Eurydice

This composite indicator examines whether gender issues are addressed in higher education. It comprises four elements: 

The first element looks at whether a strategy for gender equality exists and is in place for all higher education institutions. A strategy can be specific document using the name ¨strategy’, but it may also be a document (or documents) that describe a major policy plan without, however, bearing the title ‘strategy’. 

The second element focuses on measurable targets. A strategy may reflect good intentions, but is most likely to be operationalised when specific targets are set. For a target to be measurable it must be quantitative in nature, and reference points for measurement need to be put in place. Thus, a target would typically take the form of a statement that, for example, the percentage of women/men in high-level academic posts would move from x % to y % by a certain date. 

The third element considers to what extent stakeholder consultation has taken place, in order to ensure that a gender equality strategy is inclusive and responsive to the needs of communities in the higher education sector.

The final element of the scoreboard indicator concerns the role of external quality assurance agencies, and in particular whether they are required to monitor the implementation of the strategy within the higher education institutions. If quality assurance agencies are required to monitor implementation, this gives a strong sense of the importance of gender issues in the higher education sector.

This composite indicator examines issues that encourage the development of a supportive admissions policy in a lifelong learning framework. It comprises five elements:

The first element examines whether a strategy for increasing participation for under-represented groups exists. Strategy, in this context, refers to a top-level vision for equitable participation in higher education which has been conceived with clear (qualitative and quantitative) objectives and goals and applies to all higher education institutions.

The second element examines funded measures for increasing participation in education in later life. This is particularly important in a fast-changing labour market that requires a skilled workforce and where educational opportunities are therefore not only needed for young people but also for more experienced adults. 

The third element considers the existence of atypical entry routes into higher education, and in particular whether bridging programmes exist, and whether non-formal and informal learning may be taken into account in admissions. In the majority of cases one main route exists for admission, and that is via the successful completion of upper secondary education. However, those who do not complete upper secondary education but later wish to enter higher education may find themselves blocked unless there is an alternative route available. The most prevalent alternative routes include bridging programmes and the recognition of prior informal and non-formal learning.

The fourth element concerns quality assurance, and in particular whether external quality assurance agencies are required to monitor higher education institutional admission policy measures. If quality assurance agencies are required to monitor implementation, this gives a strong signal that the importance of admission policy and practice is recognised.

The fifth element examines whether at least two student background characteristics (other than age and gender) are taken into account in admission measures for encouraging the participation of under-represented groups. In such cases this shows that under-represented groups are defined in a more sophisticated way.