Quality Evaluation in MEDA Higher Education: Engineering JEP 30092-2002

1. Quality Evaluation in MEDA Higher Education: EngineeringJEP 30092-2002 Jordan National Tempus Day 9th October 2004 Dr. Ahmad Majdoubeh

2. I. Some facts about the project: 1. Submitted at the beginning of process. 2. Harmonizes with UJ’s quality drive. 3. Focuses on quality of education with reference to engineering. 4. Some ambiguities and changes regarding subject. 5. Finally got the following title: “Quality Evaluation in MEDA Higher Education: Engineering”. 6. Submitted by OIRP and FET. 7. UJ suggested JUST. 8. Consortium Partners from: Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. 9. CIEP was initiator and leader + help from German experts.

3. II. What materialized: 1. Paris Conference; a. January 2004 b. Two representatives of each institution attended c. Discussed country reports and other matters. 2. Amman Conference; a. September 2004 b. Two representatives plus one country representative c. Discussed self-assessment reports and other matters

4. III. Advantages: 1. There is a great deal of benefit coming from Arab countries joining the consortium. At a comparative level, Arab universities benefit from comparing notes, and from the perspectives of European experts, as well as developments affecting European systems of education. 2. Putting the specific project within the context of the country (each individual country), the region (the MEDA region), as well as the globe is of great value. Universities cannot function in isolation anymore and collaboration and collective thinking is a must. Contexts have also to be taken into account. This has materialized. 3. The idea of having each institution evaluate itself is both wise and effective. First of all, this is a new practice at many Arab universities (especially in this sustained, serious way). Secondly, it enables those involved to subject their own work to perusal and assessment, which enables them to become more conscious of the strengths and weaknesses. 4. External assessment is crucial. For a long time, universities (especially in our part of the world) functioned without any sustained, professional external feedback. If the final stage of the project materializes, it will be a great asset.

5. IV. Challenges and Problems:  1.There was not enough time for preparation and active involvement of the partners in submitting the application. The invitation to join comes almost last minute. While this may be blamed on the fact that this particular project came early on in the process, we still find similar behavior with respect to some new projects. 2. There was throughout a problem with correspondence. Many e-mails did not reach us or our partners for some reason, and therefore many in the consortium were in the dark about some of the decisions. 3. There are some management problems. The decisions about what happens, how, and where were at times not made collectively. At a related level, our European partners seem to have the upper hand. While this is not a serious problem, it would be a lot better if the partners – as in marriage – feel like partners. 4. There is the budgeting problem. What was originally requested was not granted. What was granted was not enough to cover the expenses especially of the last stage – the most important, I believe: external evaluation. 5. Some members of the consortium already follow the American system of education. How relevant the European system of education is, is worth pondering.

6. THANK YOU.. Dr. Ahmad Majdoubeh