This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seriously people. Why is this guy's opinion so important as to warrant an entire section for it?
I agree and will remove the section, it seems that there was once a section, at first called criticism with the quote followed up by a further description of Lorenz's opinion, most of it deleted after it's relevance and his authority were called into question. Until someone puts together a lengthier section discussing different opinions on the matter, I think it is better to remove his opinion for now, because the relevance of the quote for the article is not at all obvious and does not seem to be more than the dry bones of a once dreamed of exaltation of Lorenz. Smit1937 — Preceding undated comment added 13:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
"These levels are the current model in the UK, Ireland (as well as the US) as distinct from most of Continental Europe" - this isn't quite correct; in the UK one year is standard for the majority of Masters degrees. Actually extending this to two years would effectively be the British side of the Bologna compromise. However, there is no doubt the UK system provides the fundamental model for the new framework so I will reword this slightly to reflect that. VivaEmilyDavies 21:45, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Advanced Highers are equivalent to A-levels? In terms of UCAS points, yes, but in terms of content, scope, focus of each subject areas? No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.14.118 (talk) 11:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Quote:
...Bachelor's degrees are seen as roughly equivalent to the old four year first degree Diplom(FH) from polytechnic|college of applied sciences. Bearing in mind that the Fachhochschule level is not comparable to the UK honours degree or to the French DEA (see below) because although the fourth year of the FH is used for a research project, it is a practical project, done on-the-job. Furthermore, the FH is outside the university system. German universities are research universities and include courses in all traditonal departments through the Doktorat level, whereas the FH are teaching colleges for technical, business and applied social science subjects which have offered only one degree, the Diplom (FH)...
I doubt a person without any knowledge about the German higher education system will actually understand what this part of the article means! It seems to me the author translated the English term "university system" a little bit to literal into German! It literally means "Universitäts-System" in German, and the German word "Universität" is actually only used in the meaning of the English "research university". However, the much better translation is "Hochschul-System". (The very misleading literal translation of this term is "high school system"!) This word is more often used and it includes all German higher education institutions with the authority to grant academic degrees. (These are: Universitäten [(research) universities]; Technische Universitäten/Technische Hochschulen [technical universities]; Pädagogische Hochschulen [teacher training colleges]; Musikhochschulen/Kunsthochschulen [colleges of music/of arts]; Fachhochschulen [Polytechnics, in English often called "universities of applied sciences"!]; and Verwaltungsfachhochschulen [colleges of public administration].)
I think the old Diplom(FH) IS comparable in level to the UK honours degree or to the French DEA, but the structure of the degree course is not comparable. Is here someone, who agree... ? Mintaru 18:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Could someone who speaks English write the section on Estonia?
I obliged.
David WC2 (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)David WC2
The Bologna process is heavily criticised by students and universities alike in the countries affected by it (see the corresponding German article for some examples). However the English article fails to mention any criticism at all.
The article is currently a wee bit POV as it seems to focus entirely on the apparent benefits and the anglophone view. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 11:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Started section - every article needs balance and not slavish adherence. Djegan 18:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now, the criticism section is too Greece-centric, even seeming partisan in some ways.
"the Greek government (New Democracy) with the consent of PASOK"
While PASOK often has similar views with New Democracy in the debate, it did not vote for the changes, and in many cases it was against them, particularly when the situation turned violent. The writer doesn't explain what PASOK is and doesn't provide links to the party entries. I would have corrected it, but I think the line almost needs deletion all together.
"tried to implement the declaration of Bologna through massive reforms aiming at the university system"
I don't see where the declaration of Bologna was implemented in the reforms. The heavy majority of them was completely unrelated.
This article is around the 3+2 (years) system, and the law changed nothing about the current 4+2 system in Greece. I also don't see the "tried" part. The plan (in a sad way) has become a law.
"These reactions led to the failure of the constitutional change of the article 16 that prohibits the founding of private universities"
The article above doesn't provide any link of Bologna and privatization, so this entry needs clarification.
"and also blocked the reform in the laws regarding the internal workings of universities"
It did not.
"In general, the Bologna process is denied"
wrong verb use
"by the majorities of the university students and teachers syndicates[verification needed]"
indeed, I think the Bologna process in Greece is, as usual, mixed in a bag with countless irrelevant things, and it is difficult to see when an educational reform actually has anything to do with the Bologna process.
Tec-goblin 21:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see this as an "Americanising" process, as the United States has nothing to do with it. You perhaps could call it an Anglicisation, but I don't think that would be appropriate either - it's just a change in systems to one resembling the Commonwealth/US system. I think the statement "The process aims to Americanize European higher education, because all programmes are divided into Anglo-Saxon "undergraduate" and "graduate" degrees, where the undergraduate degree is the "basic degree" " should be deleted and replaced with something that isn't a point of view. This sentence: "In some countries, such as Ireland,[2] the pre-Bologna structure is nearer to the United States and this is a perceived benefit. " also raises the US, which again is completely irrelevant. Tozznok 14:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a source that the economic factors, for example as described here are actually part of the Bologna process rather than another European process? What is more I've split the "Criticism" section into two parts to take into account both academic (which I don't agree with) and economic (which I do agree with) criticism. - Francis Tyers · 10:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It's all a load of baloney --EvilFred (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This section is quite unclear: "The Polish equivalent of an Associate's degree or a Bachelor's of Arts is a licencjat. The Polish equivalent of a Bachelor's of Science degree (given by a University) is licencjat, ...". So what exactly is the licencjat now, and how can it be equivalent to both an Associate's and a Bachelor's degree? --Brindt 07:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
As far as I understood there is Master1 and Master2 it's not DEA anymore..and the page is really outdated\
The Bologna process is highly relevant to many students, and this page could be a valuable resource. Sentences like "The Bologna Declaration can be said to be a deal done in a smoke-filled room, by governmental officials, without any participation of the European parliament. Also the involvement of the national parliaments has been limited." are so much POV that bunny rabbits are coming out of my dog's butt -- and some have started blogs of their own. Also, why should the Parliaments have a word in a protocol between voluntary universities that enjoy (most of them) autonomous management?
-- Jorge
I think the Vatican is a semi-official member, this should be checked for verification. ADM (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Currently, I note that the link for the "Sorbonne declaration" in the main article redirects to the Bologna process article. I am of the opinion that this is not a good use. The "Sorbonne declaration" is currently available externally at
Hence I propose to add the latter as an important External resource and to footnote a reference to it from the Bologna process body. — Михал Орела (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I do not see a definition in the article. (or did I manage to miss it somehow?) --Nricardo (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. Found it. I have expanded the acronym on its first occurrence. --Nricardo (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This sentence sounds pretty POV to me: The Bologna Declaration can be said to be a deal done in a smoke-filled room, by governmental officials, without any participation of the European parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.49.125 (talk • contribs)
It is criticism, which should of course be attributed, not given in Wikipedia's voice. While the "smoke-filled room" is a metaphor, of course, the remainder is factual. Like most of the "European integration" stunts of the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was unburdened by any pretense of democratic process.
Sourcing criticism to this effect is extremely easy, and a decent summary of its gist should be in the WP:LEAD.
E.g. Matthias Daum, Die Zeit, 19 December 2012 [1][2]
--dab (𒁳) 07:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I am recently learning about the Bologna Process. I would like to add a citation for an article. I'm not sure how or where it would best fit, but I have the citation information in bibtex. The entry looks like this:
@ARTICLE{west10ripple, author = {Charlotte West}, title = ((Ripple Effects--The Bologna Process, Ten Years On)), journal = {International Educator}, year = {2010}, volume = {19}, pages = {24-32}, number = {6}, month = {Nov-Dec}, timestamp = {2011.02.05}, url = {http://www.nafsa.org/publications/default.aspx?id=22989} }
As you can see, the information on the article is all there, along with the website where a pdf of the original article can be had. If anyone could help me figure out how to best integrate this reference, that would be great. I am new to article editing, and don't want to mess things up. I think this reference could add something to the article, since it at least represents a published view of the affects of Bologna outside Europe. DocEdit (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
While, to be honest, I'm almost certain that the accusations about how "New Bulgarian University" carries out the "Bologna Process" are true, their tone didn't quite fit an encyclopaedia article, so I removed them. Zahical (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
the section "Rejected countries/entities Four countries or entities applied to be included in the Bologna Process, but have been rejected so far..." should direct the reader to a relieble resource. I believe this section is misleading. example, as far as I know, Israel (which is mentioned under this section) never applied to be included in the Bologna Process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.190.124 (talk) 08:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The "Laurea Magistrale" degree can also be a six-year degree if the subject is Medicine. These may be noteworthy, given the exceptional length of the degree. This type of degree is in some instances called "Laurea Specialistica a ciclo unico", but this should more properly be addressed in the page on Italian education system.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Bologna Process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Xx236 (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Prior to LMD reform - what, when?Xx236 (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Bologna Process. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Maybe this article should have a content warning or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rnsxnv (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)