REPORT OF THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE MADRID 25 AND 26 MARCH 1994

Participants:

Utrecht Network Marc Arnold (Strasbourg III), Poul Bonde (Aarhus), Patricia de Clopper (Antwerpen), Richard Craven- Green (Hull), Beatrice Delpouve (Lille), Hans Joss (Basel), Björn Einar Aas (Bergen), Björn Eric Aas (Ber- gen), Christian Civardi (Strasbourg II), Gérard Clady (Strasbourg I), Piaras MacEinri (Cork), Karin Frydenlund (Lund), Gianni Galloni (Bologna), Laurence Griffond (Lille - USA programme), Costas Kastritsis (), Filomena Marques de Carvalho (Coimbra), Ingeborg Kunath (Madrid), Wessel Meijer (Utrecht H.K.U.), Philip Morgan (Hull), Bettina Nelemans (Utrecht, minutes), Marianne Paarde- kooper (Utrecht H.K.U.), Sabine Pendl (Graz), Felicia la Pietra (Bologna), Svend Poller (Leipzig), Kersti Schmölzer, (Lund), Carlos Seoane (Madrid), Gerd Stratmann (Bochum), Monica Sprung (Bochum), Jeroen Torenbeek (Utrecht, chairman).

ABEU-Network, USA David Colburn (University of Florida), Brian Garavalia (Southern Illinois University at Carbondale), Charles Klasek (SIUC).

Agenda:

Thursday, 24 March

ERASMUS morning 1. Welcome and practical matters 2. State of the Art: Utrecht Network Socrates 3. Budgetary matters 4. Expansion of the programme ( & ) 5. External contacts afternoon 6. Working groups: Socrates

Friday, 25 March morning 7. Steering Committee + Expansion of the UN, elections 8. Any other business

EC-US programme 1. State of the Art 2. Budgetary matters 3. Student placements 4. Any other business (next meeting)

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

1. WELCOME AND PRACTICAL MATTERS Jeroen Torenbeek welcomes everybody to the annual meeting of the Utrecht Network 1994, this year held in Madrid. The newcomers, the universities of Basel and Graz, are warmly welcomed. Brian Garavalia and David Colburn of SIUC and the University of Florida will attend the ERASMUS part of the meeting as observers. Jeroen Torenbeek expresses his gratitude to Carlos Seoane, Ingeborg Kunath, and their colleagues for the outstanding organisation and their generous hospitality. The agenda is set for the meeting.

2. STATE OF THE ART a. Utrecht Network Bettina Nelemans gives a presentation on what the Utrecht Network has achieved in the past few years and what it is hoping to accomplish in the near future. The complete text of this talk is included in these minutes as an appendix (App I). * The Network is doing fairly well in terms of student numbers. In 1992/1993 as many as 320 students were exchanged within the ERASMUS programme, an increase of 30% in comparison with the previous year. The teaching staff mobility programme is also growing. By the end of this academic year an estimated 23 teachers will have spent one or more weeks at one of the partner universities. These numbers are likely to increase again next year, as two more universities join the Network officially in September 1994: Basel and Graz. * At present, the Utrecht Network is involved in various EC-programmes: Tempus, Tacis, EC-US, and Medcampus. The Network might consider putting in proposals for the Alpha project (also known as Columbus) and the EC-ASEAN programme. Although the Network started off as an ERASMUS ICP in 1987, it is clear that at this stage it is far more than just that. * Unlimited expansion of the Utrecht Network would be unwise, because it could then become too big for it to stay manageable. However, two Finnish universities (Helsinki and Turku-Abo) were visited by the Steering Committee earlier this year, and the meeting will have to decide which of these two will join the Network as of September 1995/1996. The partners might also consider admitting the , which has shown an interest in joining the Network. b. Socrates The talk then concentrated on the new Socrates proposal, which has recently been issued by the European Commission. This education programme will eventually replace ERASMUS, LINGUA and ECTS, but it will contain similar components. Socrates comprises three chapters, the first of which dealing with higher education, the second dealing with primary and secondary education and the third consisting of so-called 'transverse actions', directed at supporting the first two chapters. A new element is the institutional contract, which institutions wishing to take part in internationalisation activities will need to conclude with the European Commission. The ERASMUS Bureau may close on 1 January 19951; its tasks will be taken over by the Commission and the institutions. For the individual institutions Socrates is likely to bring along some form of centralisation. Faculty staff will need to apply for internationalisation funds with their own central offices. Action I funds will first of all become available at central level, not at faculty (or departmental) level. On a higher level, it seems that

1 Since it has now become apparent that ERASMUS will probably continue until 1995/1996, it is likely that the ERASMUS Bureau will stay open a little longer than just until 1 January 1995 [B.N. May 1994].

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. some kind decentralisation will take place. Tasks which have hitherto been performed by the ERASMUS Bureau will now need to be carried out by the institutions. ------

After the presentation of the outline of the Socrates programme, Jeroen Torenbeek expands on the ins and outs of this new project. He is a member of the working group on academic networking, an initiative of the CRE and the EC-Liaison Committee which is financed by the Task Force. One of the tasks of the working group is to prepare a reaction to the Socrates proposal, and come up with recommendations as to the future of academic networks. Although the ERASMUS programme has a great many assets, there is no way it can continue to be organised this way. The majority of the ERASMUS ICPs are not multilateral in the true sense of the word. In many cases the coordinating university has bilateral exchanges with its partner universities. The partners on the other hand, only exchange students and teachers with the coordinating university, not with the others. It is not surprising that this leads to a considerable amount of overheads, and it cannot be denied that everything can be administered more efficiently without Action I grants being divided among all 2,500 ICP coordinators. These may be some of the reasons for reorganising the current educational exchange programmes. The working group was given some clarification and specification on Socrates. It seems that one of the major features of higher education in in the next decade will probably be the formation of three types of academic networks: 1. Institutional contracts replacing the current ICPs. These contracts are introduced in Action 1 of the first Socrates chapter. In future the institutions for higher education will receive a grant directly from the European Commission. This grant then, will enable these institutions to set up or to maintain (bilateral or multilateral) links with other European universities. 2. Regional networks. As yet it is not entirely clear what is meant by a region. A university could form a region with its direct surroundings, but a country might equally well be regarded as a region. Or the whole of Europe could be seen as a sector, from a Latin-American point of view, for that matter. Not surprisingly, here might lie a challenge for us to try and take advantage of the openness of the notion 'regional'. We could first of all try and define this concept and then consider possible ways of regional cooperation. Housing and language preparation are mentioned as examples. 3. Thematic networks (Socrates, Chapter 1, action 2). The idea here is that in the next couple of years 150 to 200 discipline-oriented networks will be established. The initial aims of these networks will be to exchange know-how, evaluate curricula and set up information services for network members. For us to focus on this type of network could be a waste of time, as we are, after all, a multi-disciplinary network. After Jeroen Torenbeek has elaborated on Socrates and conceivable future developments, the floor is opened for discussion.

First reactions: Position of the Utrecht Network There is the overall feeling that the Utrecht Network (together with the Coimbra-group, The Santander Network and Unica among the four biggest university networks in Europe) should have a say in the educational policy-making process. Up to today there is a lot of confusion and vagueness as to the actual contents of Socrates and the impact it will have on higher education in general and, more specifically, on big networks like ours. It is suggested that we try and interpret the concepts 'thematic' and 'regional'. Poul Bonde says that the Utrecht Network should aim at raising its profile in the Socrates jungle.

Institutional contracts

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. *Costas Kastritsis expresses his concern over the institutional contracts which are to be introduced once the ERASMUS Bureau and the ICPs belong to the past. The problem is that these contracts require a sound internal institutional infrastructure. If somehow the central level at a given institution does not function properly, this will automatically mean that none of the other levels will be in a position in which they have good access to funding (or information) for carrying out internationalisation activities. This would not normally happen with ICPs. A central approach also means a removal from the departmental, academic level. Piaras MacEinri argues that most universities do not have the resources (as far as both personnel and finances are concerned) to be able to organize everything. He is strongly in favour of a decentralised model by which the professors of departments are in control of their own exchange programmes. *As for the Utrecht Network, at present is the coordinator. This might change under the Socrates programme, whereby each partner institution would be assigned funding for its own internationalisation process. Some people remark that a situation in which there is no overall coordinator is undesirable. Perhaps it would be an idea to introduce a fee for all institutions participating in the Utrecht Network. Utrecht could then maintain its position as central office of the Utrecht Network.

3. BUDGETARY MATTERS *Most universities have indicated, in the questionnaire which was recently returned to Utrecht, that they will most certainly spend the institutional funds which were allocated to them at the beginning of the academic year. *As was indicated in the Expenditure Overview for 1993/1994, 2,500 Ecus were set aside to solve the problem of the imbalance in the student flows. So far, nobody has put in a proposal for this fund. The University of Lund, however, is planning a 'kick-off day', to which it will invite a number of UN contact persons. Student-flow problems will be an item on the agenda of the kick-off day. *The Utrecht Network has been identified by the European Commission as an ICP with a strong Teaching Staff Mobility Component. Extra funds have been made available for the TM programme, 2,040 Ecus of which will be transferred to us. The extra funds will be used for teaching staff visits which have already been planned.

4. EXPANSION OF THE PROGRAMME Before Poul Bonde and Jeroen Torenbeek report on their visits to the universities of Helsinki and Turku in Finland, there is a short discussion on the criteria which should apply when selecting a new partner for the Utrecht Network. First of all it is essential that the current UN members already have links with that institution. Secondly, it is important that the infrastructure of the candidate partner university is suitable for participating in a multi-disciplinary network. The central office needs to have good contacts with the faculties and departments. And last but not least, it is wise to take into consideration whether students are willing to go to a certain university to study there for a number of months. It is discussed whether we can infinitely take up new partners, or whether we have now come to a point at which it is no longer acceptable and feasible to invite sister universities to join the network. Although a few members acknowledge the fact that, unfortunately, they cannot receive students from the universities which will join the Network in the future (simply because the influx of incoming students is getting too big), there is an overall feeling that expansion to some countries which have so far not been represented in the Network is desirable. At the elections, which are held on Friday, 14 members vote for the to be admitted to the Utrecht Network as of September 1995. The gets five votes. One member was absent at the time of the elections. It is also decided that the University of Iceland will join the Network in September 1995, too. The steering committee has not visited this university, but it is felt by some that an Icelandic University could certainly

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. be an asset to the Network. A few others fear problems of growing imbalances. To reduce the pressure of increasing numbers of students wanting to go to an English-speaking university, it might be wise to invite a Scottish university to the Utrecht Network. Prior to the meeting an inventory was made of already existing links with Scottish universities (App II). Since the majority of the UN members seem to have contacts with the universities of Glasgow and Edinburgh, it is proposed that these two will be approached by the steering committee, and if the response turns out to be positive, they will be visited. Svend Poller wonders if Scottish universities are prepared to accept more exchange students than they have at present. If it turns out that neither Edinburgh (which was invited to the UN some years ago, but declined) nor Glasgow show any interest in joining the UN, we should move down the list and approach the other Scottish universities. Piaras MacEinri suggests a Northern Irish institution to be considered as a new Network member. This possibility will be taken into account if none of the Scottish universities appear to be interested.

5. EXTERNAL CONTACTS EC-ASEAN Scholarship programme The EC-ASEAN programme aims to create postgraduate training opportunities for young scholars from the ASEAN countries (the Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia and Malaysia) in the Member States of the European Union. If, in the near future, universities are invited to put in proposals, we may consider participating in this programme. Columbus/Alfa programme Columbus was launched in 1987 on the initiative of the European Conference of Rectors (CRE) and a group of Latin American academic institutions. It has since developed into an important cooperation programme linking European and Latin American institutions. The future programme 'Alfa' (1994/1999) will consist of three phases: 1. developing infrastructure; 2. exchanging postdocs; 3. exchanging students. All partners present at the meeting in Madrid express their interest in Alfa. Partners will keep each other informed as to the coming developments.

6. WORKING GROUPS Most of what the groups have come up with still needs to be worked out in further detail, but the ideas described below should be regarded as food for thought and stimuli for further discussion. a. Socrates within the institution - chaired by Poul Bonde This working group was mainly occupied with posing questions, rather than answering them. The basic issue around which the discussion revolved is, of course, the implications which Socrates will have for the individual institutions. Since in the near future the central offices of the universities will be (more) directly involved with internationalisation, the working group members wonder how the academic staff can remain as part of the process as well. It is feared that in the coming years the attention will shift from quality to quantity, and that the emphasis will too much be on the statistics. There is the danger of Socrates being too much in favour of the big institutions, as these often have better connections with the decision makers and other influential people in Europe. The idea of having thematic and regional networks is questioned, since it is feared that these will not be kept within a workable size. Some members suggest that a positive aspect of Socrates could be that it will probably partly phase out academic tourism and financial mismanagement, which are characteristics of a number of ICPs. The conclusion is reached that there is a need for reform, but that each institution should be able to define its own approach.

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. b. Socrates within the Utrecht Network - emphasis on the multilateral character of the Network - chaired by Gerd Stratmann Our Network is a truly multilateral network to the extent that almost all institutions exchange students with all other partners, or at least a great many other partners. In order to achieve some sort of viability or 'right to exist' in the future of international educational Europe, we ought to define the importance and the strengths of multilateral networks like the Utrecht Network. The Utrecht Network has built an infrastructure in the past few years, by means of which it has been able to develop expertise in a number of areas having to do with the internationalisation of higher education and research. Since the whole network is coordinated by central offices at the universities, the administrators have 1. learnt to cooperate with similar offices at the sister universities and 2. in many cases improved the internal infrastructure within their own institution (i.e. set up or improved communication lines with the faculties and depart- ments). The Network (because of its multilateral nature) has enabled smaller universities and universities on the periphery of Europe, to gain access to bigger universities and a wider variety of internationalisation activities. It is feared that under the Socrates scheme strong universities may get stronger, where the weaker universities get weaker. From a financial point of view, the Utrecht Network is in a lot of respects a relatively cheap network. The grant has gradually become smaller, the number of participating institutions has risen and the number of students who are exchanged each year has grown considerably. This is definitely something which cannot be said of all other ERASMUS ICPs. A shortcoming of the institutional contracts may be that, most likely, the majority, if not all, of the European institutions, will apply for grants and perhaps exchange a limited number of students only. In other words, it is not yet certain whether the introduction of institutional contracts will help to solve the problem of high overhead costs. For the Utrecht Network to be able to continue its work, two possibilities are suggested: a. each partner institution pays a fee to Utrecht University out of the funding awarded to them by the institutional contract; b. the Utrecht Network submits a 'network proposal' and applies for a 'network grant'. Here it would be of the utmost importance to liaise with the other big European networks (Santander/Unica/Coimbra). Costas Kastritsis comes up with the idea of Utrecht becoming a subcontractor. c. Socrates within the Utrecht Network - emphasis on regional cooperation - chaired by Carlos Seoane As was mentioned by Jeroen Torenbeek, it now seems that under the Socrates programme there will be three types of networks: 1. institutional agreements (used for bilateral and multilateral co-operation); 2. regional cooperation; 3. thematic networks. Since our network is multi-disciplinary, thematic networking should not be put forward as our strongest point. Therefore it might be best to concentrate on regional co- operation, because the Network is, after all, multi-regional. Carlos Seoane briefly goes into the political importance of having regional networks from a European point of view. It is known that over the past few years there has been considerable pressure from regional groups like the Five Neue Länder, the Basques, and others, to pay special attention to minorities in the European Union. It is perhaps good to keep this in mind while setting up a structure for regional networking within the Utrecht Network. Even though the term 'region' is not clearly defined as yet, it is not difficult to come up with examples of regional co- operation that might be of interest to the Utrecht Network. It is stated by some that interregional, rather than intraregional cooperation, is what we should consider. Each university might identify its own particular strengths and those of the region it belongs to. For Thessaloniki this could be classical architecture, for Basel maybe biochemistry (Baier!) might be seen as a prominent feature. An institution could then act as an intermediary between the region and the sister institutions of the Utrecht Network and set up PhD programmes for instance, or offer apprenticeships for students. Another possibility would be for

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. UN universities to set up some kind of co-operation with other universities in their region in the area of language training for example.

7. STEERING COMMITTEE Jeroen Torenbeek expresses, on behalf of the Utrecht Network, his gratitude to Gerd Stratmann who is now stepping down as a steering committee member. Gerd has been on the committee for three years. There is no doubt that the Network has benefited enormously from his expertise and enthusiasm. Patricia de Clopper is elected as a new member of the steering committee, replacing Gerd Stratmann.

NB - The universities of Basel and Graz were both given the right to vote, so that in all 20 universities were able to cast a vote in the elections. - For election of new partners, see: 4. Expansion of the programme.

8. ANY OTHER BUSINESS * Marc Arnold suggests that the annual meeting be used for settling the student flows for the year ahead, as this will save a lot of telephone calls and faxes. * The University of Lund has kindly offered to host the next annual Utrecht Network meeting. The meeting will most probably take place in week 17 (somewhere between 24 - 30 April 1995). If is not admitted to the European Union as of 1 January 1995, a different site will be needed (this having to do with regulations that do not allow us to have meetings in EFTA countries).

EC-US programme

1. STATE OF THE ART Jeroen Torenbeek reports on the meeting in Brussels which he has recently attended, at which the 22 European co-ordinators of the programme were gathered. The meeting was organised by the Task Force and led by Brendan Cardiff and Charles Karelis (programme managers for the Task Force and FIPSE respectively). At the meeting it was said that the programme still only has the status of a pilot programme, and that, as yet, there is no absolute certainty as to whether the programme will continue after its pilot phase has finished. It is indisputable that next year's budgets will decrease. The co-ordinators tried to convince the Task Force of the necessity of having student grants or at least the freedom to spend part of the budget on student mobility grants. Jeroen stresses that even though student grants would be very much welcomed, all UN partners showed a certain commitment when the proposal was submitted last year, despite the fact that at the time it was unlikely that grants would be provided. He encourages everybody who is here today to try and make money available for the programme. The Utrecht Network programme stands out from the other programmes because of the large numbers of students which will be exchanged in 1994/1995 (almost 100). In terms of student numbers, the programme is bigger than any other programme. Another asset is that it seems to be running more smoothly than the others. At the meeting in Brussels the question was asked if and why there is a need for multilateral networks. After all, most individual institutions in most European countries have access to funds for students wanting to go to destinations outside Europe. In other words, institutions can always set up bilateral links with any university in the U.S. or elsewhere. Jeroen's answer to the question was that in many respects it is far more attractive to offer students a wide variety of choices. The strength of the Utrecht Network is that it comprises universities from many different regions where many different languages are spoken. The Network is an excellent model of the European Dimension as it were. The idea of providing the American

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. students with so-called packages was very well received in Brussels. A package consists of a study period of two semesters at two different Utrecht Network universities, the idea behind which is that by studying one discipline at two institutions the American student can get a fair notion of what the European Dimension actually entails. It is important that for next year (1995/1996) packages for a number of areas of study (three?) will actually be offered to the Americans. Another asset of our multilateral network is that we are flexible. A German literature student from Oklahoma may want to study at Leipzig, whereas a History student from Leipzig may be interested in studying Native American Studies at the University of Kansas. Provided that the imbalances do not get too big, these things can be arranged.

2. BUDGETARY MATTERS Out of the 107,000 Ecus budget of the EC-US programme, only 45,000 Ecus are contributed by the Commission. As has been said before the institutions will need to contribute 62,000 Ecus themselves. It is important that all responsible contact persons keep a file of the costs which have been covered by their institution, because these data need to be included in the financial report which has to be sent to Brussels at the end of the financial year 1993/1994.

3. STUDENT PLACEMENTS All universities (in the EU and the US) were already informed as to the number of students they can expect in the coming year. In Madrid students' application forms were handed over to the contact people of the universities, or, if they were not present (which was the case for most of the American institutions), these were given to the representatives. 47 European students have applied for a placement at an American institution. Likewise, 47 American students have submitted application forms for study at a UN institution. It was decided that students' placements will either be confirmed or rejected by 15 April 1994. The coordinating offices at Utrecht and Carbondale will be notified of this.

4. ANY OTHER BUSINESS * The universities of Basel and Graz, even though they are not official members of the programme (yet), say that American students wishing to study there, are very welcome to do so (A similar offer was made by the other EFTA universities at an earlier stage). * The next meeting will be held in St Louis on Saturday, 9 May 1994. Items for the agenda will be: evaluation of the programme, final student placement, sustainability, language training.

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. APPENDIX I STATE OF THE ART - MADRID MEETING

This year ICP-93-1235/17, also known as the Utrecht Network, has entered the seventh year of its existence. During the next hour or so we shall be looking at what's happened in the past year in terms of student mobility, teaching staff mobility, new activities and other relevant issues. We will also be concentrating on what we hope is going to materialize in the next year, in which, as you know, the Network is likely to be affected by the new EU Programme, Socrates. The second part of this presentation will focus on Socrates in general. I will give you an outline of this programme and after that discuss implications which Socrates might have for the future of the Utrecht Network.

1. The Utrecht Network a. past student and teacher mobility - quantity and quality Last year I said that quantity is not the only thing we should be dealing with when running a programme like ours. However, it cannot be denied that so far, quantity has given us a good indication as to the quality of the network. There is no doubt that the two are heavily reliant on each other. The student flows within the Network are probably the most objective 'performance indicators' which we have at our disposal. If something were wrong with the infrastructure of the network for instance, we would undoubtedly not be exchanging as many students as we are today. Also, if somehow most of the study programmes of the participating institutions weren't appealing to our students, nobody would be interested in spending up to a year at one of the member universities. As you can see, we have been doing quite well in terms of student numbers over the past few years. In 1987/88 (when only five universities were participating) 45 students were exchanged. In 1992/93, as many as 320 students from eighteen institutions went abroad to one of the partner institutions. Compared to 1991/1992, there was an increase of almost 100 students (30%!) in 1992/1993. This was of course partly due to the universities of Bergen, Lund and Leipzig, which all joined the Network in that year. An unfortunate thing is that some universities send out far more students than they receive, or, a very similar problem, receive more students than they can send. As you know, funds were set aside within this year's budget to help eradicate these imbalances. Strangely enough, not a single university has applied for money. This problem of imbalances in student flows (which can also be seen at a national level) has been frequently discussed by the steering committee of the Utrecht Network, and it will also be an issue which one of the working groups will be looking into this afternoon. Some words need to be dedicated to the Teaching Staff Mobility programme, since besides Student Mobility, this is another activity we have been quite actively involved in. I'll show you a chart showing how many teaching staff exchanges have taken place since 1989/1990, which was the year when the Utrecht Network started exchanging teachers with EC-funding. As you can see there has been a steady increase in the number of academic staff going abroad within the Network. Teachers in a wide range of disciplines such as chemistry, philology, and sociology, to mention just a few, give guest lectures at one of the partner institutions. Their visits last on average from one to three weeks. A major problem with a framework programme like ours, is that it is quite hard to plan teaching staff visits over a year in advance, mainly because communication lines tend to be somewhat longer than with departmental ERASMUS programmes. My experience is that on the whole very few of the planned visits actually take place. They are usually replaced by different visits though. This problem may be one of the reasons why only a limited number of UN institutions apply for TM funds each year. This year nine out of eighteen institutions are exchanging teachers. Within our ICP TM is mainly regarded as a means of supporting SM. It is a well known phenomenon that teachers who spend time at a partner university, can often encourage students of that institution to go abroad. If we look at TM from a wider perspective, it can be seen as a way of providing an

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. opportunity to bring the so-called European Dimension into the curriculum. It can be for the benefit of those students who do not spend some time abroad. Despite the problem of planning so long in advance, the Utrecht Network has been identified by the Commission as an ICP with a very strong Teaching Staff Mobility component. We received a letter from Brussels last week, saying that for this year we are going to get an extra 2,040 Ecu for Teaching Staff Mobility. To come back to the issue of quantity and quality, it seems that we are doing fine if we look at mere numbers. Something could be done, though, to try and even out the imbalances in the student flows. As for teaching staff exchange, it might be an idea to think of ways in which we could make it more structured, pinpoint some priority areas perhaps, and develop Teacher Mobility into an efficient tool to help us actual- ly improve on the quality of education. Perhaps this is something which the working group on the quality of education could pursue this afternoon. So far I've talked about the ERASMUS mobility programmes. Next I'll discuss the other activities we have been involved in. other activities The Tempus programme has been going fine, with 170 students being exchanged in 1992/1993. Hopefully, over 200 students will have been exchanged by the end of this academic year. As you may know, there is only one more year to go until the end of the next phase. The TEMPUS meeting here in Madrid will concentrate mainly on what is to happen after 1994/95. It is quite certain that TEMPUS will then continue in a very different way. As you know we've been diving into some new projects this past year. The universities of Bergen, Bochum, St Petersburg and Utrecht put in a proposal for a Tacis one-year pre-Jep which was awarded. Tacis is a university-management programme. Even though the present Tacis group is relatively small, it is very likely that the participating universities will draw on the experience of the other Utrecht Network members. A proposal for a real three-year Jep is probably going to be submitted towards the end of this cycle. The proposal for the EC-US programme was also awarded by Brussels. If we take into account the high number of proposals which were submitted for this pilot project (over 200) and the number of those which got accepted in the end (22), this is quite a memorable achievement. All 16 EC partners are partici- pating, and will start exchanging students within the fields of American and European Studies with 12 American institutions as of September 1994. Regrettably, it seems that on the European side no funds will be made available for student grants. Nevertheless most members have been able to earmark some of their own funds for student mobility, so that we expect to send about 50 students to the United States in 1994/1995. Likewise, we are expecting a similar number of American students to come to Europe in that year. The EC-US programme will be discussed in more detail tomorrow. A far smaller, but nonetheless very interesting programme in which three Utrecht Network and three north African universities participate, is now slowly coming off the ground: MedCampus. The Commission is contributing 85,710 Ecu to this programme which is aimed at developing 'human capital' in the so- called Mediterranean Non Member Countries. The two decentralised networks will exchange experiences and transfer know-how. The first plenary MedCampus meeting will be held here in Madrid on Monday. I've now gone through most of the programmes which we take part in. requests I guess that everybody here is aware of the fact that nowadays, for a university to belong to a broad inter- university co-operation network is almost a prerequisite for academic success and recognition. I am proud to say that this year we have had a number of requests from universities in Europe which were interested in joining the Utrecht Network. Only very recently we have been approached by the Universität Zürich and the University of Iceland in Reykjavik. This brings us to the next part of this presentation: the future of the Utrecht Network.

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. b. future: 1994/1995 and beyond We are very happy to have the universities of Basel and Graz with us as of September 1994. Needless to say, we hope that Brussels will keep on giving us financial support to continue all the work that we have done in the past years. I spoke to Mr Anthony Smallwood (the Deputy Director of the ERASMUS Bureau) last week, and although he couldn't give me any more news than what is already written in the Socrates papers, he stressed the fact that the new Socrates programme will definitely try and preserve everything which has functioned well under ERASMUS. We'll come back to Socrates in a minute. new partners First I'd like to briefly say a few words on the admission of new partners. You will all agree with me that by now the Network has become fairly big and we must be careful not to be tempted to invite new universities to join us each year, or else the Network would become unmanageable. However, it might be an idea to consider including the University of Iceland in the UN, and perhaps also a Scottish university, one of the reasons being that it might alleviate the pressure on the universities of Cork and Hull, which have so many more incoming than outgoing students. This issue will be discussed later this morning. new activities Next a short introduction into two new EC programmes which we might consider putting in proposals for in the next year or so. First of all there's the EC-ASEAN programme. The purpose of this programme is to set up training opportunities for scholars from ASEAN countries (Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore). The good thing about the programme is that it will provide those universities who start hosting ASEAN scholars with an interesting opportunity to establish relations with influential people in the South-East Asia region. Some of the priority areas are: languages; health; computer studies; agricultu- re/environment; journalism and public relations. Another programme which will be coming up soon is the Columbus project which involves co-operation with institutions in Latin America. The project will deal with setting up inter-university networks, consolidating already existing networks, academic recognition of diplomas, harmonisation of curricula and setting up joint research projects.

A fair part of the future of the Utrecht Network is probably going to be determined by the new programme Socrates, but before we go on to that I just want to show you a chart giving you all our present and possible future activities in a nutshell. With that overview I want to show you that the Utrecht Network is more than just an ERASMUS ICP (in case you hadn't noticed already).

2. Socrates I will now give you an outline of the Socrates programme, which, I reckon, you have all heard of by now. Ever since ERASMUS started in 1987 we have all known that this was only a temporary programme which was meant to improve the quality of European education by means of increasing student and teacher mobility and developing joint curricula and intensive programmes. In the meantime about 300,000 students and 35,000 teachers have spent some time abroad within one of the 2,500 ERASMUS and LINGUA ICPs. Over 1,500 European institutions have been taking part in one or more ICPs. In 1994/1995 ERASMUS will move into the last year of its second phase and we already know that after that, ERASMUS will be replaced by a new education programme: Socrates. Let me first say that the present status of Socrates is that of a proposal. This proposal then, needs to be approved of by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. This will probably happen before the end of the summer. Once the proposal has been accepted, and perhaps adjusted, Socrates is meant to become effective as of 1 January 1995. Besides

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. the Socrates proposal, which is aimed at education, the Commission has also issued a proposal for training programmes: Leonardo. Since Leonardo is not within our scope I will not be dealing with that here. Socrates comprises three chapters: one on higher education, one on school education and one on so-called transverse actions (which are applicable to the first two chapters). Each chapter contains three actions . Let me go into chapter one and three with you. The second chapter is of no relevance to us today. Chapter one covers the activities under the ERASMUS programme and Action II of the LINGUA Programme. Action one is for the promotion of the European Dimension in higher education. All four 'ICP elements' are covered by this action: SM, TM, CD and IP. Priority will be given to student mobility, as is the case under the present ERASMUS scheme. The conditions under which students are going to be exchanged will be fairly similar: students will have to spend a minimum period of three months abroad, tuition fees will be waived by the host institution, etc. New are the institutional contracts between the institutions on the one hand and the Commission on the other hand. Universities wishing to set up or continue any of the activities which I have just mentioned, will be able to conclude an institutional contract with the Commission. Financial assistance may also be granted to groups of universities at regional level. Action two concerns the establishment of 150 to 200 thematic networks. These discipline-oriented networks will be made up of departments or faculties of the universities involved in interuniversity co- operation programmes. The initial aims of the networks will be to exchange know-how, evaluate curricula, design joint programmes and set up information services for network members. One of the participating universities should act as a coordinator for the activities in each network. Action three then, covers the financing of student mobility grants. These will remain to be administered by the NGAA's. We will skip the second chapter and move on to chapter three. This is the chapter of the Horizontal Measures which will have to support the actions undertaken within the scope of the first two chapters of Socrates. Action one deals with the promotion of language skills in the community. Linguistic skills are considered to be a key factor in establishing the well known 'open European area for education' (which I referred to in Antwerp last year). Priority will be given to less widely known languages and projects which include the use of new technology. Action two of this third Socrates chapter should promote information and communication technologies and open and distance learning. The purpose of this is to enable all citizens of the Community to take advantage of the open area for education. Finally we come to action three. This action includes the promotion of information and exchange of experience. Here we should think of study visits carried out by teachers and administrative staff in tertiary as well as secondary and primary education. This was the Socrates proposal in a nutshell for you. Before I hand over to Jeroen, who's just come from Brussels and can probably brief us about the latest news, may I conclude by saying a few more things. You may or you may not know that the ERASMUS Bureau will close at the end of this (calendar) year. After that its tasks will be taken over partly by the Commission and partly by the institutions. The implications of that may turn out to be far-reaching. Within the near future it is no longer the ERASMUS Bureau which will decide which proposals are eligible for financial support and which aren't, but the institutions themselves will have to decide what their priority areas are. Decentralisation of financial and administrative responsibilities seems to be one of the characteristics of Socrates. Bettina Nelemans Utrecht, March 1994

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. UTRECHT NETWORK

1987/1988 NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXCHANGED: 45

5 INSTITUTIONS

1988/1989 NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXCHANGED: 87

8 INSTITUTIONS

1989/1990 NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXCHANGED: 76

10 INSTITUTIONS

1990/1991 NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXCHANGED: 140

13 INSTITUTIONS

1991/1992 NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXCHANGED: 224

15 INSTITUTIONS

1992/1993 NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXCHANGED: 320

18 INSTITUTIONS

1993/1994 NUMBER OF STUDENTS EXCHANGED: ?

18 INSTITUTIONS

(1994/1995 20 INSTITUTIONS)

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. UTRECHT NETWORK TEACHING STAFF MOBILITY

1989/90 2

1990/91 4

1991/92 7

1992/93 16

1993/94 23

1994/95 16?

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

EC-US PROGRAMME

1. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale 2. The University of Kansas 3. Kansas State University 4. The University of Oklahoma 5. Oklahoma State University 6. Iowa State University 7. The University of Missouri, St Louis 8. The University of Nebraska, Lincoln 9. The University of Nebraska, Kearney 10.The University of Nebraska, Omaha 11.The University of Florida 12.Purdue University, Indiana

1. Utrecht University 2. Aarhus Universitet 3. Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen 4. Ruhruniversität Bochum 5. Universita degli Studi di Bologna 6. Universidade de Coimbra 7. 8. The 9. Universität Leipzig 10.Université des Sciences et Technologique de Lille 11.Universidad Complutense de Madrid 12.Université Louis Pasteur 13.Université des Sciences Humaines 14.Université Robert Schumann 15.Aristotle University of Thessaloniki 16.Hogeschool voor de Kunsten Utrecht EC grant 45,000 ECU

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

THE MEDCAMPUS PROGRAMME

FOR INTER-UNIVERSITY CO-OPERATION

- Université Mohammed V - Morocco

- Cairo University - Egypt

- Ecole Normale Supérieure - Algeria

- Ruhr Universität Bochum

- Universidad Complutense de Madrid

- Universiteit Utrecht

EC grant 85,710 ECU

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. SOCRATES

CHAPTER 1: HIGHER EDUCATION

CHAPTER 2: SCHOOL EDUCATION

CHAPTER 3: HORIZONTAL MEASURES

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

CHAPTER 1: action 1 promoting the European Dimension

*Student Mobility, Teacher Mobility, Curriculum Development, Intensive Programmes *institutional contracts

action 2 Thematic Networks

*150 - 200 discipline oriented networks

action 3 Student Mobility Grants

*administered by the NGAA's

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

CHAPTER 3:

action 1 Promotion of linguistic skills

action 2 Promotion of open and distance learning

action 3 Promotion of information and exchange of experience

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

ACADEMIC NETWORKS

INSTITUTIONAL CONTRACTS REPLACING ICP'S -Multilateral and bilateral agreements

REGIONAL NETWORKS

THEMATIC NETWORKS

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

APPENDIX II

LINKS WITH SCOTTISH UNIVERSITIES, AN INVENTORY

Aarhus: Edinburgh Dundee Inst Tech St. Andrews Stirling Strathclyde

Antwerpen: Glasgow Edinburgh Dundee

Basel: St.Andrews Edinburgh

Bergen: Edinburgh Heriot-Watt Stirling Strathclyde

Bochum: Strathclyde Glasgow Dundee

Bologna: Edinburgh Glasgow Aberdeen Strathclyde Heriot Watt

Coimbra: Edinburgh Glasgow Stirling

Cork: Edinburgh Jordanhill Stirling Glasgow Aberdeen Strathclyde St Andrews

Graz: Heriot-Watt

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd. Dundee Glasgow Stirling

Leipzig: Heriot-Watt Napier Strathclyde Edinburgh Stirling Glasgow

Lille: Glasgow Caledonian Glasgow Edinburgh Napier

Lund: Aberdeen Edinburgh Glasgow

Madrid: Glasgow Dundee Napier Edinburgh Heriot-Watt

Strasbourg I: no links with Scottish universities

StrasbourgII: Glasgow Edinburgh

Strasbourg III: Heriott Watt Stirling

Thessaloniki: Glasgow Stirling Dundee Aberdeen

Utrecht: Edinburgh Glasgow

Utrecht HKU: Dundee Duncan of Jordanstone

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.

Edinburgh 13 Glasgow 13 Dundee 6 Stirling 7 Heriot-Watt 6 Strathclyde 6 Napier 3 Aberdeen 4 St. Andrews 3 Glasgow Caledonian 1 Duncan/Jordanstone 1 Dundee Inst Tech 1

Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.