This is a very complex subject to be answered.

The principal idea of having a system of easily understandable and comparable degrees in all countries (at least in Europe) is a good one. However, politicians have missed to clearly identify what they mean by their requirements, and the same criticism goes to industry.

As a result, we have got a system with degrees that have the same names (bachelor degrees and master degrees). However, the learning objectives that are claimed to be achieved by the respective courses are more diverse than ever.

Another objective was introduced by industrial lobbyists: they required to shift training tasks from enterprises to universities in order to save money. At the same time, they required to condense syllabi in order to have specilists longer on the employment market and to obtain younger job beginners. Since a shorter time for studies is less expensive, this seemed to cheapen studies.

However, hat all these "experts" forgot: learning needs time. Therefore, if we reduce studay time of a well-designed course program, this can only be achieved by reducing learning objectives. This is what András appears to experience now.

At least in engineering, a three-years stuy course program is too short. Or to use the words of an American colleague: you cannot pack 5 kg potatoes into a 3kg sack.

The only good answer to complaints is therefore: extend a bachelor course program to an appropriate time of studies. Then you will get engineers with engineering skills.

Sorry for the typos

Dear Michael,

Many thanks for your experience and contribution for this thread. I can but agree with you. I think the higher education reform of EU has been too hasty and the well acknowledged continental training was sacrificed for the Anglo-Saxon style.

Dear András,

Thank you for starting this debate. Unfortunately, our colleagues do not dare to express criticisms.

And unfortunately, politicians appear not to have learnt, since they are going to extend the Bologna process: at the moment, they would like to formalize the doctoral phase, which at least engineers in my country do not see as another step of education, but as a first phase in a scientifically (and practically) oriented phase of professional carrier.

Politicians attempt to compare apples and oranges: They compare a medical doctorate (questionable scientific methods, extremely short duration) and the doctorate in engineering or physics (strictly science based, therefore often long duration). They compare the docorate in history (no real guidance, no contract, often strong personal dependence on supervisor) and a doctorate in a funded research program (guidance by team management, contract with social security, transparency of results) on a purely formal basis.

Sometimes, I have a suspicion that they have unlearnt critical thinking.

Dear András: The first cycle of studies in my Department (BSc degree) is currently just a solid base academic formation (3 years). Forgetting the academic titles - the current master (after concluding the second cycle of studies) is more or less equivalent to the previous graduate - what we did was basically shortened 5 years to 4.5 years of curricular disciplines, and free a semester for developing a research work leading to a Master Thesis. Of course that not everything was perfect, but the path is made walking (with small adjustments according to the observed experience). In my opinion, the final result of the 5 years of studies has not only more potential as it is already effectively better.

Dear Antonio,

Thanks for your contribution. I think the efficiency of a teaching mode or training version can be evaluated mainly by the “users” I mean by the society (producers, firms, all kinds of areas where the new degree holders can work). As to the Hungarian agricultural BSc degree holders, according to many leaders of agricultural corporations, producers etc., they – agricultural BSc graduates - are unsuitable for the practice.   

Dear András,

am I satisfied with it? I'm dissatisfied: it is necessary 5 years for studying at institute or university in order to become a specialist. So I consider the former educational system (as it was, for example, in the Soviet Union) to be the better than the modern ("Bolognian") one. Developing the pseudo-European syndrome, the Ministry of Education and Science (!!) of my country threw out  its best child - national education - together with dirty water.    

Meanwhile, at least concerning engineering degrees, industry recognizes that they do no longer get graduates with the skills and competences, the "old-style" graduates had.

Professors in Germany had predicted this (and more). But they were ignored by an unholy alliance of managers of international groups of companies and naive politicians. They all thought they could save money.

However, since these politicians talked big, they cannot admit that they were wrong. Instead, they say universties had done wrong. We will need another twenty years, until the worst consequences of these bad reforms will be overcome.

I agree with the words of Professor Hoffmann. We tryed to explain our position, too, but our "naive" polititians didn't hear us. Now other polititians start to say that the former educational system wasn't bad and so on... But the budget money have been already spent not for supporting the certain university faculties but for a impersonal "reformation". Now the situation changes but not fastly.

Thanks for agreeing and upvoting, Dr. Laguta.

Maybe I should add another point. Politicians say: The duration of a sequence of a bachelor and a master degree with a total duration of five years be even half a year longer than the old Diplom-degree (or comparable degrees in the countries of East-Europe). From a naive point of view, they are right.

However, what they forget is that the shorter bachelor degree requires employability, which makes courses of practical application necessary at a very early stage. Therefore, a sound background in theory cannot be given within three years in many disciplines. Since then a good part of background knowledge is not applied during three months after learning, it will be forgotten (this is what modern neurosciences tell us). And therefore, in a master course program, it must be learnt newly, which in summary takes more time, as compared to a study program that is optimized for a five-years-duration.

For countries, in which studying is paid (nearly) completely privately, it is necessary for most students to keep the duration of studies as short as possible. Most US-American students start in their professional lifes with a lot of debts, for example.

However, can we afford in the future to do without a majority of well-educated people? Certainly not in a country without natural resources (like Germany). And certainly not in the future, were huge challenges wait for us, e.g. because of climate change, or due to the increasing world population.

Dear András: My first answer was related with the former degree in Civil Engineering (CYCLE OF STUDIES OF 5 YEARS) in my country before Bologna reform (Bologna Process), and the current Integrated Master's degree in Civil Engineering (CYCLES OF STUDIES OF 3+2 YEARS). I never had experience with technical degrees, particularly the former BSc.

Dear Olga and Michael,

I agree with your opinions and thanks for them. I hope, your arguments help others to recognise the real situation behind the Potemkin walls of some EU directives.