A Case for Caution: Twenty-One Years of Bologna and Ramifications for the U.S. Higher Education

Abstract

The spread and influence of older European higher education models and the current Bologna Process (BP) is strongly linked to its colonial and neocolonial hegemony. However, the 1999 convergence of European models under the umbrella of the BP reform has had implications beyond the colonial and neocolonial spheres, with its effects impacting even the well-established and reputable education systems of North America. Unlike the countries of Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia Pacific, and the United States did not have any reasons to embrace the BP models. However, they are indirectly affected by it. The international nature of academe, characterized by cooperation and exchanges, has made it impossible for United States tertiary education systems to avoid the effects of the European BP reform entirely. Student and faculty mobility, transferability of degrees, and joint and dual degree offerings have increased significantly as a result of the “external dimension” objectives of the Bologna reform. The highly globalized higher education market is characterized by partnerships and exchanges, including competition between European and the United States colleges and universities over international students. The BP ultimately has and will likely continue to influence the calculations of higher education stakeholders in the United States.

Keywords

Bologna Process admissions student mobility joint programs exchange programs international students internationalization

Introduction

The creation of the BP reform was a move in line with the global trend in the 1990s aimed at recognizing the importance of internationalization and fostering it around the world. It was the most extensive higher education reform of the 20th with wide ranging global ambitions and implications. The reform has been described as a unique model of systemic integration that “has not been achieved anywhere else, even in some federal nations such as the United States where higher education remains highly state or province bound” (Egron-Polak, 2008, p. 3). Today, it remains the largest and most successful worldwide higher education harmonization initiative. The intergovernmental, inter-institutional process to harmonize degree structures, qualifications frameworks and quality standards across Europe that began 20 years ago, initially involving 29 European signatory countries, now encompasses 49 member countries (European Higher Education Area, 2020).

The 2009 Prague Report confirms this view but also clearly states that the main goal of the Bologna Declaration was to ensure that the European higher education system acquires a worldwide degree of attraction (Prague Report, 2009). This report asserts that one of the primary goals of the reform has always been to render European higher education competitive in higher education marketing, dominated by the United States and the United Kingdom. Zgaga (2006) reports that the goal of the “external dimension” of the BP is not only to make the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) attractive enough to the rest of the world to attract more of the best foreign students and scholars but also to boost the quality of higher education within Europe itself. According to the report, this would provide a reciprocal way of making universities more effective. The Zgaga report points out that such an appeal is important within the present-day knowledge-based economy, which the world’s richest nations regard as the sine qua non of economic growth.

Labi (2009) argues that, since the inception of the BP, Britain is no longer the United States’ only competitor for international students in Europe because Continental European countries such as the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Germany, and Finland are increasingly becoming popular destinations for international students. To attract foreign students, European universities and governments have adopted aggressive online marketing strategies, created foreign recruitment offices, and favored not only the use of English in classrooms but also the creation of English programs. The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (as cited in Labi, 2007) indicates significant increases in the enrollment of foreign students in four European countries from 1999 to 2005: Britain (232,540 to 318,399), Germany (178,195 to 259,797), France (130,952 to 236,518), and Finland (4,847 to 8,442).

These trends that have increased gradually but steadily since the 1999 European higher education reform have indirectly impacted higher education leadership in the United States, particularly in areas such as marketing, degree interpretations, graduate admissions, and exchange program requirements (Petersons, 2017).

Background and Framework

Since the BP reform, cooperation between governments, colleges, and universities has grown tremendously within Europe and worldwide, influencing governance, funding, student and faculty mobility, and curricula (Bond, 2003; Ka-ho-Mok & Lee, 2001). Arguments in favor of international cooperation among tertiary education institutions have continued to grow stronger among leaders and scholars since the later part of the 20th century. Altbach (2004) contends that no institution of higher education can survive on its own and stay viable in the 21st century. In preceding arguments, Altbach (1991) asserts that internationalization is a natural and not so new phenomenon because, historically, academe has always been international in scope, even when most of the time it has been characterized by inequalities. Limited access to modern technology and inadequate infrastructure caused by insufficient funding has greatly weakened the ability of universities in developing countries to effectively compete internationally. Notwithstanding this, international activities of universities have dramatically expanded in volume, scope, and complexity during the past two decades (Altbach & Knight, 2007).

Many worldwide higher education reforms, especially the BP, have enabled universities to enter a new “virtual” or “e-learning” market and to intensify cooperation and exchange through joint programs and exchange programs. This has led to a new kind of higher educational institutional management, strategic leadership, and organizational structures (Fielden, 2001). Yang (as cited in Chang, 2004) points out that higher education reform has played a major role in developing the new quality of educational leadership that is so vital to the modernization process. It is against this background of perceptions regarding higher education trends that the European Bologna reform went beyond encouraging the convergence of European systems to establishing the goal of promoting the model worldwide through partnerships.

Adelman (2009) affirms this by reporting that parts of the BP have already been imitated in Latin America, North Africa, and Australia. He predicted that the core features of the BP such as enhancing the quality and relevance of learning and teaching through its degree structures, qualifications frameworks, and quality standards have sufficient momentum to become the dominant global higher education model within the next two decades. While recognizing the fact that United States’ initial reaction to the BP had been almost dismissive, he points to the fact that since 2008 things have begun to change. Recent higher education conferences in the United States have “panels, presentations, and intense discussions of Bologna approaches to accountability, access, quality assurance, credits and transfer, and, most notably, learning outcomes in the context of the disciplines” (Adelman, 2009, p. 8).

In neighboring Canada, initial reaction to the BP was positive and demonstrated a desire by higher education authorities to understand it better (AUUC, 2009). The conclusions of the 2009 AUUC report recognize that the BP is not without controversy and does not provide the single answer to all challenges to higher education. However, it also emphasizes the need for collaboration between Canadian and European universities and acknowledges the potential of the BP “as a trust-building exercise through developing transparency in higher education systems and procedures, and fulfilling the responsibility for enabling students to develop the knowledge, skills, and aptitudes to survive in the labour market and participate in their societies” (AUUC, 2009, p.13).

Despite the improving trends in favor of students’ mobility, exchange programs, and international students’ enrollment in the universities of mainland Europe, the United States continues to outpace Europe in the enrollment of international students. Loo (2018) points to SEVIS data which indicates a rise of 621 percent in international student enrollment during the three and a half decades leading up to the 2015/2016 school year. Notwithstanding, Europe has gained some grounds in the competition for international students with the United States since the European BP reform. The European gains are reflected in the 3.3 percent drop in international students enrollment in 2016/17 and the slight decrease between 2017 and 2018 (Loo, 2018). By spreading the BP models and intensifying cooperation with universities in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, continental Europe has become more and more attractive—with an increasing number of students from these regions choosing Europe over America. Asia-Pacific countries, notably Australia and New Zealand that have also adopted BP models have also become more attractive to students from Asian countries who constitute the largest block of international students studying in the United States (Labi, 2007; Reinalda & Kulesza, 2006).

Statement of Purpose

This review study focuses on the implications of the BP reform for American higher education in areas such as international students’ enrollment, faculty mobility, study abroad, transferability of degrees, and joint and dual degree offerings, while illuminating a noticeably gradually tightening competition for international students between U.S. and EU colleges and universities. The study is also an attempt to fill the gap in the literature related to the practical implications of international higher education reforms on the graduate admission procedures and requirements for foreign students seeking admission in U.S. universities. The study seeks to answer the following question: What are the implications of the European BP reform for the United States of America with regard to international student enrollments, faculty and student mobility, study abroad, transferability of degrees, and joint and dual degree offerings?

BP Gains and Drawbacks

The BP drive to harmonize degree structures, qualification frameworks, and quality standards in Europe over the past two decades has made considerable historical advances toward convergence in many areas. Significant gains are noticeable, especially regarding the internationalization or external dimension objective of the reform, including meetings the goals of the EHEA, a centerpiece of the BP reform. Great strides have been made to align the EHEA degree structures and promote academic mobility across the continent of Europe. These successes have positioned the reform as a benchmark for other regions of the world interested in establishing similar cross-border agreements in higher education (Clark, 2014).

One of the initially stated goals of the BP included easing readability and comparability of degrees, establishing a common European credit transfer system (ECTS), adopting the two-cycle system (undergraduate/graduate), cooperation in quality assurance, and promoting both mobility and the attractiveness of the EHEA. As of today, the implementation of the ECTS as a transfer and accumulation system is almost complete (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2018). Comprehensive internationalization and mobility strategies, which were not in the EHEA at its creation, are now being developed and applied by many EU countries.

According to the European Commission (2013), the European higher education strategy is encouraging EU member states to implement comprehensive internationalization and mobility strategies likely to impact EU and non-EU countries. Apart from these concerted efforts, the rapid growth in the number of English-language programs at European universities has helped to facilitate student mobility, which is one of the primary objectives of the BP. The development of dual-degree programs is an essential new trend in Europe’s long-term commitment to international higher education collaboration (Labi, 2009). According to the January 2009 survey report by the Institute of International Education and the Free University of Berlin, 2017 European universities have greatly outpaced American universities in offering international joint-degree and dual-degree programs.

These programs flourish more in European universities than American universities because the tuition-paying American students and their universities are more likely to bear the costs of such programs compared to their European counterparts who tap into a broader range of support from governments and nonprofit groups. As a result, fewer students in American higher education establishments are able to afford the cost of international joint-degree programs. The report also identifies a weakness of the American study-abroad programs. American higher educational institutions tend not to integrate students as effectively into overseas host institutions. This may be due the reality that they usually last less than a full semester or academic year. This time limitation may be one of the reasons for limited institutional support as well as the difficulty in recruiting students for such programs.

The 2015 European Commission Report summarizes the achievements of the BP while indicating what remains to be achieved. The report underscored the fact that numerous. stakeholders and more than 4,000 educational institutions from 47 member countries “have continued to adapt their higher education systems, making them more compatible, modernizing degree structures and strengthening their quality assurance mechanisms” (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015, p.3). According to the report, the BP provided a framework for dialogue and cooperation, which has spread outside Europe. The achievements of the reform go beyond assuring dialogue and collaboration regarding the technicalities of the credit transfer systems, faculty and student mobility, and quality assurance to the promotion of European interests, values, and institutions.

Despite the mostly positive progress report on the BP, its implementation in Europe is moving in different directions and at a widely varying pace, thereby creating some instability in the EHEA. Remarkably, the 2015 European Commission report points to that fact that students and graduates in many countries still face obstacles in having their studies abroad recognized for work or further study. The most pejorative conclusion that “graduates too often discover that they do not have the skills and competencies they need for their future careers” (p. 3). These weaknesses are an indication that much remains to be done in order for European higher education to be competitive in a tertiary education market still dominated by U.S. institutions.

The State of Internationalization in Higher Education

Courts (2004) states that one of the most traditional and efficient methods for training students to be competent, confident, and comfortable internationally is through exchange programs—joint-degree programs and study-abroad programs. Among the early Americans pursuing this goal are those who studied in European universities in the second half of the 19th century. Study-abroad supporters also argue that through living abroad one could better understand his own country, develop linguistic skills, and gain useful knowledge and skills for fruitful careers in government, business, and education (Auden, 1937; Burn, 1980; Courts, 2004).

The most reliable component of internationalization in the United States is the international students’ component, which impacts the economy significantly through the influx of foreign currency (Ross, 2008). In the mid-1990s, the United States was already considered to be the leading exporter of higher education services. In 1995/1996 the United States ranked first in the number of international students (453,787 students) followed by France (170,574 students), Germany (146,126), and the United Kingdom (128,550; WTO Council for Trade in Services, 1998). In the early 1990s, more Europeans were studying in the United States than Americans studying in Europe. Even though today the United States remains the leading exporter of education services, it now faces increasing competition from European and Asia-Pacific countries such as Australia and New Zealand, particularly for Asian students, who remain the largest group of international students in the United States (Labi, 2007; Reinalda & Kulesza, 2006).

Since the November 2016 election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States, the U.S. higher education community has monitored the extent to which the policies implemented during his presidency are affecting the flow of international students to the United States. Recent SEVIS data point to declining enrolment from key countries due to new visa restrictions (Trines, 2017). The ever-increasing e-learning upward trend in internationalization has entered a new phase necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The uniqueness of this phase is that it has led to a reduction in face-to-face interactive cooperation and exchange activities despite the sudden exponential increase in the number of virtual programs initiated to promote social distancing and curb the spread of the COVID-19 virus. The National Association of Foreign Student Advisers (NAFSA), in its appeal to the U.S. government for support, underscores that the field of education abroad is at incredible risk for long-term damage because of COVID-19 (Murray, 2020). It is evident that educational leaders worldwide will have to find more cost-effective cooperation avenues in situations such as one created by COVID-19 pandemic

Considering that the BP reform improved the interpretation and transferability of European degrees, it is very likely that European universities will become the destination of choice for international students who do not have the means or patience to navigate through increasingly tighter U.S. visa procedures. It is imperative for American higher education stakeholders to understand the nature of the competition emanating from the global higher education reforms inspired by the BP—including numerous, cheaper, and attractive opportunities for international students in Europe and Asia-Pacific.

Initiatives by the European Commission to support partnerships between European universities and universities in Africa, Latin America, and Asia are indicative not just of Europe’s desire to render its higher education systems attractive (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015). It also demonstrates its understanding that globalization, from the perspective of higher education, raises a certain number of challenges. These challenges and concerns have to do with decisions on curricula, funds to support exchange programs, and cooperation with foreign universities. Forest (2004) states that the manner in which globalization is affecting higher education in developing countries is of particular interest because these countries will experience the bulk of higher education expansion in future decades. From a policy perspective, globalization impacts upon public policy most prominently in four critical dimensions of higher education: access, funding, internationalization of teaching and research, and quality assurance (Forest, 2004). American higher education needs to show the same kind of understanding and engagement to maintain its leading position during the first half of the 21st century.

The architects of the BP reform understood that the internationalization of higher education is a necessity. The April 2009 report of the U.S. Government Accountability Office appears to agree with this position. According to the report, Western governments use higher education to advance diplomatic, economic, and other objectives, and employ multiple approaches to attract international students. Reimers (2009) asserts that students need “global competency”—the knowledge and skills that help them across disciplinary domains to comprehend global events and respond to them effectively. He identifies three interdependent dimensions of global competency. First, students who have an international higher education experience are more likely to develop a positive approach toward cultural differences and show empathy with people who have other cultural identities. The students are likely to have an interest and understanding of various. civilizations and their histories as well as the ability to see those differences as opportunities for constructive, respectful, and peaceful transactions. Second, the acquisition of global competency, which is the ability to speak, understand, and think in one or more foreign languages. Finally, students with an international education experience have a broader knowledge of world history and geography, and the global aspects of health care, climate change, economics, politics, international relations, and other issues. In the same vein, Brennan et al. (2007) argue that successful research has always had an international element, which favors the internationalization of higher education since higher educational institutions serve as large research centers.

The interest shown by higher education institutions and governments in the introduction of new exchange programs, the creation of extension campuses, promotion of joint-degree programs, and recruitment of more foreign students is an indication that there is a higher recognition than before of the advantages derived from internationalization. Against this background, cooperation between European and North American higher educational institutions is bound to grow over time. Such partnerships can only be successful if educational organizations on both sides of the Atlantic appreciate and understand the systems they partner with—hence the need for American colleges and universities to fully comprehend the nature and the applications of the various. BP models and components across Europe and beyond Europe.

BP Implications for the United States of America

Although exporting the European model to the United States was not a direct objective of the external dimension of the BP, the reform naturally has repercussions for the enrollment of foreign students in American institutions, as well as the exchange of students and faculty between European and American colleges and universities. The drive by European universities to recruit foreign students intensified following the launching of the BP in 1999. American dominance in the enrollment of foreign students seemed threatened by Europe more than ever before (Douglass & Edelstein, 2009; McCormack, 2005). Since the adoption of the Bologna model, which is more compatible with the Anglo-American models, Continental Europe has attracted more students from Asia, Latin America, and Africa (Clark, 2007). In the past, apart from America, Britain has been the preferred European destination for students from Korea, China, India, Pakistan, Philippines, and much of Asia.

Research arguably points to the conclusion that the shifting interest in favor of European higher education is due to the BP reform and its embrace of English programs in many universities in continental Europe. Labi (2007) indicates that the strong shift toward English is the most significant attraction of foreign students to Western Europe. She adds that as early as the 1950s, the Netherlands became the first non-Anglophone country in Europe to teach courses in English and today offers 1,300 programs in the language. The trend has intensified with Germany offering more than 500 degrees in English and one quarter of university courses in Denmark are offered in English. Finland, with a population of about 5 million people, offers 400 English-language graduate programs. Labi (2007) underscores the significance of the trend toward the embrace of English language programs in European universities by pointing to the fact that “even France, with its deep-seated scorn for the creeping Anglicization of its national language, assures foreign students in its marketing brochures that they “no longer need to be fluent in French to study in France” (p.A29).

The external component of the BP has encouraged and enabled European countries to extend collaboration in the areas of research, student and faculty mobility and exchange (Zgaga, 2006). Several European universities are developing exchange programs with African and Asian universities. These targeted outreaches explain why Europe has become very competitive in attracting Asian students who have customarily been the largest block of foreign students in the Unites States. In 2003, they comprised more than half (51%) of foreign students in the United States (Gardner & Witherell, 2003). Today, China and India together account for more than 47% of all current foreign students in the United States, and mobility trends in these two countries are of vital consequence for many U.S. universities. However, draconian immigration policies currently supported by the United States are beginning to have an effect.

Trines (2017) points to a sudden decrease in the visas issued to students from the Asian continent (including the Middle East). If past trends are an indication as to what could happen in the future, the likelihood is that students from these regions will find viable alternatives not only in Australia and the United Kingdom but also in continental Europe, which continues to create more international student-friendly programs in the English language—English representing the closest approximation to a 21st century lingua franca.

Understanding Bologna Model Qualification inside Europe

Despite the almost unanimous adoption of the BP, significant differences still exist in qualification from graduates of various European colleges and universities. These differences vary, at a smaller scale among institutions in the same country but also at a more significant level among countries that have officially joined the reform, depending largely on the pace of adoption and/or adaptation of the BP models (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015). The European commission Reports (2012/2015) indicate that a third of the countries belonging to the EHEA have implemented the Bologna framework, in another third, 89% of students are enrolled while “in the remaining countries, with the exception of Switzerland (63.2%), Germany (61.9%), Austria (61.5%) and Spain (47.9%), more than 70% of students are enrolled in three-cycle programmes” (p. 49).

It is very important for American educational administrators to understand that the BP is a working progress toward convergence. In like manner, the economic integration is happening amid significant differences between European national economies but still ensuring a gradual progress toward a political union, significant differences exist in interpretations, and level and pace of implementation and adaptations of the BP all over Europe. American leaders of tertiary institutions stand a better chance of correctly interpreting the implications of the BP for partnership and the enrollment of students from European and non-European countries implementing the Bologna reform by making an effort to decipher the overall purpose of the reform which falls in line with the goals and trend of the European project.

As stated earlier, the original goal of the BP process was realistic in the sense that it recognized the need to create a common and not an identical EHEA that would facilitate the comparability of degrees and the mobility of students and faculty within Europe which included the evaluation of educational attainment from another institution (Armstrong, 2009). The reform created common European credit transfer system (ECTS), degree structure, credit, and quality control structures. This type of standardization would limit the tendency to generalize when initiating student and faculty exchange programs with European universities or the interpretation of transcripts from Europe. The 2012 BP implementation report on the EHEA indicated that the context for higher education reform and development differs substantially between countries caused by different structural realities, including institutional types and demographic challenges. It underscored that in spite of on establishing National Qualification Frameworks and using the Bologna comparability tools such as the ECTS and the Diploma Supplement, problems still persisted in way the tools were understood and implemented. As a result, problems of recognition of qualification and credits in Europe still exist in spite near uniformity in the reforms of three-cycle degree structures (BA, MA, PhD).

Moreover, it would be important for educational establishments in the United States to know even the minor but significant differences in the implementation of Bologna structures and instruments from one European higher educational institution to another and from country to country. These considerations can provide much needed clarity to admission offices on the interpretation of transcripts from various. European universities and to academic administration offices on the nature of partnerships to pursue.

According to Terry (2007), the Council of Graduate Schools (CGS), which represents U.S. institutions who award 95% of doctorate degrees and 85% of master’s degrees, reported that the BP is a concern for graduate school deans. He noted that

in summarizing events at the March 2005 conference on “Graduate Education and American Competitiveness,” CGS reported that “virtually every speaker at the conference, in one way or another, stated that international competition in graduate education threatens American world-wide leadership in research and innovation and therefore threatens American prosperity.” (p.241)

Terry (2007) references Sybille Reichert, one of the speakers at this conference, who offered a European perspective on the BP and international competition. She explained that European higher education was undergoing a massive transformation, providing more competition for the United States. Reichert and Tauch (2003) pointed to ways in which European graduate education already had surpassed U.S. graduate education, including the number of Ph.D. graduates, the number of peer-reviewed publications, and significant rankings in a list of the top 200 research institutions. Douglass and Edelstein (2009) affirm that there are already signs that the world market for student talent is shifting to the benefit of the United States’ competitors; adding that in bad economic times of today, the shift may continue to accelerate.

Understanding Bologna Model Qualifications Worldwide

Admission officers in American colleges and universities need to understand differences in Bologna model ECTS transcripts and non-Bologna transcripts from European graduates seeking admission in American graduate schools. Furthermore, to ensure a more reliable interpretation of degrees and transcripts, admission officials in the United States need to understand the differences in various Bologna hybrids outside Europe. Understanding the differences between the BP degrees within Europe and BP hybrids in Asia, Australia, Latin America, and Africa is essential in facilitating the interpretation of transcripts from students seeking transfers and graduate admissions.

The BP model is adopted with varying degrees of modifications by tertiary educational institutions in several countries and regions of the world. Studies show that significant differences still exist in areas such as the credit counts and degree structures among countries that have adopted the BP model and among educational establishments within countries (Eta & Vubo, 2016). As a result, convergence in the BP structures and processes throughout Europe as well as in regional higher education consortiums fashioned after the European model remains unfinished.

The Bologna model regional consortiums include the 2002 LMD (License, Mastère, Doctorat) reform in the Maghreb Countries, Latin American and the Caribbean Higher Education Area (ENLACES-IESALC), the CEMAC Higher Education Professional Training and Research Area (CHEPTRA) composed of countries of Central Africa, and the Regional Center for Higher Education and Development (RIHED) Framework for Regional Integration in Higher Education in Southeast Asia. (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia). U.S. universities receive graduate applications from thousands of students with undergraduate degrees from these Bologna-type educational systems. Knowing that these systems have their specificities and how to navigate through those specificities to reach fair admission decisions can be extremely difficult if admission official do not master the salient differences between the various. BP models.

Eta (2018) investigates the adoption and adaptation of the BP reform in the countries of Africa, focusing on Cameroon. She underscores that Anglophone universities did not have to do much adoption and adaptation because they already had the credit system and the two-tier degree structure (BA, MA, and PhD) implemented by Bologna. In contrast, Francophone universities had to adopt the credit system but at the same time modified it to accommodate the module and average system that was previously in place. The two distinct approaches to the reform implementation testify that the BP models of higher education reform outside Europe may not only vary from country to country but also within the same country. Interpreting transcripts from such countries can be complicated. American colleges and universities that attract graduate students from Europe and other countries with the BP models must make an effort to know the salient differences in degrees and transcripts from countries within Europe and outside of Europe—including the possibility of differences in transcripts from universities within the same country.

U.S. higher education leaders must be capable of interpreting the various. BP model credentials to ensure constructive and beneficial mutual exchanges in study abroad, joint and dual degree offerings, faculty and student mobility. They must also grasp the nature and extent to which tertiary education programs in diverse regions of the world are influenced by the BP. The ability of admission offices to do a sound interpretation of transcripts from international students would depend entirely on their understanding of the BP reform and the varying Bologna models used in various universities worldwide.

Although the United States remains the world’s biggest host of international students, many of whom come from countries implementing some version of the BP, it is important that its educational institutions know, understand, and respect these differences. Ignorance on the part of educational leaders, especially admissions officials, can lead to misinterpretation of qualifications with unintended consequences.

Competitive Disadvantage for the U.S. Emanating from Costs

The United States is likely to become further weakened in the competition for international students because the cost of education in the United States has surged more than 500% since 1985 (Value Colleges, 2018). Cost is having a direct effect upon access and affordability, which constitute the main reasons for the drop in the number of graduates from U.S. 4-year degree programs. The United States is significantly losing ground as the global leader in producing college graduates—ranked first in 1990, the country currently ranks 12th in graduation rates among 25- to 34-year-olds (Value Colleges, 2018). While America lags behind in college graduation rates largely due to unaffordability, the situation of Germany, the largest European country, is the complete opposite. Today, German higher education is publicly funded and students pay no tuition fees, even as the country embarks upon a large-scale internationalization of education, aided not only by the absence of tuition fees but also by its reputation for higher education quality in the sciences (Trines, 2016; Value Colleges, 2018). European countries that do charge tuition still have a big competitive advantage over the United States in terms of college affordability because the rates of tuition are insignificant compared to what students in the United States pay, including those attending state colleges and universities. In France, one of the citadels of European higher education, students pay about 200 dollars in tuition in public universities. These access-related advantages for European higher education should be a source of grave concern for U.S. higher education, especially when examined within the context of the incrementally popular Bologna models of higher education.

Even though the major outcomes of the BP reform have been the development of degree programs that are defined in terms of required credits and the introduction of a two-tiered (undergraduate/graduate) system, the new European bachelor’s degree is still different in many aspects to its United States counterpart (Assefa & Sedgwick, 2004). In the April/March issue of WENR, Assefa and Sedgwick (2004) raise the difficulty of U.S. graduate schools in evaluating potential European graduate students with the 3-year Bologna bachelor’s degree. This is particularly difficult because a U.S. bachelor’s degree typically requires the completion of 120 credits and spans 4 years. They compared a business BA program from the Kelly School of Business in Indiana and the laurea program in business administration from the Bacconi University in Italy and concluded that the Italian laurea is functionally equivalent to the U.S. bachelor’s degree. These conclusions gave the impression that the degree interpretation process could be easy. However, this is glaringly inaccurate considering that variations in quality and interpretation of the Bologna recommendations, as well as the pace of implementation of the BP, still exist among EU countries (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2015).

Focusing particularly on legal education, Terry (2007) further elaborates on the implications of the BP upon the U.S. legal education. The areas of concern for the U.S. legal education include admissions, recognition, accreditation, and quality assurance. Law schools have to decide whether or not to provide full admission or provisional admission for students coming from Europe into their JD, LLM, or SJD programs. He explains that unjustified differences exist in the admission requirements, depending on institutional policy. He contends that in the face of such discrepancies it will be necessary for the United States to come up with a common higher education policy to handle interpretation issues resulting from the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) used by the BP reform. The probability of this happening is low because collaboration between state jurisdictions is likely in America, but an overall agreement is not. In the United States, the autonomy of each institution is valued to a highly significant extent. However, even though the federal government is beginning to push for even more authority there is hardly any agreement as to how much power the federal government should have in matters of education. Assefa and Sedgwick (2004) point to an interesting future while stating that

failure to recognize the Bologna bachelor’s degree solely because it is a three-year qualification would leave United States graduate schools no choice but to reject candidates who apply for admission using these degrees, even when their records demonstrate that they have completed more than enough subjects in their discipline, have achieved the same skills and level of knowledge as their U.S. counterparts, and would very likely succeed at the graduate level. Such decisions would not only lack any academic merit, but they would also have profound and negative implications for international academic mobility. (Assefa & Sedgwick, 2004, p. 3)

According to some critics, the U.S. higher education system is characterized by considerable program and certification requirement differences between its constituent states. These occasionally lead to unnecessary re-certifications of professionals who have already undertaken the requisite training (Helguero-Balcells, 2008). The logical explanation of this is that U.S. higher education has not embraced more uniformity in important areas such as professional training. The United States stands to benefit by observing the BP reform, which seeks to strengthen and harmonize professional training to facilitate student, faculty, and labor mobility within the EU.

The worldwide spread of the BP models is the strongest indication that the reform’s outreach and the objective to improve the attractiveness of European higher education have succeeded tremendously since 1999. The corollary of this is the influx of foreign students into Europe, encouraged by the incentives in tuition and the easing of visa requirements. Helguero-Balcells (2008) argues that the United States higher education will only remain viable in the long term if there is “alignment with the Bologna Agreement” (p.1) and the strengthening of exchanges with national and international partners which would benefit all stakeholders. The problem with this proposition is that alignment with Bologna might be more of a political than educational decision, involving the 50 states of the United States—hence intricate and controversial. Rather, more cooperation with EU countries and other regions of the world, the extension of existing programs, and the creation of new ones would keep the United States more active and competitive in international higher education. Cooperation with EU countries and universities would naturally mean that the U.S. education stakeholders have to be more accepting of degrees and graduates from the Bologna model higher educational institutions.

It is difficult to predict the direction that the United States–European cooperation in higher education will take in the latter part of the 21st century. Notwithstanding this, the United States has to come up with new frameworks and legislation that would facilitate the interpretation of European qualifications—including the mobility of students and the comparability of degrees between the United States and Europe and all the other BP-related higher education systems (Adelman, 2009; Labi, 2009; Terry, 2007). The acquisition of accurate and current information and understanding of European curricula, structures, and degrees in the United States would equally facilitate the appreciation and interpretation of certificates from Bologna-style systems, such as the emerging BMD (LMD) in Africa, Asia, and Asia-Pacific countries.

Although it seems unlikely that the United States would adopt the Bologna style reform, it cannot afford to ignore its impact in the current highly internationalized and portable higher education marketplace. With higher education institutions and programs that have gained international reputation, there may be little motivation for the U.S. colleges and universities to be interested in the Bologna models. Despite costs that put the U.S. tertiary education institutions at a competitive disadvantage, quality remains the forte of the U.S. models. In his criticism of the initial tepid U.S. response to the BP, Adelman (2009) contended that “such purblind stances are unforgiveable in a world without borders” (p.8). In other words, he was saying that a war against higher education internationalization is a losing one.

The economic and cultural benefits of internationalization in higher education far outweigh the disadvantages, which explains why the European BP has invested and continues to invest in it. The competition among continental European countries and with other attractive Bologna models in Eastern Europe, Asia-Pacific, and Africa and Latin America makes it illogical for the United States to take for granted its leading role in international higher education. Since the inception of the BP, prospective international students now have many attractive alternatives from which to choose. Urias and Yeakey (2009) point out that other countries have used the opportunity created by the tightening of screening procedures and visa issuance by the U.S. government to attract international students to their own educational, scientific, and technical institutions. The United States needs to strike a delicate balance between ensuring its security amid terrorist threats and participating in the global community in a way which empowers Americans to compete in a global workforce, while also being open, accessible, and attractive to the world’s best talent and future leaders (Johnson, 2009).

Summary

In recent years, the United States has lost some of its competitive edge as the primary destination of choice for international students. This trend is partially stemming from the incremental successes of the BP outreach. The steady increase of English language programs in universities across continental Europe and the adoption of BP models that facilitate degree interpretations and transferability as well as student and faculty mobility have undoubtedly improved the appeal of European degrees inside Europe and beyond. BP-inspired programs have continued to act as a magnet for many international students, who before 1999 were mostly attracted to the United States of America and the United Kingdom. A review of pre-BP and post-BP reform indicate that the ongoing progress in international interpretation and recognition of diplomas and degrees and the global improvements in quality assurance mechanisms are not unrelated to the reform. Research into the impact of the BP on international higher education suggests that the reform has significantly improved the competitiveness of European higher education (Mngo, 2011).

Although the attractiveness of European higher education since the adoption of the BP is undeniable, it would be presumptuous to link every trend in international students’ admissions in the U.S. tertiary educational institutions to the BP effect. Trines (2017) attributed the decline in the number of students from the top 24 sending countries—by 1,900 (1.85%) from November 2016 to April 2017—to the “Trump effect.” He argues that the dip, even though small, represents the most significant downward fluctuation between fall and spring quarters since 2014, the first year SEVIS data were made available online. Recent drops in international student enrollments, particularly from 2016 to 2021, are not unconnected with the stringent Trump administration immigration visa policies, rising costs, and travel bands triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic. Notwithstanding, U.S. colleges and universities continue to win the inconspicuous competition for international students even when periodical drops in enrollments happen (NCES, 2017).

If partner organizations such as the European Union, the European Commission, and European governments continue to invest in higher education exchange and collaboration, the popularity of European higher education would continue to grow. To remain competitive, American higher educational institutions, states, and the federal government must find quick solutions to rising costs in higher education and ease stringent visa policies. Besides, admissions officials must be well-informed of the diverse versions of the BP style reforms implemented in the various regions of the globe. Understanding these differences that are sometimes intricate would help inform and facilitate degree and transcript interpretations and cooperation with BP-model higher educational institutions worldwide.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Zachary Mngo

References

Adelman

(2009). The Bologna Process for U.S. eyes: Re-learning higher education in the age of convergence. Institute for Higher Education Policy.

Altbach

P. G.

(1991). Patterns in higher education development: Toward the year 2000. Review of Higher Education, 56(3), 241–280.

Altbach

P. G.

(2004). Globalization and the university: Myths and realities in an unequal world. Tertiary Education and Management, 10(1), 3–25.

Altbach

P. G.

Knight

(2007). The internationalization of higher education: Motivations and realities. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 290–305.

Armstrong

(2009). The Bologna Process: A significant step in the modularization of higher education. World Education News and Reviews, 22(3).

Assefa

Sedgwick

(2004). Evaluating the Bologna degree in the U.S. World Education News & Reviews, 17(92). http://www.wes.org/ewenr/04March/Feature.htm

AUCC Report. (2009). The Bologna Process and implications for Canada’s universities. A report of the 2009 AUUC Symposium. AUCC Publications. http://www.aucc.ca/publications/auccpubs/brochures/bologna_report_e.html

Auden

W. H.

(1937). Journey to Iceland: Letters from Iceland. Faber & Faber. http://www.brisbanecommunique.deewr.gov.au/

Bologna Declaration. (1999, June). Joint declaration of the European ministers of education. The European Higher Education Area.

10.

Bond

(2003). Untapped resources. Internationalization of the curriculum and classroom experience: A selected literature review (CBIE Research Millennium Series, 7, 15). Canada Bureau of International Education.

11.

Brennan

Locke

Naidoo

(2007). United Kingdom: An increasingly differentiated profession. In Locke

Teichler

(Eds.), The changing conditions for academic work and careers in select countries (pp. 262–276). International Centre for Higher Education Research.

12.

Burn

(1980). Explaining the international dimension of higher education. Jossey-Bass.

13.

Chang

F. F. C.

(2004). Instructors’ perceptions of higher technological and vocational education reform in Taiwan, the Republic of China (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3169553).

14.

Clark

(2007). The impact of the Bologna Process beyond Europe, part II. World Education News & Reviews, 20(9). http://www.wes.org/ewenr/bolognaprocess.htm

15.

Clark

(2014). Towards a European higher education area: 15 years of Bologna. World Education News and Reviews.

16.

Courts

A. D.

(2004). Internationalizing an institution: An emerging model of effective leadership, infrastructure, and cultural factors (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3162073).

17.

Douglass

J. A.

Edelstein

(2009). The global competition for talent: The rapidly changing market for international students and the need for a strategic approach in the U.S. Center for Studies in Higher Education, 8(9), 1–14.

18.

Egron-Polak

(2008, May). The Bologna Process: Reflections from the international HEI perspective. Paris: International Association of Universities.

19.

Eta

E. B.

(2018). Educational policy borrowing: Adoption and adaption of BP ideas in the Cameroonian HE system (Doctoral dissertation). University of Turku, University of Turku Press: Turku, Finland).

20.

Eta

E. B.

Vubo

E. Y.

(2016). Global references, local translation: Adaptation of the Bologna Process degree structure and credit system at universities in Cameroon. Globalisation, Societies and Education, 14(4), 492–512.

21.

European Commission. (2013). Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: European higher education in the world. COM, 2013, 99.

22.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2015). The European higher education area in 2015: Bologna Process implementation report. Publications Office of the European Union.

23.

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice. (2018). The European higher education area in 2018: Bologna Process implementation report. Publications Office of the European Union.

24.

European Higher Education Area. (2020). The European Higher Education Area and Bologna Process. http://www.ehea.info/page-full_members

25.

Fielden

(2001). Markets for “borderless education.” Minerva, 39(1), 49–62.

26.

Forest

(2004). Globalization and public policy trends in higher education: A comparative analysis. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p59500_index.html

27.

Gardner

Witherell

(2003). Open doors 2003: International students in the U.S. A Report of the Institute of International Education-IIE. http://opendoors.iienetwork.org/?p=36523

28.

Helguero-Balcells

(2008). The Bologna declaration agreement impact on U.S. higher education: Recommendations for integration. The International Journal of Learning, 10(16), 241–252.

29.

Institute of International Education (IIE) and the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. (2017). Report on international educational exchange. Open doors report. http://www.iie.org/opendoors

30.

Johnson

V. C.

(2009, December). A visa and immigration policy for the brain-circulation era: Adjusting to what happened in the world while we were making other plans. NAFSA e-Publications. www.nafasa.org

31.

Ka-ho Mok

Lee

(2001). Globalization and changing governance: Higher education reforms in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China. Paper presented to the Australian Association for Research in Education 2001 Conference. http://www.aare.edu.au/01pap/mok01403.htm

32.

Labi

(2007). Europe challenges the U.S. for foreign students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 54(5), A29.

33.

Labi

(2009). European colleges lead U.S. in international dual-degree programs, study finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(22), A26.

34.

Loo

(2018). Education in the United States of America. Word Education News and Reviews. WES. Retrieved from https://wenr.wes.org/2018/06/education-in-the-united-states-of-america

35.

McCormack

(2005). Enrollment of foreign students falls for a second year. Chronicles of Higher Education: International, 52(13), A1.

36.

Mngo

(2011). Instructors’ perceptions of the Bologna model of higher education reform in Cameroon [Doctoral dissertation]. Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.

37.

Murray

J. A.

(2020). Revive and restore international education impacted by COVID-19. NAFSA Issue Briefs. https://www.nafsa.org/sites/default/files/media/document/issue-brief-covid-19-revive-ie.pdf

38.

Petersons. (2017). U.S. graduate admissions: The impact of Bologna. https://www.petersons.com/blog/U.S.-graduate-admission-the-impact-of-the-bologna-process/

39.

Prague Report. (2009, February 13). The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) In a global context: Report on overall developments at the European, National and Institutional Levels. Australian Federal Ministry of Science and Research.

40.

Reichert

Tauch

(2003). Trends 2003. Progress towards the European higher education area. Bologna four years after: Steps toward sustainable reform of higher education in Europe. European University Association.

41.

Reimers

(2009). Global competency is imperative for global success. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(21), A29.

42.

Reinalda

Kulesza

(2006). Bologna Process: Harmonizing Europe’s higher education (2nd rev. ed.). Barbara Budrich.

43.

Ross

(2008). The offshore models for universities. Liberal Educator, 9(4), 34–39.

44.

Terry

L. S.

(2007). The Bologna Process and its implications for U.S. Legal Education. Journal of Legal Education, 57(2), 237–252.

45.

Trines

(2016). Education in Germany. World Education News and Reviews. https://wenr.wes.org/2016/11/education-in-germany

46.

Trines

(2017). SEVIS data points to declining enrollments from key countries. World Education News and Reviews. https://wenr.wes.org/2017/06/sevis-data-points-to-declining-enrollments-from-key-countries

47.

Urias

Yeakey

C. C.

(2009). Analysis of the U.S. student visa system: Misperceptions, barriers, and consequences. Journal of International Education, 12(1), 72.

48.

Value Colleges. (2018). College access and affordability: U.S.A vs. the world. https://www.valuecolleges.com/collegecosts/

49.

WTO Council for Trade in Services. (1998, September). Education services: Background note by the Secretariat. www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/serv_e/w49.doc

50.

Zgaga

(2006). “External dimension” of the Bologna Process (1st Report on the External Dimension of the Bologna Process) [Report from Athens Seminar]. The Working Group.