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
Top Related