and Master Programmes in German Higher Education Institutions

(and consequent changes in the higher education act) was defined. Consequently, nationalpolicy and legal frameworks were more explicit when the German institutions started theirinitiatives, than when the Dutch institutions initiated this reform. Besides, special (temporary)funding for these initiatives stimulated German institutions, whereas the funding conditionswere less certain for the Dutch institutions by the time the survey was undertaken.This was considered as one of the main problems in the development of the new structure.The government allocated an extra (ad hoc) budget for the development of the new programmesonly in the course of 2001. It seems that the Dutch institutions needed fewer stimulifor taking up this reform. However, it should be mentioned that as part of the internationalisationpolicy of the 1990s Dutch institutions had already benefited from some extrafunding for the development of international programmes.In Germany, Fachhochschule seem to be relatively more active in this reform, as they seethis as a means to achieve equivalency of their degrees with those of universities. Theyshare this ambitions with their Dutch colleagues from the Hogscholen, who have also beenquite active in launching master programmes in particula. In the Dutch case, this activity ishowever concentrated in a limited number of quite large institutions. Overall, the hogescholenwere less advanced in their policy development that the universities by the timeof the survey. The coordination of the implementation of the new structure at the centralinstitutional level seems to be more pronounced in the Netherlands than in Germany, wheredecision making is very decentralised. It cannot be denied that actual curriculum-level decisionsare also taken at decentral level in Dutch institutions. However, as it considers here acomprehensive and less voluntary process, central level involvement is stronger.The current situation in Germany, where bachelor-master programmes exist as a relativelyminor provision (9.7%) of the total supply of programmes, is comparable to that in theNetherlands some years ago. An important difference, however, is that the then existingDutch programmes were not accredited (except some international accreditations). Like inGermany the bachelor and master programmes were often targeted at international studentsin particular. Many Dutch institutions experienced the disadvantage of this parallel situationin terms of a weak integration of foreign and domestic students and in terms of low costeffectiveness(enrolment was not always optimal and more or less the same programmeswere sometimes offered parallel in different languages). With the integral introduction ofbachelor and master programmes, institutions now hope to solve these problems.Inefficiency or low cost-effectiveness may well become a problem in Germany too. At presentsome 18.000 students are enrolled in some 900 new bachelor-master programmes,which corresponds to some 20 students per programme, spread over the 1-4 study years thatthe programme may offer. Supply is growing substantially, while demand is in principlestable (except from the foreign students which may be more effectively attracted by the newprogrammes). Prospects for student inflow are positive (towards 15-30% in the comingyears). But as student-staff ratios are generally expected to remain lower than in the traditionalprogrammes (which is obviously seen as positive from a quality perspective), a reconsiderationof the parallel structure from a financial-economic point of view seems inevitablein the years to come (see also below under funding). Also in the Netherlands, efficiencymay become an issue, as a growth in supply is expected by all institutions. Thisgrowth seems to be concentrated at the master’s level, where 80% of hogescholen and 92%of the institutions expect their programme offerings to increase.74