Workshop 2

Promotion and Selection process

Intra-ACP academic mobility scheme

Promotion activities

Selection results

2

PROMOTION AND VISIBILITY

3

Promotion

The partnership must:

“Develop a clear promotion and visibility strategy for the partnership including,

in particular, a dedicated partnership website referring explicitly to the "Intra-ACP academic mobility scheme" and providing all necessary information about the partnership from the academic, financial and administrative points of view. This must include a solid networking strategy reaching as many HEIs in the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries as possible.”

4

Promotion and visibility

Intra-ACP students survey 2014

results

5

6

94%

of the participants have not applied for Intra-ACP

scholarship before

7

From the home university 49%

From a friend/student/professor/colleague 26%

From Internet 13%

Via the official Intra-ACP webpage 6%

Other 6%

How did you get to know about Intra-ACP?

8

Prospective of contributing to the development of your home country 31%

Possibility to enhance your profile and future professional career after the intra-ACP experience 20%

My field of study is not available in my home country 17%

Availability of your subject of study 14%

Possibility to live and study in a different country 10%

Academic reputation of the host university 8%

What convinced you to apply?

Promotion

Management Targets Key actors Key messages

Timing Visibility Promotion

tools Benchmarking

9

Promotion and visibility strategy

Promotion

10

Staff

Budget

Management

Promotion

11

Targets

Decide who to target (Target Groups, type

of mobility, nationalities)

Number of applicants and

scholarship holders

Total Per cohort

Quality of applicants

Geographical

scope

HEI Countries

Promotion

• Key actors

12

HEI Networks

Inter -University level

HEIs

IROs Intra –

university level

Faculties

iACP Alumni

Students' level

Student Assoc.

Public auth.

Public level (local,

national, int.)

EU DEL

Promotion

13

To

students

To employers

To

media

To university networks

To

public institutions

Key messages

Promotion

• Key messages to students

–Main students’ concerns

• Fear of getting lost in bureaucratic processes

• Fear of not obtaining full academic recognition

• Fear of not succeeding in a different learning and cultural environment

• Not knowing the hosting institutions

DISCUSSION

14

Promotion

• Key messages to students - examples - The Intra-ACP mobility is sponsored by the EU

- The Intra-ACP scholarship covers travel, insurance, subsistence allowance, participation costs

- Guidance and support is provided to all scholarship holders before, during and after the mobility

- The mobility allows students to experience different research, teaching and learning methods, as well as to meet different cultures and languages.

- The studies during the mobility will be recognised

15

Promotion

• Key messages to students

Clearly explained:

- target groups

- selection criteria and process

- application process

- academic offer

- encouraging the participation of disadvantage groups

Contact person for questions and assistance

16

Promotion

• Timing

17

Throughout the project

Considering the cohorts selections

After launch of calls for

applications

Considering academic calendar

Promotion

• Visibility

18

Promotion

• Visibility

– Intra-ACP logo on all communication materials

–adequate visibility to projects

– "With the support of the Intra-ACP Academic Mobility Scheme"

19

Promotion

• Tools for promotion

20

Internet

Social networks

Info days

Fairs

Alumni

Acade-mics

Promotion

• Partnership website

21

Promotion

• Websites check by EACEA – findings: – Lack of information on the Intra-ACP

programme

– Wrong definitions of target groups

– Unclear or/and wrong information on the academic offer

– Settling-in allowance not mentioned

– Lack of information on the institutional services offered to incoming students

22

Promotion

• Partnership website

CASE STUDY

23

Promotion

• Benchmarking indicators

–Number of applicants

–Number of selected grantees

–Number of visitors to open days

–Number of website hits

–Number of articles/media presentations

–Ratio applicants to selected students

–Etc.

24

Promotion

• Challenges and good practices

DISCUSSION

25

SELECTION PROCESS

26

Selection • “Set up procedures and criteria for the selection of

students and staff to take part in the individual mobility activities. Partnerships must guarantee a minimum duration of at least 45 days following the launch of the Call for expression of interest for the submission of candidates' applications for mobility scholarships. The candidates' application procedure and deadline should be designed in such a way that it provides the candidate with all the necessary information well in advance and with enough time to prepare and submit his/her application”

• “Put in place a mechanism for the selection of students and staff that

guarantees the transparency of the selection process and an

equitable treatment of the individual applications;”

• “Tackle cross-cutting issues like gender-balance, equal

opportunities and the participation of disadvantaged groups (disabled students, economically disadvantaged students); “

27

Promotion and visibility

Intra-ACP students survey 2014

results

28

Application and selection procedure

29

Selection criteria

Very clear –

39%

Clear – 39%

Transparency of selection

process

Very transparent

– 35%

Transparent –

39%

Overall communication

during selection process

Excellent – 38%

Good – 38%

Method of

application

On paper 5%

By e-mail 25%

Via the project

website 70%

30

Stu

de

nts

Staf

f

Have you signed a…?

Selection process

• Joint and transparent procedure and criteria

• Respecting the “Intra-ACP Minimum requirements for the selection procedure”

31

Selection process

• Call for applications

–Open min. 45 days

– Including

• eligibility and selection criteria,

• description of the academic offer,

• application deadline and timetable for selection

• clear guidelines for application

• appeal procedure

–Online/paper application form

32

Selection process

Best case scenario

• All or most of the applications are completed

33

The reality…

• Many applications fail to be finalised by the deadline

Main reason:

Application conditions are not well understood/explained

Selection process

Best case scenario

• Number of applications much more than the number of selected grantees

34

The reality…

• Number of applicants equal to number of selected

Selection process

Eligibility check

Evaluation of eligible candidates

Selection of scholarship

holders

Notification of results

Appeal procedure

35

Selection process

36

• Who?

– For TG1 – by the sending HEI

– For TG2 – by the coordinator

• Eligibility criteria

– Proof of nationality is provided

– Fulfillment of the TG requirements

– The correct application form is used and completed

– All required documents are provided

– The application deadline is respected

Eligibility check

Selection process

• Who?

– Hosting partner institutions

• Selection criteria

– Academic performance (transcript results)

– Personal motivation

– Relevance and quality of study/research plan

– Language skills

• Scores awarded

• Proposal of ranking lists (main, reserve, non-selected) per mobility type/host/TG

37

Evaluation of eligible candidates

Selection process

Best case scenario

• Selection criteria include admission criteria and admission process is integrated into selection

38

The reality…

• Admission is a separated process which is often not well communicated to applicants

Selection process

• Who?

– Selection Committee/Board

• Considering: – cross-cutting issues (gender balance, socio-

economically disadvantaged applicants, disabled candidates, etc.)

– balance between sending/hosting partners

– max. 10% per nationality

– obligatory mobility distribution range by the call

• Final decision on ranking lists

39

Selection of

scholarship holders

Selection process

Best case scenario

• Transparent selection

• Joint selection

40

The reality…

• Number of applicants equal to number of awarded scholarships

• Lack of joint selection decision at partnership level

Selection process

Best case scenario • Implemented mobility >=

planned mobility

• Mobility per nationality is max.10% of the total mobility

• Implemented mobility only in approved academic programs

41

The reality… • Implemented mobility

fewer than planned (2011)

• 10% rule not respected

• Cases of mobility in Ma and PhD programs not belonging to the list of approved programs

Selection process

Best case scenario

• Mobility distribution range per type of mobility is respected

• Duration of mobility respecting the call guidelines per type

• Balanced distribution per home/host

42

The reality…

• Deviations from the mobility distribution range

• Cases of mobility durations beyond the maximum allowed

• Despite quota system, distribution is not balanced

Selection process

Best case scenario

• Gender balance

• Cross-cutting issues are tackled

• Diaspora covered

43

The reality…

• Prevail of male grantees (at PhD level mostly)

• Partnerships fail to give this issue the desired attention

• No diaspora among selected applicants

Gender balance

44

26

120

27

15

56

8

91

134

36

52

105

5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Doctoral

Candidates

Master

Students

Staff Doctoral

Candidates

Master

Students

Staff

2011 2012

F

M

Selection process

• Letters to all applicants

–Acceptance letters

–Rejection letters

– Letters to candidates in reserve list

• Publication of results on the partnership web-site

45

Notification of results

Acceptance Letter

• Information on course/research

• Starting date and duration of the mobility

• Grant amount (incl. settling-in allowance)

• Information on admission (if it is an independent process)

• Logistics and institutional services

• Contact persons (home and host)

Selection process

Selection process

• Clearly announced:

– in rejection letters

–on the partnership web-site

• Appeal committee

47

Appeal procedure

Selection process

• Challenges and good practices

DISCUSSION

48