Erasmus Assessment Report Outgoing Students Assessment Report Outgoing Students 2010 ... 7.3 Analysis of the grants given to the students at the University of Malta during the

Erasmus Assessment Report

Outgoing Students

2010

Il-Kunsill tal-Istudenti Universitarji

Report written by:

Larkin Zahra Francesca Scicluna

KSU International Officer KSU International Co-ordinator

i

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ i

List of Figures .................................................................................................................... vi

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... ix

Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... xiii

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 Study Focus and Approach ...................................................................................... 3

2.2 Aims of Study ........................................................................................................... 3

2.3 Targets and Outcomes ............................................................................................ 3

2.4 Study Logistics ......................................................................................................... 4

2.5 Study Statistics ......................................................................................................... 5

2.5.1 University of Malta International and EU Office Data ..................................... 5

2.5.2 Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire .................................................... 6

2.5.3 Erasmus Focus Group ....................................................................................... 6

2.6 Difficulties Encountered .......................................................................................... 7

2.7 Limitations of Study ................................................................................................. 9

2.8 Report Structure .................................................................................................... 10

3. Analysis of the number of students going on Erasmus ................................................ 12

3.1 Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................. 12

3.2 Total number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus .................. 12

3.3 Number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus per Faculty,

Institute and Centre ............................................................................................... 14

3.3.1 Faculty of Arts ................................................................................................. 14

3.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment .................................................................. 15

ii

3.3.3 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy.................................. 16

3.3.4 Faculty of Education ....................................................................................... 18

3.3.5 Faculty of Engineering .................................................................................... 19

3.3.6 Faculty of Health Sciences .............................................................................. 20

3.3.7 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology ............................... 21

3.3.8 Faculty of Laws ............................................................................................... 22

3.3.9 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery .................................................................... 23

3.3.10 Faculty of Science ......................................................................................... 24

3.3.11 Faculty of Theology ...................................................................................... 25

3.3.12 Institute of Criminology................................................................................ 26

3.3.13 Institute of Earth Systems ............................................................................ 27

3.3.14 Institute of Linguistics .................................................................................. 28

3.3.15 Mediterranean Institute ............................................................................... 28

3.3.16 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture ..................................................... 30

3.3.17 Centre for Communication Technology ....................................................... 31

3.3.18 European Documentation and Research Centre ......................................... 32

3.3.19 Centre for Conservation and Restoration .................................................... 33

3.4 Comparison between the number of students going on Erasmus between the

different Faculties, Institutes and Centres ............................................................ 34

3.5 Comparison of Malta’s situation when compared to the other countries

participating in the Erasmus Programme .............................................................. 36

3.6 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................... 38

4. Analysis of the Universities and Placements ............................................................... 39


4.2 General Overview .................................................................................................. 39

4.3 Specific Analysis ..................................................................................................... 40

4.3.1 Faculty of Arts ................................................................................................. 40

4.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment .................................................................. 46

4.3.3 Faculty of Dental Surgery ............................................................................... 48

iii

4.3.4 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy.................................. 48

4.3.5 Faculty of Education ....................................................................................... 50

4.3.6 Faculty of Engineering .................................................................................... 53

4.3.7 Faculty of Health Sciences .............................................................................. 55

4.3.8 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology ............................... 58

4.3.9 Faculty of Laws ............................................................................................... 60

4.3.10 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery .................................................................. 62

4.3.11 Faculty of Science ......................................................................................... 64

4.3.12 Faculty of Theology ...................................................................................... 66

4.3.13 Institute of Criminology................................................................................ 67

4.3.14 The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development of

Thinking ........................................................................................................ 68

4.3.15 Institute of Earth Systems ............................................................................ 69

4.3.16 Institute of Linguistics .................................................................................. 70

4.3.17 Mediterranean Institute ............................................................................... 71

4.3.18 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture ..................................................... 73

4.3.19 Centre for Communication Technology ....................................................... 74

4.3.20 European Documentation and Research Centre ......................................... 75

4.3.21 Others ........................................................................................................... 77

4.4 Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................ 79

5. Analysis of the Administrative Problems ..................................................................... 81


5.2 The University of Malta International & EU Office ................................................ 81

5.2.1 Competences of the University of Malta International and EU Office -

Outgoing Students ......................................................................................... 81

5.2.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report

Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 82

5.2.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group ................. 82

5.3 The University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres .................................... 84

iv

5.3.1 Competences of the University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres ... 84


Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 85


5.4 Host University ...................................................................................................... 85


5.5 Chapter Conclusion ................................................................................................ 86

6. Analysis of the Academic Problems ............................................................................. 88


6.2 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group........................ 88

6.2.1 Academic difficulties encountered during the exchange programme ........... 88

6.2.2 Academic difficulties encountered after the exchange programme ............. 89

6.3 The Erasmus Semester .......................................................................................... 89

6.3.1 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Assessment

Questionnaire ................................................................................................. 89

6.3.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Focus Group ...................... 90


7. Analysis of the Financial Aspect of going on Erasmus ................................................. 92


7.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report

Questionnaire ........................................................................................................ 92

7.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group........................ 92

7.4 Analysis of the grants given per academic year per host country ........................ 93

7.3 Analysis of the grants given to the students at the University of Malta during the

academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 ........................................................... 95

7.5 Grants and Expenses ............................................................................................. 97


v

8. Analysis of the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire Results ........................... 99


8.2 Analysis of the Results ........................................................................................... 99

8.3 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................. 123

9. Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 124

9.1 Chapter Introduction ........................................................................................... 124

9.2 Recommendations in order to improve Malta’s experience in the Erasmus

Programme .......................................................................................................... 124

9.3 Chapter Conclusion ............................................................................................. 127

10. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 129

List of Annexes

Annex 1: International exposure of the call for participants for the Erasmus Focus

Group

Annex 2: The questions asked in the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire

Annex 3: Erasmus Focus Group PowerPoint presentation

Annex 4: Sample of the Erasmus Focus Group booklet

Annex 5: Outgoing Erasmus students' interest-free loan scheme proposal

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1 Total number of students that applied, got accepted and went on

Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year

2009-2010

13

Figure 2 Total number of the Faculty of Arts students that applied, got

accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-

2005 till the academic year 2009-2010

14

Figure 3 Total number of the Faculty for the Built Environment students that

applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic

year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010

15

Figure 4 Total number of the Faculty of Economics, Management and

Accountancy students that applied, got accepted and went on


2009-2010

17

Figure 5 Total number of the Faculty of Education students that applied, got



18

Figure 6 Total number of the Faculty of Engineering students that applied,

got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-


19

Figure 7 Total number of the Faculty of Health Sciences students that



20

Figure 8 Total number of the Faculty of Information and Communication

Technology students that applied, got accepted and went on


2009-2010

21

Figure 9 Total number of the Faculty of Laws students that applied, got



22

Figure 10 Total number of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students that



24

Figure 11 Total number of the Faculty of Science students that applied, got



25

vii

Figure 12

Total number of the Faculty of Theology students that applied, got



26

Figure 13 Total number of the Institute of Criminology students that applied,



27

Figure 14 Total number of the Institute of Earth Systems students that



27

Figure 15 Total number of the Institute of Linguistics students that applied,



28

Figure 16 Total number of the Mediterranean Institute students that applied,



29

Figure 17 Total number of the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture

students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from

the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010

30

Figure 18 Total number of the Centre for Communication Technology



31

Figure 19 Total number of the European Documentation and Research Centre



32

Figure 20 Total number of the Centre for Conservation and Restoration



33

Figure 21 Outgoing Erasmus students in 2008-2009 as a share of student

population by country

37

Figure 22 Graph of grant given per host country in Euro 94

Figure 23 Rating of the perception of the Erasmus programme 100

Figure 24 Have you ever been on Erasmus? 100

Figure 25 Rating of the Erasmus experience 101

Figure 26 Amount of money received as a grant per month 102

Figure 27 Estimated costs per month 103

Figure 28 Was the grant fair? 103

viii

Figure 29 Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in

academic terms

104

Figure 30 Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in

campus life terms

105

Figure 31 Was the Erasmus semester appropriate? 106

Figure 32 Why wasn’t the Erasmus semester appropriate? 107

Figure 33 Rating of the University of Malta International and EU Office 107

Figure 34 Problems encountered at the University of Malta International and

EU Office (if applicable)

108

Figure 35 Support received from the respective local Faculties, Institutes and

Centres

109

Figure 36 Problems encountered with recognition when back in Malta 110

Figure 37 Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students

from your course?

111

Figure 38 Why would you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other

students from your course?

111

Figure 39 Why wouldn’t you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other

students from your course?

112

Figure 40 Have you applied to go on Erasmus? 113

Figure 41 Did you get accepted to go on Erasmus? 113

Figure 42 Why didn’t you go on Erasmus? 114

Figure 43 Transparency of the selection process 115

Figure 44 Would you consider applying again? 116

Figure 45 Why would you consider applying again? 116

Figure 46 Why wouldn’t you consider applying again? 117

Figure 47 Do you intend applying? 118

Figure 48 Why do you intend applying? 119

Figure 49 Why don’t you intend applying? 120

Figure 50 What would have triggered you to apply? 121

Figure 51 Gender distribution 121

Figure 52 Faculty, Institute and Centre distribution 122

ix

List of Tables

Table 1 Percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to the students

accepted to go on Erasmus per Faculty, Institute and Centre for the

2004/2005-2006/2007 and 2007/2008-2009/2010 academic years

34

Table 2 Amount of students who went on Erasmus per Faculty, Institute

and Centre for the 2004/2005-2006/2007 and 2007/2008-

2009/2010 academic years

35

Table 3 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Arts students wishing

to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

41

Table 4 Number of available places for the Faculty of Arts students wishing

to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

46

Table 5 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty for the Built

Environment students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010

academic year

46

Table 6 Number of available places for the Faculty for the Built

Environment students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-

2009/2010 academic year

47

Table 7 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Economics,

Management and Accountancy students wishing to go on Erasmus

for the 2009-2010 academic year

48

Table 8 Number of available places for the Faculty of Economics,

Management and Accountancy students wishing to go on Erasmus

for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

50

Table 9 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Education students

wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

51

Table 10 Number of available places for the Faculty of Education students

wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic

year

52

Table 11 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Engineering students


53

Table 12 Number of available places for the Faculty of Engineering students


year

55

Table 13 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Health Sciences

students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic

year

56

x

Table 14

Number of available places for the Faculty of Health Sciences

students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010

academic year

58

Table 15 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Information and

Communication Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for

the 2009-2010 academic year

59

Table 16 Number of available places for the Faculty of Information and

Communication Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for

the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

60

Table 17 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Laws students


60

Table 18 Number of available places for the Faculty of Laws students wishing

to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

62

Table 19 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Medicine and

Surgery students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010

academic year

62

Table 20 Number of available places for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery


academic year

64

Table 21 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Science students


64

Table 22 Number of available places for the Faculty of Science students


year

66

Table 23 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Theology students


66

Table 24 Number of available places for the Faculty of Theology students


year

67

Table 25 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Criminology


year

67

Table 26 Number of available places for the Institute of Criminology students


year

68

xi

Table 27 List of bi-lateral agreements for The Edward De Bono Institute for

the Design and Development and Thinking students wishing to go

on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

68

Table 28 Number of available places for The Edward De Bono Institute for

the Design and Development and Thinking students wishing to go

on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

68

Table 29 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Earth Systems


year

69

Table 30 Number of available places for the Institute of Earth Systems


academic year

70

Table 31 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Linguistics students


70

Table 32 Number of available places for the Institute of Linguistics students


year

70

Table 33 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Mediterranean Institute


year

71

Table 34 Number of available places for the Mediterranean Institute


academic year

73

Table 35 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute for Tourism, Travel

and Culture students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010

academic year

73

Table 36 Number of available places for the Institute for Tourism, Travel and

Culture students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-


74

Table 37 List of bi-lateral agreements for the Centre for Communication

Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010

academic year

74

Table 38 Number of available places for the Centre for Communication

Technology students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-


75

Table 39 List of bi-lateral agreements for the European Documentation and

Research Centre students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-

2010 academic year

76

xii

Table 40 Number of available places for the European Documentation and

Research Centre students wishing to go on Erasmus for the

2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

77

Table 41 List of bi-lateral agreements for the rest of the students wishing to

go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

77

Table 42 Number of available places for the rest of the students wishing to

go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

79

Table 43 Grants given per country for the 2004/2005-2009/2010 academic

years in Euro

93

Table 44 Grants given to the students during the academic year 2009-2010

in Euro

95

Table 45 Grants given to the students during the academic year 2008-2009

in Euro

96

Table 46 Estimated Expenses for the academic year 2009-2010 in Euro 98

xiii

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude towards the entire KSU executive for the

constant help and support that they have shown us during the time when we were

writing this report.

Special thanks go to the members of the Erasmus Focus Group who have helped us by

giving us an insight of the Erasmus Programme in relation to their respective Faculties,

Institutes and Centres. The members of the Erasmus Focus Group were: Ms Maria

Kristina Pace (Faculty of Arts), Ms Sharon Falzon (Faculty for the Built Environment), Ms

Danielle Farrugia (Faculty of Education), Mr Jean Marie Darmanin (Faculty of

Engineering), Ms Yvette Zarb (Faculty of Health Sciences), Ms Marika Attard (Faculty of

Theology), Ms Romilda Grima (Institute of Criminology), Ms Colette Caruana

(Mediterranean Institute), Ms Tamara Gauci (Centre for Communication Technology)

and Mr Hubert Paul Farrugia (European Documentation and Research Centre).

The KSU International Office would also like to thank Mr Ian Buhagiar and Ms Rachel

Cassar for their help and patience in helping us in the Erasmus Assessment Report

Questionnaire. Our appreciation also goes to those organisations and individuals who

promoted this questionnaire in order to collect as many responses as possible.

Finally, we would like to thank the University of Malta International and EU Office (Ms

Stefania Fabri, Ms Anna Callus, Ms Annhelica Agius and Ms Maria Vella) and the

European Union Programmes Agency (namely Mr Reuben Pullicino and Mr Karl

Mintoff) for their help in providing us with the necessary information to complete the

Erasmus Assessment Report.

1

1. Introduction

The European Region Action Scheme for the Mobility of University Students

Programme (Erasmus Programme) has been established in 1987 by the now European

Union. It is considered to be the ‘EU’s flagship education and training programme’1 that

aids higher education institutions all across Europe to co-operate together.

The European Union Portal describes the Erasmus Programme as follows:

Many studies show that a period spent abroad not only enriches students' lives in the academic and professional fields, but can also improve language learning, intercultural skills, self-reliance and self-awareness. Their experiences give students a better sense of what it means to be a European citizen. In addition, many employers highly value such a period abroad, which increases the students' employability and job prospects.

1

KSU believes that it is a major shortcoming from the relevant authorities concerned

that an assessment of the Maltese experience of the Erasmus programme has not been

done before. In fact, it is KSU who decided to study the current situation of the

Erasmus Programme since the aim of having the students to become more mobile can

be tackled in a more effective way by means of the statistics obtained and compiled by

this report. Such statistics and information cover the various aspects of the Erasmus

Programme. Moreover, these statistics will give a more clear indication of the problems

that are related to this programme and what is needed in order for such problems to

be overcome.

It is the objective of KSU that this research exercise is also done in relation to the

incoming international student in order to help these students to maximise their

experience at the University of Malta with the help of the university administration,

lecturing staff, relevant authorities and other organisations involved.

KSU believes that this report is the starting point of a series of activities in relation to

the Erasmus Programme. With the aid of the recommendations arising out of this

Erasmus Assessment Report, KSU will do its utmost to ensure that these

recommendations are effectively tackled for the benefit of all the students studying at

the University of Malta wishing to go on Erasmus. It is expected that these actions will

result in an increase in the take-up of this programme especially from the ones who

would not have opted to go on Erasmus before.

1 Ibid.

2

KSU’s concerns are not limited to the statistics of the number of students going on

Erasmus. We will work hard in order to minimise all the inconveniences related to the

application process, to the actual period during which one is abroad on Erasmus and to

the period when the students come back and expect a speedy and faithful recognition

of the marks obtained at the host university. If this report manages to address these

points, then the purpose of this assessment would be fulfilled as we would have

managed to improve the students experience in all the phases that they have to face

with in order to go on Erasmus.

It is not our intention to associate and blame the problems to a specific entity. We

believe that it was necessary to highlight the problems encountered by the students so

that all the relevant authorities and offices can focus their efforts to improve the

Maltese students’ experience on what is actually needed. We are sure that all the

officials concerned will do their best in order to address such shortcomings highlighted

by this report in the shortest time possible.

3

2. Methodology

2.1 Study Focus and Approach

The focus of this study is to assess the current situation of the Erasmus programme

with the specific intention of assessing whether students are reaping the full benefits it

can offer. Various aspects of the Erasmus Programme will be focused upon in order to

have a holistic analysis and assessment of this programme.

The approaches we intend to choose include both a qualitative and a quantitative

aspect. The qualitative aspect is tackled by the Erasmus Focus Group where a more in

depth discussion was organised in order to have a better insight of the particular

situation of each and every Faculty, Institute and Centre. The quantitative aspect

involves the statistical data collected from the International and EU Office of the

University of Malta and from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire which KSU

compiled in order to enrich the research aspect of this study.

2.2 Aims of Study

The primary aim of this study is to shed light on the experience of the Maltese students

within the Erasmus Programme especially after the May 2010 incident regarding the

suspension of the Lifelong Learning EU funds. Thus, this study is vital in order shift the

focus of the Erasmus Programme from one that is simply related to the grants issue, to

one that is wider in scope. This will ultimately lead us to analyse various aspects related

to this programme so that we will be able to give our recommendations in order to

have the current situation improved.

Another aim of this study is to have a single updated research on the Erasmus

Programme. To date, no real holistic study exists on such a programme. In previous

years, the discussion revolved more about numbers rather than other matters, such as

the actual experience of participating in an Erasmus exchange. We believe that this

report can trigger a more informed and true discussion on this programme.

2.3 Targets and Outcomes

The first target of this study is to examine the number of applications by the local

students to go on Erasmus and the number of the students who eventually decide to

go. The outcome of this target is to evaluate the take-up of such an opportunity offered

by the Erasmus Programme.

4

Another target is to assess the number and level of universities which the University of

Malta has an agreement with. The outcome of this target will revolve on whether the

University of Malta is offering a wide range of universities and placements which the

Maltese students can choose from and whether the agreements are signed with high

level universities or not.

This study will identify the administrative efficiencies and deficiencies both in relation

to the staff within the Faculties, Institutes and Centres, in relation to the International

and EU Office officials and related to the administration of the host university. The

outcome of this aspect will include suggestions in order to avoid the deficiencies and to

strengthen further more the efficiencies.

The assessment of the academic difficulties is also a target within the context of this

study. The outcomes related to this point are envisaged to include proposals on how

such difficulties can be tackled effectively and overcome.

The financial aspect of the Erasmus Programme will also be analysed in order to see

whether the grant given is fair and if it is enough. Another outcome related to this

aspect will be an assessment of whether the structure of how the grant is given (should

students from different courses that have different expenses related to their studies

receive the same amount of grant?) and what the grant should cover (maybe it should

cater for just the accommodation of the stay in that particular host university) are fair.

Moreover, the final target of this study is to suggest a number of recommendations to

be implemented in order for the Erasmus programme to be more successful. The

outcome of such suggestions would be an increase in the students who apply to go on

Erasmus, an increase in the take-up of this mobility programme and the avoidance of

all the difficulties that were experienced in the past that might have shadowed the

benefits of this programme.

2.4 Study Logistics

This study has had a large amount of promotion as from its early stages. The Erasmus

Focus Group is a case in point where we needed to find a representative from all the

Faculties, Institutes and Centres that registered students applying to go on Erasmus. A

call was sent through the mailing lists of the Education Commission and the Social

Policy Commission. A personal email was also sent to all the student representatives in

order to send it to their contact list to try and find participants from their respective

faculty. This call for participation was also forwarded by the student and youth

5

organisations present on campus where eventually it ended up being included in an

international newsletter sent to more than 30 countries (refer to Annex 1).

The Erasmus Assessment Report was given prominence in the summer recess as well.

KSU sent a mail shot to its members to encourage them to complete the questionnaire.

Moreover, KSU also sent the same message to the Registrar’s Office in order to be

forwarded to every student registered at the University of Malta. These mail shots

were complemented by the emails sent to the mailing lists of the Education and Social

Policy Commissions. A poster was also designed in order to further promote the

questionnaire, a soft copy of which was sent as an email shot while a hard copy of it

could be found all over the University of Malta campus (mainly in Student’s House).

2.5 Study Statistics

Various types of statistics were used for this study. These include data obtained from

the University of Malta International and EU Office, statistical data obtained from the

Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire and data obtained through the Erasmus

Focus Group.

2.5.1 University of Malta International and EU Office Data

Data was obtained from the University of Malta International and EU Office. Such data

consisted of several statistics related to the applications and take-up of the Erasmus

Programme and on the bi-lateral agreements which the University of Malta has an

agreement with.

It is worth noting that the data was split according to the current University of Malta

structure – according to the present composition of Faculties, Institutes and Centres.

This was essential in order to have a constant and coherent data which does not

change in relation to different academic years. In this way, comparisons between

different academic years could be made possible.

The analysis of this data was also split up according to the average annual percentages

of students who went on Erasmus for the academic years taken into consideration. We

decided to take this approach and not on the actual number of students that went on

Erasmus since the latter would not be suitable for comparison reasons.

6

2.5.2 Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire

An Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire was compiled in order to gather a

general feedback from a large number of students. The questions that were included in

this questionnaire can be viewed in Annex 2.

The desired amount of respondents was set at five hundred students in order to have

this questionnaire as representative as possible. In fact, this questionnaire was

completed by students from almost all the Faculties, Institutes and Centres of the

University of Malta. The questionnaire was structured on this premise since it catered

for a wide plethora of situations: for students who have no interest in applying to go on

Erasmus, for students who applied and didn’t get accepted, for students who got

accepted but decided not to go and for students who got accepted and actually went.

The data obtained from the online questionnaire which totalled 519 respondents was

analysed through the IBM SPSS Statistics predictive tool.

2.5.3 Erasmus Focus Group

An Erasmus Focus Group was set up to collect more specific data in relation to the

various aspects of the Erasmus Programme. A call for a representative from every

Faculty, Institute and Centre was sent through various channels in order to gather a

better insight of the Erasmus Programme situation on a micro level. Moreover, when

we had more than one student interested in forming part of this Erasmus Focus Group,

we decided to choose between the applicants on the basis of the following criteria: to

have as much as possible a gender balance between the participants and to have a

representation of the various geographical groupings of Europe (Scandinavia, Western

Europe, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, the Baltic countries and Southern

Europe/Mediterranean countries). In this way we could get information which is closer

to reality since the different European scenarios for students going on Erasmus would

be taken into consideration.

A PowerPoint presentation was prepared for the Erasmus Focus Group in order to

trigger the discussion, a copy of which can be viewed in Annex 3. A KSU representative

was in charge of documenting all the responses so that all the opinions of the

participants would eventually be included in the study. Moreover, a booklet was

prepared in order to have a hard copy of these opinions since it might be the case that

some of the opinions in mind were not expressed by word of mouth. A sample of this

booklet can be viewed in Annex 4.

7

The Faculties, Institutes and Centres that were represented in this Erasmus Focus

Group are as follows: Faculty of Arts, Faculty for the Built Environment, Faculty of

Education, Faculty of Engineering, Faculty of Health Sciences, Faculty of Theology,

Institute of Criminology, Mediterranean Institute, Centre for Communication

Technology and the European Documentation and Research Centre.

Other representatives were found but did not participate in this Focus Group. A soft

copy of the booklet used during the Erasmus Focus Group was sent by email to these

students/University of Malta alumni, in order to receive additional feedback that would

not have been available to us otherwise. The Faculties, Institutes and Centres

concerned were as follows: Faculty of Laws and the Institute for Tourism, Travel and

Culture.

There were other Faculties, Institutes and Centres which were not represented in this

Erasmus Focus Group mainly due to the restrictions that stop the students from going

on Erasmus. In fact, a number of difficulties that the students find are to match the

study-units offered abroad with the ones offered at the University of Malta and the fact

that they have to do compulsory study-units or practical sessions during the semester/s

available for the students to go on Erasmus. These include the Faculty of Dental

Surgery, Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy, Faculty of Information

and Communication Technology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery and the Faculty of

Science, The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development of Thinking,

Institute of Earth Systems and Institute of Linguistics. The rest of the Institutes and

Centres present at the University of Malta were not considered to form part of this

Erasmus Focus Group since they had no student enrolled with them that participated in

the Erasmus Programme. The number of students participating in the Focus Group had

to be carefully considered in order not to hinder potential results through the

participation of an excessive number of people. Thus, our aim of having clear and

precise information through the discussion between the students involved would not

have been successful.

2.6 Difficulties Encountered

Our aim was to have the Erasmus Focus Group with a gender balance and a

representation from the various regional groupings of Europe. We registered interest

from a larger number of female students than their male counterparts. Moreover, even

though we managed to reach the majority of the European regional groupings (with the

exception of Central Europe), we had a number of countries that were represented

more than once. These included Ireland, the United Kingdom and Finland. However,

8

there was no other choice than accepting these participants since some Faculties,

Institutes and Centres would not have been represented otherwise.

One should also take notice that students from a number of Faculties, Institutes and

Centres did not form part of the Erasmus Focus Group. In some cases, the students that

we contacted replied that no student from their Faculty go on Erasmus since the study-

units between the University of Malta and the host universities which the University of

Malta has a bilateral agreement with do not match or because the students are obliged

to do certain practices in Malta every year that serve as an impediment from going on

Erasmus. The large number of fillings that the Dentistry students have to do is a case in

point. Other Faculties were not represented just because there was no student who

was interested in giving their say in this Erasmus Focus Group. The Erasmus Assessment

Report Questionnaire is one way how we tackled this difficulty since we received

feedback from the majority of students of all the Faculties, Institutes or Centres based

at the University of Malta.

Another difficulty encountered was to find students to complete the Erasmus

Assessment Report Questionnaire. A major contributor for this situation to develop

was the fact that we had to collect the necessary data during the summer recess. Many

students have other commitments in summer which are not related to their academic

life that might have hindered them from completing this questionnaire. To solve this

problem, we have intensified our promotion attempts in order to reach out as much as

possible to all the University of Malta students.

The Erasmus Programme was high on the agenda of many stakeholders in 2010. The

media gave it prominence every time there was a slight development. The attention

revolved mainly around the suspension of the Lifelong Learning funds. Thus, other

important aspects of this mobility programme were sidelined such as the academic

aspects and the statistics of the take-up of such a programme by the local students. We

wanted to compile this report in a holistic manner so that we could successfully assess

whether the students are reaping the full benefits of this programme. This is the reason

why this study includes a large number of aspects related to the Erasmus programme.

The last difficulty which we faced was to acquire the necessary information for this

study. We needed statistical data which we never received a reply for such as which

is/are the Erasmus Semester/s of every Faculty, Institute and Centre. In other cases, we

had to face bureaucratic hindrances that prevented us from obtaining the data that we

required.

9

2.7 Limitations of Study

One of the limitations of this study is the fact that the number of students accepted

refers to those students that have an average that is higher than the minimum

threshold needed to go on Erasmus. Thus, it might be the case that a number of

students that were accepted were not even given the possibility to go on Erasmus due

to the limited places available. Therefore, the difference between the students who

applied and the students who were accepted is confined to the number of students

who achieved a low average. This means that we do not have the data to compare how

many went on Erasmus from those who were actually given a place since no such data

exists. This is also true in the light of the fact that Erasmus Officers within the

University of Malta International and EU Office try until the very end to transfer the

places available that were not taken up from the students that would have withdrawn

their application to go on Erasmus and to make it available to the other students that

were not offered a place before.

Another limitation when comparing the statistical data acquired for this report is the

fact that some course structures have changed throughout the years taken into

consideration for the purpose of this study. A case in point is the Faculty for the Built

Environment whereby both fourth and fifth year students have the opportunity to go

on Erasmus while it was only the third year students that had this opportunity before.

The same situation apply for the European Documentation and Research Centre since

third year students have started being accepted to go on Erasmus as from this year

whereas only second year students could go on Erasmus in the past. Thus, some of the

data obtained cannot be compared due to the fact that a larger number of students

could have gone on Erasmus resulting in an artificial increase in the take-up of this

mobility programme when compared to the previous years (when the changes in the

Erasmus Semester/s were not in place).

Another limitation of this study is that the statistics and information that we obtained

does not cover the 2010-2011 academic year, the one which was under the spotlight

recently due to the suspension of some of the EU funds. It must be noted that the

primary aim of this study was to assess the Erasmus Programme in a holistic manner

and thus not limiting our efforts on the grants aspect of the mobility programme.

Nonetheless, the data for this academic year would have led this study to tackle all the

aspects arising out of this programme.

The majority of the data we have in hand is based on the situation within the University

of Malta. Recently, other Maltese educational institutions started participating in the

Erasmus programme (MCAST and ITS). Thus, these institutions were included when the

10

overall picture of the Erasmus take-up is taken into consideration. This means that the

data used to compare the Maltese situation with the other EU countries is not specific

to the University of Malta. Therefore, the data might not give the true picture of the

situation at the University of Malta since it is affected by the other educational

institutions concerned.

2.8 Report Structure

The first two chapters will provide an introduction and the methodology for this study

on the current situation of the Erasmus Programme. The third chapter will focus mainly

on the analysis of the number of students that applied to go on Erasmus, those who got

accepted and the ones who actually went to study or for a placement abroad. This

analysis will be made per faculty for the year starting from the academic year 2004-

2005 till the academic year 2009-2010. Moreover, the total percentage of the students

that went on Erasmus will be compared to the total number of University of Malta

students from that particular faculty that could have gone on Erasmus. This will show

how close Malta is from achieving the EU2020 strategy on student mobility.

The fourth chapter will deal with an analysis of the number of universities or

placements available per faculty for the year starting from the academic year 2006-

2007 till the academic year 2009-2010. This chapter will also tackle the level, as

perceived by the students, of the universities which the University of Malta has a

bilateral agreement with and the take-up of these places by the Maltese students going

on Erasmus. This analysis will be aided by the information obtained through the

Erasmus Focus Group.

The fifth and sixth chapter will identify the administrative problems and academic

problems encountered by the student. This will include an analysis of the Erasmus

Semester for each faculty, the recognition process for the marks obtained by the

student at the host university when transferred to the local marking system and the

issues related to the University of Malta International and EU Office. These chapters

will be focusing on the information and the data arising out of the Erasmus Focus

Group. It must be noted that both the administrative problems encountered at the

University of Malta and those encountered at the host university will be identified.

The seventh chapter will be based upon the analysis of the financial aspect of going on

Erasmus. The expenses that the students incur and an assessment of the grant given to

the student going on Erasmus will feature in this chapter. The Erasmus Focus Group

11

and the data collected from the University of Malta International and EU Office will be

the basis of such analysis.

The eighth chapter will analyse all the data that was collected from the Erasmus

Assessment Report Questionnaire. The questions asked were related to all the aspects

of the Erasmus Programme as tackled in the previous chapters in this report. The

analysis of the questionnaire was grouped in one chapter in order to have a more

structured evaluation of the responses.

In the ninth chapter, a number of recommendations that KSU suggests to be

implemented on every aspect tackled during this study will be made. Such

recommendations will include general suggestions and other more specific ones

related to particular faculties, offices or agencies. The tenth chapter will conclude the

study in order to analyse whether students are reaping the full benefits of the Erasmus

Programme.

12

3. Analysis of the number of students going on Erasmus

3.1 Chapter Introduction

This part of the report analyses the number of students that showed interest and

applied to go on the Erasmus Programme, those which were accepted and those

students who actually went on Erasmus per year per different Faculties, Institutes and

Centres starting from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010. A

bar chart for each Faculty, Institute and Centre has been plotted in order to offer the

possibility for students to undergo this programme. An analysis of the results obtained

from these bar charts as well as the comments obtained from the Erasmus Focus Group

follow. Additionally, the total students going on Erasmus has been compared to the

student population and a comparative analysis between the different Faculties,

Institutes and Centres has also been done.

3.2 Total number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus

The number of students going on Erasmus has increased throughout the years, with an

increase of 33.08% from the academic year 2004-2005 to the academic year 2009-

2010.

The percentage rise in students going on Erasmus, from the University of Malta,

between the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009/2010, was of 47.86% while the

percentage rise in the student population was 1.87%. Thus, one can see that more

students are going on average when compared to the current University of Malta

population. It must be noted that the number of students going on Erasmus is not a

relatively small one so it is much easier to have a shift in the percentages while this

does not apply to the total number of students enrolled to read for a degree at the

University of Malta since the number of students is much larger.

The Erasmus Focus Group has commented that these results are not surprising as it is

difficult to find students who are willing to take up this experience and deviate from

the security offered by home. Nevertheless, they opted to apply anyway because they

were extremely motivated to go on Erasmus. Additionally, some students think of

university as a collection of credits rather than a chance to broaden the mind.

13

Figure 1: Total number of students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the

academic year 2009-2010

361

280

314

242

293

355357

278

307

234

284

347

130

153

125117

149

173

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Tota

l No

. of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year

Total no. of Students that applied to go on Erasmus Total no. of Students that got accepted to go on Erasmus

Total no. of Students that went on Erasmus

Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office

14

77.78% of the Erasmus Focus Group has also commented on the fact that some

Faculties, Institutes and Centres are not as encouraging when students opt to go on

Erasmus. Moreover, it is hard to find a university where the credits match those at the

University of Malta.

3.3 Number of students applying, accepted and going on Erasmus per Faculty,

Institute and Centre

3.3.1 Faculty of Arts

In the Faculty of Arts, the percentage of students who went on Erasmus out of the total

students accepted has varied from 31.71% in 2007-2008 to 59.26% in 2005-2006. On

average during the six years taken into consideration, a percentage of 42.65% of the

students who were accepted to go on the Erasmus Programme actually went. This

figure decreased in the past three academic years where an average of 36.51% has

gone on Erasmus from 2007-2010 compared to 2004-2007 where 48.79% had gone.

Figure 2: Total number of the Faculty of Arts students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus –

from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010


The percentage of students applying to go on Erasmus has varied from year to year by a

maximum of 72.4% between the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, these

having the lowest and highest number of students applying for the Erasmus

47

29

50

43 43

38

47

27

49

41 42

38

16 16

26

1315 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year

No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies

No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies

No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies

15

Programme respectively. Despite this rapid increase in applicants, the percentage of

students who actually went on Erasmus decreased from 59.3% to 53.1% during the

academic years in question. Surprisingly, the 2005-2006 academic year, which marked

the lowest number of applicants and the highest percentage of non-accepted students,

resulted in the highest number of students going on Erasmus.

The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that the number of students going on Erasmus

should have increased throughout the years as travelling has become easier and

cheaper. Also communication with the University of Malta, family and friends in Malta

has been facilitated when residing abroad. The reason for such figures in the latest

years, according to the Erasmus Focus Group, has shown that not much effort has been

put to promote the Erasmus Programme by the University of Malta.

3.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment

Figure 3: Total number of the Faculty for the Built Environment students that applied, got accepted and

went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010


The Faculty for the Built Environment has undergone a significant increase in the

number of students applying for the Erasmus Programme and actually going on

Erasmus. During the academic year 2009-2010, 64.29% of the students that were

2

13

1110

15

28

2

13

1110

15

28

45

43

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




16

accepted on Erasmus actually participated in an exchange. This also marks the largest

percentage rise of students going on Erasmus since the academic year 2004-2005

where no student had undergone this mobility exchange programme.

Between the academic years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, the highest percentage of

students going on Erasmus was during the academic year 2006-2007 where 45.45% of

the students who got accepted went on Erasmus.

Between the academic years 2005-2006 to 2008-2009, the highest number of students

that applied to go on Erasmus resulted in the least amount of students that actually

went, with only 20% of the students accepted actually going in the academic year 2008-

2009. This figure tripled in the following academic year (2009-2010).

Furthermore, all the students of the Faculty for the Built Environment who applied to

go on Erasmus from the entire academic years taken into consideration in this study

have been accepted. The average percentage of students who went on Erasmus

throughout these same academic years was 33.42% each year.

The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that there is more awareness on the possibility of

going on Erasmus in the Faculty for the Built Environment resulting in an increased

number of students applying for this programme. The significant increase in 2009-2010

is due to the fact that the students who could apply to go on Erasmus were students

from both the third and fourth year. Therefore, the number of potential applicants

doubled when compared to previous years. Nevertheless, the number of students

going on Erasmus has increased in a higher proportion to the increase in students who

could have applied.

The Erasmus Focus Group also commented that during the academic year 2008-2009,

the students undergoing an Erasmus exchange programme was very low. It was noted

that during the same academic year, there was a significant amount of students who

had undergone a Direct Exchange Programme to non-EU countries. Thus, the latter has

affected the number of students going on Erasmus that are currently enrolled with this

Faculty.

3.3.3 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy

The Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy has experienced a very low

percentage of students who went on Erasmus as well as those willing to apply for an

Erasmus exchange. During the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007, an average

annual percentage of 0.85% of the students who have applied to go Erasmus actually

17

participated. An increase of 34.39% on the average annual percentage from the

academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 can be recalled resulting in an average annual

percentage of 35.42% in the last 3 years.

Figure 4: Total number of the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy students that

applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 until the academic

year 2009-2010


During the 2007-2008 academic year, the percentage of students who went on

Erasmus in relation to the number of students who got accepted reached 60%. This has

shown a significant increase when compared to the previous 2 years, were no students

had undergone this exchange. Nevertheless, the number of students going on Erasmus

is still very small when compared to the size of the Faculty.

During the academic year 2009-2010, a percentage of 23.81% of the students who

applied for the Erasmus Programme have been rejected. The 5 students who went on

Erasmus, during the year 2009-2010, include 2 students who went on a placement.

These 2 students are reading for a degree in Bachelor of Arts (Hons.) in Social Work.

39

109

7

2021

39

109

5

20

16

13 3

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year

No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placement

No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placement

No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies or Placement

18

3.3.4 Faculty of Education

Figure 5: Total number of the Faculty of Education students that applied, got accepted and went on

Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010


The Faculty of Education has shown variances in the amount of students applying per

academic year. Nevertheless, the amount of students going on Erasmus has been

rather consistent over the past 4 years.

The highest percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to the students

accepted to go was during the 2005-2006 academic year. During this period, 80% of the

students accepted to go on Erasmus have taken up this opportunity. The year has also

marked the highest amount of students actually going on this exchange programme.

During the 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 academic years, the average annual percentage of

students going on Erasmus was that of 35.23% of the students that got accepted. This

percentage has decreased rapidly by 19.83% in the last 3 years resulting in an average

annual percentage of 15.40%.

The interest shown by the students to apply for the Erasmus Programme has increased

within the last 3 years. Nevertheless, the students actually going on Erasmus has not

increased.

48

25

45

16

26

34

48

25

45

15

23

34

7

20

53 4 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




19

3.3.5 Faculty of Engineering

During the 2004-2005 to 2009-2010 academic years, the Faculty of Engineering has

gone through a consistent amount of students going on Erasmus despite the increase

of 86.67% in the amount of applicants applying for Erasmus during the academic years

2007-2008 to 2009-2010.

The average annual percentage of students going on Erasmus between the academic

years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 has been 1.28% higher than that between the academic

years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. The latter being 33.95% of the students that got

accepted to go on Erasmus, actually going.

In the Faculty of Engineering, all the students who have ever applied to go on Erasmus,

during the academic years taken into consideration have been accepted.

Figure 6: Total number of the Faculty of Engineering students that applied, got accepted and went on



The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that most students drop out after they have been

accepted (an annual average of 65.41%) due to problems with matching the credits

2322

18

15

19

28

2322

18

15

19

28

78

76

7 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




20

offered at the University of Malta with those at the host university. Additionally, some

foreign languages impose a barrier for the local students to participate. The Erasmus

Focus Group added that most students will be willing to take up the Erasmus

experience only if they are chosen at their first preference. For this reason, if accepted

at their second or third preference the students will not consider going on Erasmus.

3.3.6 Faculty of Health Sciences

The percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to those students who got

accepted is relatively high when compared to other faculties. The average annual

percentage of students going on Erasmus is 73.05%.

During the 2005-2006 academic year, a remarkable percentage of 90.91% of the

students, who got accepted to go on Erasmus ended up going on Erasmus. This was the

highest percentage increase registered for this Faculty (that of 35.81% when compared

to the previous year).

From the academic year 2006-2007, a steady increase in the amount of students going

on Erasmus has been noted.

Figure 7: Total number of the Faculty of Health Sciences students that applied, got accepted and went on



49

55

50

5456

85

49

55

50

5456

84

27

50

32

41

46

59

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year

No. of UoM students who applied to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements

No. of UoM students who got accepted to go on Erasmus for Studies or Placements

No. of UoM students who actually went on Erasmus for Studies or Placements

21

During the 2009-2010 academic year, there has been the highest number of accepted

applicants with an increase of 50% from the previous year. The percentage of students

who went on Erasmus to the students who got accepted was 70.24%. This year has

marked the highest amount of students going on Erasmus for the academic years taken

into consideration. This year included both studies and placements, whereby 55.93% of

the students who went on Erasmus were on a placement.

The annual average percentage during the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010 has

increased by 6.10% from that during the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007.

The Erasmus Focus Group has commented on the immense support the students

receive from the Dean of this Faculty.

3.3.7 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology

The Faculty of ICT has undergone a number of variations in the number of students

applying for Erasmus as well as those actually going on this mobility programme.

Figure 8: Total number of the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology students that

applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year

2009-2010


8

2

4

9

11

88

2 2

9

11

6

1 1 1

5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




22

During the academic year 2007-2008, the percentage of students going on Erasmus

compared to the number of students accepted to go on this exchange was that of

55.56%. During the previous two years, 50% of the students accepted went on

Erasmus. During these 2 academic years, the number of students who went on Erasmus

was very low compared to other years as well as other faculties, and therefore the 50%

translates to only 1 student.

During the academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, no student went on Erasmus

despite the fact that during the 2008-2009 academic year, the highest number of

students applied to go on Erasmus was registered who ended up all being accepted.

This is also a result of the fact that the study-units at the University of Malta do not

match with those of the foreign universities which the University of Malta have a

bilateral agreement with.

3.3.8 Faculty of Laws

Figure 9: Total number of the Faculty of Laws students that applied, got accepted and went on Erasmus –

from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010


67

47 46

32

39

46

67

47 46

32

38

46

51

35

1517

25 24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




23

During the 2004-2005 academic year, a percentage of 76.12% of the students accepted

to go on Erasmus have actually gone. This was the highest percentage registered in the

academic years taken into consideration and it also resulted in the highest number of

students that went on Erasmus.

A decrease of 43.51% was experienced from the academic year 2004-2005 to 2006-

2007, where the percentage of students going on Erasmus has decreased to 32.61%.

After this year, an increase in the number of students going on Erasmus can be

identified though an overall decrease can be noted in the number of applicants for the

Erasmus Programme.

The annual average percentage of students going on Erasmus has decreased in the past

3 academic years by 4.04%. This percentage is not proportional to the decrease in the

number of students which applied and got accepted to go on Erasmus, whereby during

the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007, the total accepted students was 160

while during the academic year 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the total accepted students

was 116. Therefore, a percentage decrease in the number of accepted applicants of

27.50% was registered.

3.3.9 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery

During the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the students have gone on

Erasmus for placements.

Except for the academic year 2005-2006, the percentage of students who went on an

Erasmus Programme has been that of over 50% of the students accepted to go on

Erasmus. The highest percentage is during the academic year 2009-2010, where 85% of

the students who got accepted actually ending up going. During this same year, the

highest amount of students who applied for Erasmus can be noted.

During the 2006-2007 academic year, the percentage of students who went on

Erasmus was 77.78% of the students who got accepted. This is the highest percentage

for Studies opportunity in this Faculty between the academic years taken into

consideration.

24

Figure 10: Total number of the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students that applied, got accepted and

went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010


3.3.10 Faculty of Science

A very limited amount of students have had the opportunity to go on Erasmus in the

Faculty of Science.

No students went on Erasmus in the 2004-2005 academic year despite the fact that it

was the year with the second highest amount of applicants during the years this

analysis has been based upon. The only students who went on Erasmus was during the

academic years 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 and during the academic year 2009-2010.

During these four academic years, a total of eleven students have gone on Erasmus out

of a total of forty-four applicants.

During the academic year 2009-2010, the students that have undergone the Erasmus

experience were on a placement. This year has marked the highest percentage of

students going on Erasmus from the students accepted to go.

During the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, the percentage of students going

on Erasmus from the students that got accepted has decreased from 21.43% to 15%,

though retaining the same amount of students actually going on Erasmus. During the

following academic year (2007-2008), this same percentage has increased to 40%.

13

15

18

15

12

20

13

15

18

13

11

20

7

14

9

7

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




25

Nevertheless, the amount of students going on Erasmus has decreased to two students

after a drastic decrease in the number of applicants by 77.27% from the previous

academic year (2006-2007).

Figure 11: Total number of the Faculty of Science students that applied, got accepted and went on



The annual average percentage of students who went on Erasmus when compared to

the students accepted to go on Erasmus has more than doubled from the academic

years 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 to the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010. The

latter three years having a percentage of 33.33%, that is 21.19% higher than the

percentage of the 2004-2005 to 2006-2007 academic years.

3.3.11 Faculty of Theology

Out of the six academic years the analysis is carried upon, it was only during the

academic years 2005-2006, 2006-2007 and 2008-2009 that students applied to go on

Erasmus.

17

14

22

5 5 5

17

14

20

54

5

3 32

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




26

During the year 2005-2006 and the year 2008-2009, all the students who applied got

accepted and actually went on Erasmus.

Figure 12: Total number of the Faculty of Theology students that applied, got accepted and went on



The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that because of the nature of the course, only a

few students can go on Erasmus since those students who are also members of the

Seminary are not allowed to go and therefore do not apply.

3.3.12 Institute of Criminology

During the academic years 2004-2005 to 2008-2009, the Institute of Criminology has

had no students participating in the Erasmus Programme.

During the academic year 2009-2010, 75% of the students who got accepted to go on

Erasmus actually participated. These were the first students from this Institute that

went on an exchange period through the Erasmus Programme.

The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that it was a student from the Institute who took

up the initiative to go on Erasmus since this experience was not really an option before

since there were no bi-lateral agreements signed with this Institute before.

2

1 1

2

1 1

2

1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




27

Figure 13: Total number of the Institute of Criminology students that applied, got accepted and went on



3.3.13 Institute of Earth Systems

Figure 14: Total number of the Institute of Earth Systems students that applied, got accepted and went

on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010


4 4

3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




1 11 11

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




28

During the academic years 2004-2005 to 2007-2008, no students have applied to go on

Erasmus. During the subsequent two years, one student applied during each academic

year with one of the students taking up this exchange programme in the 2008-2009

academic year.

3.3.14 Institute of Linguistics

Figure 15: Total number of the Institute of Linguistics students that applied, got accepted and went on



During the academic year 2004-2005, one student was accepted to go on Erasmus.

Subsequently, during the 2007-2008 academic year, two students have shown interest

in the Erasmus Programme but as had happened 3 years before, these did not take up

this exchange despite the fact that they were accepted. The only student who has

been on Erasmus from the Institute of Linguistics was during the academic year 2006-

2007.

3.3.15 Mediterranean Institute

During the 2004-2005 academic year, no student from the Mediterranean Institute

actually went on Erasmus.

During the academic years 2005-2006 to 2009-2010, the percentage of students going

on Erasmus compared to the students who got accepted to go on Erasmus has

increased at every alternate year starting from the 2005-2006 academic year. The

1

2 2

1

2 2

1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




29

highest percentage was registered during the 2009-2010 academic year where 66.67%

of the students who got accepted to go on Erasmus actually went. However, the

highest amount of students going on Erasmus was during the 2006-2007 academic year

where 9 students have gone on this exchange programme. This academic year has also

marked the highest number of students that applied to go on an Erasmus Programme.

It is also worth noting that all the students who have applied to go on Erasmus that

were studying at the Mediterranean Institute have been accepted.

Figure 16: Total number of the Mediterranean Institute students that applied, got accepted and went on



In comparison, during the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, the average annual

percentage of students going on Erasmus to the students who got accepted to go on

Erasmus has increased by 20.56% when compared to the first three academic years this

analysis is based on.

The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that it is an unfortunate situation to have the

amount of students applying to go on Erasmus decreasing despite the fact that

4

5

17

8

11

9

4

5

17

8

11

9

3

9

5 5

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




30

travelling and communication is made easier. It was also mentioned that the figures

were not that negative when considering the size of the Institute.

3.3.16 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture

Figure 17: Total number of the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture students that applied, got

accepted and went on Erasmus – from the academic year 2004-2005 till the academic year 2009-2010


The highest figures in the Institute for Tourism, Travel & Culture can be seen in the

2004-2005 academic year. During this period, the highest amount of applicants,

accepted students and students going on Erasmus can be noted. During this academic

year, the highest number of rejected students has also been registered.

The figures have decreased drastically until the 2006-2007 academic year where only

one out of every four students who applied in 2004-2005 period applied in the 2006-

2007 academic year.

During the following academic year (2007-2008), no students went on Erasmus.

However, in the subsequent academic year (2008-2009), 71.43% of students accepted

to go on Erasmus actually went. This year has marked the highest percentage between

the academic years taken into consideration in this study.

12

7

3

2

7

2

10

7

3

2

7

2

6

2 2

5

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




31

During the 2009-2010 academic year, 50% of the students who got accepted have

actually went on Erasmus. This percentage translates to only one student.

3.3.17 Centre for Communication Technology

Figure 18: Total number of the Centre for Communication Technology students that applied, got



There have been various shifts in the percentage of students going on Erasmus during

the six years of this analysis in the Centre for Communication Technology.

During the 2004-2005 academic year, the percentage of students going on Erasmus

compared to those students who got accepted has been that of 44.44%. This is the

highest percentage in the six years of this analysis. During the following two years, this

percentage has decreased to 6.25% and 11.11% respectively resulting in only one

student going on Erasmus per academic year.

The 2005-2006 academic year, which resulted in the lowest percentage of students

going on Erasmus, had the highest amount of applicants accepted together with the

2008-2009 academic year. During this period (2008-2009), the percentage of students

11

16

9

8

17

7

9

16

9

8

16

7

4

1 1

3

7

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




32

going on Erasmus compared to the students who got accepted increased to 43.75%.

This academic year also resulted in the highest amount of students actually going on

Erasmus. The 2009-2010 academic year registered the lowest amount of accepted

applicants.

The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that the majority of the students are being

accepted to go on Erasmus but they opt not to go.

3.3.18 European Documentation and Research Centre

Figure 19: Total number of the European Documentation and Research Centre students that applied, got



During the 2004-2005 academic year, the lowest percentage of students who went on

Erasmus compared to the students who got accepted can be noted. This percentage

increased by 12.61% in the following year. The highest percentage that has been

registered was during the 2006-2007 academic year, where 50% of the student

accepted actually went on Erasmus. Despite the highest percentage registered, this

academic year has also marked the least amount of students who got accepted

resulting also in the least amount of students going on Erasmus in these five academic

years.

7

17

8

13

10

18

7

17

6

12

9

17

2

7

3

5

4

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year



No. of UoM students who actually went to go on Erasmus for Studies

33

During the 2009-2010 academic year, the highest amount of students have applied to

go on Erasmus. They have almost all been accepted and the highest amount of

students went on Erasmus.

In comparison, during the academic years 2007-2008 to 2009-2010, an increase of

3.60% can be noted in the percentage of students who went on Erasmus to the

students who got accepted to go Erasmus, to the academic years 2004-2005 to 2006-

2007.

The Erasmus Focus Group has noted that this centre has achieved good results in the

amount of students going on Erasmus. Nevertheless, it was expected to have higher

amounts of students to take-up this opportunity as the Centre in question continuously

encourages students to go on Erasmus.

3.3.19 Centre for Conservation and Restoration

Figure 20: Total number of the Centre for Conservation and Restoration students that applied, got



The maximum amount of Conservation and Restoration students that have ever gone

on Erasmus per academic year is that of one student. During the academic years 2005-

2006, 2006-2007 and 2009-2010, all the students that applied to go on Erasmus have

2

1 1

3

1

2

1 1

3

11 1 1 1 1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




34

actually went. During the academic year 2008-2009, no student had applied to go on

this exchange.

3.4 Comparison between the number of students going on Erasmus between the

different Faculties, Institutes and Centres

Throughout the academic years 2004-2005 to 2009-2010, the Faculties, Institutes and

Centres have each progressed in different manners as it can be seen from the table

below.

If one is to compare the average annual percentage of students who go on Erasmus to

the students who get accepted to go on Erasmus between the academic years 2004-

2005 to the academic years 2006-2007 to the average annual percentage of students

between the academic years 2007-2008 to the academic year 2009-2010, out of the

seventeen institutions taken into consideration, eight institutions have gone through

an increase in this percentage. Therefore 47.06% of the Faculties, Institutes or Centres

have increased the percentage of students going on Erasmus.

Table 1: Percentage of students going on Erasmus compared to the students accepted to go on Erasmus

per Faculty, Institute and Centre for the 2004/2005-2006/2007 and 2007/2008-2009/2010 academic

years

Faculty, Institute or Centre 2004/2005 -

2006/2007

2007/2008-

2009/2010

Faculty of Arts 48.79 36.51

Faculty for the Built Environment 25.41 41.43

Faculty of Economics, Management

and Accountancy 0.85 35.42

Faculty of Education 35.23 15.40

Faculty of Engineering 35.23 33.95

Faculty of Health Sciences 70.00 76.10

Faculty of Information and

Communication Technology 37.50 18.52

Faculty of Laws 61.07 57.03

Faculty of Medicine and Surgery 43.87 72.62

Faculty of Science 12.14 33.33

Faculty of Theology 33.33 33.33

Institute of Criminology* 0.00 25.00

35

Institute of Earth Systems* 0.00 33.33

Institute of Linguistics 16.67 0.00

Mediterranean Institute 37.65 58.21

Institute for Tourism, Travel &

Culture 51.75 40.84

Centre of Communication

Technology 20.60 36.61

European Documentation and

Research Centre 39.92 43.52

Centre for Conservation and

Restoration 83.33 44.44

* Not included in the above analysis


Table 2: Amount of students who went on Erasmus per Faculty, Institute and Centre for the 2004/2005-

2006/2007 and 2007/2008-2009/2010 academic years

Faculty, Institute or Centre 2004/2005 -

2006/2007

2007/2008-

2009/2010

Faculty of Arts 58 44

Faculty for the Built Environment 9 25

Faculty of Economics, Management

and Accountancy 1 11

Faculty of Education 32 10

Faculty of Engineering 22 20

Faculty of Health Sciences 109 146

Faculty of Information and

Communication Technology 3 5

Faculty of Laws 101 66

Faculty of Medicine and Surgery 21 33

Faculty of Science 6 5

Faculty of Theology 2 1

Institute of Criminology* 0 3

Institute of Earth Systems* 0 1

36

* Not included in the analysis below Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office

If one had to compare the total number of students that went on Erasmus between the

academic years 2004-2005 to the academic years 2006-2007, out of seventeen

institutions taken into consideration, eight of the Faculties, Institutes or Centres have

increased the amount of students going on Erasmus.

3.5 Comparison of Malta’s situation when compared to the other countries

participating in the Erasmus Programme

As it can be seen from the chart below, Malta is one of the restrained number of

countries that participate in the Erasmus Programme that exceed the European

average share of 0.92% of Erasmus students in the student population. This is an

exceptionally good situation considering the fact that the Maltese students have a

rather limited possibility of mobility. Other countries can have intra mobility which may

serve as a substitute to the Erasmus Programme. Nonetheless, the 1.54% of Maltese

students that go on Erasmus in relation to the University of Malta student population

has to be increased. There is still quite a lot of potential for this to be done when one

considers the large number of students that drop their Erasmus application.

Institute of Linguistics 1 0

Mediterranean Institute 12 16

Institute for Tourism, Travel &

Culture 10 6

Centre of Communication

Technology 6 12

European Documentation and

Research Centre 12 17

Centre for Conservation and

Restoration 3 2

37

Figure 21: Outgoing Erasmus students in 2008-2009 as a share of student population by country

Source: The data was obtained from a Eurostat research found at http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc920_en.htm (accessed 05-10-2010).

38

3.6 Chapter Conclusion

As one can see from the above analysis, the number of students that go on Erasmus

has been on the increase for the last couple of academic years. One must note this

number is far less than the number of students that apply and those who are accepted

to go on Erasmus. There are some students who drop out because of reasons related to

their respective course (the study-units not matching up with those offered locally,

compulsory study-units that have to be done during the Erasmus semester, etc.) while

others decide not to go for other reasons. Such reasons need to be tackled in order to

increase the take-up of this programme in order to continue increase the percentage of

Erasmus students in the University of Malta student population.

39

4. Analysis of the Universities and Placements


This chapter analyses the universities and placements available for the University of

Malta students to go on Erasmus at. This is essential in order to assess whether the

demand from the students applying to go on Erasmus is met by a wide choice from

which to choose.

The first part of the chapter focuses on a general overview of the general perception of

the standard of the universities which the University of Malta has an agreement with.

This is done by means of the feedback received from the Erasmus Focus Group

participants.

A more specific analysis follows with the list of all the agreements and number of

places available for the academic year 2009-2010 for each Faculty, Institute and Centre.

Other aspects will also be tackled such as the number of places available per applicant

for each Faculty, Institute and Centre and statistics with the number of places available

for the last for academic years (i.e. 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009 and 2009-2010).

In this way, one can better assess whether there was an improvement in the number of

places available for the academic years taken into consideration. The feedback received

from the Erasmus Focus Group participants will also be mentioned during this specific

analysis.

The last part of this chapter will feature the concluding remarks arising out of the

analysis done before. Thus, this will result in a clear and concise picture of the standard

and number of universities and placements available.

4.2 General Overview

The Erasmus Focus Group participants discussed the general perception they have of

the standard of the universities which the University of Malta has an agreement with.

The majority of the participants agreed that the perception of the level of the majority

of the host universities is that they are of a lower academic standard than that of the

University of Malta especially because they are considered to have easier courses than

the ones offered locally. Moreover, some universities that are offered by particular

Faculties are not good enough mainly because the credits do not match (the content of

the credits are different).

40

Even though many students believe that the host university plays a significant role in

the Erasmus experience, one should not limit the Erasmus programme simply to the

academic part. Many students believe that a university is a good university so long as it

does not make it difficult for the students to go study there.

Nevertheless, the Erasmus Focus Group concluded that one should not generalise as

each university has its positive and negative aspects for the Erasmus students who

choose to attend its courses.

The participants of this Erasmus Focus Group agreed that even though they are not

aware of the majority of universities available that have a bilateral agreement with the

University of Malta, many students go on Erasmus for the experience. Thus, they said

that one gets to check the level of the host university at a later stage.

Moreover, the participants mentioned that there are a number of universities which

shouldn’t have an agreement with the University of Malta. The reasons that were

mentioned, amongst others, were the huge language barriers associated with some

host universities in particular countries and the fact that some of the universities may

not be of the highest level. However, they noted that there are also a very large

number of good bilateral agreements to the benefit of the local students wishing to go

on Erasmus.

Contrary to some other participants of the Erasmus Focus Group, some representatives

argued that the possibility to go on Erasmus does depend on the university. It is also

their perception that most universities which the University of Malta has a bilateral

agreement with are of the same standard as the Maltese ones.

Finally, it was also pointed out that the bilateral agreements between the foreign

universities and the University of Malta change from year to year so each Faculty,

Institute and Centre have to be monitored differently and individually every year to

constantly assess the level of the universities being offered to the local students.

4.3 Specific Analysis

4.3.1 Faculty of Arts

As one can see from the table below, the Faculty of Arts had 125 bi-lateral agreements

with different universities catering for its various departments during the academic

year 2009-2010. These give the possibility to 260 Arts students to go Erasmus each

year.

41

Moreover, one can notice that there are a number of agreements for each department.

Thus, all the students studying the various subject areas that wish to go on Erasmus

have a good choice of universities to choose from. The subject areas with the widest

choice of bi-lateral agreements are History, Languages and Archaeology.

The Erasmus Focus Group Arts participant noted that the department of English within

the Faculty of Arts seems to have chosen universities whose study-units match those

offered in Malta and where students seem to have consistent good experiences. It

must be said that this opinion is solely based on experience from the Department of

English since the participant is not aware of the situation in the other departments

within the same Faculty.

Table 3: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Arts students wishing to go on Erasmus for the

2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin

Name of Institution Subject Area Number

of Students

Czech Republic

Masaryk University Aesthetics 1

France Université Rennes 2 - Haute Bretagne Archaeology 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria Archaeology 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Siena Archaeology 2

United Kingdom

The Queens University of Belfast Archaeology 2

United Kingdom

University of Leicester Archaeology 2

United Kingdom

Bournemouth University Archaeology 2

United Kingdom

University of Southampton Archaeology 2

Italy Accademia di Belle Arti di Brera Art/ Design 3

Greece University of Peloponnese Classical Philology 3

Lithuania Vilnius University Classical Philology 1

Netherlands Utrecht University Communication/ Art and Design

3

Italy Università degli Studi di Macerata Comparative Literature

2

Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Comparative Studies of Civilisations/ Philosophy

2

42

Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria Contemporary Italian Literature

2

France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Foreign Languages 2

France Université Nancy 2 General/ Comparative Literature

1

Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari General/ Comparative Literature

2

Austria Karl Franzens Universität Graz History 1

Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen History 2

Bulgaria Sofiyski Universitet 'Sveti Kliment Ohridski'

History 2

France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis History 1

France Univeristé Paris Diderot- Paris 7 History 1

Greece National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

History 2

Greece Aristotle University of Thessaloniki History 2

Hungary University of Szeged History 1

Italy Università di Catania History 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Padova History 2

Italy University of Pisa History 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona History 3

Spain Universidad de Cantabria History 3

Spain Universidad de Valencia History 2

United Kingdom

University of Essex History 1

United Kingdom

University of Leicester History 2

United Kingdom

University of Southampton History 2

France Université Michel de Montaigne Bordeaux 3

History of Art 2

France Université Rennes 2 - Haute Bretagne History of Art 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria History of Art 2

Italy Accademia belle Arti di Macerata History of Art 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza"

History of Art 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata"

History of Art 2

43

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona History of Art 2


Humanities 2

Ireland National University of Ireland Humanities 2

Netherlands Universiteit Van Amsterdam Humanities 2

Italy University of Pisa International Relations

2

Slovakia University of Economics in Bratislava International Relations

2

Slovenia University of Ljubljana International Relations

1

Germany Universität Rostock Language 3

Belgium Université de Liege Languages 2

Belgium Université de Mons Hainaut Languages 2

France Université du Havre Languages 4

France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis Languages 1

Germany Otto- Friedrich Universität Bamberg Languages 2

Germany Universität Hildesheim Languages 2

Ireland National University of Ireland Languages 2

Ireland University of Limerick Languages 6

Italy Università degli Studi di Cagliari Languages 3

Italy Università degli Studi di Milano Languages 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Salerno Languages 2

Austria Universität Wien Languages & Philological Sciences

4

France Université d Picardie Jules Verne Languages/ Philology 1

France Université d`Angers Languages/ Philology 2


Languages/ Philology 3

France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Languages/ Philology 2

France Institut Catholique d'Etudes Superieures


France Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne


Germany University of Bremen Languages/ Philology 2

Germany Universität Konstanz Languages/ Philology 3

Italy Università degli Studi di Pavia Languages/ Philology 2

Italy Università per stranieri di Perugia Languages/ Philology 2



44

Italy Libera Università degli Studi di Roma Pio V


Italy Università degli Studi di Siena Languages/ Philology 3

Italy University of Udine Languages/ Philology 3

Italy Università Ca Foscari di Venezia Languages/ Philology 2

Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Languages/ Philology 2

Poland Nicolaus Copernicus University Languages/ Philology 1

Romania Universitatea din Craiova Languages/ Philology 2

Spain Universidad Pontifica Comillas Languages/ Philology 2

Spain Universidad de Oviedo Languages/ Philology 2

Spain Universidad de Sevilla Languages/ Philology 2

Spain Universidad de Valencia Languages/ Philology 2

United Kingdom

Abersytwyth University Library Science 2

France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Literature 2

France Université Rennes 2 - Haute Bretagne Literature 1

France Université Jean Monnet - Saint Etienne Literature 2

France Université Blaise Pascal II Modern EU Languages

2

France Université Jean Monnet - Saint Etienne Modern EU Languages

2

Germany Ruprecht- Karls Universität Heidelberg Modern EU Languages

3

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Modern EU Languages

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Modern EU Languages

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Modern EU Languages

4

Austria Leopold-Franzens Universität Innsbruck Modern Languages 2

France Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3 Modern Literature 1

France Université Jean Moulin Lyon III Modern Literature 1

Austria Universität Wien Non-EU Languages 2

Denmark IT University of Copenhagen Other Art/ Design 2

Ireland Milltown Institute Philosophy 3

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Philosophy 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Philosophy 2

Poland Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubeljski Jana Pawla II

Philosophy 2

United Kingdom

Heythrop College Philosophy 3

45

United Kingdom

University of Central Lancashire Philosophy 4

Czech Republic

Charles University in Prague Social Gerontology 2

France Université Paris Diderot- Paris 7 Social Science 1

Germany Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Social Science 2

Hungary Police College Social Science 4

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Social Science 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Social Science 1

Italy Università per stranieri di Perugia Social Science 3

Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tre Social Science 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Teramo Social Science 2

Lithuania Kaunas University of Technology Social Science 2

Austria Universität Wien Sociology 4

Cyprus Cyprus College Sociology 2

France Université des Sciences et Technologies de Lille

Sociology 2

Germany Johann Wolfgang Goethe - Universität Frankfurt am Main

Sociology 1

Ireland University College Dublin Sociology 2

Poland Adam Mickiewicz University Sociology 2

Switzerland University of Geneve Sociology 1

Belgium Haute Ecole Leonard de Vinci Translation 2

Belgium Université de Mons Hainaut Translation 2

Belgium Lessius Hogeschool Translation/ Interpretation

3

Italy University of Udine Translation/ Interpretation

3


This large number of bi-lateral agreements was not reflected in the number of Arts

students that applied to go on Erasmus. There were only thirty-eight students who

applied during the academic year 2009-2010. Thus, there were almost seven places

(6.8) for each student applying. The figure would have been worse if it was calculated

on the number of students that actually went on Erasmus.

The table below shows a breakdown of the number of available places for the Arts

students. As one can easily note, there has been an increase in all the academic years.

This highlights the willingness of both the Faculty of Arts officials and the University of

46

Malta International and EU Office to offer the widest choice possible for the Arts

students to choose from.

Table 4: Number of available places for the Faculty of Arts students wishing to go on Erasmus for the

2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year

Academic Year Number of Available Places

2006-2007 196

2007-2008 203

2008-2009 250

2009-2010 260 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office

4.3.2 Faculty for the Built Environment

The situation of the Faculty for the Built Environment is somewhat different from that

in the Faculty of Arts. There are quite a number of bi-lateral agreements signed with

various universities that total to twenty-nine places available for the academic year

2009-2010. If we consider the amount of students applying to go on Erasmus, we can

notice that there were twenty-eight applicants which results in 1.04 places per

applicant. This situation can be considered exceptional since from this particular

academic year, both third and fourth years could apply to go on Erasmus. Thus, the

number of applicants increased rapidly leading to the need to sign further bi-lateral

agreements for the benefit of Built Environment students.

The Faculty for the Built Environment representative within the Erasmus Focus Group

mentioned it is usually the same universities who accept to host the Maltese students

to go on Erasmus. She also pointed out that the host university she was accepted in

had less of a choice than the University of Malta. She continued that this situation

negatively impacted her experience especially since if given the choice, she would have

followed different subjects than those she was forced to choose from.

Table 5: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty for the Built Environment students wishing to go on

Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin

Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students

Denmark Nordjyllands Erhversakademi Architecture 2

Italy Università Politecnica delle Marche Architecture 4

Italy Politecnico di Bari Architecture 1

Italy Università di Bologna Architecture 4

47

Italy Politecnico di Milano Architecture 2

Italy Seconda Università degli Studi di Napoli

Architecture 2


Architecture 2


Architecture 6

Cyprus Cyprus University of Technology Architecture and Civil Engineering

1

Germany Hochschule Bremen Architecture and Civil Engineering

2

Italy Politecnico di Milano Urban Architecture and Regional Planning

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Urbino Urban Architecture and Regional Planning

1


Table 6: Number of available places for the Faculty for the Built Environment students wishing to go on

Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 20

2007-2008 8

2008-2009 16


The number of places available for the Faculty for the Built Environment have never

been consistent with a sharp decline in places available registered for the2007-2008

academic year while sharp increases were registered the following two academic years

(2008-2009 and 2009-2010). We believe that more bi-lateral should be signed in order

to give a wide choice for the students reading for a degree at this Faculty. It would be a

pity if a student would be refrained from going on Erasmus just because there were no

places available.

48

4.3.3 Faculty of Dental Surgery

The Faculty of Dental Surgery is an exceptional case with regards to the Erasmus

Programme. There were no bi-lateral agreements signed during the academic year

2009-2010.

The students which KSU has spoken with have said that they cannot go on Erasmus

because they have to do a number of dental fillings per year. In our opinion, this is not

a sufficient reason for not going on Erasmus since such practical assignments can be

done abroad with the same value of those done in Malta.

4.3.4 Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy

Being one of the largest Faculties at the University of Malta, the Faculty of Economics,

Management and Accountancy is expected to have the largest amount of bi-lateral

agreements signed when compared to the other Faculties, Institutes and Centres. On

the other hand, one can see that there are only thirty-seven agreements with seventy-

four places available for the students to go on Erasmus at. Furthermore, there are

subjects which do not have the possibility to go on Erasmus (or their possibilities are

rather limited) such as those studying Accounts with only one place available in Greece

and Social Work with four placed in all.

Table 7: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy

students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin


Greece Athens University of Economics and Business

Accountancy 1

Liechtenstein Hochschule Liechtenstein Business Administration

2

France Groupe sup de Co Amiens Picardie

Business Administration/ Management Science

2

Denmark Aalborg University Business Studies 2

Denmark Neils Brock Copenhagen Business Studies 2

France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Business Studies 2

France ESCEM - Ecole Superieure de Commerce et de Management

Business Studies 1

Germany Hochschule Bremen Business Studies 2

49

Greece Athens University of Economics and Business

Business Studies 1

Italy Università degli studi di Calabria Business Studies 1

Slovenia University of Primorska Business Studies 2

United Kingdom

Canterbury Christ Church University Business Studies 2

France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Business Studies/ Management Science

2

Italy Università di Bologna Business Studies/ Management Science

1

Italy Università degli studi kore di Enna Business Studies/ Management Science

4

Latvia Stockholm School of Economics in Riga Business Studies/ Management Science

2

Slovakia University of Economics in Bratislava Business Studies/ Management Science

2

Denmark VIA, University College Business Studies/ Technology

2

Denmark University of Southern Denmark Business/ Management Studies

3

France Université du Havre Economics 2

France University of Rennes 1 Economics 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Economics 2


Economics 2

Lithuania Vilnius University Economics 1

Spain Universidad de Santiago de Compostela

Economics 3

United Kingdom

University of Essex Economics 1

France Université du Havre Management 1

France Université Jean Monnet - Saint Etienne

Management/ Marketing

2

Denmark VIA, University College Marketing/ Management

2

France Université du Havre Marketing/ Trade 2

50

France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Political Science 4

Italy Università di Bologna Political Science 3

Italy Università degli studi di Calabria Political Science 3

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Political Science 2

Poland Uniwersytet Warszawski/ University of Warsaw

Political Science 2

Denmark West Jutland University College Social Work 2

United Kingdom

University of Strathclyde Social Work 2


One must note that there is a low amount of students that apply to go on Erasmus. In

fact, for the seventy-four places available, there were twenty applicants during the

academic year 2009-2010. Thus, there were around four places (3.7) for each applicant.

The numbers of places available have also been fluctuating from one academic year to

another with slight increases and decreases being registered. However, the range of

available places remains in the same region: that of around sixty-five to eight places.

Table 8: Number of available places for the Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy

students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 72

2007-2008 80

2008-2009 67


4.3.5 Faculty of Education

As one can see from the table below, the students enrolled within the Faculty of

Education have a good choice of universities to go on Erasmus in. These vary from

lectures for the prospective teachers, teaching practice, pedagogy and psychology

(since this subject falls within this Faculty). There were eighty-eight places available

during the 2009-2010 academic year with thirty-four applications received. Thus, there

were around 2.6 places available for each applicant.

The Faculty of Education participant in the Erasmus Focus Group pointed out that the

university she went to study at was very helpful. She added that the fact that she went

51

to a good university contributed to her positive experience while studying abroad.

Moreover, she mentioned that the Erasmus Co-ordinator within the Faculty of

Education directed her to choose the right host university.

Table 9: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Education students wishing to go on Erasmus for


Country of Origin


Belgium Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen Education 2

Finland Joensuun Yliopisto Education 2

Germany Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Education 2

Greece Panepistimio Kritis Education 1

Ireland Mater Dei Institute of Education Education 2

Ireland Dublin Institute of Technology Education 2

Italy Università degli studi di Cagliari Education 3

Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Education 2

Italy Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie

Education 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tre Education 2

Netherlands Hogeschool Van Arnhem En Nijmegen Education 2

Norway Bergen University College Education 3

Sweden Uppsala Universitet Education 2

Switzerland University of Zurich Education 1

United Kingdom

Stranmillis University College Education 4

Italy Università degli Studi di Padova Education/ Foreign Language Education

2

Netherlands Stenden University Education/ Teacher Training

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Educational Psychology

2

Greece Harakopio University

Environmental Education/ Home Economics/ Nutrition

1

Denmark SUHR'S University College Home Economics 2

Ireland Saint Angela's College Home Economics 2

Lithuania Vilinus Pedagoginis Universitetas Home Economics 2

Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Pedagogy 2

Latvia Latvia University of Agriculture Pedagogy/ 2

52

Counselling

France Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne

Primary/ Secondary Education

2

France Université Victor Segalen Bordeaux 2 Psychology 2

France Université de Caen Basse-Normandie Psychology 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Padova Psychology 2

Netherlands Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Psychology 1

Spain Universidad Pontifica Comillas Psychology 2

Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Psychology 2

United Kingdom

University of Westminister Psychology 2

United Kingdom

University of Stirling Psychology 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Palermo Psychology/ Behavioural Science

2

Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Social Education 2

Finland University of Turku Social/ Behavioural Science

2

Germany Universität Hildesheim Teacher Education 2

Austria Universität Wien Teacher Training 2

Austria Padagogische Hochschule Wien Teacher Training 2

Germany The University of Tubingen Teacher Training 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Sassari Teacher Training 2

Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Teacher Training 2

Finland University of Helsinki Teacher Training/ Education Science

2

Netherlands Hogeschool Leiden Teacher Training/ Education Science

2


Table 10: Number of available places for the Faculty of Education students wishing to go on Erasmus for



2006-2007 68

2007-2008 73

2008-2009 70


53

There has been a general increase in places available throughout the last academic

years. The only decrease in places available was registered for the 2008-2009 academic

year with three places less than the previous year. The increase was quite substantial

during the last academic year (2009-2010) with eighteen more places available.

4.3.6 Faculty of Engineering

The situation within this Faculty is quite similar to the Faculty of Education one with the

number of places available that double the amount of applicants to go on Erasmus. In

fact, there were twenty-eight applicants for the sixty-nine places available for the

academic year 2009-2010. This leads to around 2.5 places for each applicant who

wishes to go on Erasmus. Nonetheless, there are limited places available (two) for the

students who want to study Civil Engineering abroad since there are only two places

available in Norway.

The Faculty of Engineering representative in the Erasmus Focus Group said that a

positive thing about the universities which have a bilateral agreement with this Faculty

is that they have good connections with the local lecturers. Thus, the engineering

students who are interested in going at a particular host university will get to speak to

these lecturers in order to obtain more information. Moreover, the level of such host

universities is good especially since they also cover a number of subjects which are not

available for the University of Malta engineering students.

Table 11: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Engineering students wishing to go on Erasmus


Country of Origin


Netherlands Technische Universiteit Delft Biomedical Engineering 1

Norway Hogskolen I sor Trondelag Civil Engineering 2

Romania Universitatea Tehnica 'GH. ASACHI' IASI

Electrical Engineering 2

United Kingdom

The University of Nottingham Electrical Engineering 2

Germany Fachhochschule Nordhausen Electrical/ Environmental/ Mechanical Engineering

3

Poland Politechnika Warszawska Electronic Engineering 2

54

Slovenia University of Ljubljana Electronic Engineering 2

Austria Vienna University of Technology Electronic Engineering/ Telecommunications

4

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Electronic Engineering/ Telecommunications

2

Austria The Upper Austria University of Applied Siences

Engineering 2

Czech Republic

Brno University of Technology Engineering 3

Denmark VIA, University College Engineering 2

France Université de Technologie De Compiegne

Engineering 3

France Université de Technologie Troyes Engineering 2

Germany Hochschule Munchen Engineering 2

Germany University of Stuttgart Engineering 2

Poland Politechnika Gdanska Engineering 1

Poland Politechnika Warszawska Engineering 2

United Kingdom

University of Sheffield Engineering 2

Spain EUSS - Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Engineering/ Technology

2

France Université du Havre Engineering/ Technology

1

France Université Henri Poincare Engineering/ Technology

2

Germany HAWK, University of Applied Sciences and Arts

Engineering/ Technology

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Engineering/ Technology

2

Turkey Sakarya University Engineering/ Technology

2

United Kingdom

University of Surrey Engineering/ Technology

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Bergamo Manufacturing Science 1

Italy Politecnico di Milano Mechanical Engineering 2

Spain Universidad de Valladolid Mechanical Engineering 1

55

United Kingdom

Cranfield University Mechanical Engineering 2

United Kingdom

University of Strathclyde Mechanical Engineering 6

Spain Universidad de Valladolid Other Areas - Energy Technology

1

Spain Universidad de Valladolid Other Engineering Technology

2


The number of places available has been constantly increasing as from the 2006-2007

academic year onwards. The largest increase in places available was registered during

the 2007-2008 academic year where there were twelve more places than the previous

academic year.

Table 12: Number of available places for the Faculty of Engineering students wishing to go on Erasmus



2006-2007 50

2007-2008 62

2008-2009 65


4.3.7 Faculty of Health Sciences

As one can easily notice, the Faculty of Health Sciences offers a wide range of places for

its students to go on Erasmus at though these places are not distributed throughout all

the departments. In fact, there are a large number of places available for the students

studying in the Nursing, Physiotherapy and Radiography departments while there are

limited places available for the students studying in the Biomedical, Midwifery,

Occupational Therapy and Communication Therapy departments.

The large number of places being offered to the students to go on Erasmus (one

hundred and twenty-nine places) was met by eighty five applicants during for the

academic year 2009-2010. Thus, there are 1.5 places available for each applicant from

this Faculty. This figure does not cater for the specific situation of the departments

56

which have a limited amount of places available since the figure of places per applicant

would be lower.

The Erasmus Focus Group participant on behalf of the Faculty of Health Sciences noted

that there were only two universities which she could apply for due to the afore

mentioned reasons. Regarding the level of the universities, she pointed out that the

standard was way below that of the University of Malta as they consider the course as

a diploma instead of a degree.

Table 13: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Health Sciences students wishing to go on


Country of Origin


Finland Pirkanmaan Polytechnic Biomedical Laboratory

2

Ireland University College Dublin Diagnostic Imaging 2

Finland Turku University of Applied Science Diagnostic Radiography

2

Sweden Lunds Universitet Diagnostic Radiography

2

Finland University of Turku Logopaedics 2

Netherlands Hogeschool Inholland Medical Technology/ Radiography

2

Finland Savonia University of Applied Sciences Midwifery 2

United Kingdom

University of Glamorgan Midwifery 2

Belgium Katholieke Hogeschool Kempen Nursing 2

Czech Republic

University of Pardubice Nursing 2

Finland Savonia University of Applied Sciences Nursing 2

Finland Satakunta University of Applied Sciences

Nursing 2

Finland Pirkanmaan Polytechnic Nursing 2

Ireland University College Dublin Nursing 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Nursing 2

Lithuania Klaipeda University Nursing 2

Portugal Escola Superior de Enfermagem do Porto

Nursing 3

Spain Universitat de Lleida Nursing 2

Sweden Karolinska Institutet Nursing 2

57

United Kingdom

Middlesex University Nursing 2

United Kingdom

University of Manchester Nursing 2

United Kingdom

The University of Nottingham Nursing 2

United Kingdom

University of Glamorgan Nursing 2

United Kingdom

University of Central Lancashire Nursing 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Nursing/ Midwifery 2

Denmark CVU Lillebaelt Occupational Therapy

2

Denmark University College Lille Baelt Occupational Therapy

2

Finland Arcada Polytechnic Occupational Therapy

2

Sweden Karolinska Institutet Occupational Therapy

2

United Kingdom

Cardiff University Occupational Therapy

2

Finland University of Oulu Other Medical Sciences

2

Belgium Artevelde University College Physiotherapy 2

Denmark CVU Lillebaelt Physiotherapy 2

Denmark University College Sjaelland Physiotherapy 2

Denmark University College Lille Baelt Physiotherapy 2

Denmark CVU Syd Sygeplejeskolen I Stroms Amt Physiotherapy 2

Finland Arcada Polytechnic Physiotherapy 2

Finland Lahti University of Applied Sciences Physiotherapy 2

Finland Pirkanmaan Polytechnic Physiotherapy 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Physiotherapy 2

Netherlands Hogeschool Utrecht, University of Applied Science

Physiotherapy 2

Sweden Karolinska Institutet Physiotherapy 2

Sweden Uppsala Universitet Physiotherapy 2

Denmark CVU Lillebaelt Radiography 2

Denmark University College Lille Baelt Radiography 2

Estonia Tartu Health College Radiography 2

Norway Bergen University College Radiography 3

58

Portugal Instituto Politecnico de Coimbra Radiography 2

Portugal Universidade do Algarve Radiography 2

Portugal Instituto Politecnico do Porto Radiography 2

Sweden Karolinska Institutet Radiography 2

United Kingdom

University Campus Suffolk Radiography 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Radiology/ Medical Lab

4

Belgium Lessius Hogeschool Speech and Language Therapy

4

Belgium Katholieke Hogeschool Brugge Oostende

Speech Therapy 2

Belgium Haute Ecole Leonard de Vinci Speech Therapy 2

Spain EUSS - Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Speech Therapy 8

Belgium Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Speech Therapy and Audiology

3


Table 14: Number of available places for the Faculty of Health Sciences students wishing to go on



2006-2007 72

2007-2008 110

2008-2009 117


The situation of the number of available places for the Health Sciences students to go

on Erasmus has been increasing throughout all the academic years taken into

consideration (similar to the case of other Faculties). In fact, a steep increase of places

was registered between the 2006-2007 and the 2007-2008 academic years where

thirty-eight more places were made available.

4.3.8 Faculty of Information and Communication Technology

This Faculty has various bi-lateral agreements in place which cover a number of

departments within the Faculty. In fact, the students studying Computer Science and

Communications & Computer Engineering have quite a number of places to choose

59

from. On the other hand, there are limited or no places available for the other

departments such as Microelectronics & Nanoelectronics.

Table 15: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology

students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin


Sweden Malmo University Communication/ Information Science

2

Germany Universität des Saarlandes Computational Linguistics

1

Spain Universidad de Castilla La Mancha Computer Engineering

3

Estonia Tallin University Computer Science 2

Finland Joensuun Yliopisto Computer Science 2

France Unviersité Paul Verlaine - Metz Computer Science 2

Poland Warsaw University of Technology Computer Science 2

United Kingdom

University of Kent Computer Science 3

Czech Republic

Tomas Bata University in Zlin Computing 1

Czech Republic

Charles University in Prague Informatics 1

Denmark IT University of Copenhagen Informatics/ Computer Science

2

France Université Nancy 2 Informatics/ Computer Science

1

Ireland National University of Ireland Informatics/ Computer Science

2

Sweden Goteborg University Informatics/ Computer Science

2

France Université du Havre Information Communication

1

Italy Università degli Studi di Trieste Information Technology

2

Italy Libera Università di Bolzano Mathematics/ Informatics/ Computer Science

1

60

Denmark IT University of Copenhagen Other Communication/ Computer Science

2


During the academic year 2009-2010, there were thirty-two places available for the

students studying within this Faculty to take-up. The low number of applicants (eight)

lead to have four places available each.

One must also mention the number of overall places per academic year as from the

2006-2007 one. The places have slightly risen constantly with a slight decrease being

registered for the 2009-2010 academic year. One must note that it seems that the

places available for the students studying within this Faculty have settled in the last

two academic years (i.e. around thirty to thirty-five places per academic year).

Table 16: Number of available places for the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology

students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 22

2007-2008 26

2008-2009 34


4.3.9 Faculty of Laws

Table 17: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Laws students wishing to go on Erasmus for the

2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin

Name of Institution Subject

Area Number of Students

Austria Universität Salzburg Law 2

Belgium Vrije Universiteit Brussel Law 2

Belgium Katholieke Universiteit Leuven Law 2

Czech Republic

Charles University in Prague Law 2

Denmark University of Copenhagen Law 3

France Université du Havre Law 2

France Université Lumiere Lyon 2 Law 5

France Université Montpellier 1 Law 2

61

France University of Rennes 1 Law 3

Germany Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover

Law 3

Italy Università di Bologna Law 2

Italy Università degli studi di Calabria Law 1

Italy Università degli studi kore di Enna Law 4

Italy Università degli studi di Ferrara Law 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Law 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Law 2

Italy Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore Law 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Parma Law 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Law 6

Italy Università degli Studi di Roma "Tor Vergata" Law 6

Italy Università degli Studi di Roma Tre Law 7

Italy Libera Università degli Studi di Roma Pio V Law 4

Italy Università degli Studi di Teramo Law 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Urbino Law 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona Law 3

Netherlands Utrecht University Law 2

Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Law 2

Poland Lazarski School of Commercial Law Law 2

Slovakia Bratislava School of Law Law 2

Spain Universidad de Oviedo Law 2

Spain Universidad de Santiago de Compostela Law 3

Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Law 2

Sweden Goteborg University Law 2

United Kingdom

Abersytwyth University Law 2

United Kingdom

University of Essex Law 1

United Kingdom

University of Leicester Law 2

United Kingdom

University of Southampton Law 2


The Faculty of Laws is another Faculty which offers a wide range of places to its

students. These places cover various countries with Italy being the most popular. In

fact, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were ninety-six places being offered

62

for forty-six applicants. This means that there were around 2.1 places for each Law

student who applied to go on Erasmus.

As one can see from the table below, there was an increase throughout all the

academic years taken into consideration (apart for the academic year 2008-2009 which

registered a place less than the previous academic year). This decrease in places was

absorbed during the following academic year (2009-2010) since the number of places

available rose to a much larger extent than the decrease registered during the 2008-

2009 academic year.

Table 18: Number of available places for the Faculty of Laws students wishing to go on Erasmus for the

2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 77

2007-2008 89

2008-2009 88


4.3.10 Faculty of Medicine and Surgery

Even though one can notice that there are quite a large number of available places for

students who wish to go on Erasmus to take up, these available places are not spread

throughout all the departments within this Faculty. In fact, there are a large number of

available places for those students studying within the Pharmacy department while

there are no places for other departments such as those students who are focusing

their studies in Medicine, Psychiatry, Surgery and Anatomy amongst others.

If one takes a general picture, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were sixty-

seven places for the twenty applications received. Thus, there were 3.35 places for

each applicant from this Faculty. One must note that this large number was brought

about by the bi-lateral agreements catering for Pharmacy students.

Table 19: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students wishing to go on


Country of Origin


Belgium Europese Hogeschool Brussel Medical Imaging 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Medical Science 2

63

United Kingdom

University of Aberdeen Medical Science 2

United Kingdom

University of Ulster Medical Technology

4

Italy Vita Salute San Raffaele University Medicine 2

Poland Akademia Medyczna Warszawie Medicine 2

Spain Universidad de Sevilla Medicine 1

United Kingdom

The Queens University of Belfast Pharmacology 2

Belgium Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pharmacy 2

Denmark University College Sjaelland Pharmacy 2

France Université Joseph Fourier Pharmacy 2

France Université du Droit et de la Sante de Lille

Pharmacy 2

France Université de Limoges Pharmacy 1

France Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 Pharmacy 2

France Université Montpellier 1 Pharmacy 4

France Université Rene' Descartes - Paris 5 Pharmacy 3

Germany University of Bonn Pharmacy 2

Germany Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nurnberg

Pharmacy 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Calabria Pharmacy 3

Italy Università di Catania Pharmacy 3

Italy Università degli Studi di Cagliari Pharmacy 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Pharmacy 2

Italy University of Pisa Pharmacy 2


Pharmacy 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Urbino Pharmacy 2

Poland Uniwersytet Jagiellonski Pharmacy 2

Spain Universidad de Alcalá Pharmacy 2

Spain Universidad Computense de Madrid Pharmacy 2

United Kingdom

Cardiff University Pharmacy 2

United Kingdom

Kings College London Pharmacy 2


64

The places available for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students have changed

throughout the various academic years. In fact, a slight decrease in available places was

registered for the 2007-2008 academic year while there was a drastic increase in such

places during the following academic year, i.e. 2008-2009.

Table 20: Number of available places for the Faculty of Medicine and Surgery students wishing to go on



2006-2007 53

2007-2008 47

2008-2009 66

2009-2010 67


4.3.11 Faculty of Science

There are a wide number of bi-lateral agreements signed to cater for the Faculty of

Science students that wish to go on Erasmus. These cover all the departments within

this Faculty with Chemistry and Mathematics registering the largest number of bi-

lateral agreements when compared to the other departments (Biology, Physics and

Statistics & Operations Research). One should point out that even though there are

such bi-lateral agreements, many of the students cannot go on Erasmus since these

agreements cover one field of study whereas the students have to choose two areas of

study. Thus, this situation limits them from going on Erasmus.

In fact, out of the fifty-seven available places during the 2009-2010 academic year,

there were only five applicants to go on Erasmus. This totals to 11.4 available places for

each application received.

Table 21: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Science students wishing to go on Erasmus for


Country of Origin


United Kingdom

The University of Oxford Astrophysics 1

Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen Chemistry 2

France Ecole Nationale Superieure de Chimie de Clermont Ferrand

Chemistry 2

65

Greece Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Chemistry 2

Italy Università di Camerino Chemistry 2

Italy Università di Catania Chemistry 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Chemistry 2

Italy Università degli Studi dell'Insubria Chemistry 2

United Kingdom

University of Sheffield Chemistry 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Teramo Communication/ Information Sciences

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Environmental Sciences/ Ecology

10

Czech Republic

Brno University of Technology Mathematics 1

Czech Republic

Tomas Bata University in Zlin Mathematics 1

Ireland National University of Ireland Mathematics 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Messina Mathematics 2

Portugal Universidad de Aveiro Mathematics 2

United Kingdom

University of Warwick Mathematics 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Mathematics/ Informatics

2

Belgium Plantijn Hogeschool University College

Microbiology/ Biotechnology

2

Poland Politechnika Gdanska Natural Science 2

Poland Panstwowa Wyzsza Szkola Zawodowa Natural Science 2

United Kingdom

University of Plymouth Natural Science 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Palermo Other Areas Energy Technology

1

United Kingdom

Loughborough University Other Areas Energy Technology

2


Others Natural Sciences

1

Italy Università degli studi di Milano Bicocca

Physics 2

Germany Fachhochschule Nordhausen Renewable Energy/ Other Areas Energy Technology

3


66

The same upward trend of places available was registered during the academic years

taken into consideration. The only academic year which registered a slight decrease in

places available was the 2008-2009 academic year. In fact, there were two places less

than the previous academic year.

Table 22: Number of available places for the Faculty of Science students wishing to go on Erasmus for the

2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 36

2007-2008 42

2008-2009 40


4.3.12 Faculty of Theology

Table 23: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Faculty of Theology students wishing to go on Erasmus for


Country of Origin


Czech Republic

St. Cyril and Methodius Theological Faculty Theology 2

Germany Universität Rostock Theology 2

Ireland Mater Dei Institute of Education Theology 2

Ireland Milltown Institute Theology 2

Poland Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubeljski Jana Pawla II Theology 2

United Kingdom

Heythrop College Theology 3


When one considers that a large percentage of the students studying at the Faculty of

Theology cannot go on Erasmus due to their vocation, the number of places available

for such students to go on Erasmus is a good one. In fact, during the academic year

2009-2010, there were six bi-lateral agreements that lead to thirteen places available.

On the other hand, there were no applications received during this academic year

which lead to the ‘wasting’ of such places.

67

Table 24: Number of available places for the Faculty of Theology students wishing to go on Erasmus for



2006-2007 2

2007-2008 2

2008-2009 12


As one can see from the table above, there was an increase in available places between

the first two academic years taken into consideration (2006-2007 and 2007-2008) and

the following two academic years (2008-2009 and 2009-2010) with the number of

places available places increasing drastically. One must notice that the number of

students applying to go on Erasmus did not follow the same trend.

4.3.13 Institute of Criminology

The experience of the Institute of Criminology in relation to the Erasmus Programme

has been quite recent. In fact, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were only

two bi-lateral agreements in place that catered for seven Criminology students. There

were four applications received which lead to 1.75 places available per applicant.

The Institute of Criminology representative in the Erasmus Focus Group explained that

her case was different from the other students that went on Erasmus since the

university she went to was not as formal as the University of Malta. Nonetheless, she

pointed out that she liked the system they used: to host the Erasmus students at the

college itself with English speaking lecturers all throughout the semester.

Table 25: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Criminology students wishing to go on Erasmus


Country of Origin Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students

Hungary Police College Criminology 4

United Kingdom University of Sheffield Criminology 3 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office

Moreover, the 2009-2010 academic year was the first year where there were bi-lateral

agreements signed with foreign universities. Thus, one cannot successfully compare the

change of available places throughout the various academic years taken into

68

consideration or assess whether the number of places available are enough in relation

to the number of received applications since the data available is still recent and thus,

it is highly subject to change.

Table 26: Number of available places for the Institute of Criminology students wishing to go on Erasmus



2006-2007 0

2007-2008 0

2008-2009 0

2009-2010 7


4.3.14 The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development of Thinking

Table 27: List of bi-lateral agreements for The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development

and Thinking students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin


Germany Fachhochschule Brandenburg

Creative Thinking/ Business Studies

2

Germany University of Potsdam Creativity/ Innovation/ Entrepreneurship

2

United Kingdom

University of Teesside Creativity/ Innovation/ Entrepreneurship

1


There were three bi-lateral agreements in place for the Edward De Bono Institute for

the Design and Development of Thinking students during the 2009-2010 academic year.

This meant five places available for the students to take up. There were no applications

received during this academic year which resulted in these places to get wasted.

Table 28: Number of available places for The Edward De Bono Institute for the Design and Development

and Thinking students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 0

2007-2008 2

69

2008-2009 7


The number of places available for students to go on Erasmus changed during every

academic year which was taken into consideration. Whereas there were no places

available during the 2006-2007 academic year, this increased to two and seven places

for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years respectively. There was also a

decrease of two places registered during the 2009-2010 academic year when compared

to the previous one.

4.3.15 Institute of Earth Systems

The Institute of Earth Systems has signed various bi-lateral agreements with foreign

universities the majority of whom are with Italian universities. This possible language

barrier can be one of the reasons why there was just one application to go on Erasmus

during the 2009-2010 academic year out of the eleven places available. Thus, it would

be opportune if other bi-lateral agreements are signed in order to cater for all the

students who study at this Institute.

Table 29: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Earth Systems students wishing to go on


Country of Origin


Italy Università di Bologna Agricultural Science 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Agricultural Science 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Milano Agricultural Science 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Palermo Agricultural Science 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia Agricultural Science 1

Spain Universidad de Santiago de Compostela

Agricultural Science 2

Italy University of Udine Agricultural Science/ Veterinary Medicine

2


There have always been a good number of available places for the students willing to

go on Erasmus. Whereas an increase in available places was registered during the 2007-

2008 academic year, there was a decrease in places available for the rest of the

70

academic years taken into consideration, i.e. a place for the 2008-2009 academic year

and five places for the 2009-2010 academic year.

Table 30: Number of available places for the Institute of Earth Systems students wishing to go on



2006-2007 13

2007-2008 17

2008-2009 16


4.3.16 Institute of Linguistics

Table 31: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute of Linguistics students wishing to go on Erasmus


Country of Origin Name of Institution Subject Area Number of Students

France Université Nancy 2 Linguistics 1

Germany Otto- Friedrich Universität Bamberg

Linguistics 2


The Institute of Linguistics has always had a small number of bi-lateral agreements in

order for its students to have the possibility to go on Erasmus. As the Institute of Earth

Systems, the choice of universities have been in countries that might provide a

language barrier to the Maltese students wishing to go on Erasmus but are not able to

speak either French or German. This may be the reason why there was no one who

applied to go on Erasmus from this Institute.

Table 32: Number of available places for the Institute of Linguistics students wishing to go on Erasmus for



2006-2007 3

2007-2008 4

2008-2009 2

2009-2010 3


71

The number of places available has been constant throughout the academic years

taken into consideration. In fact, the number of places ranged from two to four places

as it can be seen from the table above.

4.3.17 Mediterranean Institute

Table 33: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Mediterranean Institute students wishing to go on Erasmus


Country of Origin


France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis Anthropology 1

Italy Università degli Studi di Firenze Anthropology 2

United Kingdom

University of Sussex Anthropology 3

United Kingdom

Durham University Anthropology 2

Czech Republic

Charles University in Prague Demography 2

Austria Leopold-Franzens Universität Innsbruck Geography 1

France Université de Limoges Geography 2

France Univeristé Paris Diderot- Paris 7 Geography 1

Spain Universitat Rovira I Virgili Geography 2

Sweden Lunds Universitet Geography 2

United Kingdom

University of Westminister Geography 2

United Kingdom

University of Portsmouth Geography 3

Germany Katholische Universität Eichstatt - Ingolstadt

Geography/ Geology

2

Italy Università degli Studi di Modena e Reggio Emilia

Geography/ Geology

2

Italy Conservatorio Statale di Musica L Cherubini Firenze

Music 1

Italy Conservatorio Statale di Musica Alfredo Casella- L`Aquila

Music 2

Italy Conservatorio di Musica di Lecce- Tito Schipa

Music 1

Czech Republic

Ostravska Universita Music/ Musicology

2

72

Czech Republic

Univerzita Jana Evangelisty Purkyne V Usti nad Labern

Music/ Musicology

2

Italy Conservatorio Antonio Sciortino, Trapani

Music/ Musicology

2

Italy University of Pisa Musical Studies/ Conservation

1

Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen Performing Arts 1

Czech Republic

Ostravska Universita Performing Arts 2

France Université de Paris 13 Performing Arts 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Genova Performing Arts 2


Performing Arts 2

Slovenia University of Primorska Performing Arts 3

United Kingdom

University of Kent Performing Arts 3


Theatre Studies 1

Poland Adam Mickiewicz University Theatre Studies 3 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office

There are a large number of bi-lateral agreements signed for the benefit of the

Mediterranean Institute students. In fact, there are a good number of places available

in almost all the different departments that constitute the Mediterranean Institute. The

only department which do not have any agreement signed with a foreign university as

yet is the Dance Studies department.

The large number of places available does not coincide with the number of applications

received to go on Erasmus. In fact, there were ten applicants for the 2009-2010

academic year in relation to the fifty-seven available places for the same academic

year. Thus, there were 5.7 places available for each application received.

The Mediterranean Institute participant in the Erasmus Focus Group analysed that the

universities available for her course and Institute are not all ideal. There are a number

of good choices though which should be increased in order to attract more students

who are willing to go abroad on Erasmus.

73

Table 34: Number of available places for the Mediterranean Institute students wishing to go on Erasmus



2006-2007 30

2007-2008 47

2008-2009 46

2009-2010 57


It is worth noting that both the Mediterranean Institute officials and the University of

Malta International and EU Office have managed to secure an increase in the places

available for the students studying at this Institute. The only academic year where a

decline was registered was during 2008-2009 with just one available place less than the

previous academic year.

4.3.18 Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture

The Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture has various bi-lateral agreements with

universities hailing from different countries for the benefit of the students conversant

in English, Italian and German. Moreover, the number of places available during the

2009-2010 academic year was that of seventeen places which was way above the

number of applications received (one).

Table 35: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture students wishing

to go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin


Finland Arcada Polytechnic Business/ Tourism 2

Germany Hochschule Bremen Tourism Studies 3


Tourism Studies 4

United Kingdom

Canterbury Christ Church University Tourism Studies 4

Finland Haaga Helia University of Applied Science

Tourism/ Catering/ Hotel Management

2

Finland Savonia University of Applied Sciences Tourism/ Catering/ Hotel Management

2


74

The number of places available for the Tourism students to go on Erasmus has been

constantly on the increase. In fact, there were three more places during the 2007-2008

academic year and seven more places during the 2008-2009 year. The only decline in

places that was registered was during the 2009-2010 academic year with a decrease of

five places when compared to the previous academic year.

Table 36: Number of available places for the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture students wishing to



2006-2007 12

2007-2008 15

2008-2009 22

2009-2010 17


4.3.19 Centre for Communication Technology

As the case of the Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture, the Centre for

Communication Technology has signed bi-lateral agreements with universities from a

number of different European countries. This wide choice of universities and places

(during the 2009-2010 academic year, there were twenty-one places available) was

met with a limited number of applications to go on Erasmus (a total of seven applicants

for the 2009-2010 academic year). Thus, there were three places for each application

received.

The Centre for Communication Technology representative in the Erasmus Focus Group

said that there are a number of good universities offered as a choice especially those

situated in the northern European countries such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, the

Netherlands, Germany and France.

Table 37: List of bi-lateral agreements for the Centre for Communication Technology students wishing to

go on Erasmus for the 2009-2010 academic year

Country of Origin


Denmark University of Copenhagen Communcation/ Information Sciences

1

Latvia University of Latvia Communcation/ Information Sciences

2

75

Italy University of Udine Communcation/ Information Sciences/ Cinema

2

Finland Univeristy of Jyvaskyla Communication 2

France Université Du littoral Cote D'opale Communication 2

France Université De Nice- Sophia Antipolis Communication 2

United Kingdom

University of Westminister Communication 2

Germany Hochschule Bremen Communication/ Information Sciences

2

Germany Facchochschule Gelsenkirchen Journalism/ Public Relations

4

Sweden Lunds Universitet Media/ Communication Studies

2


Table 38: Number of available places for the Centre for Communication Technology students wishing to



2006-2007 18

2007-2008 14

2008-2009 12

2009-2010 21


The places available for the Communications students have varied from one academic

year to another. A decline was registered during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009

academic years while a sharp increase in the number of available places was seen

during the 2009-2010 academic year with more universities from a wider number of

countries being offered for the Communications students wishing to go on Erasmus.

4.3.20 European Documentation and Research Centre

The European Documentation and Research Centre’s lecturers are known for their

constant promotion with their students to go on Erasmus. In fact, they have managed

to secure twenty-six places during the 2009-2010 academic year. It is worth noting that

the number of applicants to go on Erasmus for the same academic year was that of

76

eighteen students. Thus, there were only 1.44 available places for the European Studies

students to take up. The number of applicants has soared during this academic year

due to the fact that it comprises both the second and third year students who applied

to go on Erasmus unlike the previous years which were limited just for the second year

students. Thus, the number of places per applicant was greatly affected by this

situation.

The European Documentation and Research Centre participant in the Erasmus Focus

Group noted that the standard of the universities being offered to the European

Studies students are good.

Table 39: List of bi-lateral agreements for the European Documentation and Research Centre students


Country of Origin


Italy Università degli Studi di Perugia EC/ EU Law 2

France Université Paris 8 Vincennes- Saint Denes

European Studies 2

Hungary University of Szeged European Studies 2

Ireland University of Limerick European Studies 3

Italy Università di Bologna European Studies 7

Italy Università degli studi di Calabria European Studies 2

Poland Uniwersytet Warszawski/ University of Warsaw

European Studies 2

Italy Università degli Studi di Trieste International Relation/ European Studies

2

Germany Universität Konstanz Political Science 2

Germany University of Mannheim Political Science 2 Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office

The number of places available for the European Studies students to go on Erasmus has

been on the rise during the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 academic years. There was a

slight decrease in places during the 2009-2010 academic years with two places less.

The fact that both the second and third year students can go on Erasmus means that

there is a need to increase the number of bi-lateral agreements for the benefit of all

the students enrolled with the European Documentation and Research Centre.

77

Table 40: Number of available places for the European Documentation and Research Centre students

wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 21

2007-2008 25

2008-2009 28

2009-2010 26


4.3.21 Others

This category comprises the Centre for Conservation and Restoration, the European

Centre for Gerontology and the Institute for Physical Education and Sport. As one can

see from the table below, there are a good number of places available for both the

Centre for Conservation and Restoration and the Institute for Physical Education and

Sport. In fact, during the 2009-2010 academic year, there was one applicant for the

twenty-two places available for the Conservation and Restoration students while there

were no applicants to take up the twelve places available within the Institute for

Physical Education and Sport. The European Centre for Gerontology had two places

available during the same academic year with no student deciding to apply for.

Table 41: List of bi-lateral agreements for the rest of the students wishing to go on Erasmus for the 2009-

2010 academic year

Country of Origin

Name of Institution Subject Area Faculty/

Institute/ Centre

Number of

Students

Greece Technological Educational Institution of Athens

Conservation Centre for Conservation and Restoration

2

Italy Università di Bologna Conservation Centre for Conservation and Restoration

1

Italy Università di Catania Conservation Centre for Conservation and Restoration

1

Belgium Universiteit Antwerpen Conservation of Cultural Heritage

Centre for Conservation and Restoration

2

78

Belgium Artesis University College of Antwerp

Conservation/ Restoration


2

Denmark Det Kongelige Danske Kunstakademi Konservtorskolen

Conservation/ Restoration


2

Finland Arcada Polytechnic Gerontology European Centre for Gerontology

2

Italy Università degli studi suor Orsola Benincasa

Heritage Centre for Conservation and Restoration

2

Italy Università Ca Foscari di Venezia

Masonry/ Construction Research


2


Museum Studies/ Conservation


4

Sweden Goteborg University Museum Studies/ Conservation


4

France Université Paul Sabatier Toulouse III

Physical Education

Institute for Physical Education and Sport

2

Germany Georg-August-Universität Gottingen

Physical Education


2

Italy Università degli Studi di Verona

Physical Education


2

Norway Telemark Unversity College Physical Education


2

Italy Istituto Universitario di Scienze Motorie

Physical Education/ Sport Science


2

79

United Kingdom

University of Gloucestershire

Physical Education/ Sport Science


2


Table 42: Number of available places for the rest of the students wishing to go on Erasmus for the

2006/2007-2009/2010 academic year


2006-2007 36

2007-2008 46

2008-2009 37

2009-2010 36


The number of places available has never been constant. A ten-place increase was

registered during the 2007-2008 academic year while a nine- and one-place decrease

was registered during the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 academic years respectively. One

must note that there are a large number of places available for such a limited number

of students that apply to go on Erasmus. It seems that the choice available for the

students is a wide one that comprises different aspects of their studies. Thus, an

increase in promotion is needed in order to have the students more aware of the

opportunities they have if they decide to go on Erasmus.


As one can see from the above analysis, there are different situations for the different

Faculties, Institutes and Centres. In some cases, some students do not have to

possibility to go on Erasmus such as the Faculty of Dental Surgery and the students in

some departments of Faculty of Medicine and Surgery since there are no bi-lateral

agreements signed as yet.

Other students in different Faculties have no possibilities to go on Erasmus even

though there are bi-lateral agreements signed with foreign universities. The Faculty of

Science is a case in point were the agreements do not address the fact that local

students chose two areas of studies and not just one while the universities which the

Faculty of Information and Communication Technology has an agreement with do not

80

match with the compulsory study-units being offered locally. Thus, a change in

universities which an agreement is signed is needed.

On the other hand, there are cases where there needs to be more promotion with the

students in order to take up the large number of places available. This is the case for

the Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Education, Faculty of Engineering, Mediterranean

Institute, the Centre for Conservation and Restoration and the Institute for Physical

Education and Sport amongst others.

Moreover, an increase in bi-lateral agreements is needed for the Faculty for the Built

Environment and the European Documentation and Research Centre in order to cater

for the increase in possible applicants to go on Erasmus as it was previously explained

in the above analysis.

81

5. Analysis of the Administrative Problems


In order to complete the Erasmus Programme, the students have to be in contact with

a number of relevant offices at the University of Malta and at the host university. The

aim of this chapter is to identify the administrative problems encountered by the

students. The chapter is divided into 2 parts. The first part includes an analysis of the

data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire and the second part

includes an analysis of the data obtained through the feedback from the Erasmus Focus

Group representatives.

The Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire sheds light on what administrative

problems the students encounter at the University of Malta when they opt to go on

Erasmus. The main offices the students encounter are the International & EU Office as

well as their respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres. On the other hand, students

who did not go on Erasmus had the chance to comment about why they decided not to

go on Erasmus. One of the choices that were given was in relation to administrative

problems that they might have faced.

The Erasmus Focus Group was directed to identify any administrative problems at the

University of Malta during the whole process of Erasmus, as well as the administrative

problems at the host university, if any problems were encountered.

Before the analysis of the problems encountered, we decided to include a brief

description of the competences of the International and EU Office and those of the

various Faculties, Institutes and Centres in order to understand better what their

responsibilities are.

5.2 The University of Malta International & EU Office

5.2.1 Competences of the University of Malta International and EU Office - Outgoing

Students

The University of Malta International and EU Office is the office in charge of updating

the bi-lateral agreements to ensure that students have a choice of high level

universities to choose from for their Erasmus experience.

The International & EU Office act as a reference point for all the students interested in

going on Erasmus and therefore are responsible to answer any queries and difficulties

82

the students might encounter before, during and after the application process as well

as while the students are studying at the host university.

The International & EU Office issues a call for application forms in February to

encourage students to participate in this programme. They then receive all the

application forms of the students who are interested in participating in an Erasmus

Programme on studies or in the form of a placement. These application forms are then

assessed to check whether the students who applied are eligible to undergo such an

exchange programme.

The list of the eligible students is sent to the respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres

for approval. After this feedback is received, the ESGAC (Erasmus Selection/Grant

Allocation Committee) finalises the list of students eligible to go on Erasmus.

The International and EU Office is responsible to nominate the eligible students to the

host university. The host universities are in contact with the University of Malta

through the International and EU Office regarding the students accepted.

When students are accepted and decide to continue with their application, the

International and EU Office is responsible to meet up with them and explain to them

the process required for them to go on Erasmus.

The International and EU Office is also in charge of the logistics involved to give the

grants to the students going on Erasmus before going abroad and after in order to

receive the final percentage of the grant allocated to them.

Additionally, the International and EU Office is responsible to update their website

when necessary, i.e. when there are changes in the bi-lateral agreements signed with

the foreign universities.


Questionnaire

Kindly refer to Chapter 8 on page 107.

5.2.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group

The most recurring problem encountered by the students is the limited student hours

of the International and EU Office. 88.89% of the Erasmus Focus Group has commented

on this. The short slots available for students discourage the interested students to

83

continue with their application process or not even apply in the first place. This is due

to the fact that long queues are formed which prove that the student hours are not

sufficient. Some students have also shown disappointment that during student hours,

the staff at the International and EU Office is not fully dedicated to the queries the

students might have.

The majority of the participants of the Erasmus Focus Group has commented on the

fact that most often they received late replies to any queries they had. This lengthened

the process which could have easily been more efficient if the process was more

organised especially if one considers the fact that most queries can be resolved in a

short time or answered by email. Some students said that most of the time, they had to

phone, email or visit the International and EU Office for a long time until they received

a reply.

A number of the students forming part of the Erasmus Focus Group have commented

that a major contributor of this problem is the fact that the office is under-staffed. At

present, two employees are in charge of the Outgoing Erasmus Students. There might

be too much load on just two employees. For this reason, efficiency is lacking according

to these students.

Furthermore, in relation to correspondence, the Erasmus Focus Group has noted that

some students studying at the University of Malta are not notified that they have been

chosen to go on Erasmus and accepted at a host university. Some of these students get

to know that they were accepted because they receive emails of acceptance from the

host university or because the students take the initiative and specifically go and ask

the International and EU Office themselves at their office at the university. The

students who are not notified in due time or are not notified at all might miss out on

this opportunity. Furthermore, this shortcoming does not show credibility in the work

of the International and EU Office and can discourage the students.

The Erasmus Focus Group has stressed upon the fact that the students are engaging

themselves in a completely new experience and thus, it is vital to receive the necessary

support to encourage participation and facilitate mobility amongst students. In

addition, the Erasmus Focus Group has discussed the possibility for the employees at

the International and EU Office to provide more information than that which is

required with paperwork and registration at the host university.

In addition to this, many of the students forming part of the Erasmus Focus Group have

noted that some of the application forms/ papers required or learning agreements

have been lost sometime during the Erasmus application process. A student

84

commented on the fact that this situation is making the University of Malta appear

incompetent with the administration and the Erasmus Co-ordinator at the host

university.

Some members of the Erasmus Focus Group have also commented on the fact that the

International and EU Office should not be forceful about signing the Learning

Agreement from before the student goes abroad as most of the host universities are

much more available to changes and have different methods of registration. Most

students will change the credits they opted for when still in Malta anyway when they

arrive at their host university.

The Erasmus Focus Group has also considered the situation where grants were received

at a later date than agreed on the contract. This has caused problems while the

students were abroad, especially when the students came to pay accommodation

costs. Additionally, when such problems cropped up and the students were abroad,

correspondence with the International and EU Office was difficult. The International

and EU Office, though not the entity in charge of issuing the grants to the students, is

the entity which liaises with the students.

Some of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have also commented on the system

used to select the students to the different universities. This system was regarded as

doubtful from their experience. It was said that this was mainly due to the lack of

clarity and transparency given by the International and EU Office on this matter.

It has also been said that students on Erasmus are not allowed to extend their stay at

the host institutions over 2 semesters, as with other European students undergoing the

same programme. This led the students to come back to Malta even though there were

some places which were not taken up by the other local students. Thus, these available

places ended up wasted when they could have been used by such students.

5.3 The University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres

5.3.1 Competences of the University of Malta Faculties, Institutes and Centres

The Faculties, Institutes and Centres should guide the students on what Erasmus

Semester/s is appropriate for the students in the respective courses as well as what

study-units should be chosen whilst on Erasmus. The Faculties, Institutes and Centres

give consent to go on Erasmus with the particular study-units and credits chosen as per

the Learning Agreement before the students go on Erasmus.

85


Questionnaire



Only a third of the Erasmus Focus Group participants did not note any difficulties

encountered with their respective Faculties.

The majority of the Erasmus Focus Group members have found difficulty in matching

the credits of the host university with those at the University of Malta. For this reason,

it was hard to get approval for their Learning Agreement as this has to be signed by the

respective lecturers. Furthermore, this can be hard considering the fact that students

going on Erasmus during the first semester need to get the approval during the

summer recess, a period in which most lecturers will be on vacation.

A small number of the Erasmus Focus Group participants had problems because they

went over the sixty credits allocated to each student at the University of Malta per year

for a full-time course.

The Faculties, Institutes and Centres are not always clear with how the students should

proceed with regards to the subjects spread during two semesters or the compulsory

study-units. Some members of the Erasmus Focus Group have encountered this

problem. When it comes to compulsory study-units, it was noted that the Faculties,

Institutes and Centres should be clear on whether the student will have the

opportunity to sit for an exam when he/she comes back from abroad during a re-sit

session irrespective of the fact that they have not attended any lectures. In this case,

the re-sit session will act as a first sit for these students who have been on Erasmus.

Such arrangements should be done before students go on Erasmus and should be in

line with any registration procedures to avoid any unnecessary hassles with

accreditation and exam sessions when they get back.

5.4 Host University


The majority of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have not encountered any

problems at their host university. The Erasmus Focus Group was pleased with the

efficiency at the host universities. One possible reason is the fact that the host

86

university has more staff. Additionally, at the host universities, the contact hours are

longer. Therefore, any queries or difficulties encountered can be solved in due time.

This also results in an overall feeling that the student is welcome at the host university

and that there is more time for the Erasmus students in general.

The overall Italian bureaucracy was also mentioned as a limiting factor by participants

of the Erasmus Focus Group.

The need to have to have an English speaking person in charge of the Erasmus students

in the host university was also mentioned. The Focus Group identified this as a means

to facilitate communication between the foreign student and the institution.

The Focus Group has also commented on the fact that more communication between

the University of Malta and the host university is vital. For instance, some students

have found problems to register for the amount of hours decided upon in Malta during

their placement.


As one can see from the above analysis, the students forming part of the Erasmus

Focus Group have encountered various administrative problems that were not

envisaged prior to their application to go on Erasmus. Moreover, from the information

emerged, some problems can be easily addressed. This is the case for the opening

hours of the International and EU Office that should be increased in order to

accommodate more students that wish to get more information on the Erasmus

Programme, to increase the staff working at the International and EU Office in order to

manage the large amount of work in an efficient and timely manner and to be more

efficient in the replies that are given to the students.

The students demand the International and EU Office to be more careful with their

application process and with the documentation they receive from the students since a

good number of the participants commented that they question the system used for

the application process and that some of their documentation have been lost during

this process.

It is worth noting that there were administrative problems related to the respective

Faculties, Institutes and Centres of the students wishing to go on Erasmus. We believe

that such students should be facilitated to go on Erasmus and not put extra burden on

them. The students wishing to go on Erasmus should be helped to overcome the

difficulties (such as in relation to the compulsory study-units while being on Erasmus).

87

If not, the number of students going on Erasmus will never be close to the desired level

of student mobility advocated by the EU.

Regarding the administrative problems in relation to the host universities, we believe

that these should be taken into consideration by the ones responsible for the signing of

the bi-lateral agreements with the foreign universities in order to address such

shortcomings from the administration of the host university.

88

6. Analysis of the Academic Problems


This chapter deals with the academic aspects of the Erasmus Programme. An analysis

of the academic difficulties the students encounter was obtained through the Erasmus

Focus Group. The difficulties encountered have been grouped up into those difficulties

encountered during the exchange programme, and therefore at the host institution, as

well as those encountered after the students have gone on Erasmus, and therefore at

the University of Malta.

Additionally, an analysis regarding the Erasmus Semester has been compiled. The

Erasmus Assessment Report sheds light on whether students believe they have been

on Erasmus during the right semester and in some cases, they give reasons why the

Erasmus Semester was not appropriate.

6.2 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group

6.2.1 Academic difficulties encountered during the exchange programme

The majority of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have not encountered any

academic difficulties during their exchange programme even though some have

commented on the fact that the educational system was different to that at the

University of Malta.

A member of the Erasmus Focus Group has expressed concern with regards to the fact

that in case of the courses that have a subsidiary area, some host universities only

accept to have the majority of the credits in the subsidiary area rather than the main

area of studies.

Some other members of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have also experienced

difficulty to change the subjects they had previously chosen because they arrived at the

host institution up to 3 weeks after the semester started as these students were sitting

for exams at the University of Malta. For this reason, these students believe that it is

vital that the semester at the host institution corresponds to that at the University of

Malta.

Some students from the Erasmus Focus Group have also felt that they were not

prepared for the oral exams when studying in Italy, where all exams are oral ones.

89

Some of the members of the Erasmus Focus Group participants have experienced

difficulties during their exchange programme as some people could not communicate

well in English. This was felt mainly when they tried to follow lectures.

A number of participants in this Erasmus Focus Group have also expressed the fact

that, even though the host university was slightly harder than the University of Malta, it

was easy to adapt and keep up as the lecturers were very open to discussions and they

were efficient in answering emails and any queries they might have had. This enhanced

the Erasmus experience for these students whilst studying at the host university.

6.2.2 Academic difficulties encountered after the exchange programme

Some members of the Erasmus Focus Group commented on the fact that credits

spread over a year have to be partly done alone, as the students would have missed a

semester of lectures. This is hard for the student, though when one compares this to

the holistic Erasmus experience it results to be worth it. Furthermore, this also applies

to those students who have Synoptic Exams.

Moreover, one third of the participants have also commented on the fact that since

they were on Erasmus during the first semester, catching up and settling back at the

University of Malta was hard especially since some students return back some time

after the beginning of the second semester. Nevertheless, students knew of this

situation from beforehand.

A member of the Erasmus Focus Group has commented on the fact that when some

students arrive back to the University of Malta, they have to sit for compulsory exams

in September as a re-sit even though it would have been their first sit. Furthermore, in

most host institutions, the marking system is different to that at the University of

Malta. Thus, when the students get back from their host institution, the translation of

the marks is considered as being fair.

6.3 The Erasmus Semester

6.3.1 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Assessment Questionnaire


90

6.3.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Focus Group

Most of the academic difficulties encountered by the Erasmus Focus Group participants

can be traced to the Erasmus semester the students are entitled to go in. The Erasmus

Focus Group members were asked to comment on what factors would determine the

ideal Erasmus semester.

Up to two thirds of the participants in the Erasmus Focus Group have commented on

the credits at the University of Malta during their particular Erasmus semester. The

students believe that during that academic year, there should be no credits spread over

one year and if possible compulsory credits are to be minimised. Additionally, the

credits should be similar to those offered at the University of Malta. Nevertheless, the

Erasmus Focus Group agreed that the respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres

should be more flexible when students opt to choose their study-units at the host

institutions. It is not imperative to study the exact same study-units when on Erasmus,

due to the fact that this change is part of the experience. The Erasmus Focus Group

believes that this issue is discouraging most students to continue with their application.

A member of the Erasmus Focus Group commented that Erasmus semesters are

limiting the chance for students to go on Erasmus which is something that is not fair.

Moreover, some participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have also commented that

the Erasmus semester should not be during the last year of the course like in the case

of the Law course.

The Erasmus Focus Group participants believe that an extra effort should be made to

ensure that semester dates at the host institution correspond to those at the University

of Malta.

Finally, a number of students participating in the Erasmus Focus Group have also

commented on the fact that for some students, Erasmus might not be an option, or is

hard to experience, due to practical work which students need to do during their

course. Students should be given the opportunity to do such practical work at their

host institutions and not limit the units involving practical practice to the University of

Malta. This makes it hard for the students to go and study abroad.


As one can see from the above analysis, there are a number of academic difficulties

that the students going on Erasmus encounter. These have to be immediately

91

addressed in order not to have any issues related to this programme that might affect

the students going on Erasmus in academic terms. These students should be at the

same level of those that decide not to go. Thus, it is futile to discourage the students

from going on Erasmus if there is a possibility of solving the existing academic problems

that impede the same students from taking up this opportunity.

92

7. Analysis of the Financial Aspect of going on Erasmus


At present, grants are allocated according to the host country a student is selected to

go on Erasmus in.

This chapter analyses the grants given to the students going on Erasmus vis-à-vis the

expenses the students incur during their stay abroad. Both the Erasmus Focus Group

and the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire gave their feedback on whether the

grant given is fair. The Erasmus Focus Group participants were also asked to suggest

alternative systems from the current one.

7.2 Analysis of the data obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report

Questionnaire


7.3 Analysis of the data obtained through the Erasmus Focus Group

All the participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have agreed that the system used to

allocate the grants is fair. Nevertheless, there were a number of suggestions to the

system.

Some of the participants commented that the grant should ideally be allocated

according to the city one is studying at, rather than by the country since it is much

more expensive for a student studying in a metropolitan city (with higher costs such as

transport and accommodation) than a smaller city in the same country.

Other participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have also commented on the fact that

grants should be given differently according to the particular course one is studying.

This is due to the fact that some courses have more expenses than others such as the

students reading for degree in Architecture and Civil Engineering.

A number of participants have discussed the fact that when allocating grants,

importance should be given to the economic situation of the student.

One third of the Erasmus Focus Group participants think that a possible alternative

system would be to provide grants according to the expenses such as accommodation

93

and flights. For this reason, grants would not be generic but they would depend on the

expenses involved.

All the members of the Erasmus Focus Group commented on the fact that the amount

given in the form of grant is a financial aid given to the students deciding to go on

Erasmus. This grant is not enough to cover all the expenses. In some occasions, the

grant was not enough to cover accommodation costs. It is important for students to

know beforehand that the grant will not be enough and that it will not cover all the

expenses involved. The participants of the Erasmus Focus Group have also suggested

that the flights should be given as a voucher which would be part of the grant.

7.4 Analysis of the grants given per academic year per host country

The system of the grants has changed throughout the years. During the academic year

2004-2005, the system covered accommodation costs and an extra amount of 150 euro

was given to all students. During the academic years 2005-2006 and 2006-2007, a

constant amount of 300 euro and 442 euro respectively was given to all students

irrespective of the host country.

As from the academic year 2007-2008, the grants were allocated according to the host

country. During the academic year 2008-2009 and the academic year 2009-2010, a

capping system was introduced where the smallest sum given was that of €300 and the

largest sum was that of €500. You can find the full list of grants per year per host

country in the Table and Graph below.

Table 43: Grants given per country for the 2004/2005-2009/2010 academic years in Euro

2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

BE 150* 300 442 560 446.51 429

BG - - - - 300 275

CZ 150* 300 442 507 379.75 365.79

DK 150* 300 442 - 500 591.25

DE 150* 300 442 761 446.51 429

EE - - - - 354.11 341

GR - - - - 416.33 400.4

ES 150* 300 442 567 456.58 439.45

FR 150* 300 442 666 500 507.1

IE 150* 300 442 685 500 523.6

IT 150* 300 442 626 500 482.35

CY - - - - 408.1 392.15

LV - - - - 341.25 328.35

94

LT - - - - 337.66 324.5

LU - - - - 446.51 429

HU - - - - 339.5 326.7

MT 150* 300 442 - 403.55 388.3

NL 150* 300 442 614 491.4 472.45

AT - - - - 475.83 458.15

PL 150* 300 442 456 341.25 328.35

PT - - - - 409.94 394.35

RO - - - - 288.23 277.2

SI 150* 300 442 465 386.14 371.8

SK - - - - 392.52 377.85

FI 150* 300 442 659 500 501.05

SE 150* 300 442 629 500 492.8

UK 150* 300 442 805 500 597.3

IS - - - - 500 492.8

LI - - - - 500 515.35

NO 150* 300 442 786 500 597.3

TR 150* 300 442 468 333.03 520.1

* 150 + Rent for Accommodation Source: Information gathered from the University of Malta International and EU Office

Figure 22: Graph of grant given per host country in Euro


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

BE CZ DE GR FR IT LV LU MT AT PT SI FI UK LI TR

Am

ou

nt

/ Eu

ro

Host County

2004/2005

2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

95

7.3 Analysis of the grants given to the students at the University of Malta during the

academic years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010

The EU Commission establishes the maximum rate per month a student who is going

on Erasmus can have. The monthly rate given to the student is decided upon according

to the budget allocated for Life Long Learning to Malta and the amount of students

who opt to go on Erasmus per year.

Table 44: Grants given to the students during the academic year 2009-2010 in Euro

Host Country

MAX RATE/

MONTH

STUDIES PLACEMENT

55% 45%

BG 500 275 225

CZ 665 365.75 299.25

DK 1075 591.25 483.75

DE 780 429 351

EE 620 341 279

GR 728 400.40 327.6

ES 799 439.45 359.55

FR 922 507.10 414.9

IE 952 523.60 428.4

IT 877 482.35 394.65

CY 713 392.15 320.85

LV 597 328.35 268.65

LT 590 324.50 265.5

LU 780 429 351

HU 594 326.70 267.3

MT 706 388.30 317.7

NL 859 472.45 386.55

AT 833 458.15 374.85

PL 597 328.35 268.65

PT 717 394.35 322.65

RO 504 277.20 226.8

SI 676 371.80 304.2

SK 687 377.85 309.15

FI 911 501.05 409.95

SE 896 492.80 403.2

UK 1086 597.30 488.7

IS 896 492.80 403.2

LI 937 515.35 421.65

NO 1086 597.30 488.7

TR 582 320.10 261.9


96

Table 45: Grants given to the students during the academic year 2008-2009 in Euro

4 months

3 month

5 months

Host Country

TOTAL 35% PER

MONTH CAPPING

TOTAL 35% PER

MONTH CAPPING

TOTAL 35%

PER MONTH

CAPPING

BE 5103 1786.05 446.513

4323 1513.05 504.35 500

5883 2059.05 411.81

BG 3273 1145.55 286.388 300

2773 970.55 323.52

3773 1320.55 264.11 300

CZ 4340 1519 379.75

3675 1286.25 428.75

5005 1751.75 350.35

DK 7027 2459.45 614.863 500

5952 2083.2 694.40 500

8102 2835.7 567.14 500

DE 5103 1786.05 446.513

4323 1513.05 504.35 500

5883 2059.05 411.81

EE 4047 1416.45 354.113

3427 1199.45 399.82

4667 1633.45 326.69

EL 4758 1665.3 416.325

4030 1410.5 470.17

5486 1920.1 384.02

ES 5218 1826.3 456.575

4419 1546.65 515.55 500

6017 2105.95 421.19

FR 6023 2108.05 527.013 500

5101 1785.35 595.12 500

6945 2430.75 486.15

IE 6222 2177.7 544.425 500

5270 1844.5 614.83 500

7174 2510.9 502.18 500

IT 5730 2005.5 501.375 500

4853 1698.55 566.18 500

6607 2312.45 462.49

CY 4664 1632.4 408.1

3951 1382.85 460.95

5377 1881.95 376.39

LV 3900 1365 341.25

3303 1156.05 385.35

4497 1573.95 314.79

LT 3859 1350.65 337.663

3269 1144.15 381.38

4449 1557.15 311.43

LU 5103 1786.05 446.513

4323 1513.05 504.35 500

5883 2059.05 411.81

HU 3880 1358 339.5

3286 1150.1 383.37

4474 1565.9 313.18

MT 4612 1614.2 403.55

3906 1367.1 455.70

5318 1861.3 372.26

NL 5616 1965.6 491.4

4757 1664.95 554.98 500

6475 2266.25 453.25

AT 5438 1903.3 475.825

4605 1611.75 537.25 500

6271 2194.85 438.97

PL 3900 1365 341.25

3303 1156.05 385.35

4497 1573.95 314.79

PT 4685 1639.75 409.938

3968 1388.8 462.93

5402 1890.7 378.14

RO 3294 1152.9 288.225 300

2790 976.5 325.50

3798 1329.3 265.86 300

SI 4413 1544.55 386.138

3737 1307.95 435.98

5089 1781.15 356.23

SK 4486 1570.1 392.525

3799 1329.65 443.22

5173 1810.55 362.11

FI 5950 2082.5 520.625 500

5039 1763.65 587.88 500

6861 2401.35 480.27

SE 5856 2049.6 512.4 500

4960 1736 578.67 500

6752 2363.20 472.64

UK 7100 2485 621.25 500

6014 2104.9 701.63 500

8186 2865.1 573.02 500

IS 5856 2049.6 512.4 500

4960 1736 578.67 500

6752 2363.2 472.64

LI 6128 2144.8 536.2 500

5191 1816.85 605.62 500

7065 2472.75 494.55

NO 7100 2485 621.25 500

6014 2104.9 701.63 500

8186 2865.1 573.02 500

TR 3806 1332.1 333.025

3224 1128.4 376.13

4388 1535.8 307.16


97

7.5 Grants and Expenses

The Erasmus Focus Group has commented that the grants that were given were fair.

Nevertheless, it is clear that the grant does not cover all the expenses.

The average estimated cost was found per host country per month, for the academic

year 2009-2010, as can be seen in the table in the following page. The host countries

which do not have an average estimated cost are those were no students have been on

Erasmus or the final report was not given.

When the average estimated cost is compared to the grant, it was found that the grant

covers on average 71.9% of the expenses of the students on studies and 47.30% of the

expenses incurred by the students on placements.

The grant covered the least amount of expenses in the Czech Republic while the

highest amount in Sweden for studies. Those students going on placements, the grant

covered the least amount of expenses in the Czech Republic while the highest amount

in Denmark.


As one can see from the above analysis, the Erasmus Focus Group participants

considered the system whereby the grant is allocated as being fair. Moreover, some

members of the same Focus Group have suggested possible amendments of the

aforementioned grant that would be based on the city one goes on Erasmus in or

depending on the course since there are differences in expenses.

A breakdown of the grant given per host country was also given. Finally, the percentage

of the expenses cover by the grant was analysed. It emerged that the grant covers a

large percentage of the expenses involved in the case of students who go on Erasmus

to study while the grant does not cover half of the expenses in the case of students

who go on Erasmus for a placement.

98

Table 46: Estimated Expenses for the academic year 2009-2010 in Euro

Host Country

MAX RATE/

MONTH

STUDIES PLACEMENT

55% Average

Estimated Costs % of the estimated costs

covered by grants 45%

Average Estimated Costs

% of the estimated costs covered by grants

BE 780 429 - - 351 - -

BG 500 275 691.67 39.76 225 850 26.47

CZ 665 365.75 1000 36.58 299.25 - -

DK 1075 591.25 775 76.29 483.75 650 74.42

DE 780 429 600 71.50 351 600 58.50

EE 620 341 - - 279 - -

GR 728 400.40 475 84.29 327.6 - -

ES 799 439.45 662.5 66.33 359.55 800 44.94

FR 922 507.10 625 81.14 414.9 763 54.38

IE 952 523.60 731.25 71.60 428.4 - -

IT 877 482.35 842.26 57.27 394.65 566.67 69.64

CY 713 392.15 - - 320.85 - -

LV 597 328.35 - - 268.65 - -

LT 590 324.50 - - 265.5 - -

LU 780 429 - - 351 - -

HU 594 326.70 400 81.68 267.3 - -

MT 706 388.30 - - 317.7 - -

NL 859 472.45 800 59.06 386.55 740 52.24

AT 833 458.15 - - 374.85 - -

PL 597 328.35 450 72.97 268.65 - -

PT 717 394.35 - - 322.65 1250 25.81

RO 504 277.20 - - 226.8 - -

SI 676 371.80 - - 304.2 - -

SK 687 377.85 - - 309.15 - -

FI 911 501.05 656.25 76.35 409.95 - -

SE 896 492.80 500 98.56 403.2 825 48.87

UK 1086 597.30 658.06 90.77 488.7 751.57 65.02

IS 896 492.80 - - 403.2 - -

LI 937 515.35 - - 421.65 - -

NO 1086 597.30 - - 488.7 - -

TR 582 320.10 - - 261.9 - -


99

8. Analysis of the Erasmus Assessment Report

Questionnaire Results


This chapter analyses the results obtained from the Erasmus Assessment Report

Questionnaire. There were 519 respondents who completed this questionnaire which

catered for the different scenarios that the students could find themselves in: the

students that went on Erasmus, the students that got accepted to go on Erasmus and

decided not to go, the students who applied to go on Erasmus and were not accepted

and the students who never applied to go on Erasmus (either because they did not

have the opportunity to do so as yet or else because they do not want to go on

Erasmus).

This varied aspects arising out of the questionnaire will help us to get to know better

what the students think of the Erasmus process from the application phase to the other

process involved. This feedback will help us propose recommendation that will

ultimately improve the current situation of the Erasmus programme as seen by the

Maltese outgoing students.

8.2 Analysis of the Results

The first question that was asked to those students completing the Erasmus

Assessment Report Questionnaire was to rate their perception of the Erasmus

Programme. As one can see from Figure 23, 34.10% of the respondents have a neutral

perception of the Erasmus Programme while 33.53% of the students have a relatively

high perception of such programme. The remaining feedback that was received was

split as follows: 20.42% have a very high perception of the programme, 8.09% have a

relatively low perception of the programme while the remaining 3.85% have a very low

perception of the Erasmus programme.

The results that come out are important to get hold of the opinion of the respondents

vis-à-vis the Erasmus Programme. The fact that the absolute majority of the answers

were either neutral or positive indicates that the majority of the students do care

about the programme. This is essential since it would be futile to suggest

recommendations to improve the Maltese experience of this programme if the

students do not have a high consideration of it themselves.

100

Figure 23: Rating of the perception of the Erasmus programme

Source: Information gathered from the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire

As expected, the absolute majority of the students completing this questionnaire have

never been on Erasmus (84.42% of the total respondents) while 15.58% of those

answering the questionnaire said that they have been on Erasmus. The majority of the

students currently enrolled at the University of Malta have never been on Erasmus

themselves. Thus, this result is in line with the overall situation present on campus. This

result also shows that it is a true representation of the perception and of the thoughts

of the University of Malta students in relation to the Erasmus Programme.

Figure 24: Have you ever been on Erasmus?


3.85%

8.09%

34.10%

33.53%

20.42%

Very Low

Low

Neutral

High

Very High

15.58%

84.42%

Yes

No

101

Out of those who said that they have been on Erasmus, the absolute majority (55.70%)

answered that they would rate their experience as being extremely positive, 27.85%

consider their experience as being relatively positive while 11.39% of the respondents

were neutral of this experience. It was only 1.27% and 3.80% of the replies that said

that their Erasmus experience was relatively negative and extremely negative

respectively as it can be seen from Figure 25.

Figure 25: Rating of the Erasmus experience


This result shows that the Erasmus experience is a positive one. This enthusiasm in

relation to this programme can be another way how we can promote the take up of

much more students to decide to go on Erasmus. These students can answer the

queries and hesitations of the students that are still unsure whether to go on Erasmus

or not since they are the ones who can understand these students who are still in

doubt of what to do.

The fourth question revolved on the amount of money given in the form of a grant per

month (see Figure 26). 44.16% of the respondents said that they received a grant of

between €200 and €350, 38.96% of the respondents answered that they received a

3.80% 1.27%

11.39%

27.85%55.70%

Very Negative

Negative

Neutral

Positive

Very Positive

102

grant of between €351 and €500 whereas the remaining 16.88% said that they received

a grant of more that €501.

Figure 26: Amount of money received as a grant per month


The following question asked those that have been on Erasmus on the estimated costs

per month that they had while being abroad (Figure 27). 28.95% of the ones

completing the questionnaire said that the estimated costs ranged between €200 and

€500, 35.53% said that they spent between €501 and €750 a month and 30.26% said

that the costs were between €751 and €1000 a month. The rest of the respondents,

3.95% and 1.32%, said that their estimated costs per month were in the range of

€1001-€1500 and over €1501 respectively.

The last two charts show that the estimated costs are above the grant received. Thus, a

remedy has to be found in order to increase the take-up of this programme with the

students who cannot afford such an expense or with those students who are not willing

to spend such amount of money. It is important to highlight the positive feedback

received in relation to the Erasmus programme but such financial matters have also

been addressed in order to seriously address the low amount of students that decide to

go on Erasmus every year.

44.16%

38.96%

16.88%

€200 - €350

€351 - €500

€501+

103

Figure 27: Estimated costs per month


A somewhat unexpected result emerged when asked whether the grant was given

fairly or not. As it can be seen in Figure 28, 32.89% of the students said that they were

neutral about this situation whereas 21.05% considered the grant given as relatively

fair. On the other hand, 17.11% of the respondents believe that the grant given was

relatively not fair and extremely not fair. It was only the 11.84% of the total answers

that indicate that the grant given was extremely fair.

Figure 28: Was the grant fair?


28.95%

35.53%

30.26%

3.95% 1.32%

How much were the estimated costs per month?

€200 - €500

€501 - €750

€751 - €1000

€1001 - €1500

€1501+

17.11%

17.11%

32.89%

21.05%

11.84%

Extremely not fair

Relatively not fair

Neutral

Relatively fair

Extremely fair

104

The seventh question of the Erasmus Assessment Report questionnaire was about the

comparison between the host university and the University of Malta in academic terms.

The largest percentage of the respondents (29.49%) said that they consider the host

university as being of a relatively higher standard than the University of Malta while

28.21% of the answers indicate that the host university was of a similar standard and a

much higher standard. The rest of the respondents (11.54% and 2.56%) answered that

the level of the host university was of a relatively lower standard and of a much lower

standard respectively.

Figure 29: Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in academic terms


This shows the importance of the Erasmus Programme since the students who

participate in it have the opportunity to experience another university which has a

similar or higher level than that of the University of Malta. This result contrasts with

the findings arising out of the Erasmus Focus Group since they considered the level of

the host universities as being of a lower academic level than the University of Malta.

Moreover, one must take not of those students who said that the host university was

of a low standard. These universities have to be pin pointed in order to terminate the

bilateral agreement in favour of other foreign universities which have a higher

academic standard.

2.56%

11.54%

28.21%

29.49%

28.21%Much lower standard

Relatively lower standard

Same standard

Relatively higher standard

Much higher standard

105

As it can be seen in Figure 30, the majority of the respondents consider the campus life

at the host university as being of a relatively higher standard (31.17%) and of a much

higher standard (38.96%) when compared to the University of Malta campus life.

16.88% of those answering this questionnaire considered the campus life at the host

university as being of a same standard with 11.69% and 1.30% saying that the campus

life was of a relatively lower standard and of a much lower standard respectively when

compared to that of the University of Malta.

Figure 30: Comparison of the host university and the University of Malta in campus life terms


The result can further promote the take-up of this programme since every student is in

search of a better campus life. In Malta we are quite limited due to the fact of our small

size that gives us the opportunity to reside away from the University premises. Thus,

our life revolves around other places in our free time unlike what happens in foreign

universities. This situation can help to incentivise more students to apply and

eventually go on Erasmus.

The following question was related to whether the Erasmus semester was appropriate

or not. The absolute majority of the respondents (90.91%) answered that the Erasmus

semester was appropriate while the remaining 9.09% saying that it was not. It is worth

noting that the respondents that said that the Erasmus semester was not appropriate

hailed from the Faculty of Health Sciences (57.14%), the Faculty for the Built

Environment (28.57%) and the Mediterranean Institute (14.29%). Thus, one should

1.30%

11.69%

16.88%

31.17%

38.96%

Much lower standard


Same standard



106

have a look at the situation in these Faculties and Institute in order to assess whether

the Erasmus semester should be changes or not.

Figure 31: Was the Erasmus semester appropriate?


Moreover, it is quite surprising that no Law student has said that the Erasmus semester

was not appropriate considering the fact that the vast majority of the students are not

happy with this situation. The reason might be that since the Law students go on

Erasmus during the sixth year, many Law students taking this questionnaire could not

answer this question.

The students who said that the Erasmus semester was not appropriate were asked to

explain their answer as can be seen in Figure 32. 22.22% of the respondents answered

that the Erasmus semester was not appropriate since they missed important study-

units. 11.11% of the answers indicated that it was due to the fact that they were not

prepared for the synoptic exams and that they were not prepared for the following

semester. The remaining 55.56% chose the ‘Others’ option to explain their reasons.

These included the fact that they went on Erasmus during summer (mentioning that

there were no students around while they were on Erasmus), the fact that they missed

the thesis preparation and orientation and the fact that most study-units are annual

and not being different for each semester.

90.91%

9.09%

Yes

No

107

Figure 32: Why wasn’t the Erasmus semester appropriate?


When asked to rate the administration at the University of Malta International and EU

Office, the largest percentage of the respondents (29.87%) said that the administration

was of a relatively low standard. 22.08% of the answers mentioned that the

administration level was of a normal and relatively high standard. On the other hand,

12.99% of the respondents said that the International and EU Office is of a very high

standard and of a very low standard. The general perception arising out of these

answers is that the students believe that more can be done in relation to the standard

of the administration provided by the International and EU Office.

Figure 33: Rating of the University of Malta International and EU Office


22.22%

11.11%

11.11%

0.00%

55.56%

Important study-unit missed

Not prepared for synoptic exams

Not prepared for the following semester

Year of the Erasmus semester wasn't appropirateOther

12.99%

29.87%

22.08%

22.08%

12.99%

Very Low

Relatively Low

Normal

Relatively High

Very High

108

The ones completing this online questionnaire were also asked to mention whether

they had encountered any problems in relation to the University of Malta International

and EU Office. 24.03% of the respondents said that they had received late replies,

23.38% answered that there was a lack of information given by the International and

EU Office, 17.53% said that Outgoing Erasmus Office is under-staffed, 7.79% indicated

that any problems that were encountered were solved in due time and that there were

no problems at all, 7.14% of the respondents answered that the problems was because

of a limited number of bilateral agreements while 12.34% of those answering the

questionnaire indicated the ‘Others’ option. The other reasons mentioned by the

students completing this questionnaire included the fact that important documents

were lost, inefficiency, lack of adequate support, the grants being given late and the

fact that they received a late acknowledgement that they were chosen to participate in

this programme.

Figure 34: Problems encountered at the University of Malta International and EU Office (if applicable)


As one can see, there were various complaints that were addressed to the International

and EU Office. These issues have to be addressed immediately in order to encourage

other students to decide to go on Erasmus. Otherwise, the administrative problems

might hinder the take-up of this programme with other interested students.

23.38%

24.03%

7.14%

17.53%

7.79%

7.79%

12.34%Lack of information given

Late replies

Limited number of bilateral agrements

Under-staffed

Any problems were solved in due time

No problems at all

Other

109

The respondents were also asked about the support received from their respective

Faculties, Institutes and Centres. 28.57% of the respondents said that the support given

was a normal and a relatively high one. 20.78% answered that the support received

was very high with 14.29% and 7.79% saying that the support given was relatively low

and very low respectively.

Figure 35: Support received from the respective local Faculties, Institutes and Centres


The results arising out of this question show a marked difference from the ones related

to the University of Malta International and EU Office. One can note that there is more

support from the students respective Faculties, Institutes and Centres than from the

International and EU Office.

The students who went on Erasmus were asked whether they had experienced

problems with recognition when they came back to Malta (Figure 36). 38.04% of the

respondents said that they encountered no problems at all, 19.57% of the answers

indicating that the students had difficulties in obtaining the last part of the grant, 11.96

of the respondents answering that they had problems with credit recognition, 9.78%

saying that their marks were downgraded while 20.65% of the respondents indicated

that ‘Others’ option. The other reasons mentioned by the students completing this

questionnaire included that they encountered problems from their subsidiary area and

the delay in transcribing the results obtained abroad.

8%

14%

28%29%

21%

Very Low

Relatively Low

Normal

Relatively High

Very High

110

Figure 36: Problems encountered with recognition when back in Malta


Various problems arose from this question regarding recognition. It is useless to

promote the take-up of Erasmus if they will end up having problems once they are

back. It is essential that these problems are tackled in order to avoid putting the

students going on Erasmus at a disadvantage when compared to their counterparts

that did not take this opportunity.

The respondents were also asked whether they would recommend the Erasmus

Programme to the other students from their course or not. The absolute majority of

the respondents (92.11%) said that they would recommend the take-up of such a

programme while the remaining 7.89% answering that they wouldn’t recommend it at

all.

11.96%

9.78%

19.57%

38.04%

20.65%Credit Recognition

Marks were downgraded

The last part of the grant was difficult to obtain

No problems at all

Other

111

Figure 37: Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from your course?


Figure 38: Why would you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from your course?


As can be seen in Figure 38, out of those answering that they would recommend the

Erasmus Programme to the other students from their course, 29.82% replied that they

would do so because going on Erasmus is an enriching experience, 25.44% saying that it

is useful to become more independent, 19.74% answering that they would recommend

2%

30%

20%18%

25%

5%

Easier than Malta

Enriching experience

Fun Factor

Good fro my CV

To become more independentOther

112

it because of the fun factor, 17.98% saying that it would be good for their CV, 2.19%

replying that the academic life abroad is easier than Malta while 4.82% of the

respondents indicating the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned for the latter

option were that they would recommend this Erasmus Programme because it is a new

experience, because one gets to discover other countries, one can study topics not

covered in Malta and in order to broaden and change one’s perspective.

Out of those answering that they would not recommend the Erasmus Programme to

the other students from their course, 38.46% said that they would do so because of the

administration inefficiency, 30.77% saying that there are financial reasons not to go on

Erasmus while 15.38% of the respondents answering that there is a possibility of

getting marks obtained abroad downgraded and the ‘Others’ option. The reasons

mentioned in the ‘Others’ option were that summer was not ideal to go on Erasmus

and that it is difficult to live and study abroad when you are not granted any money at

all. The latter reason is quite of a concern since the delay in issuing the grants may

severely affect the students who are on Erasmus.

Figure 39: Why wouldn’t you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from your course?


38.46%

30.77%

0.00%

15.38%

0.00%15.38% Administartion Efficiency

Financial Reasons

Language Barrier

Possibility of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded

It's difficult to integrate with foreign students

Other

113

Figure 40: Have you applied to go on Erasmus?


The respondents who replied that they have never been on Erasmus were asked

whether that had ever applied to go on Erasmus before (Figure 40). 19.18% of the

replies indicated that the students answering the online questionnaire had applied to

go on Erasmus while the vast majority of the respondents (80.82%) saying that they

have never applied before.

Figure 41: Did you get accepted to go on Erasmus?


19.18%

80.82%

Yes

No

76.19%

23.81%

Yes

No

114

The students who answered that they had applied to go on Erasmus before, were

asked whether they had been accepted or not (Figure 41). 76.19% of the respondents

replied that they had been accepted while the remaining 23.81% said that they were

not accepted to go on Erasmus.

The students who answered that they had applied to go on Erasmus before were also

asked to state the reasons why they didn’t end up going. 22.22% of the respondents

replied that it was due to the administration inefficiency, 14.81% was due to financial

reasons, 7.41% replied that the language barrier was their main reason for not going on

Erasmus, 6.17% said that it was due to the possibility of getting marks obtained abroad

downgraded, 4.94% replied that the main reasons was related to the unwillingness to

go on Erasmus in the university that the students were accepted at, 3.70% indicated

that it was due to the fact that they were not advised to go by those who had already

been on Erasmus while 40.74 of the respondents indicated the ‘Others’ option. The

reasons mentioned in the latter option were the logistics involved for the booking of

the accommodation, the fact that a number of the study-units done abroad would not

have counted in Malta and the fact that the students were accepted to go on another

exchange programme.

Figure 42: Why didn’t you go on Erasmus?


22.22%

14.81%

7.41%

6.17%

3.70%

4.94%

40.74%

Administration Inefficiency

Financial Reasons

Language Barrier

Possibilty of getting marks obtained abroad downgraded

Not advised by those who went on Erasmus

I didn't want to go to the university I got accepted at

Other

115

Moreover, a flaw of this questionnaire if the fact that the students who have been

accepted to go on Erasmus in the following semester have been directed to this part of

the questionnaire since their situation was not catered for, as these students will be

going on a Direct Exchange rather than Erasmus. Thus, the large percentage of

respondents who chose this option was related to this flaw.

The students who replied that they were not accepted to go on Erasmus, were asked

whether they thought the selection process was transparent (Figure 43). The absolute

majority of the respondents (65%) answered that they thought the selection process

was not transparent while the remaining 35% said that they thought that the selection

process was transparent.

It is important to avoid any transparency issues related to this programme since it

would badly affect the eventual take-up in the following years. Thus, the clearer the

selection process is, the less suspicious the selection process will be viewed once a

student does not get accepted to go on Erasmus.

Figure 43: Transparency of the selection process


The respondents who said that they had applied to go on Erasmus but did not go were

asked whether they would consider applying again (Figure 44). 68.35% answered that

they would consider applying again while the remaining 31.65% said that they would

not consider this option for the future.

35.00%

65.00%

Yes

No

116

Figure 44: Would you consider applying again?


Figure 45: Why would you consider applying again?


Out of those answering that they would consider applying again in order to go on

Erasmus, 35.25% replied that they would do so because it is an enriching experience,

68.35%

31.65%

Yes

No

5.04%

35.25%

13.67%

20.14%

21.58%

4.32%

Easier than Malta


Fun Factor

Good for my CV

To become more independent

Other

117

21.58% indicated that it was because it helps you to become more independent,

20.14% said that it would be good for their CV, 13.67% replied that it was because of

the fun factor involved, 5.04% said that it was because the academic aspect was easier

than Malta while 4.32% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned in the

latter option were the fact that the students understood that they made a mistake

when they decided not to go on Erasmus when they had the opportunity to do so, to

specialise in his/ her preferred subject, to meet new people and to live abroad.

The fact that some students recognised that they made a mistake when they decided

not to go on Erasmus indicates that more should be done with the students who can

still go on Erasmus in order for them not to lose this golden opportunity while they still

have the possibility to go on Erasmus.

Figure 46: Why wouldn’t you consider applying again?


Out of those answering that they would not consider applying again in order to go on

Erasmus (see Figure 46), 38.24% of the respondents replied that they had already

passed their Erasmus semester, 29.41% indicated that there are too many

administration inefficiencies in the process of going on Erasmus, 11.76% said that they

were not interested in taking up this opportunity while 20.59% indicated the ‘Others’

option. The reasons mentioned in the latter option were the fact that Erasmus is not

possible for the course some students were enrolled for (B. Commerce majoring in

Accountancy) since the study-units do not match. There were a number of students

that mentioned the specific problem related to those majoring in Accountancy. This

29.41%

38.24%

0.00%

11.76%

20.59%Administration Inefficiency

Passed my Erasmus semester

Not advisable by those who went on Erasmus

Not interested

Other

118

problem has to be analysed in order to give the possibility to go on Erasmus to all those

students wishing to do so.

The respondents who said that they have never applied to go on Erasmus were asked if

they would consider applying in the future. 55.93% replied that they are considering

applying to go on Erasmus while the remaining 44.07% said they would not consider

applying.

Figure 47: Do you intend applying?


Out of those answering that they would consider applying for the first time in order to

go on Erasmus (Figure 48 below), 37.65% said that they would do so because they

deem this programme as an enriching experience, 21.66% indicated that it is helpful in

order to become more independent, 19.23% replied that it would be good for their CV,

16.19% answered that they would do so because of the fun factor involved, 2.02% said

that they would consider applying because the academic aspect was easier than Malta

while 3.24% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned in the latter option

were related to the once in a lifetime experience that the Erasmus Programme is

associated with, to benefit academically from better foreign universities, to improve

one’s language skills and the opportunity to cover study-units which are not offered at

the University of Malta.

55.93%

44.07%

Yes

No

119

Figure 48: Why do you intend applying?


Out of those answering that they would not consider applying for the first time in order

to go on Erasmus (Figure 49 below), 21.18% said that they would do so because of

financial reasons, 11.46% replied that it was due to their lack of interest in the

programme, 10.42% mentioned that they do not have enough information to apply to

go on Erasmus, 9.72% indicated that it was because there was the possibility of getting

marks obtained abroad downgraded and due to the administration inefficiency, 8.33%

said that the course they are currently enrolled in does not have an Erasmus semester,

6.94% indicated that they were scared of feeling home sick, 5.56% mentioned the

language barrier aspect of going on Erasmus, 2.08% replied that they were not advised

by those who already went on Erasmus while 14.58% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The

reasons mentioned in the latter option were related to the fact that they were part of

student organisations, because of work commitments, because the courses of some

students are too demanding to cater for an Erasmus experience, the lack of possibility

to study two areas of studies in a foreign university (specifically related to the Faculty

of Science courses), the fact that the study-units offered abroad do not match with the

one offered locally (B. Commerce majoring in Accountancy), due to family reasons and

because some students went to study abroad on another exchange.

2.02%

37.65%

16.19%

19.23%

21.66%

3.24% Easier than Malta


Fun Factor

Good fro my CV


Other

120

Figure 49: Why don’t you intend applying?


The last question that was asked to those students who have not applied to go on

Erasmus was to state the reasons of what would have triggered them to apply. 21.08%

of the respondents mentioned that they would have considered going on Erasmus if

more funds were made available, 15.36% indicated that more information would have

led to take up this opportunity, 12.95% mentioned the possibility of having a wider

choice of universities, 12.35% said that they would have gone on Erasmus if there was a

more efficient administration, 12.05% indicated the possibility of having a more

appropriate Erasmus semester, 9.34% said that they would take this opportunity if they

had the actual possibility to go on Erasmus, 8.73 of the respondents argued that

positive advices by others who went on Erasmus would have the consider applying

while 8.13% indicated the ‘Others’ option. The reasons mentioned in the latter option

were related to a shorter period of time of the Erasmus programme, the possibility of

experiencing campus life in another university in order to be more willing to go on

Erasmus, the delivery of funds before one goes on Erasmus and the possibility of going

with abroad with a friend.

9.72%

21.18%

5.56%

9.72%

10.42%

8.33%2.08%

11.46%

6.94%

14.58%

Administration Inefficiency

Financial Reasons

Language Barrier


Lack of Information]

No Erasmus Semester

Not advised by those who went on Erasmus

Not Interested

Scared of feeling homesick

Other

121

Figure 50: What would have triggered you to apply?


Figure 51: Gender distribution


9.34%

12.05%

12.35%

21.08%

15.36%

8.73%

12.95%

8.13%Actual possibility of going on Erasmus

More appropriate Erasmus semester

More efficient administration

More funds

More Information

Positive advices by others who went on Erasmus

Wider choice of universities

Other

36.04%

63.96%

Male

Female

122

As can be seen from Figure 51 above, the students who completed this Erasmus

Assessment Report Questionnaire were predominantly female (63.95%) while the

remaining respondents were male (36.04%). This predominance of female respondents

is also seen in the total number of University students and the total number of

graduates each year. Thus, this is another indication of the representative of this online

questionnaire.

Figure 52: Faculty, Institute and Centre distribution


123

The respondents of this online questionnaire represented almost all the Faculties,

Institutes and Centres present at the University of Malta and included students

studying in other national educational institutions and some foreign universities. The

percentage of respondents per Faculty, Institute and Centre is as follows: Faculty of

Arts – 10.73%; Faculty for the Built Environment – 8.90%; Faculty of Dental Surgery –

0%; Faculty of Economics, Management and Accountancy – 10.96%; Faculty of

Education – 5.94%; Faculty of Engineering – 5.71%; Faculty of Health Sciences –

10.27%; Faculty of Information and Communication Technology – 4.11%; Faculty of

Laws – 13.24%; Faculty of Medicine and Surgery – 5.48%; Faculty of Science – 7.08%;

Faculty of Theology – 0.46%; Institute of Criminology – 1.37%; The Edward De Bono

Institute for the Design and Development of Thinking – 0.46%; Institute of Earth

Systems – 0.23%; Institute of Linguistics – 0.46%; Mediterranean Institute – 4.11%;

Institute for Tourism, Travel and Culture – 0.68%; Centre for Communication

Technology – 3.42%; Centre for Labour Studies – 0.23%; European Documentation and

Research Centre – 5.02%; G.F. Abela Junior College – 0.46%; MCAST – 0.23%, and;

Foreign University – 0.46%.


As one can see from the above analysis, there are a number of common features that

arose in different sections of the Erasmus Assessment Report Questionnaire. A large

number of respondents consider going on Erasmus because they consider it as being an

enriching experience while the major aspect of the Erasmus process which is

considered as being a major setback is the administration inefficiency.

Moreover, a lot of students that completed this online questionnaire said that in they

would have gone on Erasmus if they had received more information and more funds.

Another point worth focusing on is the problems related to specific courses that do not

let the students go on Erasmus. One should come up with all the list of courses affected

so that the officials responsible for the signing of bi-lateral agreements can take the

specific requests of these courses into consideration when they are searching for

foreign universities to sign a bi-lateral agreement with.

124

9. Recommendations


This Erasmus Assessment Report has been beneficial to provide everyone with a clear

picture on Malta’s experience in all the aspects of the Erasmus programme. We are

now in a position to suggest our own recommendations to be implemented by the

relevant authorities in order to improve the current situation. KSU is willing to do its

part in order to tackle such difficulties for the benefit of the University of Malta

students.

9.2 Recommendations in order to improve Malta’s experience in the Erasmus

Programme

The first thing that is easily noticeable from the analysis made in the previous chapters

is the large amount of students who decide to drop their application to go on Erasmus.

One needs to channel the reasons of such a phenomenon into different parts.

Some do not end up participating in this programme just because they do not have the

necessary information regarding this programme. This means that a more structured

promotional and informative campaign should be organised. This campaign should be

done in different ways in order to reach out to all the University of Malta students. A

high impact online campaign would help create more awareness on when the

applications to go on Erasmus are open.

Not all the students get to read their emails or are into social media so this campaign

should also specifically direct the students eligible to apply to go on Erasmus. This can

be done by going to the main lectures of every course to briefly speak about this

programme. Moreover, the ones that have already been on Erasmus can help in

sharing their experiences in order to attract and motivate more people to participate in

this life-changing experience. The post-secondary students should also be included in

this campaign. In this way, they can get to know what the Erasmus Programme is all

about from an early stage. Thus, they would have the necessary time to prepare for

such an experience from beforehand such as working during summer in order to have

the funds to go on Erasmus.

Other students are willing to go on Erasmus but have to resign their application due to

financial reasons. KSU believes in a welfare system that helps these students to have

the opportunity to go on Erasmus like other students. We have already proposed an

125

interest-free loan scheme (see Annex 5) that should be available to all those going on

Erasmus. In this way, we can incentivise the take up of this programme to a more

varied group of students. Moreover, the relevant authorities have to ensure that the

grant is given in due time since a large number of students rely on it in order to make

ends meet while being on Erasmus.

Some students cannot go on Erasmus because they do not have the possibility to do so

due to their course structure or due to the bilateral agreement which the University of

Malta has signed with foreign universities. Some courses require students to follow

certain practical units that at the moment have to be done in Malta such as the dental

fillings for the Faculty of Dental Surgery students. There are no reasons why these units

cannot be done abroad as long as they are done in the correct way. Thus, we believe

that the motives of such an impediment to go on Erasmus do not correspond to the

benefits of going on Erasmus. We recommend that the students willing to take up this

opportunity are given the possibility to do so at the host university. Moreover, there

are students that experience problems in matching up the study-units offered by their

Faculty, Institute or Centre with those offered by the host university. This applies to the

Faculty of Science students who focus on two different areas whereas the bilateral

agreements offer the possibility to focus on one of such areas and to the courses

offered by the Faculty of Information and Communication Technology and the B.

Commerce students majoring in Accountancy.

The officials responsible from signing the bilateral agreements with the foreign

universities should keep in mind these particular aspects of some courses in order to

offer host universities that are compatible with the specific needs of some Faculties,

Institutes and Centres. It is useless having thirty places for students to take up if they

cannot do so due to the course restrictions. Thus, it is imperative to do a research of

the particularities of each and every course in order to know what a good foreign

university needs to offer.

On the other hand, it is important that the officials of the Faculties, Institutes and

Centres concerned understand that letting their students to choose study-units that are

not offered at the University of Malta is a good thing as well. It helps the students to

broaden their mind on other aspects related to their course as long as these units do

not interfere with the overall structure of the course that is offered locally.

Apart from a change in the way bilateral agreements are signed (taking into

consideration the needs of specific courses), more bilateral agreements are needed to

specific courses. This is the case to those offered by the Faculty for the Environment

and the European Documentation and Research Centre. During the analysis of the

126

universities and placements, it was noted that there were 1.04 available places for each

applicant hailing from the Faculty for the Built Environment and 1.44 available places

for each applicant enrolled with the European Documentation and Research Centre for

the 2009-2010 academic year. This is due to the fact that there are two years where

students have the possibility to go on Erasmus. Thus, it might be the case that the

potential applicants exceed the number of places available and would lead students to

miss the possibility of going on Erasmus.

Some students have mentioned that the language barrier was a reason why they didn’t

go on Erasmus. Thus, the International and EU Office must ensure that a variety of host

universities are offered per course. It is obvious that the bilateral agreements signed

with non-English speaking universities are specific to a limited group of students. One

must ensure that the wide range of universities which have an agreement with the

University of Malta take into consideration the various language skills of all the

students.

The students encounter a large number of other administrative problems. The student

hours of the International and EU Office are too short in relation to the needs of the

students. This is felt mainly during specific times of the academic year such as when the

Erasmus applications are out. The queues that form outside of the office lead students

not to apply in the first place. Thus, we propose that the International and EU Office

student hours are increased for the benefit of all the students.

Many students have also commented that the International and EU Office are under-

staffed. In fact, there are only two officials for such a large number of work. It comes

natural that this office lack efficiency as they do not have the human resources to do

so. There has to be additions to this office in order to tackle such a recurring problem.

Moreover, many have argued that they had documents lost or did not receive timely

replies by the same officials. More care and a better organisation are needed in order

to offer the best service possible to the students seeking help from the International

and EU Office.

Other students have expressed their concerns on the way the students are chosen to

go to particular universities and the way the grant allocated to the students are made.

It is important for the International and EU Office to be as transparent as possible in

these aspects since many unnecessary suspicions may arise. KSU believes in the good

faith of the officials responsible for such selections. By being transparent and explaining

better the selection process and the way the grants are allocated, the students affected

can be of the same opinion.

127

There were also a number of suggestions on how the grant given to the students

should be calculated. If the city (and not the country) one goes on Erasmus in and the

course of the applicant are taken into consideration, a fairer grant system can be

devised which meets the needs of every student going on Erasmus. One could go away

with it if the funds allocated to the grants are increased. In the absence of this, this

system can provide the necessary aid to those who need the grant most especially

when one considers that the students tend to spend much more when they are abroad.

There are a number of academic difficulties that put an extra burden on those students

that go on Erasmus. A case in point is the yearly study-units during the academic year

where the students can go on Erasmus. These study-units have to be addressed and

possibly shifted in order to give the same opportunity to all the students reading for all

the different degrees offered by the University of Malta to go on Erasmus.

Regarding the Erasmus semester, many have expressed concern on the fact that some

courses give the possibility to their students to go on Erasmus during their last year.

This last year is usually the busiest one since the students have study-units and possibly

a research to conduct that might prevent them from going on Erasmus. Moreover,

some courses offer their students to go on Erasmus during the summer recess. Many

have expressed their view that these students do not get to experience the true spirit

of being on Erasmus especially since there would be no one on campus around during

that time of the year. The Erasmus semester is very important and thus, more care is

needed when devising the course structures to accommodate the students wishing to

go on Erasmus.

The absolute majority of the students who have been on Erasmus have expressed that

it was an extremely positive and enriching experience and that they would recommend

it to the students from their course. There are students who decide not to apply on

Erasmus because of a lack of knowledge related to the aforementioned experience.

Ways should be found in order to have the students experience the lifestyle and the

Erasmus way of life before they apply so as to encourage more students to apply and

eventually go on Erasmus.


As one can see from the above recommendations, there is much to do in relation to the

Erasmus programme. It is important to focus on the shortcomings in order to improve

the situation and to maintain the good things that have always been associated with

the Erasmus Programme.

128

KSU will be vigilant to see whether these recommendations are taken into

consideration. Moreover, we are willing to discuss them with all the relevant

authorities in order to avoid the current difficulties associated with the Erasmus

Programme for the benefit of all present and future University of Malta students.

129

10. Conclusion

This Erasmus Assessment Report has dealt with an analysis of all the aspects related to

Malta’s experience in the Erasmus Programme.

This study dealt with an analysis of the number of student that apply, get accepted and

eventually go on Erasmus, an analysis of the number and level of the universities and

placements that the local student can go to, a discussion on the academic and

administrative difficulties related to the Erasmus Programme, an analysis of the grants

allocated to the students, a discussion on the feedback obtained from the Erasmus

Assessment Report questionnaire and the Erasmus Focus Group and the

recommendation that KSU deems important to be introduced for the benefits of all the

University of Malta students.

The aim of the study was to assess whether the students are reaping the full benefits of

this programme. With the data collected and information obtained, we can say that the

majority of the students that go on Erasmus are having a very positive experience. It

was also noted that there are some constraints that are limiting such benefits to more

students. These include financial reasons, the administrative difficulties and the

academic problems that have to be solved as yet.

We believe in the good will of all the officials involved in the various processes of the

Erasmus Programme. Nonetheless, we are aware that this good will is not enough as

there is still a lot more to be done in order for the students to reap the full benefits of

this programme. This assessment is meant to make everyone aware of the current

shortcomings in order to be tackled in the best way possible. Thus, this report should

be seen as a motivation to further improve the system rather than a personal threat to

one’s work.

With the work of all those involved, we can get more students interested in this

programme. As many students have said, the Erasmus programme is an enriching

experience that everyone should have the possibility to do. Moreover, the increase in

numbers should also be related to the overall minimisation of the difficulties

encountered and to the maximisation of the benefits that this programme has to offer.

It is our duty to try and achieve this and this report is the first step in this direction.

Annex 1

Annex 2

Erasmus Assessment Report

KSU's International Office is working on Erasmus Assessment report whereby the

current situation of the Erasmus programme will be assessed. This report will help KSU

in understanding whether the students are reaping the full benefits of this programme.

This questionnaire is one of the tools that KSU's International Office will use in order to

assess the Erasmus programme. Anyone can do this survey: those that have applied

and went, those that have applied and didn't go and those who haven't applied as yet.

Make your voice heard on the Erasmus programme!

There are 37 questions in this survey

Erasmus Mobility Programme

1 [001] How would you rate your perception of the Erasmus Mobility Programme?*

Please choose only one of the following:

1

2

3

4

5

5 being the highest

2 [002] Have you ever been on erasmus?*


Yes

No

3 [003] Which University did you get accepted to?*

Only answer this question if the following conditions are met:

° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)

Please write your answer here:

input University Name & Country

4 [029] What was the academic year of your Erasmus Mobility Programme?*




5 [004] How would you rate your experience?*




1

2

3

4

5

5 being the highest

6 [030] What was the amount of money given in the form of a grant per month?*




7 [031]How much were the estimated costs per month?*




8 [005] Was the grant fair?*




1

2

3

4

5

5 being the highest

9 [006] How would you compare academically the host university to the University of

Malta?*


° Answer was 'Yes' or 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)




Same standard


Much lower standard

10 [007] How would you compare the campus life at the host University with that at

the University of Malta?*






Same standard


Much lower standard

11 [008] Was the Erasmus semester appropriate?*


° Answer was 'Yes' or 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)


Yes

No

12 [009] Why wasn't the Erasmus semester appropriate?*


° Answer was 'Yes' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer

was 'No' at question '11 [008]' (Was the Erasmus semester appropriate?)

Please choose all that apply:

Important Study-Units missed

Not prepared for synoptic exams

Not prepared for the following semester

Year of the Erasmus semester/s wasn't appropriate

Other:

13 [010] How would you rate the administration at the International & EU Office at

the University of Malta*




1

2

3

4

5

5 being the highest

14 [011] Did you encounter any problems at the University of Malta International &

EU office if any?*




Lack of Information given

Late raplies

Limited number of bilateral agreements

Under-staffed

Any problems were solved in due time

No problems at all

Other:

15 [012] How would you rate the level of support that you received from your

respective local faculties/ Institutes/ Centres?*




1

2

3

4

5

5 being the highest

16 [013] Did you encounter any problems with recognition when you came back to

Malta?*




Credit recognition

Marks were downgraded

The Last part of the grant was difficult to obtain

No problems at all

Other:

17 [014] Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from

your course?*




Yes

No

18 [015] Why would you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students from

your course?*



was 'Yes' at question '17 [014]' (Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other

students from your course?)


Easier than Malta


Fun factor

Good for my CV


Other:

19 [016] Why wouldn’t you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other students

from your course?*



was 'No' at question '17 [014]' (Do you recommend the Erasmus Programme to other

students from your course?)


Administration inefficiency

Financial reasons

Language barrier


Its difficult to integrate with foreign students

Other:

20 [017] Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?*


° Answer was 'No' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?)


Yes

No

21 [018] Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?*


° Answer was 'No' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer

was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)


Yes

No

22 [019] Which University did you get accepted at?*


° Answer was 'Yes' at question '21 [018]' (Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?)


Input University Name & Country

23 [020] Why didn't you go on Erasmus?*


° Answer was 'Yes' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)

and Answer was 'Yes' at question '21 [018]' (Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?)



Financial reasons

Language barrier


Not advised by who went on Erasmus

I didn't want to go to the University I got accepted at

Other:

24 [021] Do you think that the selection process was transparent?*



and Answer was 'No' at question '21 [018]' (Did you get accepted to go to Erasmus?)


Yes

No

25 [022] Would you consider applying again?*




Yes

No

26 [023] Why would you consider applying again?*



and Answer was 'Yes' at question '25 [022]' (Would you consider applying again?)


Easier than Malta


Fun factor

Good for my CV


Other:

27 [024] Why wouldn't you consider applying again?*



and Answer was 'No' at question '25 [022]' (Would you consider applying again?)



Passed my Erasmus semester

Not advisable by who went on Erasmus

Not interested

Other:

28 [025] Do you intend to apply?*


° Answer was 'No' at question '2 [002]' (Have you ever been on Erasmus?) and Answer

was 'No' at question '20 [017]' (Have you ever applied to go on Erasmus?)


Yes

No

29 [026] Why do you intend to apply?*


° Answer was 'Yes' at question '28 [025]' (Do you intend to apply?)


Easier than Malta


Fun factor

Good for my CV


Other:

30 [027] Why don't you intend applying?*


° Answer was 'No' at question '28 [025]' (Do you intend to apply?)



Financial reasons

Language barrier


Lack of Information

No erasmus semester

Not advisable by who went on Erasmus

Not interested

Scared of feeling home sick

Other:

31 [028] What would have triggered you to apply?*


° Answer was 'No' at question '28 [025]' (Do you intend to apply?)


Actual possibility of going on Erasmus

More appropraite Erasmus semester

More efficient administartion

More funds

More information

Positive advices by others who went on Erasmus

Wider choice of Universities

Other:

Personal Details

32 [101] Input any other comments


33 [102] Gender*


Female

Male

34 [104] Date of Birth*

Please enter a date:

35 [103] Faculty / Centre / Institute*


36 [105] Course*


37 [106] Graduation Year


If applicable

Submit your survey.

Thank you for completing this survey.

Annex 3

Erasmus Focus GroupSaturday, 11 September 2010

Erasmus

• What were your expectations before going on Erasmus?

• What was your opinion of the Erasmus programme after you came back? Were your expectations fulfilled?

Erasmus Statistics for 2004-2010

361

280

314

242

293

355357

278

307

234

284

347

130

153

125

108

126118

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2004/2005 2005/2006 2006/2007 2007/2008 2008/2009 2009/2010

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Academic Year

University of Malta

Total Students who Applied to go on Erasmus

Total Students who got accepted to go on Erasmus

Total Students who got went on Erasmus

Faculty of Arts

47

29

50

43 43

38

47

27

49

4142

38

1616

26

13

1516

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Academic Year




Faculty for the Built Environment

2

13

11

10

15

28

2

13

11

10

15

28

4

5

4

3

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




Faculty of Education

48

25

45

16

26

34

48

25

45

15

23

34

7

20

5

34

3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




Faculty of Engineering

23

22

18

15

19

28

23

22

18

15

19

28

7

8

7

6

7 7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




Faculty of Health Sciences

49

55

50

54

56

85

49

55

50

54

56

84

27

50

32

41

46

26

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er o

f St

ud

ents

Academic Year




Faculty of Theology

2

1 1

2

1 1

2

1

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




CCT

11

16

9

8

17

7

9

16

9

8

16

7

4

1 1

3

7

2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




EDRC

7

17

8

13

10

18

7

17

6

12

9

18

2

7

3

5

4

8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




Institute of Criminology

4 4

3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




Mediterranean Institute

4

5

17

8

11

9

4

5

17

8

11

9

3

9

5 5

6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year




Perception of the standard of universities

• What is your general perception of the standard of the universities with which the University of Malta has a bilateral agreement with?

• What is your perception of the standard of the universities with which your Faculty/ Centre/ Institute has a bilateral agreement with?

Scenario 1

Paul was the only one who got accepted to a relatively higher level University than the UoM from his course. He is undecided if he should go.. what would you do?

Scenario 2

Victoria got accepted to an Italian-speaking University. She can speak Italian but she is not that fluent in the language. The standard of the university is similar/higher to the UoM. What would you do?

Scenario 3

Andrew’s first preference university was the University of Liverpool. He got accepted to the University of University of Gdaosk in Poland instead which is of a relatively higher standard than the University of Liverpool. What would you do?

Local Administrative Problems

• Actual application to go on Erasmus

• Acceptance process

• Choosing study-units

• Recognition

• Grants

• Others

Administrative Problems

What were the administrative problems at the host University?

• Lack of efficiency in

changing study-units

• Others

Academic Difficulties

What were the academic difficulties encountered at the host university?

• Lectures

• Method of Assessment

• Others

Academic Difficulties

What were the academic difficulties encountered after you came back?

• Synoptic Exams

• Not prepared for the following academic year

• Recognition

• Others

Erasmus Semester/s

What factors should determine an appropriate Erasmus Semester/s?

Grant

What should the grant cover?

• Flights

• Accommodation

• Subsistence costs

• Internal transportation

Campus Life

How does the campus life at your host university compare to the University of Malta one?

Is the campus life in Malta good and how can it be improved?

Erasmus Experience

Once you have been on Erasmus, how do you rate the Erasmus experience in Malta for the incoming international students?

Erasmus Experience

What are your recommendations for a better Erasmus experience?

• Accommodation

• Administration

• Selection Process

• Grants

• Recognition

• Study-units

• Others

Annex 4

ERASMUS ASSESSMENT REPORT 11th September 2010

Focus Group: Outgoing Students_ Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute

PART 1_PERCEPTION & EXPECTATIONS

What was your perception of the Erasmus Mobility Program before you went on

exchange?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Did your Erasmus Experience meet your expectations?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________



PART 2_HOW MANY STUDENTS GO ON ERASMUS?

Comment on these results:

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

What do you think is the situation in your faculty?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year

University of Malta

Total Students who Applied to go on Erasmus

Total Students who got accepted to go on Erasmus

Total Students who got went on Erasmus



PART 3_Name of Faculty/ Centre/ Institute

Comment on the above results:

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

12

7

3

2

7

2

10

7

3

2

7

2

6

2 2

5

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2004-20052005-20062006-20072007-20082008-20092009-2010

Nu

mb

er

of

Stu

de

nts

Academic Year






PART 4_UNIVERSITIES

What is your perception of the level of universities which have an agreement with the

University of Malta, and therefore accept students from the University of Malta to go

for an exchange?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

What is your perception of the level of universities which have an agreement with the

University of Malta, and accept students from your faculty to go for an exchange?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________



PART 5_ADMINISTRATION

Did you encounter any administrative problems at the University of Malta during the

whole process?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Did you encounter any administrative problems at the host university during the

exchange?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________



PART 6_ACADEMIC

Did you encounter any academic difficulties during your exchange program?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Did you encounter any academic difficulties after you came back from the exchange

program?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________



PART 7 _ERASMUS SEMESTER

What factors determine an appropriate Erasmus Semester?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________



PART 8 _GRANTS

Grants are allocated according to the host country the students will be studying at. Do

you think this is a fair system?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Can you think of an alternate system of how the present system can be improved?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Do you think the grant given is fair?

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Annex 5

Outgoing Erasmus Students’ Interest-Free Loan Scheme

One of KSU’s aims is that all the University of Malta students have the opportunity to

go and study abroad through the Erasmus Programme. We believe that there should be

no barriers hindering student mobility especially since some University of Malta

Faculties, Institutes or Centres have only one Erasmus Semester that the students can

benefit from.

The present situation of the suspension of the Lifelong Learning (LLL) Programme,

amongst others, was a blow to the expectations and wishes of 453 students that

applied to go on Erasmus. The present government have set up emergency measures

to try and address this precarious situation but there is still more to be done. The fact

that around 100 students have not yet received confirmation from the university they

applied for is very worrying for KSU and we will do our best to try and solve this

problem.

The benefits of Erasmus have been shadowed by this situation. KSU hopes that the 27

per cent increase in Erasmus applications registered this year will not lose momentum

because of the suspension of the LLL programme. KSU also understands that this is not

the only situation that has stopped Maltese students from continuing their studies

abroad for a Semester. One case in point is the lack of sufficient resources to sustain

themselves during that Semester that they decide to go abroad. Even though the EUPA

grants, or the present Government ones, are essential to the students, many still have

to take loans in order to fund this important educational experience.

KSU believes that there should be no extra burdens for the students who decide to

benefit from the Erasmus Programme. The Parliamentary Secretariat for Youth and

Sport and the APS Bank have launched the Youth Specialisation Studies Scheme (YSSS)

that offers advantageous terms for the youth and students that decide to further their

studies abroad or follow distance learning courses under this scheme. This is an

excellent initiative that further shows the commitment of the Parliamentary Secretariat

for Youth and Sport towards the education of youths.

KSU would like to propose a similar scheme for those deciding to go on Erasmus. We

believe that it is unfair for the students taking a loan for this educational and personal

development experience to have to pay the interest rate on the amount borrowed. We

suggest that the Secretariat for Youth and Sports pays these interest rates on behalf of

the students. The students would start paying back the loan as soon as they come back

from abroad. For security reasons, the monthly instalments for the paying up of the

loan can be tied with the students’ stipend so that the bank concerned would be more

willing to participate in this scheme. Finally, unlike the YSSS, we do not think that there

should be any preference given to particular courses.

As you can see from the calculations below, the amount of students that go on Erasmus

every year and the amount of money they need to borrow are not high. We are sure

that the Parliamentary Secretariat for Youth and Sport can help these students by

offering interest-free loan schemes. It will be a scheme that will have a very limited

impact on the Secretariat’s budget but it will make a big difference to the students

taking such loans.

This initiative, complemented with our various activities in favour of student mobility,

such as the Erasmus Information Days organised by the KSU International Office, can

encourage more students to go on Erasmus. Such an initiative can also be extended to

students going on exchange programmes other than Erasmus. It is the country that

stands to benefit the most from this initiative in the long-term since the majority of the

students that come back from the Erasmus programme will ultimately join and enhance

Malta’s workforce by the experiences they have learnt when they had the opportunity

to study in a foreign university.

Estimated Costs of this Scheme based on the YSSS

1. A Fully Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €1000 paid over 3 years

Loan to be paid over 3 years €1,000.00

Amount to be paid by student per year €333.33 €33.33 per stipend

Fully Subsidised Interest Rate

4.10%

Year Amount Due Subsidised Interest

1 €1,000.00 €41.00

2 €666.67 €27.33

3 €333.33 €13.67

Total Interest per student

€82.00

Total Interest for 453 students

€37,146.00





4.10%


1 €1,500.00 €61.50

2 €1,125.00 €46.13

3 €750.00 €30.75

4 €375.00 €15.38


€153.75


€69,648.75





4.10%


1 €2,000.00 €82.00

2 €1,600.00 €65.60

3 €1,200.00 €49.20

4 €800.00 €32.80

5 €400.00 €16.40


€246.00


€111,438.00

4. A Partially Subsidised Interest Rate Loan of €1000 paid over 3 years



Partially Subsidised Interest Rate

3.10% 1.00%

Year Amount Due

Subsidised Interest

Interest to be paid by students

1 €1,000.00 €31.00 €10.00

2 €666.67 €20.67 €6.67

3 €333.33 €10.33 €3.33


€62.00 €20.00


€28,086.00





3.10% 1.00%

Year Amount Due

Subsidised Interest


1 €1,500.00 €46.50 €15.00

2 €1,125.00 €34.88 €11.25

3 €750.00 €23.25 €7.50

4 €375.00 €11.63 €3.75


€116.25 €37.50


€52,661.25





3.10% 1.00%

Year Amount Due

Subsidised Interest


1 €2,000.00 €62.00 €20.00

2 €1,600.00 €49.60 €16.00

3 €1,200.00 €37.20 €12.00

4 €800.00 €24.80 €8.00

5 €400.00 €12.40 €4.00

Total Subsidised Interest per student

€186.00 €60.00


€84,258.00

Documents

Erasmus Assessment Report Outgoing Students Assessment Report Outgoing Students 2010 ... 7.3 Analysis of the grants given to the students at the University of Malta during the