of student applicants. Fourthly,
refrain from boasting that many universities pointed
the number of “awarded” mobility flows is simply not
to the good quality of support for the Programme at
sufficient to satisfy the demand at some universities.
national level as one of Erasmus’ strengths. According
And fifthly, the funding for the organisation of mobility
to universities, the Erasmus Team provides competent
is too limited to cover the costs of linguistic, cultural
support, reliable and efficient information services as
and/or pedagogical preparation of students and the
well as efficient and comprehensive support in various
organisation of student placements.
situations, including in case of doubt or emergencies, while carrying out their tasks with a “user-friendly”
Finally, the Erasmus Team at the Foundation for the
approach.
II.6 Erasmus and internationalisation of universities: summary of the main outcomes of the Programme in a broader context For many years internationalisation in higher education
According to Jane Knight’s definition of the term, most
was understood almost exclusively as international
often quoted from the mid-1990s, internationalisation
mobility and, in particular, as the mobility of students
is “the process of integrating an international dimension
taking up studies at universities abroad. Such activities
into the research, teaching and services function
involved a small group of people and fell outside the
of higher education” (1993).65 Ten years later the
scope of mainstream university activities. The last
author defined internationalisation even more broadly
ten to twenty years have changed the context for
as „the process of integrating an international,
the
increasing
intercultural, or global dimension into the purpose,
globalisation in all spheres of life, universities have
functions or delivery of postsecondary education”
come to compete internationally with one another for
(2003).66 Today internationalisation involves all areas
students, academic staff and funding and, at the same
of the university’s activity. Its “territory” covers not
time, are facing the challenge to adjust the education
only student, academic staff and administrative staff
offered to new realities. In brief, today’s universities
mobility, but also curricula incorporating international
should train students so that they are able to function
and intercultural contents, transnational education,
in multicultural communities and on the international
including
labour
internationally
methods, as well as internationalisation of univer-
recognised qualifications to their graduates. These and
sity management, including internationally accepted
other developments have broadened considerably the
arrangements for quality assurance.
functioning
market,
of
universities.
while
With
awarding
via
distance
and
ICT-based
concept of internationalisation in higher education.
65 J. Knight, “Internationalization: Management Strategies and Issues”, International Education Magazine, volume 9, no. 1, Ottawa, 1993. 66 J. Knight, “Updating the Definition of Internationalization”, International Higher Education, volume 33, autumn 2003.
118
learning
Moreover, since Bengt Nilsson published his article
appropriate legal measures and extra funding granted
“Internationalisation at home – theory and praxis”
to universities for this purpose. In some countries
at the EAIE (European Association for International
such funding is available today not only for student
Education) Forum in 1999, Europe has devoted
mobility, but also for the internationalisation of
increasing attention to “internationalisation at home”
curricula, for example, in the context of the Bologna
(IaH). The term refers to processes taking place inside
Process.69
universities and covers “any internationally related activity with the exception of outbound student and
Moreover, internationalisation of universities has been
staff mobility”67. This covers, among other things, both
for a long time strongly promoted by the European
the very presence of foreign students and classes given
Union which invests millions of euro every year into
by foreign teachers, and internationalised curricula
programmes such as Erasmus, Erasmus Mundus,
in the broad sense of the
term68.
“Internationalisation
Tempus or EU/USA, EU/Canada, EU/Australia and
at home” has been recently growing in importance in
EU/Japan cooperation programmes. Within Europe’s
view of the fact that programmes such as Erasmus
borders internationalisation or, more precisely, Euro-
offer an opportunity to undertake a study period abroad
peanisation of universities is most widely supported
to less than 10% of students, and many universities
by the Erasmus Programme. Erasmus is the largest
even have a smaller proportion of outgoing students.
European programme which provides grants not only
Thus the key question is how higher education studies
for student and staff mobility, but also for broader
could be internationalised for the remaining 90% of
cooperation between universities. Until 2007 broader
students. Few should doubt today that this needs to
inter-university cooperation could take place as
be done.
part of curriculum development projects, intensive programmes and thematic networks. With the range of
This is also perfectly clear to national and local
options now extended under Erasmus, universities can
authorities in an increasing number of European, mainly
also internationalise or Europeanise their programmes
Western
within
European,
countries
(e.g.
Scandinavian
virtual
campus
projects
and
introduce
countries, the Netherlands, Germany and France),
a European dimension into management through
which support internationalisation not only verbally
projects supporting the modernisation agenda of
through their higher education policies, but also through
universities (see: Chapter I.2).
67 B. Wächter, “Internationalisation at home – the context” in: P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens and B. Wächter, “Internationalisation at Home. A Position Paper”, EAIE, 2000. 68 Authors of various publications often refer to the typology of internationalised curricula established by OECD/CERI. It includes the following types of curricula: 1) curricula with international subject matter; 2) curricula in which the traditional subject matter is broadened by an internationally comparative approach; 3) curricula which prepare students for defined international professions; 4) curricula in foreign languages or linguistics which explicitly address cross-cultural communication issues and provide training in intercultural skills; 5) interdisciplinary programmes such as region studies, covering more than one country; 6) curricula leading to internationally recognised professional qualifications; 7) curricula leading to joint or double degrees; 8) curricula which comprise a compulsory part offered by an institution abroad; and 9) curricula in which contents are specifically designed for foreign students (OECD/CERI report, “Internationalizing the Curriculum in Higher Education”, 1996). 69 B. Wächter, “Internationalisation at home – the context” in: P. Crowther, M. Joris, M. Otten, B. Nilsson, H. Teekens and B. Wächter, “Internationalisation at Home. A Position Paper”, EAIE, 2000.
119
How have Polish universities used so far the
of international cooperation, including the lack of
opportunities offered by Erasmus? First of all, not
administrative and/or academic staff with a sufficiently
all Polish universities have taken advantage of the
good command of a foreign language and a well-
opportunities
Programme.
trained and well-equipped international relations
Between 1998/99 and 2007/08 over half of all Polish
available
office and, consequently, the lack of links with foreign
universities (256 of 448, i.e. over 57% of currently
universities. In this context, it is also worth highlighting
existing
including
some findings from the questionnaire survey conducted
115 public universities (45%) and 141 non-public
by the Foundation for the Development of the
universities (55%). Though greater in number, non-
Education System among Polish Erasmus universities
public universities have a twice smaller representation
(see: footnote 16). The survey shows that it was only
in the Programme (141 of all 318, i.e. 44%) than
through their participation in the Programme that some
public universities (115 of all 130, i.e. 88%).
universities managed to convince a large part of the
universities)
under
joined
the
Erasmus,
academic community of the need to internationalise On the one hand, over half of all universities
or to heighten or strengthen the awareness of the need
participating in the Programme is a good result
to do so. Those playing a vital, even though not
considering the fact that the last decade has seen the
always properly recognised, role of promoters of
establishment of many new universities, including
internationalisation
mainly non-public ones, but also a large proportion
Institutional Erasmus Coordinators, in most cases
of public non-university higher education institutions
international relations officers.
at
those
universities
were
(so-called state higher vocational education schools).
120
Some of the recently established universities are
The same FDES survey shows that Erasmus in Poland
already, which should be emphasised, successfully
can take great credit for establishing what may be called
participating in the Programme. On the other hand,
a proper “framework” for international cooperation
one can say that nearly half of universities, including
or “the foundations” for internationalisation which
those existing for a fairly long time, have not regrettably
comprise several elements. Firstly, internationalisation
joined the Programme yet. At least some of them
should be based on an appropriate strategy, and all
show no interest in the Programme because they have
universities interested to join the Erasmus Programme
yet to realise that internationalisation is gradually
are obliged to prepare first an Erasmus Policy Statement
becoming almost an imperative for universities; and
(EPS), outlining their strategy for European cooperation
this is not, of course, about internationalisation in
under the Programme. Findings from the survey
itself, but about the training of students in accordance
(see: Chapter II.2.1) indicate that the EPS is the only
with the demands of today’s world. Other universities
document setting the strategy for international co-
have yet to translate their awareness of the need
operation in the great majority (73%) of our universities.
to internationalise into specific actions. Moreover,
Even though EPS’s or other strategies are not yet detailed
a major factor discouraging or even preventing some
enough in many cases and over one-fifth of universities
universities from participating in the Programme is
have yet to assess their implementation, the process
the lack of broadly understood capacity in the area
of preparing such documents turned out to be the first
“exercise” in strategic thinking about internationalisation
ity, mainly student mobility (see: Chapter II.2.2).
for many universities.
Regulations in this area have been introduced to a large extent in view of the very scale of exchange
However, one should also mention here that only
and/or under the influence of arrangements to be
slightly less than one-fifth of universities developed
respected as compulsory or promoted within the
their EPS or another strategy for internationalisation as
framework of Erasmus. The first key element related
a result of discussions involving all four stakeholder
to mobility is the very right to undertake a study
groups,
faculty/departmental
period abroad guaranteed for students. Though this
authorities, academic staff, administrative staff and
i.e.
university
and
is not explicitly referred to in internal university
students. Although discussions at almost half of
regulations, it is safe to assume that the mobility
other universities involve at least two of these groups,
option is now formally guaranteed by the huge
it is worth reiterating, even if obvious, that inter-
majority (92%) of universities precisely because of
nationalisation understood as broadly as it is today
a substantial number of students sent abroad un-
implies active participation of all interested parties.
der Erasmus. The second key element concerns the
Regrettably, those most rarely given an opportunity
recognition of a study period based on ECTS
to contribute to a strategy are students; only less
principles. ECTS was established and has been for
than one-third of universities invite them to do so. In
a long time promoted under Erasmus; thus it is also
line with the aims of the Bologna Process, students
thanks to the Programme that the system has been
should take part in various activities undertaken by
incorporated not only into national legislation, but also
universities. Moreover, outgoing students are the largest
into internal regulations of the equally huge majority
group of immediate beneficiaries in programmes such
(92%) of universities. The third issue is the quality of
as Erasmus and thus they should also have a say on
activities related to the organisation of mobility. In this
priorities for cooperation or internationalisation. Their
area, universities were obliged by Erasmus to respect
voice should be listened to also because students get
various arrangements provided for in “The European
involved in mentoring or tutoring activities for incoming
Quality Charter for Mobility”, these ranging from the
students at an increasing number of universities
appropriate preparation for outgoing students to the
and on an increasingly wide scale, thus supporting
mentoring for incoming students. The FDES survey
“internationalisation at home”.
shows that, as a result of these standards, the great majority of universities provide today the appropriate
Secondly, the participation of universities in the
preparation and support to both outgoing and in-
Programme has ushered in what one of them described
coming students. Nevertheless, it would certainly
in the FDES questionnaire as “a new era […] in
be worthwhile for many universities to have a more
applying coherent standards and procedures in student
structured way of collecting feedback from foreign
and staff exchange”. This includes various internal
students (see: Chapter II.2.6). This is, obviously,
university regulations which replaced previous, ad-hoc
crucial to further development of student exchange,
and not infrequently rather intransparent, approaches
and in particular to any efforts to increase the number
to the organisation of outward and inward mobil-
of incoming students.
121
Thirdly, not only as a result of Erasmus standards, but
Within this framework established largely by the
also as a result of the very experience gained during the
Erasmus Programme itself, participating universities
implementation of the Programme and, as the FDES
have focused so far primarily on internationalisation or
survey shows, new equipment provided, universities’
Europeanisation through student and teacher mobility.
international relations offices have enhanced their
Much has already been achieved in this area, but there
capacity and improved the quality of their services. This
is just as much still to be done, in particular in student
outcome of Erasmus is extremely valuable in itself as
exchange, before universities can be proud of their
international relations offices play a crucial role in the
“internationalisation indexes”. This does not mean,
internationalisation process, not confining themselves
of course, that the terms of cooperation under the
only to providing administrative support for international
Programme should be dictated by target indicators, but
programmes (see: Chapter II.2.4). Moreover, the
the fact remains that some quantitative indicators are
participation in the Programme has prompted half
a widely accepted measure of internationalisation.
of universities to establish new units for international relations, which will certainly facilitate all activities
The number of outgoing Erasmus students (see:
related to the internationalisation of universities.
Chapter II.3.2) grew almost eightfold from 1,426 in 1998/99 to 11,219 in 2006/07, and in total as many
And fourthly, Erasmus has made a substantial
as 53,530 Polish students undertook a study period
contribution to the promotion campaign abroad run
in other European countries during these nine years.
by universities on an increasingly wide scale in recent
As a result, we had a very substantial, though “only”
years, and such activities are an essential element of
fivefold, increase in the number of Polish outgoing
internationalisation. The FDES survey shows that
students as a proportion of all European Erasmus
promotion
recently
students – from 1.4% in 1998/99 to 7% in 2006/07.
undertaken by nearly all universities (almost 98%),
activities
abroad
have
been
In terms of the number of outgoing students in
and by the great majority of them (74%) also within
2006/07, Poland ranked fifth among all 31 countries
the framework of Erasmus or in connection with
participating in the Programme, next to Germany,
their participation in the Programme (see: Chapter
France, Spain and Italy and ahead of the United
II.2.5).
Kingdom. However, this position results mainly from the fact that Poland is at the top of the European league
122
All these qualitative outcomes are now being or should
in terms of the total student population (1.9 mln). While
soon be translated into quantitative outcomes. In
the large student population is almost “automatically”
particular, activities promoting universities abroad, the
translated into a substantial number of outgoing
quality of services provided by international relations
students, the volume of Polish student mobility in
offices and the quality of activities related to the
relation to the total number of our students is no
organisation of mobility have a direct or indirect im-
longer so impressive when compared to that in other
pact on the number of outgoing and incoming Erasmus
European countries. For example, the four countries
students and teachers.
taking
higher
positions
in
the
rankings
have
a comparable number of students (1.8 to 2.2 mln),
to over 75%. This is mainly because a relatively
but they had twice or one-and-a-half times as many
large number of non-public universities which have
outgoing
European
joined the Programme do not yet send any students.
Erasmus students. Moreover, although the number of
However, the very fact that they have joined the
Polish students going abroad under the Programme as
Programme is already a brave step in the right
a proportion of our total student population increased
direction. Moreover, achievements of active universities,
almost six-fold from 0.11% in 1998/99 to 0.58% in
including those which also have a short “period of
2006/07, we are still below the European average of
service” in the Programme, are likely to encourage
0.8%.
those which have so far been “invisible” in student
students
as
Poland
among
exchange to step up their efforts. Our relatively low “participation rates in Erasmus” can be explained by several reasons. Firstly, the
And fourthly, the majority of universities sending
total number of Polish students is “inflated” by part-
students have a smaller or a much smaller proportion
time students. Unlike those in many other countries,
of outgoing students than our national average,
part-time students represented over half of the total
and some universities have shown hardly any progress
student population in Poland during the last decade,
in this area over the years. Between 1998/99 and
while very rarely applying for an Erasmus grant
2006/07 outgoing students from over 16% of
because of their employment or family duties.
universities represented as many as 75% of all outgoing Polish students. Although large universities
Secondly, our participation rates are “deflated” by
predominate
almost 43% of universities whose students are,
students, the number of outgoing students reflects, in
of course, included in the total student population
fact, not only the size of universities, but also the level
in Poland, but which have yet to participate in the
of their activity in the Programme (see: examples in
Programme. This concerns, in particular, non-pub-
Chapter II.3.2). In turn, taking the data for 2004/05,
lic universities as those of them currently involved in
which may be considered at least partially indicative
the Programme represent only 44% of all universities
of the situation in recent years, the proportion of
in the non-public sector. Likewise, the participation
outgoing students was lower than our national aver-
of 12% of public universities which have not joined
age at over 60% of universities and fluctuated around
the Programme yet would certainly bring us closer to
the average at over 10% of universities. However, as
the above-mentioned European average, even if they
regards progress over the years, it is worth emphasising
generally have a smaller number of students than
that over 50% of universities increased substantially or
public Erasmus universities.
very substantially the number of outgoing students as
among
the
leading
„exporters”
of
compared to the first year of their participation in the Thirdly, while we had over 80% to over 90% of
Programme. At the same time, the number of outgoing
Erasmus universities that sent their students abroad
students either remained unchanged or very similar,
during the first years of our participation in the
or “bounced” up and down at over one-fourth of
Programme, the proportion has decreased recently
universities which had at least several years of
123
experience in the Programme, with most of them
universities,
on
the
one
hand
the
universities
sending in total only one or several students abroad.
concerned themselves would need to take extra effort;
The volume and quantitative development of student
on the other hand stronger encouragement or support
mobility at the remaining universities can hardly be
should perhaps come from the national authorities,
assessed at the moment because they have only a one-
other institutions playing a key role in the Polish higher
or two-year “period of service” in the Programme.
education sector as well as the Erasmus Team in the Foundation for the Development of the Education
Without a more thorough analysis of the situation
System. Such special promotion measures, also
within each university that lags behind others in terms
highlighting the unavoidable imperative of inter-
of the outgoing student proportion or the progress
nationalisation and its benefits for the quality of
made, one could not assess the extent to which
education offered to students, could also cover
this results from the lack of awareness about how
universities which have yet to join the Programme.
important it is in many respects for students to under-
The number of incoming Erasmus students (see:
take a study period abroad, the still too limited capacity
Chapter II.3.3) grew almost seventeen-fold from 220
in the area of international relations or simply the lack
in 1998/99 to 3,730 in 2006/07 (according to the
of experience. However, one could not fail to see the
European Commission’s figures, or almost eighteen-
commitment in at least some universities which have
fold from 220 in 1998/99 to 3,913 in 2006/07
yet to score great successes; this is demonstrated
according to universities’ figures), and a total number
by the fact they have already designed development
of 13,630 foreign students came for a study period
strategies
and
to Polish universities during this period. In terms
provide a high level of extra funding to their outgoing
covering
international
cooperation
of the number of incoming students in 2006/07,
students.
Poland ranked fourteenth among the 31 countries participating in the Programme. According to the
Over 50% of universities which increased substantially
European
the number of outgoing students, or almost 40% of
a much larger “absorption capacity”, measured by
Commission,
Polish
universities
have
universities where the proportion of outgoing students
the total number of Polish students as a proportion
was already well above or fluctuated around the
of the total student population in the 31 Eras-
national average in 2004/05, are likely to continue
mus countries in relation to the number of students
their efforts towards achieving “the average European
coming to Poland as a proportion of the total European
participation rate in Erasmus” at national level without
population of Erasmus students. In 2006/07 Polish
any extra incentives or support. However, these
students represented 10.1% of the total student
universities should be provided with the level of
population in the 31 countries, whereas incoming
Erasmus funding proportional to the demand, and
students in Poland only 2.3% of all Erasmus students.
at least some of them pointed in the FDES survey to
The disproportion is higher only in Turkey.
the problem that they needed to reduce the level of
124
Erasmus grants in view of a large number of student
Although the number of incoming students increased
applicants (see:
Chapter II.5). In order to achieve
much more rapidly than the number of outgoing
a higher proportion of outgoing students at other
students, thus gradually improving the ratio of outgoing
to incoming students (see: Chapter II.3.4), students
facing the most difficult challenge in terms of achieving
coming to Poland in 2006/07 still represented only
a balanced proportion in student exchange. The total
34.9% (according to universities’ figures) or even
number of students in Poland, as well as the number
only 33.2% (according to the European Commission’s
of Erasmus students sent abroad by Polish universities,
figures) of outgoing students. In the group of countries
are much larger than in the other countries of the
with a large “surplus” of outgoing students in their
region. Consequently, we should attract a proportionally
exchange balance sheet, Poland outdistanced Bulgaria,
larger number of foreign students. This is not easy
Turkey, Romania and Luxembourg where incoming
considering the fact that those going abroad under the
students represented between 31.5% and 14.1% of
Programme represent on average less than 1% of all
outgoing students in 2006/07.
European students.
The relatively small number of incoming students
Thirdly, although the total number of universities
and the ratio of outgoing to incoming students which
participating in the Programme has been growing
is not yet particularly impressive can be explained by
every year, the proportion of universities hosting
a number of inter-related quantitative and qualitative
foreign students between 2000/01 and 2006/07 (for
factors. Firstly, until a few years ago this resulted from
which data are available in a breakdown by university)
Poland’s, like other Central and Eastern European
fluctuated
countries’, “disadvantageous” geographical position
proportion is much lower than the proportion of
–
control.
universities sending students abroad (over 75% to
Until Poland’s accession to the EU in 2004 universities
over 90%). The great majority of universities which
could exchange students under Erasmus only with
have sent but have not hosted students in recent years
EU Member States, i.e. Western European countries.
are non-public higher education institutions (ca 70%)
At the same time, before the recent EU enlargement,
and public non-university higher education institutions.
a
factor
largely
beyond
universities’
almost
invariably
around
55%.
This
many Western European students saw the central and eastern part of Europe as “the unknown land”
Fourthly, like in the case of outgoing students, a large
situated beyond Europe’s frontiers known to them, and
proportion of universities hosted a much smaller
thus beyond the sphere of any greater interest (see:
number of students than they sent abroad, and the
Chapter II.4.1.2). The time for discovering a wider
proportion of incoming students there was much lower
Europe came only after the enlargement of the EU. The
than the above-mentioned national average. The
new “Go East” trend combined with an increasingly
“actual absorption rate” at these universities was much
intensive promotion campaign run by universities from
lower than indicated by their “quantitative absorption
our part of Europe are only now beginning to pay off,
capacity”, measured on the basis of the total number
as demonstrated by increasing numbers of incoming
of their students. Again like in the case of outgoing
students.
students, between 2000/01 and 2006/07 less than 15% of universities hosted ca 75% foreign students,
Moreover and secondly, among Central and Eastern
and the number of incoming students was not merely
European countries themselves, Poland seems to be
a reflection of the size of universities (see: examples in
125
Chapter II.3.3). During the last four years, i.e. between
programmes and courses available at our university-
2003/04 and 2006/07, 8% to 12% of universities
-type institutions, though still modest, has been
achieved a balanced proportion in student exchange
substantially extended in recent years. Such measures
or even had a “surplus” of incoming students in their
have not yet been undertaken on a comparable scale
balance sheet. However, the great majority of them
at public and non-public non-university institutions.
sent abroad one to ten students and thus could score
However, it is a promising sign that some universities
well with only a small number of incoming students.
have included introducing or extending the range of full
Nevertheless, it should also be emphasised that over
programmes and courses offered in foreign languages
40% to over 50% of universities were above our
as one of the priorities in their Erasmus Policy
national average during these years. This group includes
Statements for 2007-2013 or other internationalisation
both public and non-public universities which sent
strategies (see: Chapter II.2.1).
largest or large numbers of students abroad (see: examples in Chapter II.3.4). Regardless of that,
In this context, it is also worth quoting some findings
comparing the ratios of outgoing to incoming students,
from the OECD review70 concerning internationalisation
one can see that universities “exporting” larger
of higher education in Poland, which coincide in fact
numbers of students or simply larger universities, like
with conclusions from this review of achievements in
larger countries, will find it more difficult to attract
Erasmus student exchange in our country. According
a proportionally large proportion from the limited
to OECD data for 2003, Polish students going abroad
“pool” of mobile European students and achieve full
to follow full degree programmes – and not to under-
reciprocity in exchange.
take a study period like under the Erasmus Programme – represented 1.3% of the total student population in
And fifthly, the crucial factor determining “the
Poland. This was the fifth lowest proportion among
qualitative absorption capacity” of our universities
the 29 OECD countries which provided relevant data
is the still too limited range of programmes and
(though, as explained by the OECD itself, the OECD
courses offered in foreign languages, English in
country mean of 4% was inflated by several countries).
particular. The countries with a “surplus” of incoming
Like in Erasmus, Poland ranked next to Germany and
students include not only those where English is the
France (1.8%) and ahead of the United Kingdom
national or official language (United Kingdom, Ireland
(0.5%). In turn, foreign students enrolled in full
and Malta), but also Denmark and Sweden where
degree programmes in our country represented 0.4%
foreign students can choose from a wide variety
of the total student population in Poland. Poland had
of programmes delivered in English. Data from the
the second lowest proportion of foreign students among
Conference of Rectors of Academic Schools in Poland
the 27 countries which provided relevant data, much
(bringing together rectors of university-type higher
below the OECD country mean of 6.4%.
education
institutions)
show
that
the
range
of
70 O. Fulton, P. Santiago, Ch. Edquist, E. El-Khawas and E. Hackl, “OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education – Poland”, OECD, 2007; http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd /23/31/39321279.pdf.
126
The proportions of students going abroad and coming
preparations for the participation in the Programme
to Poland to take a full degree programme, measured
which are the only document setting a strategy for
in relation to the total student population in Poland, are
international cooperation in the great majority of
nearly identical with those under Erasmus. According
universities.
to the OECD figures, incoming students represented 31% of outgoing students (1.3% and 0.4% of the
The Erasmus Team in the Foundation for the Develop-
total student population in Poland respectively) in
ment of the Education System can only indirectly
2003, and foreign Erasmus students in Poland
support universities in their efforts to improve the
represented 34% of outgoing Polish students (0.58%
ratio of outgoing to incoming students. One way to do
and 0.20% of the total population respectively) in
so could be wider promotion of Erasmus curriculum
2006/07. The slight difference between the OECD
development projects which provide an excellent
and Erasmus ratios is interesting because one would
opportunity to extend the range of joint programmes or
expect that it should be definitely easier for us to attract
programmes offered in foreign languages and, at the
a larger number of students for a semester of Erasmus
same time, immediately attract students from partner
study than for a full degree programme. Like all those
foreign universities. Moreover, extra funding from the
who identify reasons behind the disproportion in
State budget would be extremely useful to support
Erasmus student exchange, OECD points to the
universities’ efforts, but for the time being the academic
language barrier and the still too limited number
community is striving to cope with the challenge
of courses offered in foreign languages as the main
relying on its own resources. The current situation
factors explaining the disparity between the numbers
can be summarised by the following comment from
of students going abroad and coming to Poland to
Prof. W. Tygielski, the Vice-Rector of the University of
complete full degree programmes. Another reason given
Warsaw for research and international relations,
by the OECD is that most universities have no strategy
already quoted earlier on in this review71: “Introducing
for attracting foreign students and no proactive policy
such courses is a very slow process because there are
for international marketing. As regards strategies and
not sufficiently many students who need them, and
promotion activities at international level, findings from
developing courses requires time and considerable
the FDES survey are more encouraging (see: Chapters
financial support. This creates a vicious circle: there
II.2.1 and II.2.5). However, the survey covered only
are no students because there are no courses,
Erasmus universities, i.e. those where the awareness
and courses are not introduced because there are no
of how important internationalisation is must have
students. There is only one way out: to extend the range
already been emerging or spreading at the moment
of courses taught in foreign languages (we are trying
when they joined the Programme. In the context
to support such efforts using the so-called Teaching
of OECD comments, what is an even more valuable
Initiative Fund for this purpose)”. Another option which
outcome of Erasmus are EPS’s developed as part of
might prove effective is to have promotion activities
71 „Solidna podstawa – dobry punkt odniesienia” (“Solid basis – a good point of reference”), A. Lompart’s interview with Prof. Wojciech Tygielski, Pismo Uczelni (University Journal), April 2006, http://www.uw.edu.pl, section „Pismo Uczelni” (available in Polish only).
127
targeted specifically at foreign students in selected fields
to come to Poland, thus supporting our universities’
of study, such as history, political science, sociology or
promotion campaign.
economics, for whom Poland is an attractive country because of its historical heritage and the last dozen or
As compared to student exchange, Polish universities
so years of political, economic and social changes.
have already achieved a much better ratio in teacher exchange. The number of outgoing Erasmus teachers
Furthermore, it would certainly be worthwhile to place
(see: Chapter II.3.5) grew over fivefold from 359 in
an even stronger emphasis in promotional activities
1998/99 to 2,030 in 2006/07, and in total Erasmus
and publications on our assets that students do indeed
provided grants for 9,436 teaching assignments abroad
value highly after classes. Such investment can help
during this period. As a result, outgoing Polish teachers
us make the maximum “use” of the “Go East” trend
represented 7.9% of all European Erasmus teachers
and compete effectively with other new Member
in 2006/07 (as compared to 3.4% in 1998/99),
States. This is because foreign students come to our
and Poland ranked fourth among the 31 countries
country mainly for non-academic reasons, and Poland
participating in the Programme in terms of the number
ranked among the top countries according to social and
of mobile teachers. Outgoing teachers represented
cultural criteria in an ESN survey conducted among
2.1% of all teachers at Polish universities, thus
European Erasmus students (see: Chapter II.4.1.2).
scoring above the European average of 1.9%. In turn, the number of incoming Erasmus teachers (see:
Student exchange has so far been the key aspect
Chapter II.3.6) grew almost threefold from 488 to
of cooperation between Polish and other European
1,406 between 2000/01 and 2006/07 (for which
universities under Erasmus, and the presence of both
data are available), and a total number of 6,173
Polish students enriched by their experience related
foreign teachers undertook teaching assignments at
to a study period abroad and foreign students is also
Polish universities during this period. With the number
a major element of “internationalisation at home”.
of incoming teachers in 2006/07, Poland ranked fifth
However, for both Polish and foreign students
among the Erasmus countries. In spite of the fact that,
themselves, a period of stay and study abroad is first
unlike in student exchange, incoming teacher numbers
of all a “total” individual learning experience, which
grew less rapidly during the last seven years, incoming
involves learning about, and proving, oneself as well
teachers represented on average over 73% of outgoing
as discovering another world around oneself and
teachers (see: Chapter II.3.7).
a common Europe. This is an individual dimension
128
of the internationalisation process which everyone
Although the figures quoted above give some grounds
should simply read more about in Chapters II.4.1.1
for satisfaction, a few issues should be highlighted
and II.4.1.2. It is, nevertheless, worth emphasising
here to motivate universities to make further efforts in
here that, as a result of their pleasant surprises in the
teacher exchange. Firstly, in a spirit of sporting rivalry
previously unknown country of a newly discovered
within our region, it is worth noting that teachers in
part of Europe, foreign students whom we have hosted
all new Member States except Bulgaria are even
under Erasmus come to be great promoters of the idea
more mobile than in Poland. In 2006/07 outgoing
teachers
in
these
countries
represented
2.7%
encouraging teachers to upgrade their skills, while
(Hungary) to 7.1% (Czech Republic) of all teachers
this is exactly the purpose that Erasmus teaching
in the higher education sector. Moreover, among the
assignments would serve so well. Moreover, like in
countries where “exported” teachers considerably
other European countries, many universities have yet
outnumbered “imported” teachers, only the Czech
to recognise – in staff policy or in practice – the role
Republic and Turkey had a lower proportion of incoming
of international activity in the teacher’s professional
teachers in 2006/07 (63% and 48% respectively)
development. The teacher mobility issue does indeed
than Poland (69.3%).
feature in almost all EPS’s or other university internationalisation strategies, but a tiny proportion
Secondly, like in the case of outgoing students, not
of universities have their staff policy linked with
all universities are yet sending teachers abroad, and
international cooperation, and even fewer universities
the numbers and ratios given above are “the output”
take international activity into account in the periodical
produced mainly by the tiny minority of universities.
teacher performance appraisal (see: Chapter 2.2.1).
While in recent years teaching assignments abroad
Thus opportunities offered by Erasmus are not yet used
have been undertaken by teachers from 70% to 90%
by universities as an element of “internationalised” and
of universities, mobile teachers from over 11% of
consistently implemented staff policy. In this context,
universities represented over 61% of all outgoing
teachers themselves, who are also heavily loaded in
Polish teachers between 1998/99 and 2006/07. For
Poland with extra duties apart from their compulsory
example, in 2006/07 alone over half of universities had
teaching
only one to five outgoing teachers. Unlike in the case of
undertake an assignment abroad. Regardless of that,
outgoing students, those heavily predominating among
many teachers are not yet sufficient fluent in a foreign
the leading “exporters” of teachers were the largest
language to teach classes at foreign universities. These
and large universities. Moreover and thirdly, only
obstacles are coupled with two other problems, widely
approximately one-fourth of universities increased
known in Europe, related to teacher mobility: difficulty
steadily or almost steadily the number of outgoing
in ensuring the availability of teachers and in-
teachers over the years. At the remaining great majority
compatible academic calendars at sending and
(ca 75%) of universities “the outgoing teacher curve”
hosting universities, and the lack of complementary
leapt up and down, and some universities even had
funding for mobility.
a
decreasing
number
of
outgoing
teachers
hours,
simply
have
no
motivation
to
in
subsequent years.
Fourthly, like the outgoing teacher curve, the incoming teacher curve “bounced” up and down at the
Small outgoing teacher numbers at a large proportion
majority of universities. This certainly results to some
of universities and no steady progress in the majority
extent
of universities result from several interrelated prob-
problems accompanying teacher mobility. However,
lems. First of all, because of the low status of teaching
another reason seems to be that the “internatio-
as compared to research, there are no arrange-
nalisation at home” aspect does not yet feature so
ments, except for compulsory performance appraisal,
prominently in strategies and/or practical measures
from
the
above-mentioned
organisational
129
designed to internationalise universities as it does in
languages and European studies. All three types of
discussions held by various European forums. More
projects involved mainly universities from the biggest
persistent efforts to attract foreign teachers to teach
and big university cities which have most extensive
classes on a regular basis at our universities are
experience in international cooperation.
particularly important as almost 95% of our students, or even a larger proportion at many universities, do not
According to universities, their limited involvement in
benefit from Erasmus exchange opportunities and have
CD projects was determined by several interrelated
no chance to experience first-hand the international or,
factors, which were also obstacles to teacher mobility.
more precisely, European dimension of studies.
Firstly, the lack of teachers’ motivation to develop and carry out such projects because of the low status of
Making a better use of Erasmus teacher exchange
teaching as compared to research activities, combined
opportunities, as a way to upgrade teachers’ skills
with the fact that participation in such projects does
and thus to improve the quality of higher education
not have any significant influence on academic career.
as well as to support “internationalisation at home” for
Teachers in some faculties or departments were
the benefit of our non-mobile students, is the choice
additionally discouraged by no success in their efforts
to be made, first of all, by universities themselves.
to obtain a grant for such projects. Secondly, the
Only universities themselves can “internationalise”
lack of time resulting from teachers’ excessive regular
their staff policy, while placing greater emphasis
workload at their universities. Thirdly, the lack of com-
on “internationalisation at home” in their overall
plementary funding for projects to cover one-fourth of
development strategies, internationalisation strate-
their total costs. And fourthly, the lack of staff sufficiently
gies or Erasmus Policy Statements, and then strive
fluent in a foreign language. Moreover, some faculties
persistently to achieve the aims set.
or departments of our universities pointed to the fact that these types of projects had not been promoted as
To a much lesser extent than in the case of Erasmus
widely as student and teacher exchange opportunities,
mobility opportunities, Polish universities have so far
or to the lack of experience in the development of such
used opportunities for broader cooperation in the area
projects or difficulty in finding foreign partners. Another
of teaching offered by curriculum development projects
major element to be added to the list of “what we lack
(CD projects), intensive programmes and thematic
in” is that many universities have yet to place strong
networks (see: Chapter II.3.9). Intensive programmes
emphasis on “internationalisation at home” in general,
and thematic networks, which covered a wide
and in particular on the internationalisation of curricula
spectrum of areas ranging from humanities and social
for students who do not go for a study period abroad,
sciences, natural and medical sciences to engineering
in their international relations policy or internatio-
and technology, involved half or almost half of universities
nalisation strategy and/or international activities.
every year. Approximately one-fourth of universities engaged every year in CD projects, which concerned,
Overall, universities have been to a limited extent
for
example,
engineering
130
social and
sciences,
technology,
business
studies,
involved in Erasmus projects, and a large proportion
agriculture,
foreign
of them have made a limited use of outward teacher
mobility as an instrument for upgrading teachers’ skills
approach adopted at a foreign university. New courses
and have yet to make more persistent efforts to attract
in the curriculum and/or changes in curricular contents
foreign teachers. Consequently, the impact of Erasmus
are an outcome of the Programme in over 15% of
on “the internationalisation of education at home”
faculties or departments. Classes taught by incoming
has so far been limited and selective (see: Chapter
Erasmus teachers were always an integral part of
II.4.2). The above-mentioned FDES survey shows that
a study programme at less than one-tenth of faculties
over 40% of universities and over 10% of faculties or
or departments and always an extra option at more
departments offer full degree programmes in foreign
than half of faculties or departments. Both approaches
languages in fields of study other than languages
were used at over one-fifth of faculties or departments.
or philological sciences. However, only 7.8% of
In other words, classes are clearly still taught by foreign
universities and 3.5% of faculties or departments have
teachers on a “guest-appearance” basis and have yet
introduced such programmes as a direct or indirect
to become a standard arrangement at our universities.
outcome
Erasmus
Being now aware that Erasmus opportunities can
Programme. Likewise, programmes offered jointly
and should be used more extensively for the
with foreign universities are available at over 28% of
internationalisation
universities and over 10% of faculties or departments,
universities have included the extension of the
but only at over 9% of universities and over 2% of
range of programmes and courses offered through
faculties or departments as a direct or indirect outcome
participation in Erasmus projects as one of the
of participation in Erasmus.
priorities in their EPS’s for 2007-2013 (see: Chapter
of
their
participation
in
the
of
higher
education,
many
II.2.1). Universities aware of “the internationalisation As regards smaller-scale changes, a much larger
imperative” will certainly aim to allocate a part of their
number of faculties or departments (over 29%)
modest budgets for “internationalisation at home” and
have been prompted by Erasmus to establish regular
get involved in Erasmus CD projects or undertake
courses or classes taught in a foreign language to Polish
various initiatives to enhance the international or
students. Moreover, as a result of their participation
European dimension of their programmes. Extra
in the Programme, almost 12% of faculties or
funding from national sources would be a great
departments have introduced so-called European
help and incentive for universities to internationalise
modules extending students’ knowledge about Europe
their curricula. This could be granted on the same
or the European Union. Over or almost one-third of
competitive basis as extra State-budget grants for
faculties or departments have introduced new teaching
international research cooperation which are awarded
methods and/or changed their approach to the
for so-called co-financed transnational projects and
teaching of a given course, for example, placing
activities
greater emphasis on practical aspects or integrating an
programmes and other international programmes.72
supporting
the
participation
in
EU
72 Financing international research cooperation on the basis of the Regulation of the Minister of Science and Higher Education of 25 September 2007 on the criteria and procedures for awarding, and accounting for, grants for research to support international research cooperation; see also: „Finansowanie współpracy naukowej z zagranicą” (“Financing international research cooperation”), sections 1 and 3.2, http://www.grantyeuropejskie.pl/index.php?nr=75.
131
Another incentive, by no means insignificant, to
or so years ago and referring to the mobility of
all internationalisation efforts made by universities
a relatively small number of people, and are gradually
under Erasmus would be still stronger support from
moving to much broader internationalisation as
the key national institutions active in the field of
defined today. Obviously, such change of approach
higher education and clearer messages from the national
takes time. Some might perhaps say that ten years
authorities highlighting the importance of all aspects
of participation in the Programme are a long period.
of
However, one should bear in mind that this decade has
internationalisation,
including
“internationalisa-
tion at home”. One could not overestimate the role of
been “a transition period” for Polish Erasmus.
a favourable climate for internationalisation created jointly as a “bottom-up” and “top-down” initiative.
First of all, the last ten years have seen the establish-
A favourable climate should be reflected not only in
ment of many new universities, mainly non-public
adopting and adhering to relevant legislation and
higher education institutions, but also public non-
procedures, but also in developing a positive attitude
university higher education institutions. Some of them
of the whole academic community and creating con-
are not only already involved but also “score well”
ditions for every staff member to be professionally
in the Programme, whereas others need more time
prepared for active participation in international
just to take the decision to join the Programme or
initiatives.
subsequently to develop their international activities. Even if to a lesser extent, this is also true of universities
The above conclusions concerning the impact of
which have already existed for many years. Some of
Erasmus in Poland coincide with an overall assessment
them have stood out in one respect or another since
of the internationalisation of Polish higher education
the first year of their participation in the Programme,
in the OECD report referred to earlier on. According
while others needed or still need at least a few years
to the OECD, “Although Polish tertiary education
to make their presence felt. At the same time, the
has become considerably more open since the early
“parameters” of our participation in the Programme
1990s, it cannot yet be said to have reached a high
changed considerably with Poland’s accession to
level of internationalisation”, and the main “chan-
the EU in 2004. This was a crucial moment for at
nel” for international relations, apart from the Bologna
least two reasons. Firstly, it meant extending the
Process, is student mobility. As mentioned before,
geographical scope of our cooperation under the
within the Erasmus Programme itself, universities have
Programme to include countries which had not been
likewise focused so far on mobility, mainly student but
then or even today are not EU members and increasing
also teacher exchanges, and intend to devote more
the Polish Erasmus budget. And secondly, it changed
attention to the internationalisation of curricula only in
the perception of our country as situated within rather
the coming years.
than on Europe’s borders. Thus, in brief, one could say that although Polish Erasmus has already scored
132
This sequence seems to be perfectly understandable.
notable successes, the landscape is diverse and
Universities began with internationalisation in the
evolving, and we are only now entering the phase of
narrower meaning of the term, still prevailing a dozen
“mature” participation in the Programme.
Finally, in order to encourage universities that are
under Erasmus. It is worthwhile to recognise such
not yet present in Erasmus to join the Programme
opportunities, adjust them to the needs and real
and those already involved to use its opportunities
capacity of each university and use them effectively.
more extensively, it is worth quoting a comment from
This should result in greater achievements, a more
the OECD review. “The most significant work of
favourable
internationalisation takes place not at a ministerial
a mobility culture that is more comfortably “settled”
level, but rather as a result of the activities of terti-
in our universities – which, hopefully, will be the
ary education institutions.” Those resourceful universi-
conclusion from a report reviewing 20 years of the
ties relying on themselves in their internationalisation
Erasmus Programme in Poland.
climate
for
internationalisation
and
efforts are indeed offered ample space for activity
133