EUA MEMBER CONSULTATION A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ERASMUS+ MID-TERM REVIEW

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "EUA MEMBER CONSULTATION A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ERASMUS+ MID-TERM REVIEW"

Edith Henry
5 years ago
Views:

1 EUA MEMBER CONSULTATION A CONTRIBUTION TO THE ERASMUS+ MID-TERM REVIEW

8 Participation in sub-questionnaires on specific actions KA1: Student Mobility KA1: Staff Mobility KA2: Strategic Partnerships KA2: Capacity Building in Higher Education I do not wish to continue - I submit now KA1: Erasmus Mundus Joint Master Degrees KA2: Knowledge Alliances KA3: Support to Reforms in the Higher Education Area

9 Armenia Bosnia and Herzegovina Croatia Georgia Iceland Ireland Kazakhstan Lithuania Luxembourg Serbia Belarus Finland FYR Macedonia Greece Hungary Slovenia Ukraine Slovakia Switzerland Bulgaria Norway Denmark Portugal Romania Turkey Czech Republic Netherlands Sweden Austria Belgium France United Kingdom Italy Spain Germany Poland Sample distribution EUA member non-eua member Size of participating institutions by number of students enrolled 2 40% very small - less than 7,500 small - betweeen 7,500 and 14,999 14% medium - between 15,000 and 24,999 19% very large - more than 25,000

10 Survey participant position 13% 5% Level of experience with EU funding programmes for E&T 3% 16% 65% 35% 62% International Office Other service, please indicate Vice-rector's office Rector's office Very experienced Just started Some experience No experience at all

12 ERASMUS+ compared to the LLP: Opportunities It offers better opportunities for collaboration and exchange with partners outside of Europe 73% 9% 6% 12% It offers better opportunities for mobility 56% 32% 6% It offers better opportunities for collaboration and exchange with partners outside of the higher education sector (industry, schools, NGOs ) 55% 19% 3% 23% It offers better opportunities for collaboration with European university partners 3 4 9% Yes About the same No I do not know

13 ERASMUS+ compared to the LLP: Simplification It is more flexible in the use of the grants (allocation and reallocation to different purposes within the budgets) 35% % Applications are easier 31% 41% 22% The new programme structure makes things easier 30% 22% 40% 8% The programme rules are easier to follow 18% 3 38% Implementation is easier 1 38% 38% 8% It has less administrative burden 12% 16% 65% Yes About the same No I do not know

14 Erasmus+ management support Management of the project by the National Agency is smooth and transparent 56% 33% 9% 3% Support from the National Agency is usually helpful and efficient 55% 36% 8% 1% Support from the National Agency is usually prompt and without much delay 54% 36% 9% 1% Management of the project by EACEA is smooth and transparent 31% 26% 11% 32% Support from the EACEA is usually helpful and efficient 25% 33% 11% 31% Support from the EACEA is usually prompt and without much delay 22% 33% 13% 32% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

15 Erasmus+ tools The Erasmus+ Programme Guide provides clear and easy to find answers to most issues 24% 53% 22% 1% The Mobility Tool is a useful support tool for grant management 22% 40% 32% 5% Information on suitable calls and funding opportunities are easy to find on the website, and are generally well promoted 35% 50% 13% 2% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

16 ERASMUS+ funding rules and procedures It has clear funding rules 48% 44% 8% Use of grants is flexible 24% 4 26% 3% Financial reporting and accounting is easy 20% 42% 33% 6% Recording of staff costs and completion of time sheets is straightforward 18% 39% 21% 23% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know Mobility: cost coverage as an obstacle for participation 28% 3% 18% Yes, fully No, not really 51% Yes, to some extent I do not know

17 Cooperation: cost coverage as an obstacle for participation 11% 18% 2 Yes, fully No, not really 44% Yes, to some extent I do not know

20 Erasmus+ priorities Languages 28% 53% 12% Vulnerable groups 1 45% 19% 18% Remote areas 12% 43% 18% 2 Refugees 5% 15% 2 53% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

22 Erasmus+ improving mobility With Erasmus+, student mobility has improved 26% 36% 32% With Erasmus+, staff mobility has improved 29% 42% 18% 10% With Erasmus+, Erasmus Mundus has improved % Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

23 KA1 - Student mobility opportunities We will continue to use this action 8 11% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for European students to study in Europe 84% 15% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for non-eu students to study in Europe 69% 24% 4% 3% It is an attractive opportunity for European students to study outside of Europe 48% 36% 13% 3% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

24 KA1 - student mobility administration Support from the National Agency is sufficient 56% 3 5% 1% The inter-institutional agreement requirements are appropriate 39% 46% 13% 1% For the student, the application process is straightforward, and with no major problems 33% 44% 21% 2% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 32% 50% 18% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 32% 38% 28% 2% The reporting requirements for students are appropriate and make sense 29% 52% 18% 1% The rules of programme cause no major problems to students 28% 51% 21% The action is sufficiently flexible 26% 50% 20% 3% With the new Erasmus+, this action has improved 26% 36% 32% Management of the student mobility grants via Mobility Tool works well 24% 42% 29% 5% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (=not unnecessarily bureaucratic & work intensive) 19% 36% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know 44% 1%

25 KA1 - Student mobility funding The overall number of available grants is sufficient 1 40% 42% 1% Funding ceilings for travel costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder students from participating) 16% 44% 29% 11% The amount of funding provided to the student is appropriate (= while it may not cover the full costs, it usually does not hinder students from participating) 11% 54% 35% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

26 Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) Erasmus Charter for Higher Education (ECHE) Yes, it has improved the quality of our internationalisation activities 64% No, as we are already quality assured but it may be useful for other institutions 26% No, it is not useful for any institution and should be abolished I do not know 5% 6% Online Linguistic Support Tool (OLS)

27 Do you believe that Online Linguistic Support (OLS) tool in its present shape is useful? It contributes to promoting language learning and linguistic diversity 28% 48% 9% 14% It is beneficial and relevant for students 24% 54% 11% 11% It provides good quality language courses 16% 44% 6% 34% It is a reliable tool for assessing language skills 16% 56% 1 11% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

28 KA1 - Staff mobility opportunities We will continue to use this action 88% 11% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for teaching staff 66% 29% 3% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for administrative (nonteaching) staff 66% 33% 1% It is useful that it allows for the sending of university staff to enterprises (though we have not used this function) 28% 39% 26% It is useful that it allows for the sending of university staff to enterprises (and we have been using this function) 16% 1 20% 4 Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

29 KA1 Staff mobility administration Support from the National Agency is sufficient 5 38% 3% 2% For the staff, the application process is straightforward, and with no major problems 52% 3 8% 3% The programme rules cause no major problems to staff 50% 41% 9% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 48% 45% 8% The inter-institutional agreement requirements are appropriate 4 41% 9% 3% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 45% 43% 10% 2% The reporting requirements for staff are appropriate and make sense 42% 48% 10% The action is sufficiently flexible 34% 54% 10% 2% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 32% 43% 25% With the new Erasmus+, this action has improved 29% 42% 18% 10% Management of the staff mobility grants via the Mobility Tool works well 23% 46% 25% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

30 KA1 Staff mobility funding The overall number of available grants is sufficient 29% 41% 29% 1% Funding ceilings are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participating) 28% 4 24% 2% The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient (= while it may not cover the full costs, it usually does not hinder participation) 24% 52% 24% Funding ceilings for travel costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participation) 24% 43% 33% 1% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

31 KA1 Erasmus Mundus opportunities It is an attractive opportunity for international students 7 20% 3% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation among European higher education institutions 6 33% We will continue to use this action 53% 3 3% It is an attractive opportunity for European students 50% 4 3% It is an attractive opportunity for including international higher education institutions 43% 4 10% It is an attractive opportunity for teaching staff 33% 60% 3% 3% It is an attractive opportunity for including nonuniversity partners (industries, NGOs etc.) 30% 50% 13% With Erasmus+, this action has improved % Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

32 KA1 Erasmus Mundus administration The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 3 50% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 33% 33% 20% 13% The partnership requirements are reasonable 33% 5 3% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 1 53% 23% The application process is straightforward % 13% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 13% 33% 4 The action is sufficiently flexible 13% 5 20% 10% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

33 KA1 Erasmus Mundus funding The funding ceilings are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participation) 13% 63% 1 The amount of funding provided by the action is sufficient 10% 5 30% 3% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

34 Capacity building Knowledge alliances Strategic partnerships Key Action 2: Available opportunities - Success rates It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation among European higher education institutions 68% 2 4% 2% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 15% 43% 35% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation between higher education institutions and business 60% 35% 5% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 11% 11% 63% 16% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation for a HEI from Partner countries (non-eu/eea) 81% 16% 3% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 11% 51% 22% 16% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

35 KA2 -Strategic Partnership opportunities We will continue to apply for these projects 69% 24% 2% 6% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation among European higher education institutions 68% 2 4% 2% This action is a useful addition to EU funding opportunities 59% 3 2% 2% It is an attractive opportunity for including non-university partners (industries, NGOs etc.) 56% 29% It is an attractive opportunity for including international higher education institutions 49% 29% 18% 4% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

36 KA2 Strategic Partnerships administration The partnership requirements are reasonable 42% 49% 5% 4% The application process is straightforward 31% 54% 13% 2% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work 30% 54% 15% 2% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 28% 43% 19% 11% The action is sufficiently flexible 22% 54% 20% 4% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 20% 65% 13% 2% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 15% 43% 35% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

37 KA2 Strategic Partnerships funding The funding ceilings for staff are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 1 55% 25% 4% The funding ceilings for other costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 11% 59% 22% The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient 56% 31% 6% The overall number of available grants is sufficient 4% 26% 59% 11% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

38 KA2 Strategic Partnerships structure and decentralisation Management of the projects by the National Agency works well 38% 43% 6% 13% The selection process by the National Agency is clear, fully transparent, and well-managed 3 44% 13% 6% It would be better to have this action selected and managed at European level 23% 11% 53% 13% The separation of the action in two strands supporting cooperation for innovation and exchange of best practices is clear and makes sense 13% 50% 25% 12% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

39 KA2 Knowledge Alliances opportunities It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation between higher education institutions and business 60% 35% 5% We will continue to apply for these projects 53% 11% 3 This action is a useful addition to the EU funding opportunities 53% 3 5% 5% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

40 KA2 Knowledge Alliances administration The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 25% 55% 10% 10% The partnership requirements are reasonable 25% 60% 5% 10% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 21% 63% 11% 5% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 16% 26% 26% 32% Management of the projects at the EACEA works well 16% 26% 58% The application and selection process managed by EACEA works well 16% 4 3 The application process is straightforward 15% 45% 20% 20% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 11% 11% 63% 16% The action is sufficiently flexible 5% 65% 30% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

41 KA2 Knowledge Alliances funding The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient 20% 45% 20% 15% The funding ceilings for staff are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participation) 15% 50% 20% 15% The funding ceilings for other costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participation) 5% 55% 25% 15% The funding ceilings for other costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participation) 5% 55% 25% 15% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

42 KA2 Capacity Building opportunities It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation for a HEI from Partner countries (non-eu/eea) 81% 16% 3% We will continue to apply for these projects 73% 22% 5% Merging different programmes that existed before (Alfa, Tempus, Asia Link etc.) into one was in principle a good idea 68% 19% 3% 11% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation for a HEI from Programme countries (= EU/EEA) 51% 46% 3% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know KA2 Capacity Building administration The partnership requirements are reasonable 43% 51% 3% 3% The application process is straightforward 43% 43% 11% 3% The application and selection process managed by EACEA works well 35% 38% 2 Management of the projects at the EACEA works well 30% 35% 35% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 30% 54% 14% 3% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply % 3% The action is sufficiently flexible 19% 73% 8% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 11% 51% 22% 16% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

43 KA2 Capacity Building funding The overall amount of available grants is sufficient 1 31% 39% 14% The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient 16% 49% 30% 5% The funding ceilings for staff are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participation) 14% 49% 35% 3% The funding ceilings for other costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder participation) 8% 5 30% 5% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

47 It offers better opportunities for collaboration and exchange with partners outside of Europe 73% 9% 6% 12% It offers better opportunities for mobility 56% 32% 6% It offers better opportunities for collaboration and exchange with partners outside of the higher education sector (industry, schools, NGOs ) 55% 19% 3% 23% It offers better opportunities for collaboration with European university partners 3 4 9% It is more flexible in the use of the grants (allocation and reallocation to different purposes within the budgets) 35% % Applications are easier 31% 41% 22% The new programme structure makes things easier 30% 22% 40% 8% The programme rules are easier to follow 18% 3 38% Implementation is easier 1 38% 38% 8% It has less administrative burden 12% 16% 65% Yes About the same No I do not know

48 Management of the project by the National Agency is smooth and transparent 56% 33% 9% 3% Support from the National Agency (the agency of the EC that manages the contracts) is usually helpful and efficient 55% 36% 8% 1% Support from the National Agency (the agency of the EC that manages the contracts) is usually prompt and without much delay 54% 36% 9% 1% Information on suitable calls and funding opportunities are easy to find on the website, and are generally well promoted 35% 50% 13% 2% Management of the project by EACEA is smooth and transparent 31% 26% 11% 32% Support from the EACEA (the agency of the EC that manages the contracts) is usually helpful and efficient 25% 33% 11% 31% The Erasmus Users Guide provides clear and easy to find answers to most issues 24% 53% 22% 1% The Mobility Tool is a useful support tool for grant management 22% 40% 32% 5% Support from the EACEA (the agency of the EC that manages the contracts) is usually prompt and without much delay 22% 33% 13% 32% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

49 It has clear funding rules 48% 44% 8% 0% Use of grants is flexible 24% 4 26% 3% Financial reporting and accounting is easy 20% 42% 33% 6% Mobility: As grants do not cover the full cost, this is an obstacle for participation 18% 51% 28% 3% Cooperation: As ceilings and allowances (staff cost, travel etc.) do not cover the full cost, this is an obstacle for participation 18% 44% 2 11% Recording of staff costs and completion of time sheets is straightforward 18% 39% 21% 23% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

50 We will continue to use this action 8 11% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for European students to study in Europe 84% 15% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for non-eu students to study in Europe 69% 24% 4% 3% Support from the National Agency is sufficient 56% 3 5% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for European students to study outside of Europe 48% 36% 13% 3% The inter-institutional agreement requirements are appropriate 39% 46% 13% 1% For the student, the application process is straightforward, and with no major problems 33% 44% 21% 2% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 32% 50% 18% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 32% 38% 28% 2% The reporting requirements for students are appropriate and make sense 29% 52% 18% 1% The rules of programme cause no major problems to students 28% 51% 21% The action is sufficiently flexible 26% 50% 20% 3% With the new Erasmus+, this action has improved 26% 36% 32% Management of the student mobility grants via Mobility Tool works well 24% 42% 29% 5% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 19% 36% 44% 1% The overall number of available grants is sufficient 1 40% 42% 1% Funding ceilings for travel costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder students from participating) The amount of funding provided to the student is appropriate (= while it may not cover the full costs, it usually does not hinder students from participating) 16% 11% 44% 54% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know 29% 35% 11%

51 We will continue to use this action 88% 11% 1% It is an attractive opportunity for teaching staff 66% 29% 3% It is an attractive opportunity for administrative (nonteaching) staff 66% 33% 1% Support from the National Agency is sufficient 5 38% 3% 2% For the staff, the application process is straightforward, and with no major problems 52% 3 8% 3% The rules of programme cause no major problems to staff 50% 41% 9% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 48% 45% 8% The inter-institutional agreement requirements are appropriate 4 41% 9% 3% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 45% 43% 10% 2% The reporting requirements for staff are appropriate and make sense 42% 48% 10% The action is sufficiently flexible 34% 54% 10% 2% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 32% 43% 25% With the new Erasmus+, this action has improved 29% 42% 18% 10% The overall number of available grants is sufficient 29% 41% 29% 1% It is useful that it allows for sending university staff to enterprises (though we have not used this function) 28% 39% 26% Funding ceilings are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 28% 4 24% 2% The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient (= while it may not cover the full costs, it usually does not hinder staff from participating) Funding ceilings for travel costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 24% 24% 52% 43% 24% 33% 1% Management of the staff mobility grants via the Mobility Tool works well 23% 46% 25% It is useful that it allows for sending university staff to enterprises (and we have been using this function) 16% 1 20% 4 Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

52 It is attractive opportunity for international students 7 20% 3% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation among European higher education institutions 6 33% We will continue to use this action 53% 3 3% It is an attractive opportunity for European students 50% 4 3% It is an attractive opportunity for including international higher education institutions 43% 4 10% 0% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 3 50% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 33% 33% 20% 13% The partnership requirements are reasonable 33% 5 3% It is an attractive opportunity for teaching staff 33% 60% 3% 3% It is an attractive opportunity for including nonuniversity partners (industries, NGOs etc.) 30% 50% 13% With the new Erasmus+, this action has improved % The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 1 53% 23% The application process is straightforward % 13% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 13% 33% 4 The funding ceilings are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 13% 63% 1 The action is sufficiently flexible 13% 5 20% 10% The amount of funding provided by the action is sufficient. 10% 5 30% 3% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not really I do not know

53 We will continue to apply for these projects 69% 24% 2% 6% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation among European higher education institutions 68% 2 4% This action is a useful addition to the EU funding opportunities 59% 3 2% It is an attractive opportunity for including non-university partners (industries, NGOs etc.) 56% 29% It is an attractive opportunity for including international higher education institutions 49% 29% 18% 4% The partnership requirements are reasonable 42% 49% 5% 4% Management of the projects by the National Agency works well 38% 43% 6% 13% The selection process by the National Agency is clear, fully transparent, and well-managed 3 44% 13% 6% The application process is straightforward 31% 54% 13% 2% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 30% 54% 15% 2% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 28% 43% 19% 11% It would be better to have this action selected and managed at European level 23% 11% 53% 13% The action is sufficiently flexible 22% 54% 20% 4% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 20% 65% 13% 2% The funding ceilings for staff are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 1 55% 25% 4% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 15% 43% 35% The separation of the action in two strands supporting cooperation for innovation and exchange of best practices is clear and makes sense The funding ceilings for other costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 13% 11% 50% 59% 25% 22% 12% The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient 56% 31% 6% The overall number of available grants is sufficient 4% 26% 59% 11% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

54 It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation between higher education institutions and business 60% 35% 5% We will continue to apply for these projects 53% 11% 3 This action is a useful addition to the EU funding opportunities 53% 3 5% 5% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 25% 55% 10% 10% The partnership requirements are reasonable 25% 60% 5% 10% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply 21% 63% 11% 5% The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient 20% 45% 20% 15% We have experienced no major problems with the action over the past year 16% 26% 26% 32% Management of the projects at the EACEA works well 16% 26% 58% The application and selection process managed by EACEA works well 16% 4 3 The funding ceilings for staff are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 15% 50% 20% 15% The application process is straightforward 15% 45% 20% 20% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 11% 11% 63% 16% The funding ceilings for other costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 5% 55% 25% 15% The action is sufficiently flexible 5% 65% 30% The overall amount of available grants is sufficient 20% 60% 20% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

55 It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation for a HEI from Partner countries (non-eu/eea) 81% 16% 3% We will continue to apply for these projects 73% 22% 5% Merging different programmes that existed before (Alfa, Tempus, Asia Link etc.) into one was in principle a good idea 68% 19% 3% 11% It is an attractive opportunity for cooperation for a HEI from Programme countries (= EU/EEA) 51% 46% 3% The partnership requirements are reasonable 43% 51% 3% 3% The application process is straightforward 43% 43% 11% 3% The application and selection process managed by EACEA works well 35% 38% 2 Management of the projects at the EACEA works well 30% 35% 35% The requirements for the higher education institutions are appropriate (= not unnecessarily bureaucratic and work intensive) 30% 54% 14% 3% The financial rules are clear and easy to apply % 3% The action is sufficiently flexible 19% 73% 8% The overall amount of available grants is sufficient 1 31% 39% 14% The amount of funding provided by the grant is sufficient 16% 49% 30% 5% The funding ceilings for staff are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 14% 49% 35% 3% Preparing applications is worth the time investment - in terms of success rate 11% 51% 22% 16% The funding ceilings for other costs are appropriate (= while they may not cover the full costs, they usually do not hinder from participating) 8% 5 30% 5% Yes, fully Yes, to some extent No, not at all I do not know

The European University Association (EUA) is the representative organisation of universities and national rectors conferences in 47 European countries.

64 The European University Association (EUA) is the representative organisation of universities and national rectors conferences in 47 European countries. EUA plays a crucial role in the Bologna Process and in influencing EU policies on higher education, research and innovation. Thanks to its interaction with a range of other European and international organisations EUA ensures that the independent voice of European universities is heard wherever decisions are being taken that will impact on their activities. The Association provides a unique expertise in higher education and research as well as a forum for exchange of ideas and good practice among universities. The results of EUA s work are made available to members and stakeholders through conferences, seminars, website and publications. European University Association asbl Avenue de l Yser Brussels, Belgium Tel: Fax:

Spain France. England Netherlands. Wales Ukraine. Republic of Ireland Czech Republic. Romania Albania. Serbia Israel. FYR Macedonia Latvia

Spain France. England Netherlands. Wales Ukraine. Republic of Ireland Czech Republic. Romania Albania. Serbia Israel. FYR Macedonia Latvia Germany Belgium Portugal Spain France Switzerland Italy England Netherlands Iceland Poland Croatia Slovakia Russia Austria Wales Ukraine Sweden Bosnia-Herzegovina Republic of Ireland Czech Republic Turkey