broucker & jans (2012)_boundaries_associated_with_massification_of_higher_education

1 Boundaries associated with massification of higher education: A growing need for student orientation?

Boundaries associated with massification of higher education: A growing need for student orientation?

Paper presented in track 4 on ‘Promoting higher education in decades of open access’ at the

EAIR 34th Annual Forum in Stavanger, Norway

5-8 September 2012

Name of Author(s)

Nathalie Jans Bruno Broucker

Contact Details

Nathalie Jans University of Leuven (KU Leuven) Krakenstraat 3, PO Box 5200 3000 Leuven Belgium E-mail: [email protected] Key words Higher education policy; National systems of higher education; Non-completion and

progression; Student recruitment and selection; Widening access/ participation.


Abstract Boundaries associated with massification of higher education: A growing need for student orientation? This paper examines the spectacular growth of higher education enrolment in Flanders (Belgium) as a

consequence of the democratization of education, globalization processes (e.g. Bologna) and the rise

of the knowledge economy. Simultaneously, Flemish higher education institutions suffer from

declining success rates of first-generation students. These facts exemplify a conflicting trend. The

persistent nature of this problem and its effects (i.e. workload of university staff and societal costs)

urge policy makers and higher education institutions for an appropriate response.

In our policy paper, we will describe the boundaries of the massification of higher education and

consequently discuss the necessity of student orientation as a suitable answer to this problem.

Adequate student orientation will enable students to make enhanced choice of study course,

depending on both the student’s capabilities and his personal interests.


Presentation Boundaries associated with massification of higher education: A growing need for student orientation?

Introduction Based on information from the Flemish ministry of education (Databank Tertiair Onderwijs), the number of

students that enter higher education (HE) is continuously increasing, with rates of respectively 4% and 6%

in the last two years. At the same time, the success rates of students entering the first year in Flemish

universities have dropped to their lowest levels, with no substantial improvements expected in the near

future (e.g. Declercq & Verboven, 2010). Of all first-generation students merely 28% do well for all courses,

while 13% do not pass a single course. Furthermore, flexibility associated with the current system coincides

with a longer study duration before obtaining a HE degree.

These facts clearly illustrate a conflicting trend. On the one hand, the HE system in Flanders has evolved

over time by becoming more accessible and attracting more students, which suggests positive effects from

the massification of HEI . On the other hand, this process is not followed by a similar evolution in study

success rate among students. Consequently, the workload of university staff and the societal cost of

education have increased and therefore these issues have been given high priority on policy agendas. The

fundamental question is to what extent the current system is confronted with the boundaries of its open

access and as such, whether the Flemish government should impose guidance and direction to make an

enhanced choice of study course at the entrance stage of HE. The aim of this article is to focus on the

existing problem, by investigating the necessity of intensified orientation of high school graduates in order

to avoid failure at the university level. Therefore, first, the literature on massification (macro level) and high

school students’ decision-making processes (micro level) is summarized and used to describe the context of

the Flemish case. Second, European admission policies are analysed. The analysis shows why an active

student orientation policy may be necessary to support students’ transition to higher education in Flanders.

It is then examined how this could be applied to the current situation in Flanders.

The massification of higher education institutions Worldwide, the higher education landscape has been transformed by national and international

developments, such as globalization and technological evolution.1 As a result, enrolment rates in higher

education have substantially grown during the last ten years. Figure 1 illustrates the move towards the

massification of HE in Europe (Eurydice, 2012a, p. 21).


Figure 1: Enrolment in HE for the 18-34 years old (% of the total population), 1999-2009

This rapid expansion in student HE enrolment in the latter part of the twentieth century in virtually all

developed countries has been extensively described in higher education research literature as the process

of ‘massification’ (Scott, 1995). This massification of HEI has been driven by several largely independent

factors: the ongoing democratization of society and politics; increased demand for white collar workers

(and university graduates) by the growing public sector and for more highly skilled and educated workers

by an expanding industrial economy; the general belief that a supply of educated manpower is pivotal for

further economic development and finally the attractiveness of education itself as a major element of the

new welfare states, sustaining and legitimating democratic societies (Gibbons, 1998, p. 11).

As a result, the massification can be considered at the same time as an answer to societal demands, but

also as one of the most prominent challenges in higher education. The democratization of education and

globalization processes (Bologna) represent the most prominent issues currently challenging higher

education, with a tendency of a global mass demand and mass intake into HE institutions that has to be


dealt with. These processes have unequivocally generated new opportunities for students and higher

education institutions, and have conferred advantages to society: contribution to the countries’

macroeconomic growth and support of technological developments and innovations. Despite the

numerous benefits of open access, the observed shift towards a strong quantitative growth in student

enrolment may lead to tensions in terms of quality, efficiency or equality of opportunity in the higher

education system. Focusing on the challenges and difficulties emerging from the ongoing expansion of

higher education is imperative to further improve the system and to preserve the benefits.

Young adolescents more frequently enter higher education but this trend does not necessarily imply

further democratization of education, given that inequality in participation rates remains to exist (Groenez,

2008). Hence, a first major challenge is to sufficiently stimulate the participation of underrepresented

population groups to a level that is proportional to their presence in the general population, in order to

maximally ensure equality of opportunities. Students from lower social class make more often the

transition to higher education, but a similar evolution is observed for students from higher social class.

Consequently, the net result is a status quo. Although massification itself constitutes an objective, achieving

this goal is not sufficient when aiming for enhanced democratization (Groenez, 2008).

Moreover, the student population entering higher education has become more heterogeneous with varying

levels of academic preparation, interests, expectations and student characteristics. This population is

consisted of a high proportion of “non-traditional students” including students from older age groups and

students that combine studies with full time employment, adding the element of lifelong learning.

Similar to other countries, certain limits has been reached for the HE system in Flanders, where the

demand for higher education exceeds the boundaries of massification and where mass enrolment has

affected higher education. Two more elements can be identified, which will be described in more detail in

the section that applies to the Flemish case study. First, the perception exists that an increase in student

population heterogeneity (e.g. previous education, socio-economic background, …) further complicates the

preservation of the quality of higher education. Expansion of higher education puts a burden on current

staff in terms of workload and pressure. Simultaneously, staff-student ratios have declined since the

augmentation of funding did not keep up with the rise in student enrolment. The increased workload

involves a greater demand for student counseling and monitoring services, as well as a substantial

adaptation of teaching and examination methods. Second, we observe low success rates of first year

students at Flemish universities, partially due to wrong study choices and expectations, rendering the first

year at HE as a kind of ‘suitability test’ (VLOR, 2010; VLIR, 2012).

In the end, the fundamental question currently arising is how these problems can be worked out, in order

to maintain an educational system of high quality that can keep up with the needs of an ever more diverse

group of learners and with societal needs. Furthermore, movements towards more flexibility have raised

the need for student support. Inevitably, offering students more choices and more flexible pathways needs

to be balanced by giving students adequate and correct information and support. We discuss this problem

more thoroughly in later sections of this article.

Indecisiveness and high school students’ decision-making process

For many young adolescents, the preferred life trajectory is characterized as a linear model of first

obtaining a high school degree, graduating from a HE institution and finally entering the labour market

(Higgins & Nairn, 2006). However, the transition to HE is a stressful experience for many high school


students (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2006). The bachelor program they enroll for is largely decisive for their

development and long-term success. In Flemish universities, we note that a proportion of high school

students often start too ambitiously, partially influenced by the expectations of their parents and the

society. Since proceeding to higher education is easily taken for granted, without a proper self-reflection on

own personal interests and competencies, a discrepancy between student’s expectations, capabilities and

the return-on-investment often occurs. Low success rates of first-generation students imply that many

students start with high expectations but leave without earning a degree in the preferred program or that

students only succeed with a substantial extension of the required study time. As a result, the initial phase

of higher education is used as a suitability test.

Given that many factors predictive for study success rates in higher education have been previously

identified, a situation as described above could be prevented when these correlates are appropriately

considered or addressed (Tinto, 1975; Ortiz & Dehon, 2008; Ozga & Sukhnandan, 1998). These factors can

be classified into three groups. The first group includes family-specific structural and cultural

characteristics. For example, the incompatibility between the values set by the institution, generally

corresponding to those of middle and higher class of society, and the students’ ideological expectations

dictated by their social, cultural and familial background can have a detrimental effect on the student’s

well-being and the motivation to learn (Groenez, Nicaise, & De Rick, 2009; Verhoeven, Devos, Stassen, &

Warmoes, 2003). Furthermore, the decision-making process of high school students is also affected by the

presence of role models in their immediate surroundings (e.g. parents, siblings or friends). For example,

when parents lack or only possess limited educational experience, it is likely that the parents underestimate

the added value of a degree or the development of cognitive factors. Third, in some socio-economic

disadvantaged families, it is well-accepted that the opportunity cost of studying does not outweigh the

immediate benefits of paid labour (Carneiro & Heckman, 2002). As a consequence of this financial hardship,

higher education is not considered a valid option or a rather easy study program is chosen irrespective of

student’s competences and interests. Moreover, a lower family income increases the likelihood of early

withdrawal. The indicators described here encompass (in)directly an increased risk for social inequality with

respect to participation to HE. In fact, these factors exert an impeding influence on parental support and

investment, and more specifically on the learning opportunities and resources made available to the child

in its immediate environment. The different determinants, being social norms and expectations,

educational background of the parents and the socio-economic status, correlate strongly with the

educational background of students. Likewise, these factors also play a crucial role when these students

need to decide on their future plans following graduation from high school (Jans, 2011).

The second group refers to the student’s readiness for HE (Conley, 2008). The likelihood of a successful

transition to the college environment is often depending on the readiness of the students—which

represents the level to which previous educational and personal competences have equipped them for the

expectations and demands they will encounter in college. Conley (2008, p. 24) defines readiness for HE as

follows:

The college ready student envisioned by this definition is able to understand what is expected in a college course, can cope with the content knowledge that is presented and can develop as a result of the course the key intellectual lessons and dispositions the course was designed to convey. In addition, the student can get the most out of the college experience by understanding the culture and structure of postsecondary education and the ways of knowing and intellectual norms of this academic and social environment.


Finally, the manner in which adolescents approach their career decision-making process has important

implications for study success and integration in HE. Students who - at the end of high school - have

invested less time and effort in their study choice are generally less confident, less satisfied with their

courses in HE and are less motivated to study. The latter further increases the risk of failure during first year

at HE (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2006).

Requirements for admission in European higher education: Policy options to be considered

A well-defined education policy can adequately respond to the determining factors described above. A

policy area of obvious relevance to access is admission policy. The Flemish higher education institutions are

characterized by a system of open door admission policy. Entrance at Flemish HE requires merely a degree

of high school, without distinguishing between grades and subject studied. Students eligible for HE thereby

constitute a group with diverse educational backgrounds and considerable variation in skills, resulting in a

heterogeneous group of first-generation students.2 Furthermore, the Flemish HE system is significantly

subsidized by the Flemish government which leads to low entrance fees. A negative consequence

associated with the latter is that students initially aim high in their study choice and enroll for study

disciplines although it may be too ambitious. We will discuss alternative measures that may improve and

support high school students’ career decision-making process. This case of the Flemish HE system offers a

valuable contribution to international research, policymakers and individual institutions since enrolments

are exclusively demand driven. The number of students entering have until now rarely been subjected to

supply constraints, thereby demonstrating how demand for higher education will increase when no

restrictions or guidance are being offered.

Within Europe there are significant differences with respect to access to higher education (Eurydice,

2012b). A two-by-two contingency table, containing student behavior and compulsory level, illustrates the

possible admission policies: open door admission, guidance, restricted admission and orientation.

Freedom of choice A compulsory choice

Passive student behavior Open door admission Guidance

Active student behavior Orientation Restricted admission

Table 1. The different admission policies

The first option, “open door admission”, is characterized by freedom of choice. Universities are namely

opened up to all applicants with the proper qualifications from secondary education (e.g. Belgium,

Denmark, Germany) or those students who passed the national exam (France). All applicants who meet the

above-mentioned entrance requirements are registered at the higher education institution for the study

course of their choice without having to go through any special admission procedure.3

The second admission policy, “guidance”, comprises the mix of compulsory choice and a passive student

behavior. According to this approach, higher education institutions postulate specific requirements

regarding the study background of students. For some of the programs and study courses in higher

education it is not sufficient to achieve the required diploma. In addition, requirements can be made on the

curriculum of the prior study program. The admission for these courses are determined by law. This is for


example the case for the Dutch education system.

Guidance seems to be a good policy option, because it guarantees a smoother transition into HE. However,

it would also maintain and even increase inequalities that are already formed in high school. Guidance

could be a valid option for the university only if our Flemish education system is adequately reorganized.

A restricted admission policy is used mainly in areas where private demand has been particularly high or

where costs or labor market conditions have motivated it (e.g. United Kingdom). Students should pursue

action (e.g. writing a motivation letter; take an examination; …). In some courses, in which the total number

of applicants exceeds the number of places available, there are nationwide quotas.

In Flanders we want to limit this option to specific cases, such as the studies of medicine, where there is an

imbalance between demand for enrolment and employment opportunities. This method is in conflict with

our idea of democracy, where every individual should get an opportunity to enroll at HEI and develop his

talents. In this way children from less affluent families are not disadvantaged through a selection process.

Finally, the orientation policy aims to encourage students to work on their selection process. Such a policy

may contain several important instruments, without affecting the fundamentals of a democratized

education system, amongst other: (1) a better preparation to HE in the hope to elucidate the implications

of HE enrolment; (2) a better fit between high school courses and university courses; (3) a more gradual

transition between certain high school study subjects and university study subjects; (4) and the use of

(psychometric, cognitive, interests, ...) instruments that can accurately predict success rates versus risk of

failure. This policy is furthermore characterized by freedom of choice, implicating that students decide for

themselves in which program they wish to enroll. Given the challenges in the Flemish HE and the different

contextual factors at play, an orientation policy offers the best solution at this moment.

The Flemish case: Student orientation as a possible solution? In response to the problems described above, a general consensus has grown in recent years among

researchers, educational institutions, students and society that the transition of young adolescents into

higher education in Flanders has to be improved. Observations of low success rates in the first year in

higher education have also generated a political consent for the need of action, which is a requisite for any

implementation of a new policy framework. The process of educational policy making on higher education

in Flanders is however confronted with a highly complex and delicate compromise between maximally

preserving the benefits of open access and reducing the above mentioned difficulties to a minimum.

Moreover, debates on access policy and developments in higher education have to keep in mind that the

entrance stage of higher education is proceeded by a long time educational trajectory. Consequently, any

response action taken by a HEI should be viewed in a broader context of the Flemish education system.

To specifically address the boundaries of massification, the University of Leuven has installed a working

group in order to develop an university-wide vision. Here, we present the preliminary results of this

working group. The objective is to guide and support students in a constructive way when making a free,

well-informed and justified choice from the university’s curriculum. The basic idea of such an orientation

policy is to maintain and even increase the benefits of a democratized education system: open access can

be more successful if students are made aware of the implications and expectations of HE. With this policy,

the University of Leuven wants to provide equal opportunities to maximally stimulate personal

development. She strives for a more equitable social representation, without ignoring the diversity of

interest, motivation and educational background, which characterizes the incoming students group. This

broad and diverse participation is as such enriching for the university community. The University of Leuven


emphasizes moreover the importance for every student to strive for the most optimal pathway to achieve

the goals set. Because these goals can be reached in different ways and can be adjusted in time, the policy

aims to find a good balance for students between challenge and fulfillment on the one hand and feasibility

and success on the other hand. With this policy, the University of Leuven strives to increase students’ well-

being and to promote academic integration.

Students are given a central position in this active approach. Future students make their own decision on

the study choice, based on a realistic assessment of own interests and values, strengths and weaknesses,

talents and limitations. The policy aims to positively contribute to the study choice and to the commitment

of the students in their studies. Consequently, the policy of the University of Leuven will be

multidimensional, evolve from a general to a more education specific approach, and take into account the

specificity of each step in the career decision-making process. In succeeding this, three basic actions of

informing, positioning and following-up are used. The process of ‘informing’ refers to the communication of

the existing curriculum and the aspects associated with the choice of an university education. This can

range from brochures and information sessions to activities where the student gets acquainted with the

actual practice (e.g. junior colleges). To this aim, the University of Leuven wants to establish a dialogue with

teachers and secondary school communities since the focus of the actions and initiatives to inform

prospective students is indeed located in the second and third grade of secondary education. The

'positioning' of students includes all the initiatives that confront the students with themselves and that give

the students an idea about their chances of success and aptitude for a particular course at university. As

such, the University of Leuven will provide different kinds of orientation instruments in order to assist

students in the decision process. These instruments do not have a binding outcome, but the results merely

serve as advice during the selection process. The final process, ‘following-up’, is intended for students who

want to improve on certain (knowledge) domains or need more individualized study guidance. The

positioning of the student and further follow-up should be both present and must be attuned to each

other.

Within each stage, attention should be given to (1) interests, (2) academic skills (including language), (3)

knowledge and understanding of common areas (e.g. mathematics, natural sciences, behavioral or social

sciences).

The study choice can not be reduced to a decision during the short time period of transition from high

school to higher education, but is by contrast embedded in the long term process that starts early in the

educational trajectory and that continues during the first phase of HE. This means that the policy of the

University of Leuven is directed to the actual process and not to a single time point; that it implies dialogue,

cooperation and partnership with the student, the school and the actors of compulsory education, and the

parents and community; and finally that it does not stop at registration but persists in a policy of

surveillance and guidance and where needed also reorientation.

The strengthening of the participation in higher education from all sections and groups in society requires

that the policy of the University of Leuven takes into account the structural factors that negatively affect

participation. An active policy aims to contribute to the long-term elimination of these impediments. In the

meantime, temporary solutions are proposed that can counteract these effects in order to offer equal

opportunities to talented student. An example of such a measure is the study skills program that is offered

by the University of Leuven to all first year students. By taking part of this program, the transition between

secondary and higher education may improve, and in particular students with atypical study background or

students with learning disabilities will benefit from these support programs. Another example of an

initiative to ease the transition are the courses offered to all students focusing on academic language, both


academic Dutch and academic English. These courses are open to all students who feel they would benefit

from such a course, but are designed to help international students or students from ethnic minority

backgrounds who do not speak Dutch or English as a first language.

Conclusion and reflection Since the Bologna process, the European higher education is confronted with a whole range of new

developments: massification of higher education, increased democratization, more national and

international flexibility in study programs. Those aspects have created new challenges for the European

higher education system in general and for the Flemish higher education in particular. It is clear that the

system in Flanders has reached some limits, despite the numerous benefits of open access; the question

now is how those problems can be dealt with, in order to maintain an educational system of high quality.

At this moment, the University of Leuven considers orientation the most optimal strategy. While the true

implications of such an orientation policy can only be apprehended after several years, it is imperative to

also undertake short term initiatives.

We are fully aware that not all problems related with transition to HE can be addressed, given that the

outcome of a decision process is not exclusively determined by rational arguments. Furthermore, we

acknowledge current limitations of our approach, that primarily focuses on the university as a single entity

in the education system. One fairly clear-cut result obtained from research on social selection in education

is that it starts early. A child’s academic path is the result of a comprehensive set of choices made

successively from birth to adulthood. At the level of higher education there is relatively little that one can

do. But we will limit ourselves to an outline of some basic features of a possible strategy within the context

of higher education policy. In respect of future developments, a more intense collaboration between high

school and HE is crucial in order to smoothen the transition, both at the level of the individual student as of

the HEI.

While this article provides good starting points for further research, many questions still remain to be

explored. Such a pertinent question is whether open access is indeed something that should be more

stimulated, or does it create an enormous pressure on the quality of the HE system? And how can the

system maintain its quality without abolishing the democratic fundamentals?

Notes

1 See for example, Eurydice. (2000). Two decades of reform in higher education in Europe: 1980 onwards.

2 There are however some exceptions to this rule. For certain studies access is regulated through entrance examination, e.g. a medical exam and artistic entrance examinations.

3 Only for the more specialized disciplines they have systems to restrict the numbers of students

admitted. If admission standards are set, they are primarily a consequence of lack of capacity and regulations forbidding institutions to charge higher fees if there is excess demand.


References

Carneiro, P. & Heckman, J.J. (2002). The evidence on credit constraints in post-secondary schooling. The

Economic Journal 112, 705-734.

Conley, D. (2008). Rethinking college readiness, New Directions for Higher Education 144, 3-13.

Declercq, K. & Verboven, F. (2010). Slaagkansen aan Vlaamse universiteiten: Tijd om het beleid bij te

sturen?, VIVES Briefings september 2010. Retrieved from

http://www.econ.kuleuven.be/vives/PUBLICATIES/BRIEFINGS/20100927declercq_verboven.pdf

Eurydice. (2012a). The European higher education area in 2012: Bologna process implementation report.

Retrieved from

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/thematic_reports/138EN.pdf

Eurydice. (2012b). Network on education systems and policies in Europe. Retrieved from

http://www.eurydice.org/

Germeijs, V. & Verschueren, K. (2006). High school students’ career decision-making process: A longitudinal

study of one choice, Journal of Vocational Behavior 68(2), 189-204.

Germeijs, V. & Verschueren, K. (2011). Indecisiveness and big five personality factors: Relationship and

specificity, Personality and Individual Differences 50(7), 1023-1028.

Gibbons, M. (1998). Higher education relevance in the 21st century. Presented at UNESCO World

Conference on Higher Education, Paris, France. Retrieved from

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EDUCATION/Resources/278200-1099079877269/547664-

1099079956815/Higher_ed_relevance_in_21st_century_En98.pdf

Groenez, S. (2008). Onderwijsexpansie en -democratisering in Vlaanderen. Presented at Dag van de

Sociologie, Leuven, Belgium. Retrieved from

http://www.kuleuven.be/facdep/social/ceso/dagvandesociologie/papers/Groenez%20democratisering%20

onderwijs%20vlaanderen.pdf

Groenez, S., Nicaise, I. & De Rick, K. (2009). De ongelijke weg door het onderwijs. In L. Vanderleyden, M.

Callens & J. Noppe, De sociale staat van Vlaanderen 2009. Sint-Niklaas: Drukkerij Vlaamse Overheid, 33-

68.

Higgins, J. & Nairn, K. (2006). In transition: Choice and the children of New Zealand’s economic reforms,

British Journal of Sociology of Education 27(2), 207-220.

Jans, N. (2011). Een verkennend onderzoek naar de toenemende polarisatie in onze kenniseconomie.

Unpublished dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Faculteit Psychologie en Pedagogische

Wetenschappen, Leuven.

Ortiz, E.A. & Dehon, C. (2008). What are the factors of success at university? A case study in Belgium, CESifo

Economic Studies 54(2), 121-148.

Ozga, J. & Sukhnandan, L. (1998). Undergraduate non-completion: Developing an explanatory model,

Higher Education Quarterly 52(3), 316-333.

Scott, P. (1995). The meanings of mass higher education. Buckingham SRHE: Open University Press.

Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research, Review of

Education Research 45, 89-125.

Verhoeven, J.C., Devos, G., Stassen, K. & Warmoes, V. (2003). Ouders over scholen. Antwerpen: Garant.

VLIR, Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad. (2012). Naar een efficiënte oriëntering op het hoger onderwijs.

Retrieved from

http://www.vlir.be/media/docs/Onderwijs/VLIR-visietekst-

Naareeneffici%C3%ABnteori%C3%ABnteringophethogeronderwijs.pdf

http://www.eurydice.org/


VLOR, Vlaamse Onderwijsraad. (2010). Advies over studiekeuze naar het hoger onderwijs. Retrieved from

http://www.vlor.be/sites/www.vlor.be/files/advies/ar-adv004-0910.pdf

Yorke, M. (2000). Smoothing the transition into higher education: What can be learned from student non-

completion, Journal of Institutional Research 9, 35-47.

broucker & jans (2012)_boundaries_associated_with_massification_of_higher_education

Documents