Vrije Universiteit BrusselFilip Callewaert

Management of the Partnership

2

Overall objective

Management of the partnership and decision making boards

Promotion and visibility of the programme

Methodology for the management of mobility and student selection

3

1. Management of the partnership and decision making boards

4

The formation of the consortium

Egypt, Israel, Palestinian Territories (West-Bank and Gaza)

Palestinian U. : principles (Birzeit) But: a lot of candidates (TG1 – TG2)

Egyptian U.: problems with involvement of Israel Few candidates April 07: visit to Egyptian partners; discussion of proposal

5

Needs analysis

Egypt & Palestinian T.: starting-point = needs: Capacity building (faculty development

programmes) Introduction of new programmes More focused educational portfolio

Israel: // Erasmus LLP partner: any discipline mobility

6

EU partners

Existing relationships with 3rd country partnersFocus on traditional partners

UNICA network, EuropeAid partners etc.Answer to needs of 3rd country partners

7

=> Erasmus Mundus University II

8

Decision taking & Action

proposal eg. Institution’s Mobility Flow

9

Institution’s Mobility Flow

10

Worries: Mid June: surprise & concern

Time schedule General:

Degree-seeking students + 1-year programme Credit Transfer students needed to start in Sept/Oct 2007

Call/Application/Selection/Admission = 6 months > 1.5 months

Visa Application: 2 months

Particularities: Strikes in IL No electricity in Gaza Holidays everywhere (also embassies…)

11

Worries: Mid June: surprise & concern

Experimental character Credit transfer programmes Curriculum (in)compatibilities

Quality

12

Decision taking & Action

start call & preselection protocols: to be discussed

steering committee (but: holidays…) e-mail / phone calls / fax intranet

Pull / Push

importance of LIVE meetings absence of Palestinians (in all cases: Gaza)

13

Meetings

April 07: visit to Egyptian partners (TG1 and TG2)July: Rome meeting: representatives from IL, EG, EUAugust: visit to selection of IL, PA partnersSeptember: Brussels meeting with all partnersSeptember: Lille meeting with TG2 EGSeptember: Paris meeting with PA (P.E.A.C.E. meeting)November: visit to selection of EG partners (also TG2)December 07: visit to selection of EU partnersJanuary 08: Steering Committee meetingMarch 08: visit to selection of EU partnersApril 08: EG meeting (or Turkey)

14

Meetings

15

Decision taking & Action

importance of having the EMECW implementation situated in a clear institutional structure

International office or other central academic office Clear mandate towards executives Visible responsibility Support of institutional governors

16

Decision taking: Lessons learned

Do not overestimate Pull-technology Do not overestimate Electronic communication Have live meetings Institutional mandate for executives

17

2. Promotion and visibility of the programme

18

Promotion

As 75 % of mobility flow is TG 1: major responsibility at TG1 institutions TG2: “preferential” TG2-partners TG3: associate partners: GUPS, PEACE, …

No open national calls, but open institutional calls

19

Websites

Central: www.erasmusmundus2.eu

20

Websites: central

21

Websites: local; eg. www.ccast.edu.ps/emu2

22

Ad Valvas

23

Magazines

E.g. Local: American University Cairo:AUC Weekly

VUB: electronic newsletter

24

Promotion & visibility

Towards local programmes: Importance of ECTS information package!

Educational portfolio Mainly in case of credit transfer!

25

Promotion & visibility

Timing

26

3. Methodology for the management of mobility and student selection

27

Management software

The planned use of MoveOn / MoveIn failed- MoveOn : for the management of mobility- MoveIn: for the management of the application/selection process

Main reason: software not intended for consortia but only for one single institution and Unisolution could not manage to alter it in time

28

Management software

Registration/application module in our CMS website (Joomla based) www.erasmusmundus2.eu

Before 10 July, 148 people applied online for the first call (Ba/Ma level).

29

Management of mobility

an exchange server and ftp server was set up for mail and internal document management (eg. application workflow);

central databases were set up to manage, update and communicate scholarship availability and granting

E-banking software was introduced

30

Selection: BA/MA

Preselection by partners Impartial selection committee + procedure:

report! Ranking sent to HQ ; HQs dispatch

Final admission by hosting academics

Limited exceptional PRIORITY scheme allowed in framework of faculty building programmes

31

Selection BA/MA: TG1, 1st call: BA/MA

32

Selection BA/MA: transparancy & equal treatment

- Reporting- Number of candidates = 3x scholarships available

33

For instance, the Community College of Applied Science and Technology (CCAST, Gaza) appealed to the following criteria and weighting:

• Qualification General Grade (Excellent: 9 points / Very Good: 6 / Good: 4)

• Language (Qualification with the required level: 7 / Qualification below the required level: 4 / Without qualification but with excellent CCAST English test: 3 / Without qualification but with very good CCAST English test: 2 / Without qualification but with good CCAST English test: 1)

• Academic experience (1 point per year, maximally 9)• Motivation (maximally 5)

Selection BA/MA: CCAST

34

Selection: group mobility

- Selection done at home university

35

Selection: PhD

- Strategic use of scholarships: faculty development programmes (instructors as candidates)

- Recommendation letters- Final acceptance: by hosting academic

36

Selection: postdocs & academic staff

- strategically: they have a mission in the future of EMECW project, supported by institutional governors

- Faculty development programmes

37

Selection: TG2

- Cfr. TG1, with limited number of TG2 partners

38

Selection: TG3

- Palestinian refugees- Reside in EU- Recommended by home university

39

Conclusions: specific

- Management of partnership- Specific problems due to regional

compostion- Meet- EMECW in organisational structure of

institution

40

Conclusions: specific

- Promotion- Start in time- Programme still unknown; profit in future

from built up resonance now

41

Conclusions: specific

- Selection & management of mobility- Software?!

42

Conclusions: General

- Learning process; hope to be able to use the lessons learnt in the future

- ‘Of mice and men’: schemes do not always turn out as planned, in this case mainly due to tight time schedule