You are on:

The Bologna Declaration

Part 1 – The Declaration and its Machinery

The Declaration

The Bologna Declaration was signed originally by the Education Ministers of 29 European countries in June 1999. Since then participation has expanded, so that 45 countries are now signatories. The declared aim was to create a European Higher Education area, through achieving the following six objectives, by 2010:

  • Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees
  • Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate
  • Establishment of a system of credits
  • Promotion of mobility for students and staff
  • Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance
  • Promotion of European dimensions in Higher Education

Some of these objectives, and the ways in which they have been developed, are discussed in more detail below.

The United Kingdom was an original signatory to the Declaration, as it had been to the Sorbonne Declaration in May 1998. This was an agreement between France, Germany, Italy and the UK, which covered many of the same issues as the Bologna Declaration.

Participants and Decision Making

The Declaration is not an EU instrument, but an intergovernmental agreement. Its signatories include many more countries than are in even the enlarged EU, such as the Balkan countries and the states of the former Soviet Union, as well as states, such as Andorra, Liechtenstein and the Holy See, which are not mainstream providers of higher education.

There is no central machinery for ensuring the implementation of the Declaration or for resolving disputes about its interpretation. However, biennial Ministerial follow-up meetings have been established, held in Prague in 2001, Berlin in 2003, and Bergen in 2005. These have indicated which aspects of the overall agenda should have particular priority in the ensuing two years. A Follow-up Group, with relatively restricted membership, oversees the implementation of decisions taken at each biennial meeting, and prepares the agenda for the next one. The next will be held in London in 2007, and the UK, through the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) has a major role in the planning of the event.

Although the Declaration is not an EU instrument, there has been increasing involvement by the European Commission and the Declaration is regarded by many in Europe as intermeshing with aspects of the EU’s programmes to secure higher education co-operation within Europe. The EU is officially described as a participating organisation – others include the Council of Europe, the European Universities Association, and the European students’ unions body. The EU Commission has a place on the Follow-up Group.

Part 2 – The Objectives of the Declaration

Degrees and Degree Cycles

The first two objectives aim at a closer alignment between different countries’ programme and degree structures. There have been wide variations between these, but changes are now taking place in many countries which will lessen these differences. Initially the Declaration specified two cycles of award, roughly equating to a Bachelors degree and a Masters degree, with the first lasting at least three years and giving a degree relevant to the European labour market. A second cycle degree could only be accessed through a first cycle qualification; no minimum length was specified. Later it was agreed that third cycle doctoral degrees should also be included within the Bologna framework.

At the 2005 Ministerial meeting, all signatories committed themselves to formalise and adopt an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area, based on these three cycles. It also adopted descriptors for each of the three cycles, drawing on work done by a group of national experts. These are often referred to as the Dublin descriptors, and can be found at www.bergen-bologna2005.no They are not identical to the QAA qualification descriptors for the UK, but there is a reasonably good correlation with these. Each qualification has associated with it a typical credit range (see below). Ministers also recognised the possibility that within particular national contexts there might be intermediate qualifications within cycles; the English Foundation Degree would be an example of an intermediate qualification within the first cycle.

Credit System

The Declaration suggested the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as a possible basis for this. This was designed originally to facilitate students spending parts of their courses within universities in different countries, so was geared to credit transfer rather than to credit accumulation. There were therefore some doubts about its suitability, although supporters of the system believe it can serve both purposes. Be that as it may, the framework adopted by Ministers at Bergen is firmly based on ECTS. Under ECTS a year of study attracts 60 credits, although there are differing views of how many hours of guided learning this may represent. The system is said to be based upon a combination of workload and learning outcomes, but there is no clear link between these and much of the discussion of ECTS seems to put an overwhelming emphasis on workload (and so on length of programme).

The typical ECTS credit ranges for each cycle within the framework adopted at Bergen are:

  • Short cycle (within the first cycle) - 120 credits
  • First cycle – 180-240 credits
  • Second cycle 90-120 credits, with a minimum of 60 credits at second cycle level
  • Third cycle – will not necessarily have credits associated (reflecting general agreement not to over-define this level of study)

The Diploma Supplement

The Declaration puts weight on this as a means of achieving the first of its objective and subsequent Ministerial meetings have stressed its importance further. In 2003 Ministers set the objective that every student graduating in a signatory country should receive the Diploma Supplement automatically and free of charge from 2005. It is essentially a document describing the individual graduate, and the qualification achieved (level, content, function, place in national HE system). Development work has been done within the Council of Europe and elsewhere, but there is no standard adopted for the Supplement at present.

Quality Assurance

The Declaration does not envisage a common system of quality assurance throughout Europe. From the start however Ministers have stressed the necessity of close co-operation between national quality assurance systems, in order that there may be mutual trust in and acceptance of these throughout the European Higher Education area. The 2003 meeting gave this issue higher priority, and set 2005 as a target date for each national QA system to meet certain requirements. It also charged the European Network for Quality Assurance, with developing agreed standards, procedures and guidelines for QA and to see whether a peer review system could be developed for national QA agencies. At Bergen Ministers adopted the standards proposed by ENQA, and committed themselves to the development of a system of peer review of national QA agencies. The UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) is a member of ENQA, and its Chief Executive is ENQA’s President.

It is worth noting that these developments have provoked interest in some quarters in professional body accreditation of HE programmes. The European Commission has funded the EURACE project, in which the UK has through ECUK played a major role, to develop a European framework for this. This has now been published and the project has moved on to the next stage, which is to implement procedures for the award of the EURACE label.

Other Developments

The 2003 Ministerial meeting belatedly recognised the importance of lifelong learning and the need for this to be incorporated within the HE framework when appropriate. The European Commission has picked up this particular baton and published in the summer of 2005 a draft European Qualifications Framework, which could cover all qualifications and not simply those gained within higher education. Following consultation, it published a revised proposal for a Framework in September 2006. This framework seems in some aspects to cut across the HE Qualifications Framework adopted at Bergen, since second cycle (Masters) degrees could fit across two of its eight levels.

Part 3 – Governmental and HE Reactions

In Europe as a whole

Many Governments across Europe have adopted the Bologna language, and generally its objectives, with enthusiasm. In Eastern Europe the Bologna process is seen as a way of modernising HE systems as the countries concerned become fully integrated into Europe. In some other countries Governments have seen it as a way of reforming expensive and wasteful systems, especially by introducing the possibility of three year first degrees. How far the objectives command support within the wider HE community is not clear, but it is likely that there is a good deal of variation. Certainly within engineering there has been pressure in many cases to retain the present five year courses within universities, and confine three year degrees to other institutions such as Fachhochschule in Germany. There is in a number of quarters in Europe a feeling that all that first cycle degrees in engineering can do is to equip graduates to proceed to the second cycle.

Within the UK

For a long time the Bologna process had very little visibility within the UK. It seemed at first that there was an impression that it would make other European systems like ours, and consequently there was no need to do anything. The Higher Education White Paper published early in 2003 made no reference to Bologna at all, an omission which would have been unthinkable in any other European country. Since then, however, there have been more signs of engagement on the part of UK Ministers, with support for the process being balanced by expressions of intent to retain certain elements of the UK system, such as integrated Masters degrees, and a welcome stress on outcomes being the key feature of HE programmes.

Part 4 - Implications for UK Engineering and Technology Degrees

UK honours degrees at Bachelor level in engineering and technology should have no difficulty in being recognised as first cycle qualifications. Non-honours degrees and other qualifications such as Foundation Degrees and Higher National awards appear to be intermediate qualifications within the first cycle.

The position for MEng degrees is more problematic, for the following reasons:

  • The MEng is at present a single qualification, and to be recognised as a second cycle qualification in Bologna terms would need to be preceded by a first cycle award
  • It lasts only four years as a full time course, except for some students in Scotland. Under ECTS this has implications for the number of credits it can attract. The typical credit ranges adopted at Bergen imply longer programmes. As noted above, many European countries previously had five year degree programmes, which they are now breaking down into 3 + 2 or 4+1 structures, for first and second cycle awards. The current consultation document on credit arrangements within England suggests that integrated Masters degrees such as the MEng commonly have a total of 480 credits, using the most common UK measure, of which a minimum of 120 are at Masters level; a previous document suggested that the normal number of M level credits in an MEng was 100.

Conventional MSc programmes seem to avoid the first problem, and may avoid the second, since they normally contain 180 UK credits, of which 150 are at Masters level.

Does it matter?

Yes. The Declaration’s objectives are ambitious, and do not command universal support amongst higher education communities, but there is no doubt that in many European countries there is a strong political will to carry them through. Market forces reinforce this. In a number of European countries, degree programmes are being developed in several subjects, including engineering, which are delivered wholly or mainly in English. A perception that UK Masters degrees were not of the same standard as those in other countries could harm UK universities significantly. In engineering the danger could be particularly severe if it led to UK MEng degrees not being recognised for purposes of progression to professional qualification in other countries. Debates in the European Parliament in 2005 on the Directive on recognition of professional qualifications highlighted this danger.

The absence of machinery for enforcement and interpretation is a mixed blessing. It allows countries to adopt their own approaches to working to achieve Bologna objectives. However, it also means there is no possibility of an objective ruling that, for example, the outcomes of UK Masters programmes were equal to those in other countries regardless of length.

What is to be done?

Some measures of protection already exist:

  • The QAA qualification frameworks and descriptors specify the requirements which MEng degree courses must satisfy to retain the Master’s title. Very few other European countries yet have equivalent frameworks. While QAA may have to revisit its frameworks in accordance with the agreements reached at Bergen, it is not likely to make extensive changes.
  • Much work has been done on defining outcomes for MEng programmes. The UK-SPEC Output Standards for accredited programmes are the latest example of this. These rest firmly on the assumption that MEng programmes will meet the requirements for Masters status. The UK-SPEC output standards have now been adopted by the QAA as the subject benchmark statements for engineering. The European HE Qualifications Framework is based upon learning outcomes.
  • The work which has been undertaken by QAA and others on progress files should provide information that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Diploma Supplement.

It may be unwise to rely on these factors alone. The minimum expectation of 90 ECTS credits for a full second cycle Masters programme implies a minimum total of 270 ECTS credits for first and second cycle qualifications together. This is 540 credits in normal UK terms, or 4.5 years of study. As we have seen, an integrated Masters degree lasting four academic years will typically gain 480 credits, of which 120 may be at Masters level. This does not seem to match the Bergen agreement. At the least, there is a risk that the MEng may only be generally recognised as an “intermediate qualification” within the second cycle.

There are however further points that can be made in defence of the MEng. Firstly, the requirement that second cycle graduates should have a first cycle qualification is a procedural one, to which it should be possible to find a procedural response. The award of an intermediate Bachelors degree, perhaps even concurrently with the M degree, might well be a solution. And the desire to retain integrated programmes is not confined to the UK, as the European Universities Association has recognised, along with the main bodies concerned with Engineering higher education in Europe, SEFI and CESAER.

Secondly, entry to MEng courses is highly selective, and the teaching on them is geared to this. In this respect they will differ from the new two-tier system which may emerge elsewhere in Europe. In the latter, teaching will need to be geared to a broad entry during the first cycle, and consequently those proceeding to the second cycle Masters degree are likely to have to cover more ground. It should be possible to argue that the MEng can therefore achieve in four years the same level of output as the 3+2 two-tier system. Indeed the five year version run by Scottish universities for those entering with Scottish Highers rather than A levels does not have any extra learning outcomes, or extra Masters level content attached to it. ECUK has emphasised the need to concentrate on outcomes in describing qualifications, and will continue to urge UK Ministers and officials to do so too.

However, it is strongly advisable for universities running MEng programmes to examine their present provision critically, and to ensure that all aspects of them, including vacation placements and other industry-based learning, can be defined in terms of learning outcomes and so attract credits. Some universities make the last year of their MEng programmes a calendar year, which would attract the same credit as a MSc. While these measures will have resource implications for universities, they should be given serious consideration. This message was reinforced in a note from the Europe Unit of Universities UK published in November 2005 – see www.europeunit.ac.uk/resources/E-05-12.doc

Further information

Useful web sites include:

www.bologna-bergen2005.no This was the official web site for the Bologna process in the period leading up to the Ministerial meeting in 2005 and contains a mass of documentation, including the text of the Declaration, and the outcomes of the 2001, 2003, and 2005 Ministerial meetings. Since then it has been supplemented by the UK government site at www.dfes.gov.uk/bologna .

www.europeunit.ac.uk/bologna_process/index.cfm This site, maintained by the Europe Unit at Universities UK, contains much relevant information including the statements put forward on behalf of the UK higher education on different aspects of the Bologna Process.

www.sefi.be This site contains a good deal of material on how the Declaration relates to higher education in Engineering across Europe.

www.ec.europa.eu/education/policies/
educ/eqf/index_en.html This site has the latest proposals from the European Commission for a European Qualifications Framework, covering all types of qualifications (not just HE)

We welcome your comments on this factsheet. Please contact Richard Shearman, rshearman@engc.org.uk

ECUK September 2006