8.3.1 DESARROLLO DE LAS COMPETENCIAS PRAGMÁTICAS 8.3.1.1 – Actividades de comunicación

The panel is aware that for some externally funded PhDs, the fixed admission dates may be a problem. Some projects, for different reasons, may have to be started between admission dates. Practical solutions to that problem are, however, easy to come by. For example, at general admissions, a ranking could be made that contains surplus candidates and additional PhD students could be admitted from that list only, and only above a certain level. This system is already applied in some Swedish universities where full funding of PhD students has been a requirement since 1998.

13 _{The panel is aware that if non-EU students are paying fees for their graduate training, this may affect their}

willingness to apply. In fact, the reasonably high application rates in some, particularly the technological, universities could be explained by the fact that Denmark is a country with no or low fees. There also seems to be a tendency, reported for example at Aalborg University, for foreign students (Germans were mentioned), who already have published articles, to apply to the PhD programme in order to receive a PhD, while Aalborg acquires another PhD at small cost. Under the stricter admission procedure that we propose, this would be impossible.

>

It must also be clarified with the primary Danish funding bodies that they acknowledge this application system. This should pose no problem, we believe. Indeed, we foresee funding agencies supporting it proactively in order to enhance the efficient use of their funds and to make sure they support the best PhD training and - research possible. The panel is also aware that the fixed admission dates might cause a slight delay for some students as to when they can start their PhD studies, but it is firmly believed that a transparent process as described above is a necessary step for bringing the admissions procedures to an international level ensuring fairness and encouraging quality enhancement. It is also customary procedure in all top-notch graduate schools.

One particular note regards the 4+4 model, which mainly is used at the University of Aarhus. The evaluation panel recognises this model as well-functioning. Indeed, the University of Aarhus hosts some of the best graduate schools in the country – and were clearly among the best of those that we had the opportunity to visit – and it has excellent ratings in international league tables in many fields. While the latter phenomenon obviously has many explanations, one factor explaining the success of Aarhus’ PhD education is apparently the more generous time it provides for research and for “testing” more PhD candidates in the “transitory zone” between candidate exam and the PhD programme. Furthermore, a consistent feature in self-evaluations and in our conversations with faculty and students is that the time available for the PhD dissertation is the most critical problem when it comes to maintaining and improving the quality of the PhD, and also to make it internationally competitive. It seems obvious that this is a point that should be seriously addressed and where the 4+4 model provides interesting opportunities.

However, the 4+4 model has some complicating features with respect to admissions and also in general to the Bologna process. More than the 5+3 model, it tends to favour internal PhD candidates. What is interesting, however, is that while the University of Aarhus in general has a fairly moderate ratio of internally recruited students, its graduate schools boast a strong presence of foreign students, and the graduate schools we visited had very ambitious social programmes to cater to foreign students, a feature that was clearly not always the case at other universities.

The Aarhus experience is important. It demonstrates that the tension between a more extended graduate school and competitive admissions can be overcome. In fact, graduate schools in the US include master’s education; i.e., they contain all

(post)graduate education. In the UK, a similar system exists in the best universities. At Cambridge, Oxford and St Andrews, but also in more specialised schools such as the Royal College of Art in London, students are recruited worldwide for a postgraduate training that starts with a one-year Master’s of Philosophy, after which there is a renewed application for the three year PhD programme, to which candidates can also apply independently; i.e., a 1+3 model

The reason that we note the UK structure in this context is that it seems to suggest that there is a way of organising a four-year graduate school that bridges master’s and PhD training as it is understood in the Bologna process, to which Denmark is associated. It is clearly beyond our commission to go deeper into this issue, but it seems inevitable that it be dealt with in the context of an expanding PhD education. While we do believe that both models, 5+3 and 4+4, should be viable, it seems clear to us that the best conditions for a successful PhD training would be achieved if the Aarhus 4+4

>

model could somehow be combined with the competitive admissions process that we have outlined above, perhaps in a 4+(1+3) model. In essence, it would mean a graduate school at the first stage of which a fairly large number of students entered, and where in particular advanced coursework was undertaken alongside a qualified final thesis (hovedopgave). We recommend that this issue be explored further.