3.3.1 Education, training, study visits
The structures of the Programmes have been different: CMU and MIT have spent the largest proportions of their funding on educational infrastructure, while UTA has particularly been focused on fellowships (Table 2). The proportion of R&D projects has been quite similar in CMU and UTA. Educational infrastructure % Fellowships % R&D projects % Management % UTEN activity % MIT-PT 57 31 8 4 0 CMU-PT 64 7 16 13 0 UTA-PT 22 38 14 12 14
Table 2. Structure of Programme activities as a percentage of funding allocated to different strands
11 Open answers to the alternative “Other – what?” in the survey for UTEN included internships, internationalisation opportunities for companies, professionalisation of Technology Transfer Officers, etc.
4 % 7 % 7 % 15 % 15 % 15 % 15 % 30 % 37 % 37 % 44 % 89 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Academic publications Master’s degrees Venture capital PhDs Increased diversity amongst the students Increased mobility Closer company collaboration Other – what? Collaborative projects between Portuguese universities New possibilities of exchanging ideas Collaborative projects between USA and Portugal Spin-offs or start-ups Innovation and Entrepreneurship Initiative University Technology Network (UTEN)
31
These differences reflect the variations in selected programme strategies, though also partly the different disciplines and scientific fields chosen by the respective partners. In the case of MIT, the major focus is on education and training, with slightly less attention to project collaboration. UTA in particular has a very strong focus on fellowships and faculty exchanges, and CMU, while having the main focus on education and training, has the strongest focus on project collaboration. One of the stated objectives of the collaboration between Portugal and the US was to internationalise students by providing more access and exposure to non-Portuguese teaching, supervision and fellow students, and by recruiting more students from outside Portugal. This has been particularly successful in the MIT Programme, though also overall considerable internationalisation has occurred. See Table 3.
Different nationalities Percentage of Portuguese students Number of teachers and researchers MIT-PT 44* 62% 208 CMU-PT 16 66% 150 UTA-PT 4 76% 40
* 70% of foreign students studied previously at universities that were ranked below Portuguese universities or not ranked.
Table 3. Participation of foreign students
The Programmes have been quite successful in attracting international students. To date, up to 40% of the students are international. In the interviews this was elaborated in many instances, both by Portuguese students and faculty and their colleagues and fellow students from other countries, who felt that the Programmes have increased Portugal‟s attractiveness considerably. Comparing the number of international students to other benchmarking cases is extremely difficult since different doctoral programmes have in general different strategic goals, as well as differences in science-policy background, objectives, implementation, funding, competition etc. If internationalisation is a real goal, it should be monitored with an appropriate indicator. For example, in the Finnish doctoral programmes the average number of international students is some 12%12 .
Internationalisation of the curriculum and a more diverse educational and training portfolio have clearly been welcomed by the stakeholders, students and faculty. In light of the survey results, teaching and training benefits are viewed more critically (Figure 12) than project collaboration (Figures 16 and 17). Depending on the group, 35% to 100% of respondents see that teaching and training have not achieved the objectives of the Programme (Figure 12).
Those degree programmes that are not joint (non-dual) are perceived particularly critically. The fact that the studies of such programmes are not acknowledged in both countries has been taken as a negative motivation by the students. The reasoning behind this is that there were differences in standards across the countries, which is undesirable in such collaborative programmes. In cases where such non-dual degrees have originally been implemented (MIT and Austin), the interviewees described the situation as a two-tier system, in which the integration of visiting students into student and academic community was not particularly successful. In some cases, the lack of integration was even described as „total isolation‟. Similar criticism on the degree of integration was also confirmed by a student survey undertaken at MIT where only less than 20% of the respondents felt that they were well integrated in their campuses with other students. It should, however, be kept in mind that at the same time 70‒80% of the respondents had the feeling that they were treated with respect by faculty and they got on well with their fellow students and felt that the Programme had supported their personal and professional goals (source: MIT Portugal, A Network of advanced studies involving Portuguese universities and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Vol. 2, p. 260). Recently, however, joint degrees have been becoming a norm across the Programmes, thereby responding to one of the main criticisms toward the Programmes (the existence of non-dual degrees and two-tier system).
12 In the Finnish case, PhD students in clinical medicine with the highest level of international students are expected to do their specialisation and subsequently also work in Finland. Ibid.
32
Figure 12. Teaching and training benefits: stakeholder perceptions
The non-dual degrees were perceived critically by all respondent groups, most critically by the External Review Committees and industrial affiliates, as well as by PhD students (Figure 12). The fact that in the early stages of the Programme in particular, joint degrees were not fully developed was indeed a source of criticism across the data (surveys, written reports and interviews, as well as the external evaluation panels). Using a joint degree as a means of attracting international students to Portugal may have its risks such as the international students dropping out more than average. Similar concerns are regularly expressed in doctoral programmes across Europe, though this is seldom an indicator followed very closely (e.g. Niemi et al 2011, p. 89). It has to be kept in mind that, as a rule, all collaborative US-Portugal PhD and Master‟s programmes are built on the idea that the students spend some time in the US, while most of the studies should take place in Portugal (in most cases, for a PhD candidate 2 years in the US, for Master‟s student a semester).
In this question the external respondent types (group “Other”) were less critical than the internal stakeholders, i.e. those that were involved in the Programmes either did not feel particularly strongly about this question or felt that they did not know enough of the Programmes to respond (11% of the “Other” group felt this way) (Figure 12).
Some Programme stakeholders had expressed concerns over the fact that non-Portuguese students would prefer to stay in the US and not spend the equivalent time in Portugal. In light of the data available this does not happen often, however. Attracting foreign students seems genuinely successful in this regard, as a means of attracting new talent and high-value activities to Portugal (Figure 13). When a foreign student or faculty member is considering Portuguese university as an option, the quality of teaching, training and faculty activities are regarded as the most important issues. The large majority (approx. 2/3) of Programme stakeholders (from 49% to 86%, depending on the group) sees that attractiveness has improved, though at the same time, in the majority of respondent groups there are also almost 10% of those who believe that this goal has been advancing poorly.
11 % 4 % 18 % 6 % 22 % 5 % 15 % 35 % 47 % 29 % 50 % 52 % 45 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 7 % 4 % 2 % 3 % 3 % 50 % 5 % 15 % 10 % 7 % 19 % 8 % 1 % 10 % 5 % 31 % 20 % 36 % 13 % 13 % 26 % 40 % 10 % 9 % 13 % 7 % 13 % 4 % 20 % 7 % 5 % 0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Other
Member of faculty participating in collaboration
Researcher Post-doctoral researcher PhD student Executive Master's student Programme Manager Member of the External Review
Committee
Partner in company/industrial cooperation
HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROGRAMME ACTIVITIES IN