and Master Programmes in German Higher Education Institutions

clearly defined, three mentioned that quality should be measured ex-ante rather than expost,two mentioned that too many special interest groups are involved in defining quality,and one mentioned that the evaluation shouldn’t be limited to individual study programmesbut should be carried out for whole subject areas. Three respondents mentioned that theprocess should be voluntary, and four respondents said that their institutions are (currently)subjected to double quality procedures—accreditation and Land study programme recognitionprocedures. One respondent mentioned that the function of accreditation should be different—morerelated to the marketing strategy of the institution (rather than as a prerequisitefor state recognition of programmes), and should increase the freedom of institutions.One respondent complained that the rather administrative/bureaucratic approach to accreditationis detrimental to innovative/experimental aspects of B/M.In light of the small number of B/M accredited so far, we asked if the institutions are or willbe seeking to accredit (additional) Bachelor and Master programmes. The large majority ofrespondents in all three sectors 68 indicated that their institutions would be seeking to accreditprogrammes through the national accrediting agencies (the Akkreditierungsrat, orfrom agencies licensed by this organisation). Only a few institutions (7 or 13% in the FHsector, 3 or 5% in the university sector, and 1 or 6% in among the TUs) indicated that theywould be seeking to accredit Bachelor and Master programmes through other agencies. Afew respondents (5 or 9% in the FH sector, 10 or 18% in the university sector, and 2 or 13%in among the TUs) indicated that their institutions would not be seeking to accredit (further)Bachelor and Master programmes, but would be taking another approach to quality assurance.The most frequently-mentioned other approach to quality assessment (6 institutions)involved internal procedures. Two respondents mentioned state degree recognition procedures,two mentioned student evaluations, and two mentioned evaluation within a networkof institutions. Single respondents mentioned other procedures: subject-area reviews,teacher evaluation, work with alumni, and evaluation based on basic quality standards of theold programmes. One respondent mentioned wishing to pursue partial accreditation in combinationwith building up a good institutional image.Table 42: Will your institution be seeking to accredit (further) B/M programmes? Responsesby sector; number and percentage givenYes, using nationalaccreditation agenciesYes, through otheragenciesFH 42 (75%) 7 (13%) 5 (9%)Uni 37 (66%) 3 (5%) 10 (18%)TU 14 (88%) 1 (6%) 2 (13%)Multiple answer possible. Source: CHEPS/CHE Survey data.No, following anotherapproach to qualityassurance8.2 FundingOur survey asked respondents to indicate whether or not additional (external) funding hadbeen received for the development of Bachelor and Master degree programmes 69 . In the68 42 or 75% in FH sector, 37 or 66% in the university sector, and 14 or 88% in the TU sector69 Multiple answer possible here, so totals do not add up to 100%.56