Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

Cornell University, Ithaca, State of New York, October 6, 2014

ASSESSMENT PROCESS OF THE ENGINEERING PHYSICS

BATCHELOR DEGREE BY THE “AGENCIA PARA A CALIDADE

DO SISTEMA UNIVERSITARIO DE GALICIA” (ACSUG)

1. Introduction

The 'Bolonia Process', a great project for the 'European Higher Education Area',

went through a crucial stage in Galicia, Northwest of Spain, from 2008 to 2010. During

those years, education programs at the undergraduate level were transformed to (4-year)

'Batchelor Degrees'. Every program was converted in a standard, proper way except

one: the old Physics Program, a 5-year “Licenciatura de Física” at the University of

Vigo, one of the three Galician Public Universities. Specifically, to everyone surprise,

that Physics Program was transformed in 2009 to a 'Batchelor Degree in Environmental

Science'.

The decisions that led to the elimination of the UVigo Physics Program proved

illegal as the Supreme Court of Galicia dictated in March 2012, thereby opening a

window for repairing what was definitely a gross injustice. To ensure compliance with

that judicial resolution, a 'Batchelor Degree in Engineering Physics' (EP) was

proposed as a natural transformation forbidden in 2009. On October 29, 2013, the

University of Vigo approved, by unanimous decision, submitting such proposal to the

“Xunta de Galicia”, our local government. Shortly thereafter, on January 21, 2014, the

“Xunta de Galicia” Department for Higher Education, namely, “Consellería de Cultura,

Educación e Ordenación Universitaria” henceforth to be referred to as

“consellería” stated that EP had the required socioeconomic pertinence for Galicia.

Such a claim, obviously made at a political level, was based on a very detailed report

which will be sent to you in further, separate e-mails. As a next step for getting EP

implemented in the 2014-15 academic year, UVigo was authorized by “consellería” to

address the “Axencia para a Calidade do Sistema Universitario de Galicia” (ACSUG) in

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

2

order to get the required certificate by a Quality Assurance (QA) agency with European

hallmark.

The assessment process of any University Degree by a QA agency is an activity

closely associated to the Bologna Project that exclusively involves the University, as the

applying party, and the corresponding agency, ACSUG in this case. As a member of

REACU (“Red Española de Agencias de Calidad Universitaria”), the assessment

protocol involves two reports, provisional and final, on the document that describes all

information on the education program, the so-called VERIFICA document. The

applying University is urged to properly implement corrections in reaction to

requirements and criticisms raised in the provisional report.

A positive, favorable ACSUG report is an unavoidable requirement to go

further. When such a step is fulfilled, the project goes back to political grounds.

Specifically, before a final decision is taken, the “Consello Galego de Universidades”

(CGU) must report. CGU is a “consellería” political body of consult and assessment for

the Head of the Department composed by members of (i) the “Xunta de Galicia”

Executive Government, (ii) the political parties of the opposition and (iii) the three

Galician Universities (Santiago de Compostela, La Coruña and Vigo). Once the CGU

report is issued, “consellería” has full freedom to take a final, political resolution. This

completes our description of what “Xunta de Galicia” “Decreto 222/2011” officially

regulates before and after ACSUG intervention.

On May 12, 2014, after more than three months waiting for a response, UVigo

received ACSUG provisional report (attached as Annex #1). As explicitly requested, a

revised VERIFICA document accompanied by a description of changes and

explanatory comments (you may find them as Annexes #2 and 3#) might be sent back

before the June 2 deadline. After that, the ACSUG final report should be issued. Here

we describe a series of unexpected events that followed up to this preface.

2. Independence in a context of political machinations and external pressures

of various sorts

ACSUG belongs to ENQA ('European Association for Quality Assurance in

Higher Education'), which led it to be registered in EQAR ('European Quality

Assurance Register for Higher Education'). As the ENCA report 'Standards and

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

3

Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area' explains,

independence must be one of the essential features of a QA agency. Such an attribute

means that its reports must not be made under the influence of third parties such as

higher education institutions, political authorities, organs of political influence and

further interested parties.

Nevertheless, during the assessment process described in Section 1, on May 26,

2014, CGU recall, a political organ that belongs to “consellería” took a decision on

the EP Project with ACSUG provisional report as a primary basis. Indeed, the

“Secretario Xeral de Universidades” of the “consellería”, José Alberto Díez de Castro,

said publically that 'every CGU member had the provisional report with him/her so that

they were able to provide their opinions during the meeting'

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/dfarou280514.pdf). The net result of that

discussion, held on violation of the “Xunta de Galicia” “Decreto 222/2011” since it

unambiguosly states that the CGU must report only after a final favorable ACSUG

resolution, was something like this: 'the content of the ACSUG provisional report is

very clear in that there are many doubts regarding the academic reliability of the EP

project', hardly a thougth from our previous assessment.

A first matter to be clarified is: if ACSUG acts with full independence of the

political power and third parties, how could the provisional report have reached to every

CGU member for the May 26 meeting? Such report is signed by the ACSUG Director,

José Eduardo López Pereira, who is a member of the Popular Party (PP), the political

party actually governing in Galicia. López Pereira is a former “Secretario General de

Universidades” (1997-2005) with Manuel Fraga Iribarne (PP) as President. During

that period, ACSUG was created in 2001. In September 2009, just after the PP return to

“Xunta de Galicia” from 2005 to 2009 there was another party governing the actual

President, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, named López Pereira ACSUG Director

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/co080909.jpg). It is also worthy to note that, as

ACSUG Director, he is a CGU member.

On May 28 a local newspaper publishes an interview to Díez de Castro: 'Many

things must be changed, and some of them are very complex”

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/dfarou280514.pdf), he says. The same day, the

Head of the “consellería”, Jesús Vázquez, tells the local reporters that, in the light of the

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

4

provisional report, 'the project must be fully reformulated'

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/lregio280514.jpg). Both are Associate Professors

in the area of Social Sciences. (With this I just mean I feel uncapable of submitting any

judgement on a project that belongs to an area outside my academic background and

skills, buy they both seemed not uncomfortable with doing that).

On the other hand, simultaneously, the President of the University of Vigo,

Salustiano Mato, says: 'The ACSUG provisional report hardly affects the education

program, with the only significant recommendation being a change of the Batchelor's

name. The CGU has taken a political, nonacademic resolution that, I guess, came from

the opposition of the Universities of Santiago de Compostela and La Coruña'

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/lregio280514.jpg).

Just the same day that the CGU meeting was held, a statement by the President

of the University of Santiago de Compostela, Juan Casares Long (actually replaced by

Juan Viaño), appears in a local newspaper: 'Approving this Batcherlor would imply the

breakage of all past, present and future deals, formal and nonformal”

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/ecor260514.jpg). The same press report includes

words by the Dean of the Faculty of Physics at that University, Luis Miguel Varela,

who criticizes the EP Project on the basis of an allegued close resemblance with the

Batchelor Degree in Physics (of that Faculty), far from a reality as internationally

recognized.

The position against EP from the “Federación de Colegios de Ingenieros

Industriales de España”, a Professional Society that brings together what in the State of

Spain are known as Industrial Engineers (Mechanical, Electrical, etc.), adds to those

flagrant interferences from the political sphere (CGU) and other Galician higher

education institutions. Its president, Luis Manuel Tomás Balibrea, has been publically

criticizing EP in a systematic way since the fall of 2012. Indeed, is was reported that he

formally addressed ACSUG and ANECA (“Agencia Nacional de la Calidad y

Acreditación”) to transmit that the name Engineering Physics creates 'social confusion',

that the engineer has nothing to do with the physicist and that the word engineering

only applies to all-time disciplines (http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/v070113.jpg).

On June 8, 2014, he says: “If EP is approved, we shall go to the Courts”

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/faou080614.pdf). And that must not be discarded

as a serious threat since, using the same perplexing arguments, the organization he

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

5

presides has gone to the Courts against the EP program of the Polytechnical University

of Catalonia, the only actually existing with great success in Spain

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/lavozd071113.jpg). The cause is sub judice.

As docummented, all that happened around ACSUG reports. Independence?

See next section.

3. Traps, Cheats, and ACSUG Final Report

Let us go back to May 12. Just after having received ACSUG provisional report,

we, as the “Working Group for EP Education Program”, inform the local media

(http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/lr130514.jpg). (Implicit is that, for many reasons

around UVigo Physics since 2009, the EP issue has acquired a unusual public

dimension.) In our assessment, all criticisms except one (Batchelor's name) imply minor

changes. As regards the name, we announce there is no problem for us in replacing

Engineering Physics by another name. As we see things, academic background the

students acquire is, by far, the most important, and that is clearly preserved in view of

ACSUG provisional report.

On May 21 I am told from the UVigo Executive Team (by phone conversation)

that the “consellería“ demands an alternative name for the Batchelor not later than in the

morning of May 22. I feel extremely surprised since we have in mind the June 2 as the

deadline for reacting to the provisional report. However, since I am told that project's

implementation is in danger without providing such information, my response is: 'We

have been thinking about Physics for New Technologies', already existing at the

University of Liverpool (https://www.liv.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/courses/physics-

for-new-technology-bsc-hons/overview/).

Then, the May 26 unexpected, out-of-regulation CGU meeting comes. And it is

followed by a May 27 note from the “consellería” to the media (Annex #4) that

explicitly states: the name 'Physics for New Technologies' raises so a big problem

that the project must be stopped until the final ACSUG report is issued. (In view of this,

we recovered the EP name.).

That May 27 note also describes that, during the May 26 meeting, members of

the Universities of Santiago de Compostela and La Coruña attacked EP implementation.

Moreover, while explicitly stating that ACSUG is independent, it is written that its

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

6

provisional report is very clear in that there are many doubts regarding the quality of the

EP Project, hardly a thought when one reads such report. Further notes from the

“consellería” before the announcement of the ACSUG final report persevered on those

statements (Annex #5) while nothing official is said from ACSUG.

On July 11, just the same day that a new CGU meeting is held, the content of the

final report (Annex #6) is made public. Result: unfavorable. A note from the

“consellería” (Annex #7) states that EP has not been discussed in July 11 CGU meeting

because that can only be made after an ACSUG favorable report. That is correct, but

what about the May 26-meeting decisions during the assessment process? Is it

believable that ACSUG is independent while it is documented that “consellería” has

been officially putting statements 'on its mouth' for about a month and a half?

After more than 150 programs approved, it is the first time that this happens in

the Galician University System at the undergraduate level. Comments about ACSUG

job on EP follow in the next two sections.

4. Conflict of Interest and Transparency

The assessment committee for the UVigo EP Major, as published in the ACSUG

website, was composed by:

President

- Enrique Masgrau Gómez (Department of Electronic Engineering and

Communications, University of Zaragoza).

Academic Staff

- Montserrat Pardas Feliú (Department of Signal Processing and Communications,

Politecnichal University of Catalonia).

- Juan Antonio Bravo Bravo (Architect, Politechnical University of Valencia).

- Antonio López Cabanes (Department de Chemical Engineering, University of

Murcia).

- José Sánchez Sánchez (Architect, University of Sevilla).

- Javier Oñoro López (School of Industrial Engineering, Polytechnical University of

Madrid).

- Juan José Cubero Marín (School of Industrial Engineering, University of Zaragoza).

- Miltiadis Nicolás S. Tzitzas (Architect, National Technical University of Athens).

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

7

- Antonio de Brito Ferrari (Computer Architecture, Universidade de Aveiro).

Profesional staff

- María Fernández Esteller (“Consellería de Educación de la Xunta de Galicia”).

- Marta González Moldes (“Trillium Consultores”).

- Ignacio López Cabido (“Centro de Supercomputación de Galicia”; it belongs to the

Xunta de Galicia and to the “Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científicas”, CSIC).

- José Manuel González González (“Xunta de Galicia”).

- Fernando Suárez Lorenzo (“Colegio Profesional de Ingeniería en Informática de

Galicia”).

Students

- Sandra Servia Rodríguez (University of Vigo).

- Javier Puga Alonso (University of Vigo).

- Adrián Moa González (University of La Coruña).

- Nicolás Heredia García (University of La Coruña).

Secretary

- María Paula Ríos de Deus (ACSUG).

The established dynamics of operation (Annex #8) starts with task distribution.

Evaluation of each project for the academic year is assigned to four members of the

committee. Two are from the academic staff, one a professional and one student. The

President of the committee (Enrique Masgrau) is responsible for making those

assignments. As is natural, academics carry on much of the weight whereas, as

stakeholders, the selected member from the professional staff and the student provide

complementary views from their perspectives.

Once an advanced draft report is ready, its approvement is treated by the

committee in a one or two-day meeting together with the remaining variety of proposals

for the year from Galician Universities. In this context, it seems not crazy that every

member of the academic staff is mainly devoted to defending his/her assigned job. That

is what underlies words by Montserrat Pardas, one academic staff member whom I

contacted via e-mail (see Annex #9). As can be seen, her first reaction was just 'UVigo

EP project was not assigned to me'. In a second message, after being requested for a

more serious response, she recognizes that all committee members approved reporting

negatively on the EP project. Monserrat Pardas e-mails tell much of the story, since it

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

8

transpires that, as suspected from the dynamics of operation, project assignment is

decisive.

A question naturally arises: who could have been the two selected members of

the academic staff for the EP Project? We asked president Enrique Masgrau about this

issue. No response. Hence, the question must be tackled in probabilistic terms. Since

three of those nine individuals are Architects, it makes sense to discard them. And,

logically, likewise for Montserrat Pardas. This automatically leaves a list of five

candidates.

Before going further, let us comment on general guidelines published as

ACSUG rules (Annex #10). In that connection, it would be mandatory for any

Industrial Engineer to refuse any participation on the EP project because of an obvious

conflict of interest. (From a long time ago in the State of Spain, every Industrial

Engineer belongs to the Professional Society actually lead by Luis Manuel Tomás

Balibrea.). On the other hand, it was not possible to have access to the CV of each

member of the academic staff despite, according to documented rules (Annex #10),

such information must be made public. We requested it to López Pereira, the ACSUG

Director. No response. During past summer, it was constantly repeated from the

“consellería” that the members of the academic staff are external expertise of renowned

prestige. Such an assertion has no any value as long as their CV's are not made public.

Where is the transparency of the process?

But let us go back to our five-candidate list. Among them, we believe that only

Javier Oñoro López and Juan José Cubero Marín belong to Schools of Industrial

Engineering. And it is tempting to speculate that the assessment of the EP project was

assigned to Industrial Engineers. The content of point #1 in the final report supports

such an hypothesis, but everyone can judge himself/herself in view of the following

detailed analysis.

5. Critique to the Final Report

5.1. Batchelor Degree Name and Bologna Spirit

Let us start with a word-by-word transcription of the critique in both provisional

and final reports: “The Batchelor Degree name is inconsistent with the education

program and induces confusion among young people aiming at studying EP, since they

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

9

are unable to know whether the Degree belongs to the (Bologna) “Engineering and

Architecture Branch” or the (Bologna) “Natural Sciences Branch”. Just the same

concept, i.e., “confusion” as that employed by Balibrea, recall, the President of

Spanish Industrial Engineers.

The concept of EP is Applied Physics: steaming from basic knowledge in

Physics, the student is trained to invent approaches for the development of novel

Engineering Branches and New Technologies. The proposed program (see page 49 of

Annex #2) contains courses common to some traditional Engineering Programs such as

“Signal Processing”, “Circuit Theory” or “Optical Technology” but, significantly, there

is an introduction to the “Key Enabling Technologies” (KETs), established by the

European Comission of priority interest for the Horizon 2020 Technological

Development. Thus, there are courses on “Nanotechnology”, “Photonics”, “Biomedical

Engineering”, “Materials Science and Technology” or “Quantum Information”. In

summary, it is a program configurated by contents in Physics and contents in

Engineering as pieces of the same building: the Technological Progress. From this

perspective, the name “Engineering Physics” is more than adequate: it is a natural one.

Beyond this purely academic analysis, it is important to note that ACSUG

explicitly contemplates cases of interdisciplinary programs as it is the EP case.

Specifically, point 1.2.1 of document “Anexo I al procedimiento de evaluación de

títulos oficiales” (Annex #8) included in ACSUG website states: “In the case that a

program could be evaluated by committees of two different branches, their presidents

will be able to collaborate up to the extent they consider wise”. Hence, as a natural

recognition of the relevant role that interdisciplinary programs actually have in higher

education, ACSUG protocols include the possibility of evaluating Batchelor Degress at

the interface between two areas of knowledge. In other words, the answer to criticism

#1 in ACSUG final report lies in ACSUG own protocols. Consequently, one may

conclude that established criteria are far from being applied consistently: in place of

taking advantage of an own rule in the proper, constructive way for which it was

devised, ACSUG invokes such a rule as the fundamental argument for rejecting the

project. Bad practice, extremely bad practice.

Despite the displayed facts far enough discredit the astonishing critique to the

Batchelor Degree name, important comments remain. Specifically, it sounds

unreasonable that ACSUG has found unacceptable the name EP for the UVigo project,

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

0

provided it is well-known that a Batchelor Degree under exactly the name

Engineering Physics already exists at the Polythecnical University of Catalonia,

obviously with a favorable report by the “Agencia per a la Qualitat del Sistema

Universitari de Catalunya” (AQU), also integrated in REACU and ENQA.

Moreover, both ACSUG and AQU belong to ECA ('European Consorcium for

Accreditation'), whose main purpose is the mutual recognition of decisions regarding

accreditation and QA. That is, ECA aims to attain coherence and consistency for criteria

and decisions so that QA in higher education gets full credibility and significance.

Therefore, two QA agencies integrated in REACU, ECA, ENQA and registered in

EQAR report opposite statements on the same issue. This fact dramatically plays

against ECA aims and scope but, more fundamentally, it violates very basic concepts

and phylosophy of 'Bologna Process'.

Furthermore, as the EP VERIFICA document credits (pages 15 to 17 of Annex

#2), EP at the undergraduate level exists in many Universities all over the World. From

the displayed list, one straightforwardly notices that EP has a deeper culture within the

USA, where the potential usefulness appraisal of the applications of Physics lead to the

development of Engineering Physics as a discipline at the higher education level. On the

other hand, it is true that one of the objectives of 'Bologna Process' is to make progress

towards convergence with the US University System. There is a growing number of EP

Batchelor Degrees, e.g., Politecnico de Milano, Oxford University, University of

Oldenburg, etc.. To sum up, not only EP Degrees exist throughout the World but also

they have a notable tradition. For instance, they were implemented more than 50 years

ago at Cornell University, leading in this field. Also, Engineering Physics & Physics is

one of the branch of the American Society for Engineering Education

(http://www.asee.org/member-resources/groups/divisions).

It is therefore not surprising that more than 300 Scientists and Engineers from

more than 20 countries have agreed to sign an appeal document addressed and

submitted to the President of “Xunta de Galicia” Alberto Núñez Feijóo in which a

common sense approach is requested in order to take advantage of implementing EP

studies at UVigo. We mention among others three Nobel Prize Laureates in Physics, a

former President of the American Physical Society, a former President of the New

York Academy of Sciences, a Dean for Research at Princeton University, a Wolf Prize

Laureate in Physics, a Vice President of the Astronomy Society of Japan, and a few

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

1

relevant members of the Max Planck Society. None of them have found any problem in

combining the words/concepts Physics and Engineering for describing the area of

Applied Physics.

It is worthy to wonder, moreover, why the name Chemical Engineering, under

which a large number of programs with a positive report from REACU QA agencies

(one of them at the University of Santiago de Compostela), does not create confusion

but EP does. Along this line, there exists throughout Spain 'Mathematical Engineering',

'Geological Engineering' and 'Biological Engineering' approved by REACU agencies.

Why is Enginnering Physics at the University of Vigo so “especial” to ACSUG

and/or its evaluators?

5.2. More on Bad Practice

The revised version of EP VERIFICA document and our responses to the

provisional report (Annex #2 and Annex #3, respectively) address all criticisms. One

may check that the final report, of an extension lesser than one sheet, introduces new

arguments (with respect to the provisional one) against which we were not allowed to

react. From the new (apparent) deficiencies, ACSUG reports negatively. Such a

behavior, which has generated defencelessness, indicates a bad practice which goes

against the most elemental ethical principles that should govern a process of this sort.

5.3. A More Detailed Analysis: Untenable Arguments

Only now that we have an irreversible decision for the 2014-15 academic year,

there is the possibility of fighting the new arguments introduced in the final report. Such

report invokes an unavoidable need for the education program to include courses in

“economy”, “project management”, “company organization”, “drawing”, “statistics”,

“elasticity and materials resistance”, “mechanical technology”, “electrical technology”,

“thermal technology” or “materials tehcnology”. As for the first, second, and third, we

must mention that the proposed program contains two courses entitled “I + D + i

Management” and “Technological Transfer” which include contents on those areas (in

fact, as reflected in VERIFICA, UVigo Departments of Applied Economy and

Company Management and Marketing ae able to collaborate). The remaining courses

listed above, defined in the report as “background on basic and applied technological

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

2

aspects of the branch”, are referred to typical contents of the so-called “industrial

branch”, that is, what in the State of Spain is known as the Industrial Engineering

Ensemble (Mechanical, Electrical, etc.).

Nevertheless, many programs of the Bologna “Engineering and Architecture

Branch” with REACU positive reports lack the above-mentioned courses. A clearcut

case is “Computer Science and Engineering” (known in Spain as “Ingeniería

Informática”), which exists in the three Galician Universities with positive ACSUG

reports. As is natural, none of them include courses on “drawing”, “statistics”,

“elasticity and materials resistance”, “mechanical technology”, “electrical technology”,

“thermal technology” or “materials tehcnology”, listed in the final report as unavoidable

for a major to belong to the Bologna “Engineering and Architecture Branch”.

Moreover, the invoked lack of 'engineering aspects of Mechanical Technology'

in the course entitled 'Mechanics' is rather unfortunate. As explained in a detailed way

in our VERIFICA document, the focus and phylosophy of EP are different from those

of programs in traditional engineering areas. Thus, the student who aims at graduating

as an Engineering Physicist must acquire basic concepts in 'Classical Mechanics' so that

he/she will be able to learn 'Quantum Mechanics', 'Statistical Physics' and 'Solid State

Physics'. Only then, he/she will be ready to tackle practical aplications of those

disciplines by taking courses on 'Quantum Information', 'Nuclear Physics and

Technology', 'Biomedical Engineering', 'Biophysical Engineering', 'Physical

Electronics', 'Materials Science and Technology' or 'Nanoscience and Nanotechnology'.

As regards the capability of the personnel involved to properly develop the

project, the statement “it is a team of professors of a Faculty of Science” is incorrect.

Any professor in the Spanish Public University System belongs to an area of

specialization which, furthermore, is integrated in a given Department. Faculties and

Schools select the Departments for each course and, ultimately, it is the selected

Deparment which, every year, names the professor among its members. How could this

information be anticipated before the implementation of the program?

The revised version of the VERIFICA document is very clear in this respect, and

provides detailed information about UVigo Departments involved as far as it was

possible to specify with the aid of experienced in collaborating with ACSUG

technical staff from the University of Vigo. We provided a list containing eleven

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

3

Departments, 6 from the UVigo Technological Branch, 3 from the UVigo Scientific

Branch, and 2 from the UVigo Economy Branch.

It is quite revealing to read in the final report the statement “we are unable to

judge the adequateness of professors for accomplishing the project”. Hence, it is not

concluded that the involved personnel has or has not the required skills but, rather,

without any aim of helping in specifying what the required information is, it is stated

that the needed information in order to make the pertinent evaluation has not been

provided. In our opinion, this demonstrates no any good intentions from ACSUG to

collaborate with a view to contribute to enhance and assure the quality of the project.

Bad practice again.

One may find all these arguments displayed in the first two sheets of the

VERIFICA document. Have the reviewers carefully read (or even took a look at) such

material?

6. Conclusion: a Quality Assurance agency with European hallmark makes

itself available to execute an extremely risky political resolution at the

expense of Society's needs and general interests

As described in the Introduction Section, in the context of the Bologna Process,

the old UVigo Program in Physics, running since 1995, was illegally transformed in the

fall of 2009 to a 'Batchelor Degree in Environmental Science'. The “Xunta de Galicia”

Government by then was the same as now, with Alberto Núñez Feijoo as President and

Jesús Vázquez as Head of the “consellería”.

That happened in a Faculty of Science with a Dean, Juan Carlos Mejuto, who

was declared in 2011 responsible for a plagiarism scandal to Chinese scientists which,

together with related indidents, got international widespread attention: see El País, 2011

(http://elpais.com/diario/2011/05/20/sociedad/1305842408_850215.html), Frankfurter

Allgemeine Zeitung, 2011 (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/forschung-und-

lehre/plagiatoren-in-spanien-war-die-guttenberg-affaere-denn-zu-gar-nichts-gut-

1656712.html), Times Higher Education, 2012

(http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/420782.article), Frankfurter Allgemeine

Zeitung, 2013 (http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/forschung-und-lehre/korruption-in-

vigo-die-willkuer-der-kaziken-12243098.html), Süddeutsche Zeitung, 2013

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

4

(http://www.sueddeutsche.de/bildung/wissenschaft-in-spanien-auszeichnungen-fuers-

abschreiben-1.1754604). The name of Jesús Vázquez appears in the two latter articles

as old friend of Mejuto as well as associated to generous “Xunta de Galicia” financial

support granted after he scandal to Mejuto and his research team.

The 2012 resolution by the Galician Courts was a clear manifestation that the

whole process was undertaken in flagrant violation of legal rules but, more remarkably,

it opened the possibility to recovering a Program in Physics on behalf of a Society that

supports the Spanish Public University. It was in this spirit that the Engineering Physics

Project was born. After more than two years of hard work, along which almost 10000

citizens have added their names to the appeal document sent to President Núñez Feijóo

while almost 700 reports in local newspapers have appeared in press, we face with an

uacceptable behavior by ACSUG, which has made itself available for acting as the

executing arm of an extremely risky political resolution, namely, to maintain the net

result of the unwise and illegal 2009 decisions, thereby releasing corresponding political

authorities from their responsibilities.

Lack of professionality, lack of transparency, lack of independence of any sort,

carelessness, bad practice whatever you look at, inhibition in front of an evident

conflict of interest, etc. Just the opposite of what ENCA document “Standards and

Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area” invokes.

Such report states that improvement in the QA goal must turn into benefits for Society.

On implementing EP, Galicia would contribute to introduce an interesting academic-

professional profile in the State of Spain. An extremely poor and ridiculous report by a

QA agency with European hallmark (and the surrounding atmosphere) has stopped this

expectation, leaving aside 19 UVigo academic members without the possibility of

offering a dedicated service to the Society that supports their salaries. Fifteen of them

have a permanent position while the remaining four have been hired according to the

“Ramón y Cajal” prestigious program. In numbers, the net result is that each of those 19

professors, with a mean age of 40 and so with 30 years of labour left, are actually giving

classes for 34 h a year (http://duvi.uvigo.es/images/quiosco/fouren100914.pdf).

As is explained in page 12 of the ENQA report, the focus of QA agencies ranges

from a close collaboration between the applying University and the agency to

establishing a distance with the aim of demanding accoutability. An agency that has

acted as ACSUG did with the UVigo EP Batchelor Degree is by no means reliable nor

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

5

trustworthy, and so it is not in a position for demanding accountability at all. In any

event, we have known from our UVigo technical staff that ACSUG has historically

operated under a dynamics of mutual cooperation. That explains that more than 150

submitted proposals at the undergraduate level were approved. Doubtless, the EP case

constitutes a shameful exception.

7. Formal Request

This is a matter of serious concern because of its negative consequences at a,

say, local level. But its relevance is dramatically augmented by the fact that ACSUG

belongs to REACU, ENCA, ECA and EQAR. ACSUG was integrated in ENQA in

2009, and five years later it makes 'this' just during the process for renewing its

European hallmark. The case of Engineering Physics at UVigo certainly affects the

credibility of European Higher Education QA Agencies and, consequently, it damages

the Bologna Process and related spirit.

From an administrative point of view, there is the possibility of recovering the

project with the December 1, 2014 deadline. That is, on behalf of general interests, our

only firm intention at this stage but, in view of the way responsible authorities have

been acting for the last months, we see no political good intentions. Therefore, if no

common sense approach is adopted, to our regret, we shall adopt legal actions at the

criminal, penal level.

All these are, we feel, strong reasons that legitimize us to request your active

involvement in this issue so as to ensure that a new, fair and objective report for the

UVigo Engineering Physics project is obtained. Quality Assurance in the European

Higher Education Area is in question.

With my sincere respects,

Claudio Cerdeiriña, as President of the “Working Group for the Batchelor

Degree in Engineering Physics Education Program” approved by the University of Vigo

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

6

GLOSSARY OF NAMES

Political organizations and public Galician Universities

Xunta de Galicia. Body of Goverment for the Galicia regional area, Northwest of

Spain.

Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordención Universitaria. “Xunta de Galicia”

Department for Higher Education.

Consello Galego de Universidades (CGU). Body of consult and assessment for the

Head of “consellería”.

University of Vigo. One of the three Public Galician Universities.

University of Santiago de Compostela. One of the three Public Galician

Universities.

University of La Coruña. One of the three Public Galician Universities.

Quality assurance organizations

ACSUG. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the area of Galicia.

AQU. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the area of Catalonia.

ANECA. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the area of Madrid (it

has additional competences).

REACU. Spanish National Association of Quality Assurance Agencies for Higher

Education.

ENQA. European Association for Quality Assurance Agencies for Higher

Education.

ECA. European Consorcium for Accreditation.

EQAR. European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies.

Political authorities

Alberto Núñez Feijóo. President of Xunta de Galicia.

Jesús Vázquez. Head of “consellería”.

José Alberto Díez de Castro. Secretary of “consellería”.

Academic authorities

Annex 11, ENQA Board meeting, 15 October 2014 Item 7, Letter concerning assessment of degree by ACSUG

1

7

José Eduardo López Pereira. ACSUG Director.

Juan Casares Long. Former President of the University of Santiago de Compostela.

Juan Viaño. President of the University of Santiago de Compostela

Salustiano Mato. President of the University of Vigo.

Others

Luis Manuel Tomás Balibrea. President of Spanish Industrial Engineering

Professional Society.

Enrique Masgrau. Member of ACSUG evaluating staff.

Montserrat Pardas. Member of ACSUG evaluating staff.

Juan José Cubero. Member of ACSUG evaluating staff.

Javier Oñoro. Member of ACSUG evaluating staff