1. IAU Sao Paulo Conference, July 25-29, 2004
12th General Conference: The Wealth of Diversity
Parallel Workshops – Session I
Diversity of Higher Education in Europe: Concepts and Developments
By
Ulrich Teichler
Centre for Research on Higher Education and Work, University of Kassel,Germany.
teichler@hochschulforschung.uni-kassel.de
1. Interest in a “Map” of Higher Education
Students considering to study in another country, for same period or for a whole study programme, or
to enrol in study programmes offered transnationally are interested to know where to put the
institutions of higher education, the department or the programme, which they consider, on the “map”
of higher education in the respective country as well as in international comparison. The same holds
true for employers considering to employ persons having been awarded credentials abroad.
2. The Limits of Available Information
The information available serves these purposes only to a limited extent:
Handbooks and similar sources provide general information but they are not suitable to show the
variety of the characteristics of national higher education systems and notably the exceptions from the
major picture.
Handbooks and other source books emphasize the formal dimensions of diversity in higher education
(e.g. type of institution and programme, length of study etc.), but do not address at all or only to a
limited extent the informal vertical differences (reputation, quality) and horizontal differences
(profiles).
Accreditation helps to pinpoint “black sheep”, but does not show the diversity of higher education
programmes.
Special information on the ranks and profiles of higher education institutions and programmes are
mostly too superficial and too much geared to selective criteria to be trusted.
The more market-driven higher education becomes, the more the individual higher education
institutions have a vested interest not to provide information but rather distorted advertisements.
3. Diversity Within and Variety Between Higher Education Systems
It is generally assumed that most national higher education systems became more diverse in the
process of higher education expansion. In many countries, we note formal diversification according to
Types of higher education institutions,
Types of study programmes, and
Levels of study programmes and degrees.
Moreover, the individual institutions, departments and programmes of the same type might differ
Vertically, i.e. according to reputation, quality etc.
Horizontally, i.e. according to their curricular profiles.
Understanding the existing diversity is aggravated by the fact that many changes occur rapidly, among
others upgrading of institutions and programmes, or new developments regarding the quality and the
profiles of individual units.
Moreover, countries vary substantially according to the extent to which diversity is realized according
to the above named criteria.
Finally, a comparison between countries cannot be undertaken easily due to
the specifics of their institutional shape,

2. the quality of the higher education system,
the size of the system in terms of enrolment quotas and thus a diversity of students according to
talents, goals and career prospects.
4. The Variety of Higher Education Systems in Europe
Higher education in Europe is quite diverse according to formal criteria such as type of institutions and
programmes, levels of programmes and length of study. Moreover, the countries vary according to the
extent to which doctoral study is accommodated in formal establishments such as graduate schools.
Whereas in many other parts of the world countries adopted somewhat similar solutions by following
examples from ex-colonial and quasi-colonial powers, many European countries preserved and
modified structural models of their own country or their region of countries they felt affiliated to.
Among others, most European countries did not have any bachelor degree or any equivalent at
universities, and they often had more than one type of higher education institutions. The length of
university programmes varied between three and six years according to country and field, and that at
other higher education institutions from one and four years.
One should bear in mind, though, that most European countries have mechanisms of keeping the
diversity of formally identical institutions and programmes within limits whereas many higher
education systems outside Europe are characterized by an enormous steep hierarchy of quality
differences.
5. The Diploma Supplement: Transparency of Diversity
In order to increase the transparency of the existing diversity of higher education, some European
experts suggested in 1988 to introduce a “diploma supplement”. Upon graduation students should not
merely be awarded the typical degree document of their university but also an internationally readable
supplement which provides information on
the national system of higher education,
the curriculum of the study programmes and
the specific learning activities and achievements of the individual student.
Among others, such a documents should provide information on the students’ mobility, on the
curricular thrusts of the study programme, on internships and areas of specialisation the student opted
for.
UNESCO and the Council of Europe endorsed this idea already in 1988, the European Commission
supported its introduction since the 1990s, and the Bologna Declaration of 1999 calls for its universal
introduction. But it might take more than two decades from the proposal to the Europe-wide
implementation.
6. The “Bologna Process”
Ministers of four European countries agreed in the Sorbonne Declaration of 1998 and ministers of
almost 30 European countries in the Bologna Declaration of 1999 to introduce similar structures of the
higher education systems of the various European countries. They advocated a bachelor-master stage
system of programmes and degrees. There is a widespread agreement that programmes of the first
stage might last 3-4 years, those of the second stage 1-2 years, and of both stages together up to five
years. A European Higher Education Area with “convergent” structures respecting the substantive
variety of the national higher education systems is expected to be implemented by the year 2010.
7. Transparency and Mobility: The Two Conflicting Aims of the Bologna Process
The structural “convergence” of higher education systems in Europe is expected to serve two major
aims:
To increase the attractiveness of higher education systems in Europe outside of Europe by becoming
more transparent.

3. To facilitate student mobility within Europe.
These two aims are viewed by many experts as conflicting:
“Transparency” for persons interested outside Europe might be reached through common labels of
degrees indicating common levels of programmes of a somewhat similar length. They might be
extremely diverse as far as quality and profile are concerned. An extreme diversity of institutions and
programmes might serve the extreme diversity of students from outside Europe who are interested in
foreign study programmes, and it also might serve the widespread interest of making misleading
claims about the quality of the programmes (after all the credential market is successful through a mix
of transparency and deliberate misinformation).
Student mobility within Europe, however, will be served by convergent structures primarily if the
similarity of the study programmes in Europe increases as far as the level of quality is concerned.
We do not know yet, whether “convergent” structures of higher education in Europe eventually will
lead towards a greater homogeneity of quality of higher education programmes, and thus will facilitate
mobility in Europe, or whether the existing diversity of quality will be preserved or will grow further.
8. Increase of Partial Transparency, but no Steps Towards a “Map”
Altogether, the growing interest in student mobility, trans-national education and professional mobility
led to the establishment of an increasing number of systems of information each offering transparency
in some respects. Handbooks of national systems, universities and degrees, accreditation systems,
rankings of universities, diploma supplements, convergent structures of European higher education
system: all these measures provide transparency in some respects, but limited information with respect
to the frequently claimed wish of students, employers and higher education institutions to have an
authoritative “map” of higher education. The latter will not become true, because there is no
agreement on the criteria and on the positioning of individual institutions and programmes according
these criteria and, as already stated, there are vested interested in keeping a certain degree of in-
transparency, room for misinformation a room for manoeuvre against stifling maps.
References.
European Commission (2002). Key Data on Education in the European Union. Luxembourg: Office
for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Eurydice (2003). Focus in the Structure of Higher Education in Europe 2003/04. Brussels: European
Commission, Eurydice.
Jablonska-Skinder, H. and Teichler, U. (1992). Handbook of Higher Education Diplomas in Europe.
Muenchen: K.G. Saur.
OECD (2002). Education at a Glance: OECD Education Indicators 2002. Paris: OECD.
Reichert, S. and Tauch, C. (2003). Trends in Learning Structures in European Higher Education III.
Brussels: European University Association.
Teichler, U. (1988). Changing Patterns of the Higher Education System. London: Jessica Kingsley
Publishers.
Teichler, U. (1998). The changing role of the university and the non-university sectors of higher
education in Europe, in European Review, Vol 6, No. 4, 475-487.
Teichler, U. (2003) Mutual recognition and credit transfer in Europe: Experiences and problems, in
Journal of Studies in International Education, Vol. 7, No. 4, 312-341.
Van Vught, F., Van der Wende, M. and Westerheijden, D. (2002). Globalisation and
internationalisation: Policy agendas compared. In Enders, J. and Fulton, O., eds. Higher Education in

4. a Globalising World. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 103-120.