2010 Survey
2009 Graduate’s Profile
University education over the last decade.
At the beginning of a European Higher Education Area
Ten years on from university reform: profile of Italian graduates
outline by Andrea CammelliWas the university reform a failure, even a real disaster in somebody’s opinion? The status observed by the Almalaurea Consortium (which includes 60 universities) through its recent survey ‘2009 Graduate Profile Report’ reveals quite a different outlook from that so insistently described inside and outside universities.
The survey investigated the 190,000
students who graduated in 2009
(namely gaining 110,000 first-level degrees; 47,000 second-level
degrees and 13,000 single-cycle specialist degrees) in one of the 51
universities that have been Almalaurea members at least for one year.
The survey reports extensive, detailed information up to each degree
course, making it possible, therefore, to notice the extreme
variability across the different aspects it covered, even if within
the same reform framework.
Along with the
information on employment status of graduates at 1, 3 and 5 years
after completing education, such material will provide a significant
benchmark – a unique one in the European context – in
order to help young people to find their way, academics to assess the
results of their commitment, national and local university
decision-makers to plan, improve, and adjust their choices, and
employers to better know the features of human capital graduating
from universities so as to enhance it and suggest any useful change.
Moreover, it must be remembered that, this survey could not have been
conducted without the cooperation and willingness
to tell the full truth
from university rectors of the Consortium member universities.
Ten years on from the reform implementation, this survey is aimed at comparing the results achieved by graduates before and after the reform process. The survey is not intended to verify whether the so-called ‘3+2’ failed or was successful, as giving marks is not Almalaurea’s task. Instead, it is meant to delineate the outcomes, making it possible to take action wherever any change is possible and desirable, doing everything in the belief that – quoting Einaudi – to rule you need to know. When you need to know something, it has been best practice to “measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so” from Galileo onwards. Therefore, it becomes essential that results are prompt, complete, reliable, periodically provided so as to allow comparisons in space and time. Numbers do not tell everything, but empirical data are the fundamental base for any rigorous check. Thus, let us start from them.
Over the past ten years, universities
achieved the following outcomes: larger number of graduates,
considerable reduction of standard graduation age, fourfold increase
in students graduating on time, improved class attendance, better
relationship with the labour market, threefold increase in training
experiences before graduation, and being close to achieving –
at least as far as second-level graduates – the strategic
objectives set by the EU regarding study periods abroad.
Besides the results achieved, besides
all the various things that are still to be amended, besides its
difficulties, such as the lack of proper funding and ongoing reforms,
these data are quite more reassuring than what the staunch advocates
of the reform failure keep on saying.
They would not have been possible
without continuous commitment by the many professors and researchers
who are real ‘good Samaritans’ in culture and research. A
concern should be more appreciated, i.e. that these young people,
even the more competent ones, risk being caught between a labour
market which does not hires and a research world that is lacking of
funds. Indeed, it is certain that the ‘army of good Samaritans’
will not be sufficient to ensure recovery and future development if
the country continues not considering investments in higher education
and research as overriding and strategic.
Framework of reference
The context which has marked the
decade under study was first characterised by an increase in
university enrolment which, later on, went down steadily.
Over the decade, qualifications
expanded by 71% (from 172,000 in 2001 to 293,000 in 2009). This is
partly due to the fact that qualifications doubled, as students who
received a master’s degree are taken into consideration not
only for the final two years, but also for their previous three year
degree course. Actually, if instead of the number of qualifications
gained, we refer to the
number of years spent
completing university education,
the increment between 2001 and 2009 is more modest (22.5%), remaining
considerable nevertheless.
In the same period, employment status
of all graduates has worsened, not only of those who had been deeply
affected by the reform process, but also of those who did not get
involved in it. As for pre-reform graduates between 1999 and 2006,
employment rate declined by 8.6 percentage points (from 85.9% to
77.3%) at 3 years after graduation, whereas it decreased by 3.8
percentage points (from 90.5% to 86.7%) at 5 years.
Comparing the 23% increase in
expenditures (revalued) incurred by state-owned universities in the
period 2001-2007 to the 28% increase in years spent in education,
greater efficiency is shown by universities during the specified
period.
Profile of 2001 and 2009 graduates for comparison
University qualification proves more and more a privilege of young people from families where a university degree is first awarded to someone in the family. Among the 2009 first-level graduates, that was the case for 75% of graduates (they had accounted for 73% in 2001).
Even if there has been a decrease,
drop-outs
are still considerable, especially during the first 12 months of
university life. Among the students who enrolled in 2001, drop-outs
accounted for 19.3%, whilst they were 17.7% in 2007.
Degree completion time
has improved as graduates completing their studies within regulation
time have increased fourfold: their number did not reach 10% in 2001
– as it was 9.5% – but has shown an overall growth of up
to 39.2% in 2009. This depends on a number of factors: namely, as for
first-level graduates, it is the resultant of 72.8% of graduates in
healthcare professions and, at the other extreme, 18.2% of law
grouping graduates who completed their studies on schedule.
Age at graduation
is considerably lower. 2001 pre-reform graduates earned the degree at
an average age of 28 years as against 27.1 years pertaining to the
overall number of 2009.
Although predictable, the datum is all
the more significant as admission to university of new population
ranges determined a simultaneous rise in age at enrolment (from 20 to
21.1 years). Hence, leaving
aside enrolment, age at graduation, which was 27.2 years in 2001, has
become 25 years for the whole number of graduates.
More specifically, 23.9 years among the first-level graduates; 25
years among second-level graduates and 26.1 years among single-cycle
specialist graduates in 2009.
Accordingly, the percentage of
graduates younger than 23 years of age is greater than before (it was
almost non-existent when the reform was introduced), as these student
now account for 17 per cent of graduates.
Class attendance went up, which for 66% of graduates pertained to more than three quarters of subjects offered (they were 54% in 2004). Internships and training periods trebled, concerning 54.5% of graduates in 2009 as against 17.9% in 2001, which highlights the growing collaboration between universities with both public and private companies.
Similarly, work experiences during university were more numerous and ever more consistent with the relevant degree course. In 2009, slightly more than 10 graduates out of one hundred completed their degree and had a permanent job in the meantime, particularly in the area of teaching (21.5%) and in the socio-political field (19%). This is certainly just the tip of a much deeper wish/need for education that would be completely expressed if only universities were able to fully grasp its foundation as well as its cultural and political relevance. Conversely, although being provided by the reform, the opportunity to enrol on part-time programmes is still frequently wasted: only 2.5 per cent of Italian university students took advantage of it in the academic year 2008/2009 (slightly more that the previous year).
Study periods abroad of Italian graduates throughout the first years of the reform have steadily intensified and involved 13.9% of graduates in 2009. These were accomplished mainly by means of European Union programmes (Erasmus first of all), and other experiences acknowledged by the university programme (such as Overseas, etc.) as well as on personal initiative. Such results ensued by an opposing trend: first-level graduates enjoyed a study period abroad, particularly Erasmus, less than pre-reform graduates (quite understandably). Among the second-level graduates, instead, up to about 18 per cent of student population are engaged in such activities (even not taking into account study periods on personal initiative). This means that Italian second-level graduates rank quite high in such field. It is not a case that education ministers meeting in Leuven in April 2009 committed themselves to extending such activities to 20% of European graduate population. Instead, most first-level graduates risk not including in their degree curricula such important experiences, despite their great need for them due to family reasons, secondary education, and private means.
Geographical mobility of graduates for education purposes is limited: 78.6 first-level graduates out of one hundred attended university within their region of residence. Mobility is even more limited for those who continued higher education, as 79.1% of first-level graduates enrolled in a second-level course at the same university where they had received their original degree.
Overall graduates’
satisfaction with the
studies completed improved too. In 2001, 27.2% of students declared
themselves extremely satisfied (whilst another 54.8% were quite
satisfied). As to 2009, 33.9% pronounced themselves fully satisfied
among first-level graduates (and another 52.3% were quite satisfied).
With reference to 2009, over 22 graduates out of one hundred declared
themselves extremely satisfied about the relations with academic
staff. Students’ satisfaction is even greater when it comes to
assessing university educational facilities, which were considered as
being always or almost always adequate by more than a quarter of 2009
graduates.
As to library services
(loan/reference, opening hours and so on), these were very positively
judged by about 31% of 2009 graduates and IT facilities were deemed
as acceptable and adequate by over 35 per cent of 2009 recent
graduates.
Confronted with the idea of repeating
the experience they had just completed, over two thirds of student
population (more than 68%) responded positively, and such figure
remained practically unchanged between pre- and post-reform
respondents but, here too, it is higher among second-level graduates.
The trend towards continuing
higher education, which was
quite high before the reform implementation (60% of 2001 graduates),
grew further up to 77% of first-level graduates in 2009 (60.5% as for
second-level graduates).
2009 second-level graduates
The over 47,000 second-level graduates of 2009 performed quite brilliantly. This is what emerges from the comparison with the results of the best pre-reform graduates in 2001 (the comparison was made with pre-reform graduates who had completed their studies with a maximum delay of one year, i.e. slightly more than a quarter of graduate population).
On the whole, they were second-level graduates who had generally attended senior high schools specialising in scientific subjects, more than it can be noticed in first-level graduates.
50% of them completed their studies on
schedule (as against 9.5% in 2001), with varied values according
subject grouping. More specifically, they ranged from 89% of students
in the healthcare-medical grouping and 74% in the physical education
grouping to the minimum value of 33% of architecture graduates.
Average age at graduation
is 27.3 years (ranging from 29.7 years in the teaching grouping, 26.2
years in the engineering grouping and 25.7 years in the chemistry and
pharmacology grouping). However, in the case of second-level
graduates again, age at graduation is strongly influenced by the
considerable number of graduates whose age at enrolment was older
than the standard one. Indeed, about 26 out of one hundred
second-level graduates enrolled with a delay ranging from 2 and 10
years whereas the delay was of over ten years for another 6 per cent.
Leaving aside the delayed
enrolment, age at graduation, which is 27.2 years in pre-reform
graduates, drops to 25 years in second-level graduates.
During university studies, 53.3% had
training periods (as against 25%), whilst 14% went abroad by means of
EU programmes (as against 11%). A value, the latter, which goes up to
18% if we take into account study periods abroad which are officially
acknowledged by universities. Moreover, 71% of them declared to have
a fluent command of English (as against 64%). Furthermore, among
second-level graduates too, the figure of those who want to continue
higher education is surprisingly high (41%): these students account
for 79% in the psychology grouping, 61.5% in the healthcare-medical
grouping, about 60% in the geo-biology and law grouping, and less
than a quarter in the recent engineering graduates. About 9,400
second-level graduates in the whole Italian university system, i.e.
13%, plan to study for a PhD. In both cases, a question arises:
continuing higher education (both after first- and second- level
degrees) is done for the sake of receiving further education or it is
rather due to the difficulty of finding a proper job? The higher rate
which mainly characterises youth in southern Italy seems to confirm
the second hypothesis.