FAQ category: 22 study programmes with a distinctive focus

Section 12(6) of the MRVO stipulates that “study programmes with a specific profile […] must have a coherent study programme concept that appropriately reflects the specific characteristics of the profile.”

The explanatory memorandum to Section 12(6) of the MRVO defines “specific profile requirements” as “certain characteristics” that a higher education institution uses to “promote or identify” a study programme. In this context, the explanatory memorandum lists the following profiles—international, dual, part-time while working, virtual, work-integrated, and part-time—by way of example only and not as an exhaustive list.

The higher education institution has considerable conceptual and definitional freedom when establishing specific program requirements; see FAQ 22.3 below for more information.

The explanatory notes to Section 12(6) of the MRVO state that, if a higher education institution “advertises or identifies” a study programme “with specific characteristics,” these characteristics are “part of the study programme profile and are therefore also subject to evaluation.” It further states: “In such cases, the criteria listed in paragraphs 1 through 5 are to be applied in light of the specific profile and from the respective specific perspective, and are to be measured against the specific requirements to be defined by the respective higher education institutions.”

It follows that higher education institutions have considerable conceptual and definitional freedom when establishing specific profile requirements. As a rule, the higher education institution itself defines its profile and the associated requirements and goals linked to that profile. In the accreditation process, the institution is evaluated based on these specifications and its achievement of these objectives. As part of the assessment of the academic criteria, the coherence and plausibility of the concept, as well as its implementation, are examined.

Restrictions on these conceptual and definitional freedoms may arise for certain program characteristics due to definitions or requirements established by accreditation bodies and/or higher education law (e.g., dual).

No. Profile characteristics and their designations are not legally defined in either qualitative or quantitative terms. Therefore, only a few common profile characteristics can be selected in the ELIAS master data and on the cover sheet of the accreditation report template. The use of other profile characteristics or those with different designations is, of course, permitted. These profile characteristics are then also subject to accreditation.

No. There is no requirement to actually list the profile characteristics that a study programme might use.

International study programmes are so-called study programmes with a special profile. According to § 12(6) of the MRVO, study programmes with a special profile “have a coherent study programme concept that appropriately reflects the specific characteristics of the profile.”

The profile characteristic “international” is not defined in greater detail in the MRVO. The higher education institution must therefore demonstrate on a case-by-case basis how the international focus it claims is conceptually manifested in the specific study programme concept; there are no detailed requirements from the accreditation body in this regard. This concept must first be reviewed by the peer review panel during the accreditation process to ensure its coherence.

The following are just a few examples of ways in which the “international” profile characteristic is frequently implemented in practice:

• The study programme is taught in English and is designed for an international audience.
• The study programme’s curriculum focuses on international topics and issues within the respective field of study, courses taught in foreign languages, and similar elements.
• Study abroad programs and internships abroad are mandatory components of the study programme.

This list is not exhaustive; it is possible to combine different elements.

For study programmes taught entirely in a foreign language that do not require advanced German proficiency as an admission requirement, at least the relevant academic regulations and module descriptions must be available in a reader version in the language of instruction. This also applies if the study programme is offered in both a German-language and a foreign-language version.

In addition to Section 12(6), the criteria for this requirement are also based on Section 12(5), second sentence, item 1 of the MRVO, according to which “predictable and reliable academic operations” —as stated in the explanatory memorandum to this section—“includes, in particular, the timely and comprehensive provision of information to students regarding all organizational aspects of the study programme, as well as the transparent and reliable planning and conduct of courses and examinations.” In the opinion of the Accreditation Council, in order to ensure such “comprehensive information for students regarding all organizational aspects of the study programme,” it is necessary that the program documentation relevant to the study programme (at a minimum, the module descriptions and the relevant program regulations) be available in the language of instruction and thus in the language understood by the entire target audience.

Dual study programmes are so-called study programmes with a “special profile.” According to § 12(6) MRVO, study programmes with a special profile “have a self-contained study programme concept that appropriately reflects the special characteristics of the profile.” The “specific characteristics” of the “dual” profile are outlined in Section 12(7) of the MRVO. It states: “A study programme may be designated and advertised as ‘dual’ if the learning locations (at least a higher education institution and a company) are systematically integrated with one another in terms of content, organization, and contractual arrangements.” The “dual” profile characteristic is thus definitively defined in the MRVO, unlike other specific profile characteristics.

The definition of the profile characteristic “dual” pursuant to Section 12(7) of the MRVO has been adopted unchanged into the state regulations of 14 states to date. This definition also applies to the State of Bavaria. However, Section 12(7) of the Bavarian Study Accreditation Ordinance (BayStudAkkV) further specifies the requirements for a “systematic integration of content across learning locations.” See FAQ 22.13 for more information.

It is possible that the respective state higher education law contains specific provisions regarding dual study programs. The relevant states have reviewed the state accreditation ordinance to ensure it is consistent with the higher education law, so that no contradictions arise.

Based on Section 12(7) of the MRVO, the Accreditation Council expects the higher education institution to demonstrate, in an evidence-based manner during the accreditation process, how the specific study programme concept ensures systematic integration—in terms of content, organization, and contractual arrangements—of the various learning locations. The following FAQs, based on the Administrative Practice of the Accreditation Council, provide guidance on what is meant by these three dimensions of integration; the accreditation process does not prescribe the specific design of the integration in these three dimensions. This is the sole responsibility of the higher education institution. The 2013 recommendations of the German Science Council provide important guidance on the structure of a dual study programme, particularly in distinction from other formats, including complementary ones.

“Curricular integration” between higher education institutions and the workplace means that the qualification goals of the study programme are also achieved at the workplace through a reciprocal exchange between theory and practice. The integration of content across these learning environments—as a central characteristic of the “dual” profile—must therefore necessarily be embedded in the study programme itself. A part-time job during the course of study in a field related to the program’s content is not sufficient on its own to justify the “dual” profile characteristic.

“Systematic” means that the integration of content between higher education institutions and the workplace takes place with a certain degree of continuity throughout the course of study. Isolated points of contact between academic study and Professional Practice—for example, in the form of the practical semester and/or a company-based bachelor’s thesis, as provided for in many bachelor’s programs at higher education institutions of applied sciences—are not sufficient on their own to establish the “dual” profile characteristic.

The systematic integration of the curricula at higher education institutions and the workplace must be clearly documented in the program materials (academic and examination regulations, module handbook, cooperation agreements).

Higher education institutions have considerable conceptual flexibility in implementing the systematic integration of content between the university and the workplace. From an accreditation perspective, it is not mandatory for such integration to occur in every semester of the course of study, nor does accreditation specify a minimum number of credit points that must be earned at the workplace learning site. What is crucial is a coherent overall concept, which is initially evaluated for consistency by the peer review panel during the accreditation process.

By way of example, the following are some elements of content integration that are frequently encountered in practice, often in combination:

• Credit-bearing practical (transfer) phases / practical modules in each semester,
• Credit-bearing practical (transfer) phases / practical modules in selected semesters / stages of study,
• the completion of work-related and/or practice-reflective assignments as part of self-study and/or as an examination requirement in (selected) theory modules within the framework of practical phases that are not credited as such,
• a company-sponsored thesis (as one of several components).

This list is not exhaustive.

For the State of Bavaria, Section 12(7) of the BayStudAkkV supplements the dual definition in the MRVO by stipulating that the systematic integration of the learning environments “[t]akes place at higher education institutions of applied sciences in such a way that dual-track students are linked to a practice partner to ensure a continuous transfer of theory to practice throughout their entire course of study; they complete the practical semester included in their bachelor’s programs at this partner, complete additional in-depth practical phases there, reflect on both learning environments—for example, in a practical reflection module or a project—and write a thematically relevant thesis based on professional practice.”

Accordingly, for dual study programmes at Bavarian higher education institutions of applied sciences, the practical semester in bachelor’s study programmes must always be completed at the partner organization, and the thesis in both bachelor’s and master’s study programmes must address a topic related to professional practice. In addition, both bachelor’s and master’s degree programs must include at least one additional dual-program-specific element that integrates learning across different settings.

“Systematic organizational integration” means that academic studies and practical work are coordinated not only in terms of content but also in terms of timing and organization. Furthermore, there must be organizational interfaces between higher education institutions and industry partners that enable regular coordination. The accreditation does not specify the nature or scope of such organizational interfaces. At a minimum, specific contact persons for the dual study program should be designated by both the higher education institution and the company.

The higher education institution is responsible for the quality and implementation of the entire study programme. “Contractual integration” therefore refers to the relationship between the higher education institution and its industry partner(s). If a contract is concluded solely between the industry partner and the students, this is not sufficient for accreditation—even if the higher education institution dictates the wording of the contract.

The higher education institutions and their industry partners must enter into agreements covering at least the following points:

• Coordination of the timing and organization of academic studies and practical work. It must be ensured that students are granted time off from the company to attend lectures.
• A binding specification of how the parts of the degree program for which the practice partner is responsible are to be implemented. A reference to the relevant provisions in the academic regulations and/or examination regulations and the module handbook is sufficient for this purpose.

If higher education institutions and their industry partners are able to regulate the aforementioned aspects in a binding manner through a framework other than a contract, this is acceptable under the Administrative Practice of the Accreditation Council.

No. That is not possible. Section 12(7) of the MRVO expressly stipulates that a study programme may only be “designated and advertised as ‘dual’” if it fully meets the definition of “dual” as set forth in the MRVO. If this is not the case, neither directly nor indirectly may study programme materials or external communications give the impression that the study programme in question is (also) offered as a dual study programme or in a dual format. Descriptions such as “organized as a dual program,” “in the style of a dual program,” “dual study format,” or similar terms are also prohibited in this case.

No. Based on recommendations from the German Science Council, the states have deliberately distinguished between, on the one hand, study programme related cooperations with non-university institutions (§§ 9, 19 MRVO) and collaborations with companies/practical partners, such as within the framework of dual study programmes (§ 12, paras. 6, 7 MRVO).

In its report “Assessment and Recommendations on Study Programme Related Cooperations: Franchise, Validation, and Credit Transfer Models” (Drs. 5952-17), January 2017, on p. 9: “By definition, study programme related cooperation, joint, and multiple-degree study programmes, which lead to simultaneous degrees from two or more higher education institutions cooperating on an equal footing, as well as dual and part-time study formats in which subject-specific content is taught exclusively by the degree awarding institution itself.”

• Accordingly, Sections 9 and 19 of the MRVO do not apply to collaborations with practice partners, for example, within the framework of dual study programmes.

No, that is not strictly necessary. A distinction between a dual and a non-dual program can also be achieved if both groups of students take the same modules, for example, by having dual-track students complete assignments as part of their independent study and/or project work, term papers, or similar tasks intended as part of their examination requirements that address workplace-related or practice-reflective issues. However, this must be clearly stated in the program documentation.

No. That is not mandatory. Dual study programmes are characterized by a strong practical focus. It is common for students to work at partner companies on certain weekdays and/or during breaks from classes while pursuing their studies. This work is coordinated with the study programme in terms of timing, organization, and content, but is generally only partially integrated into the study programme and awarded credit points (see FAQs 22.11 and 21.12). During the accreditation process, care must be taken to ensure that the study programme remains feasible to complete even when such non-credit-bearing practical components are taken into account.

Part-time study programmes are so-called study programmes with a special profile. According to § 12(6) MRVO, study programmes with a special profile “have a coherent study programme concept that appropriately reflects the specific characteristics of the profile.” For the purposes of evaluation, this means, according to the explanatory notes to this section: “If a higher education institution advertises or identifies a study programme with specific features (e.g., […] part-time […]), these features are part of the study programme’s profile and are therefore also subject to evaluation. In such cases, the criteria listed in [§ 12], paragraphs 1 through 5, must be applied in light of the specific profile and from the respective specific perspective, and must be measured against the specific requirements to be defined by the respective higher education institutions.”

The use of the profile feature “part-time” is associated with the claim that a study programme in its entirety can be reconciled in terms of time and organization with a parallel professional activity. Whether the part-time study programme should be compatible with full-time or part-time employment and how this requirement is implemented in detail is essentially at the discretion of the higher education institution. The Accreditation Council expects this to be reviewed in the assessment process in relation to the individual study programme concept.

The Accreditation Council’s previous decision-making practice has resulted in fundamental considerations:

• Since the workload of a full-time degree program is designed to be equivalent to that of full-time employment, the Accreditation Council has established the principle “no full-time studies alongside full-time employment”—which was already in effect under the “old system”—as the sole generally binding criterion.
• This dictum can be taken into account in different ways:
  • A study programme advertised as “part-time” is often implemented as a structured part-time course. In some cases, this is only a structured version of a parallel full-time course.
  • If the higher education institution decides to offer a study programme advertised as part-time exclusively on a full-time basis or without a structured part-time option, it must be made clear to prospective students and students in a suitable form that full-time study is generally not compatible with parallel full-time employment. Ideally, the higher education institution will recommend how many hours per week working hours should be reduced in order to complete a degree within the standard period of study, or it will refer to the possibilities of individualized part-time study. Whether such recommendations are followed is at the discretion of the individual student. In the opinion of the Accreditation Council, an obligation of the higher education institution to ensure in individual cases that professional activity and / or the modules completed per semester as part of the degree course are reduced cannot be derived from the provisions of the interstate study accreditation treaty and the MRVO or the respective applicable state ordinance.
• The study organization and the didactic concept of the study programme must be tailored to the specific needs of the respective target group, for example through face-to-face teaching in the evening or at weekends, block teaching or e-learning elements. This means that Purely part-time study with an extended standard period of study does not sufficiently justify the profile feature “part-time”.
• The Accreditation Council expects that the workload, especially of the attendance phases, is made transparent to applicants and students in a suitable form.

Online study programmes are what are known as study programmes with a specialized profile. According to Section 12(6) of the MRVO, study programmes with a specialized profile “feature a coherent study programme concept that appropriately reflects the specific characteristics of the profile.”

The explanatory notes to Section 12(6) of the MRVO cite “virtual” as an example of a special profile characteristic. The reason the FAQ refers to the profile characteristic “online” or “online study programme” is that this term is more commonly used in practice and can be selected in the ELIAS master data as well as on the cover page of the accreditation report template. For more on the different terms and their usage, see FAQ 22.23.

The profile characteristic “online” or “online study programme” is not defined in greater detail in the MRVO. In the context of accreditation, this umbrella term encompasses forms of study in which the transfer of knowledge takes place entirely or partially virtually, at a physical distance. This can include both “traditional” distance learning programs with predominantly asynchronous communication between instructors and students, as well as hybrid formats with varying proportions of in-person attendance, online events equivalent to in-person instruction, and asynchronous forms of knowledge transfer. There is no standardized terminology for these hybrid forms: terms such as “online study,” “blended learning,” “hybrid,” “(semi)virtual,” “flipped classroom,” and the like may therefore be used with slight variations in meaning from one higher education institution to another. This is accepted in the accreditation process—provided that the use of these terms is not grossly misleading in individual cases.

The accreditation must clearly specify what exactly the higher education institution means by the term “online study” or by the terminology it uses in each specific case. This includes pedagogical and conceptual considerations. It must be established in a transparent and sufficiently binding manner which modules require in-person attendance and which modules are studied entirely or partially online (synchronous/asynchronous). This requirement is based on Section 12(6) in conjunction with Section 12(1), third sentence, and Section 12(5)(1) of the MRVO.

The higher education institution must have a counseling and support plan tailored to the specific needs of students who are not on campus or are rarely on campus, within the framework of which students receive regular feedback on their academic progress. This requirement is based on Section 12(6) in conjunction with Section 12(1), third sentence, of the MRVO.

If, in a specific case, teaching materials (e.g., digital study guides, lecture notes, or similar) are intended to serve as a central element of asynchronous learning, they should be documented and evaluated on a random basis during the accreditation process. In the case of conceptual or initial accreditations, at the time the accreditation decision is made, at least the teaching materials for the first academic year should be substantially available, and a clear timeline should be in place for their timely development for the remainder of the course of study. This requirement is based on Section 12(6) in conjunction with Section 12(1), first sentence, and (3) of the MRVO.

The accreditation must clearly demonstrate that the higher education institution has the technical infrastructure necessary for online study. If applicable in individual cases, the teaching/learning platform used to implement online study should be inspected during the on-site visit. This requirement is based on Section 12(6) in conjunction with Section 12(3) of the MRVO.

If students are not on campus at the higher education institution—or are there only rarely—the availability of literature given the physical distance is another factor relevant to the assessment of material resources (Section 12(3) MRVO).

The ongoing monitoring of academic success should also take the specific characteristics of online study into appropriate consideration. This requirement is based on Section 12(6) in conjunction with Section 14 of the MRVO.

Part-time study programmes are so-called study programmes with a special profile. According to Section 12(6) of the MRVO, study programmes with a special profile “feature a coherent study programme concept that appropriately reflects the specific characteristics of the profile.”

As a rule, the respective state higher education law sets forth specific provisions governing the structure of part-time study programs. These provisions are decisive for the design of part-time study programs.

From an accreditation perspective, there are two types of part-time study:

In the case of a structured part-time degree program—which is often a variation of a full-time degree program—a separate standard period of study for the part-time program, which is longer than that of the full-time program, is specified in the regulations. For part-time study, a specific study plan is included in the program documentation.

In the case of a customized part-time degree program, students may apply to study on a part-time basis for individual semesters, with the course of study for the part-time semesters determined on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, conditions under which a part-time semester may be completed (e.g., working a certain number of hours, caring for family members, or similar) are specified, as are upper limits on the maximum number of credit points that may be earned in a part-time semester. The standard duration of study is not affected by this individualized part-time program; however, as a rule, a semester completed on a part-time basis counts only as half a semester. Individualized part-time study is often interdisciplinary and is sometimes regulated university-wide in general regulations, framework examination regulations, or specific part-time study regulations. In program-specific study and examination regulations, individualized part-time study is often not covered at all. At some higher education institutions, the study and examination regulations must specify that the specific study programme is suitable for an individualized part-time programme.

The widespread phenomenon in which students are enrolled in a full-time program but, based on their own decision, do not devote the time intended for that program is not relevant to accreditation under § 12(6) of the MRVO.

Higher education institutions have the freedom to define and structure part-time degree programs within the framework of their respective state higher education laws. Contrary to rumors to the contrary, accreditation does not require that the standard duration of a full-time degree program be doubled for a structured part-time degree program.

During the accreditation process, special attention is paid to the feasibility of part-time study (Section 12(5) MRVO). This includes, in particular, ensuring that the framework conditions for part-time study are transparently and bindingly established in the program documentation. In the case of structured part-time study programs, a sample study plan serves as important evidence for assessing the feasibility of the program.