The Bologna process and internationalization: General and specific trends

First of all, we have to recognize that the organization of the Conference has been a timely choice. In fact, all over Europe it is time to reflect on the experience of the past 10 years, take stock and plan ahead the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). This is not only needed in order to acknowledge the wholehearted intuition and endeavour made by the fathers of the Bologna Process themselves. It is also strategically relevant in order to face the practical issues raised by the deep change which is taking place in the European higher education systems. This is why European Ministers of Education gathered on the 12 th of March in Vienna to commemorate 10 years of the Bologna Process and launch the EHEA. Moreover, the European Commission is expected to embark with greater emphasis on the European Higher Education Area within March 2010. A number of reports and studies have appeared, especially in the recent weeks, which manifest this need. Some examples are EUA (2010) and ESU (2010). An optimistic attitude is prevailing in what we could label the “Brussels consensus view”. The EUA (2010) report claims, by and far, that positive changes are taking place in the European higher education systems. On the positive side, we could add that Italy has been the first country trying to implement the Bologna Process , and, also in this respect, the Italian and Bologna experiences can be pacesetters for the other European countries. Another positive aspect of the Italian experience is that, mostly due to the AlmaLaurea Consortium, in a 10 years interval we have considerably improved the availability of statistics on graduates employment conditions, while in the rest of Europe still “few institutions track their alumni’s employment” (EUA, 2010, p. 7). However, in many respects an optimistic attitude is not in tune with the daily “tam-tam” we hear in Italian newspapers and in university teachers’ councils. The European Student Union (ESU) report also offers rather sceptical and critical evaluation: “Ten years might not be enough time to make final conclusions, especially if the final design of the Bologna Process is ever-changing. But we can say with certainty that the ambition of a common EHEA has not been matched by equal ambition in making it a reality. Not nearly enough effort has been invested. The consistently referenced Bologna With Student Eyes (ESU, 2090) conclusions of an ‘à la carte’ method of picking which reforms suit countries and in which particular flavour, has left a bitter sweet taste for those still daring to dream of the joint intentions of the Bologna Process becoming true. In this regard, the entire reform agenda has become one of diplomatic dances and gestures. Sometimes one might get the feeling that the time spent on negotiations which connect the Ministerial Conferences has been disproportional to true action, leading countries only to forgo previous commitments due to the Process being redrafted again and again.” ESU (2010, p. 3). Of course, different opinions coexist and different categories of stakeholders share diverse views. Firms, employers and students, as well as teachers, are still learning from the reform process and elaborating specific strategies to cope with the present global crisis and the ‘normal order’. Moreover, the attitude can greatly differ according to the different faculties or schools, and especially in the law schools the view is not enthusiastic. Possibly a balanced view of the Bologna Process should accept that “....the change within the European higher education arena has been drastic”, and that it has been “… a powerful disruption of the status quo, but yet so microscopic in the bigger picture.” And, after all, from the concrete standpoint of the students needs - the real ‘Polaris’ of the reform process - “… the question is just how positive the overall changes have been for students within different higher education systems.” (ESU, 2010; p. 3). In general, we could suggest that the Brussels consensus view is only partially shared around European countries. Of course, the circumstances vary widely in different countries However, whenever we feel stronger the impact of the global crisis, a twofold threat can be perceived. At a microeconomic level, an important determinant of scepticism lies in the fact that labour markets on the whole are malfunctioning and that too much contractual power lies on the insider side. This is not so much due to the failure in finding mechanical rules capable to implement perfect competition equilibria, but has a lot to do with the lack of social cooperation in the design of a competitive organization of knowledge, external as well internal to the firm. At a macroeconomic level, an important determinant of scepticism lies in the fact that, in general, in the present climate of large national and international fiscal deficits, issues related to investments in human capital and R&D, graduate employment and retention appear to be rather low on political agendas. In any case, the credibility of the Brussels consensus view will depend both on the capability to implement an incentive system stimulating human capital valorisation and on the amount of public and private investments in human capital that will be mobilized at the European and national level. Last but not least, a reference should be made to an aspect relevant to the concrete implementation of student-centred learning paradigms convergent at a European scale. Students’ responsibilities and obligations are a crucial ingredient of the educational production function which is often assumed rather than put into action. This implies the need of adequately monitoring also this dimension of students’ performance. The present initiative follows two similar events organized by the Commission for International Relations of the School of Law of the University of Bologna held in 2006 – an International Workshop on “Higher Education in Legal Studies and Professional Prospects for Law Graduates in Europe” (12 October 2006) and a Faculty Conference on “The Internationalization of the Faculty of Law” (13 October 2006). These events served as an important moment for reflection on challenges and ways to approach the Bologna Process and internationalization in the context of legal studies, specifically, taking into account the objectives and future plans of the Bologna School of Law. They shaped future decision on a number of internationalization initiatives such as the choice of partners for double degrees programmes. The present conference is a valuable opportunity to take stock of the developments in the past three years and to offer a platform for discussion of the ways ahead. The research work presented in this report has as its objective to map the ways in which European Schools of Law have been affected by the Bologna Process and internationalization initiatives with a special focus on the University of Bologna’s School of Law in the context of current European and Italian developments. By using a variety of data-sources (e.g. Eurostat, CIMEA, CRUI, AlmaLaurea.), it will attempt to offer data on the different aspects of internationalization – student mobility, joint/double degrees, teachers’ mobility, etc. – for the University of Bologna Schools of Law, other Italian Schools of Law, and other European Schools of Law where possible. The objective is to give an updated and as comprehensive as possible information on the general trends and their comparison with the specific trends of the University of Bologna’s School of Law.