Erasmus Thematic Network

Sanne Hirs, Project coordinator Faculty of Law, Utrecht University

2

Socrates Programme• The European Community

action programme in the field of education

– Comenius– Erasmus– Grundtvig– Lingua– Minerva

3

Erasmus Programme

• To enhance quality and reinforce the European dimension of higher education

4

Erasmus Thematic Network

• A cooperation between departments of higher education institutions– Quality– European dimension

• Outcomes with impact

• Three years

5

Activities• Curriculum innovation • Identification of needs and

weaknesses• Identification of quality criteria and

quality assessment methods• Innovation of teaching methods

and materials• Development of joint programmes

and courses

6

Athena

7

Athena

• Working from a core curriculum to a core European degree

• Strengthening the Link Between

Education and Research, Including the Development of Joint European Training at Phd Level

8

Athena

• Bridging the gap between Women and Gender Studies in the academia and women’s organisations, formation and training for women in the field

A New Thematic Network?

10

CriteriaCountries:• Belgium, Denmark, Germany,

Greece, Spain, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland, Sweden, United Kingdom, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Slovak Republic, Turkey

11

Criteria• Institutional support• Quality / innovation / relevance• Impact / combine expertise• Representation • Equality between men and women• Disabled persons• Fight against racism and

xenophobia

12

Priorities

• Closer cooperation

• Specified cooperation

13

Coordination and Management

• One coordinating university– Application– Reporting– Finances

14

Management• Objective• General design• Management arrangement

for the project• Monitoring and Evaluation• Disseminating good quality

results

15

Dissemination

• Dissemination (and exploitation) of final results and outcomes of proven quality

• Financial support

16

Financial support

• Three years• 75%• Co-funding• Additional support

17

Financial support

• Staff costs • Travel and subsistence costs• Equipment and

documentation• Overheads

18

Preparatory visits• Definition of aims / objectives /

methodology• Define partner roles,

responsibilities and tasks• Development of work-plan and

budget• Evaluation and dissemination

procedures• Completion of application

19

Reporting and Evaluation

• Interim and final reports• Internal and external

evaluation

20

Application

• Two-phase selection:– 1 November 2005– 1 March 2006

– 1 October 2006