The recent decade brought about new ways of thinking about universities. European-level educational policies became increasingly influential as the agenda of university reforms was viewed as part of greater Lisbon strategy reforms. National governments adopted the economic concept of the university consistently developed in subsequent official documents of the European Commission. The EU member states currently need to balance their educational policies between the requirements of policies promoted by the EU and the requirements of their national systems. Additionally, the national educational policies are under high pressure due to globalisation. European universities and European academics operate in the midst of these large-scale changes. Their interpretations of and their responses to what is termed «the modernisation agenda of European universities» are at the core of this volume.

There is an urgent need to address the social dimension of higher education more forcefully and coherently, particularly in view of the economic downturn across Europe. This is the conclusion of the new Eurydice report, which looks at national policies on access to higher education, funding and student support. The report, covering eu Member States, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Turkey, suggests that countries are struggling to adapt their higher education systems to meet the challenges brought about by rapid societal change in recent years. In particular, they need to open up opportunities for more people to benefit from higher education, matching this objective with coherent measures, funding and monitoring to evaluate their impact. European leaders have agreed a headline target that 40% of 30-34 year olds should have a higher education qualification by 2020--an increase from just over 33% today. The study focuses on three key topics: policies to widen participation in higher education; funding trends; and the impact of student fee and support systems. It reveals that approaches to meet shared European objectives vary greatly between countries and have different impacts on the performance of higher education. For example, there seems to be an East-West divide regarding routes to higher education for non-traditional candidates such as adult learners and people entering university on the basis of skills gained in the workplace rather than school qualifications. The report highlights changes in higher education spending in response to the crisis. Over the past academic year (2010/11 compared to 2009/10) budgets were most increased in Lithuania, Liechtenstein, Austria, France, Finland and Malta, while the deepest cuts were made in Greece, Ireland, Iceland, (8-10% decrease), as well as in Spain, Italy, the Czech Republic and Slovakia (up to 3% decrease). A glossary is included. Individual chapters contain footnotes. (Contains 26 figures.).

This report examines the EU's contribution to the modernisation of European higher education, including the role of the separate Bologna Process. It calls on the Government to overcome the UK's lack of mobility culture, including by making language learning compulsory in primary and secondary schools. Coupled with financial, socioeconomic and cultural barriers, the Social Policies and Consumer Protection EU Sub-Committee warns that the UK's future participation in mobility programmes, such as the EU's Erasmus scheme, cannot be assured. The Committee also calls on the Government to ensure the continuation of the domestic Erasmus fee waiver scheme and support the proposed development of the EU Masters-level student loan guarantee facility. Both of these measures will help more students, and those who are disadvantaged in particular. Other recommendations made by the Committee include: encouraging the Government and universities to take full advantage of the opportunities provided through engagement with the EU and Bologna Process, including greater university-business collaboration and widening participation; allocating a bigger proportion of EU funds to research, innovation and education in order to assist the EU's long-term economic recovery; encouraging the Government to "remain vigilant" about retaining the UK's higher education sector's competitive position as a destination of choice for many students from other parts of Europe and beyond, particularly following the increase in tuition fees; and not making the Commission's proposal for the introduction of the new university ranking system, U-Multirank, a priority.

The volume ‘Reform of Higher Education in Europe’ is published in celebration of CHEPS’ 25th anniversary. All contributors to this book are working at CHEPS, and bring their extensive knowledge of the deep-seated reforms and changes to the field of higher education and research over the last 25 years. The chapters are each devoted to a detailed policy analysis deeply rooted in CHEPS’ quarter-century programme of theoretical and empirical research. Some contributions cover key themes of concern since CHEPS’ early years, including state-university relationships, quality assurance and funding. Other contributions cover more contemporary higher education policy issues, including European reform initiatives (innovation, the Bologna Process, doctoral training and the Erasmus programme) and debates around higher education institutions’ evolving functions, including the university’s third mission and the research function of universities of applied sciences. What unifies all chapters is their recognition that policy success is dependent on smart implementation grounded in a comprehensive understanding of highly complex policy processes. The book as a whole offers clear descriptions and analyses of how policy processes are implemented through co-ordinated institutional and stakeholder interventions. This volume seeks to enhance academic and policy-maker understanding of Europe’s evolving higher education system as it emerges as a cornerstone of the contemporary knowledge society.

This book explores the visions underlying the attempts to reform the European University as well as two European integration processes. It presents a framework for analyzing ongoing modernization reforms and reform debates that take place at various governance levels and a long-term research agenda. It convincingly argues why the knowledge basis under the current University reforms in Europe should be considerably strengthened.

This is the third volume of a four-part series which covers the development of the university in Europe (east and west) from its origins to the present day, focusing on a number of major themes viewed from a European perspective. The originality of the series lies in its comparative, interdisciplinary, collaborative and trans-national nature. It deals also with the content of what was taught at the universities, but its main purpose is an appreciation of the role and structures of the universities as seen against a backdrop of changing conditions, ideas and values. This 2004 volume deals with the modernisation, differentiation and expansion of higher education which led to the triumph of modern science, changing the relations between universities and national states, teachers and students, their ambitions and political activities. Special attention is focused on the fundamental advances in 'learning' - the content of what was taught at the universities.

This book examines governance reforms in higher education in six European countries: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, the Netherlands, and Portugal. It focuses in particular on the governance of the systems and institutions in these countries. The book shows that each of the national reform processes has been characterised by its own specific pathways embedded in the country’s specific socio-economic contexts and cultures, but also has a number of features in common with the other countries and processes. The first chapter of the book presents a conceptual framework to analyse the reform processes as an ’implementation game’ played by several actors with diverse interests. The second chapter describes the national reform processes of the six selected countries, giving a voice to the individual university rectors and officials who played an important role during the reform processes. Their stories constitute a vivid narrative of the government drivers of reform and of the rationales of the institutions as main partners in the reform processes. These narratives are analysed, complemented by, and contrasted with a review of the literature on the subject in the third chapter. The final chapter consist of concluding remarks and lessons learned.