and Master Programmes in German Higher Education Institutions

ing place. On the other hand, only 21% of Fachhochschul management, but about half ofuniversity and TU management is clearly against the comprehensive introduction of B/M.This might be due to the wider range of subject areas in the university sector that includessubject areas that are clearly opposed to the introduction of B/M, such as Music and Arts, aswell as areas in which it is yet disputed if a Bachelor-Master–structure makes sense, such astheology or teacher education (Chapter 4).9.3.2 Replacement versus parallel structuresAcross sectors, only a small minority of 5 to 7% of institutions indicated that traditionaldegrees are already being replaced by B/M. A larger group reported that parallel systemsare so far maintained, but that this would change in the medium run: 18% of FHs, 16% ofuniversities and 13% of TUs gave this answer. Interestingly, only in the university sector domanagement’s aims reach significantly beyond the status quo: 14% of university managementaim for a replacement the traditional degrees by B/M. So far, there is clearly no majorityamong institutional management for a complete move to the new system. To the contrary:43% of FH management, 38% of TU and 11% of university management want tomaintain parallel systems (Chapter 4). The strong opposition in the FH sector might be explainedby the fact that the FH Diplom is positioned between the Bachelor and the Masterlevel and that Fachhochschulen do not want to give up their traditional degree and the levelof qualification attached to it. In the university sector, where the traditional Diplom andMagister degrees are comparable to the Master, this problem is less acute.9.3.3 Theoretical versus applied orientationThis question draws its high political relevance from the fact that it carries the potential fora blurring of the traditional borderlines between the university and the FH sector. In thetraditional system, the theoretical or applied nature of a programme was determined on thebasis of the sector that the granting institution belonged to: University degrees were bydefinition assumed to be theoretical or research oriented, while FH degrees where assumedto be applied in nature. The KMK framework allows institutions to determine the profile oftheir B/M themselves and to signal that profile in the choice of the degree title. As can beexpected, FHs make significant use of the new possibilities: for 29% of their Bachelor and35% of their Master programmes, FHs choose degree titles signalling theory-orientation(BA, BSc, MA, MSc). Universities, on the other hand, are far less keen on signalling applicability:For only 5% of their programmes, universities choose degree titles signalling anapplied nature (Bachelor/Master of (...)). Another 5% of university Master degrees areMBAs (Chapter 3). It is interesting to compare these choices to the way institutions describethe nature of their programmes: far more than 5% of universities, namely 20%, describetheir B/M degrees as predominantly professionally oriented, while only 9% of FHsdescribe their B/M degree programmes as predominantly theory or research oriented(Chapter 4). These observations confirm the fact that “theory” is still considered to be superiorto “application” in the minds of the majority of institutions – in spite of the fact that theaccreditation council (2001) has rightly questioned the distinction.9.3.4 Interdisciplinary versus subject-specific orientationThe Science Council (2000) sees the increase of interdisciplinary contents as one of theaims to be pursued by the introduction of B/M. At the same time, the KMK (1999) prescribesthat Bachelor degrees should concentrate on one core discipline. The accreditation64