Audit of the University of Ljubljana

Title of publication

Audit of the University of Ljubljana

Authors

Marja Sutela, Lena Gumaelius, Damon Mohebbi, Attila Pausits, Marja-Leena Rinkineva, Mirella Nordblad & Mira Huusko.

University of Ljubljana self-assessment Marina Šućur, Vanja Perovšek, Maja Hosta (eds.)

The Higher Education Evaluation Committee’s decision

The University of Ljubljana passed the audit on 26 January 2024

The Quality Label is valid until 26 January 2030.

The audit team’s evaluation of evaluation areas I-III

I: HEI creates competence: good level

II: HEI promotes impact and renewal: good level

III: HEI enhances quality and well-being: good level

HEI as a learning organisation – evaluation area chosen by the university

Quality assurance of the joint educational offer

Theme and partner for benchlearning

Theme:  Quality assurance and joint programmes

Partner: EUTOPIA network

Key strengths and recommendations

Strengths

• The University of Ljubljana (UL) has good initiatives to enhance education, including institutional-, faculty- and academy-level projects.
• The UL is tightly connected with its surrounding society through various activities. Alumni and stakeholder engagement is strong.
• The quality system is linked to the implementation of the strategy at the levels of the university, faculties, academies, and services. Dedicated instruments, such as the institutional strategic plan and action plans, annual reporting, and self-assessments, ensure a systematic institutional approach to quality assurance and enhancement.
• The university has a clear strategic goal to increase internationalisation in educational provision, which is a prerequisite for developing joint educational offerings.

Recommendations

• Parallel structures at faculty and university levels for the enhancement of education cause unnecessary complexity. The university should ensure that actions are taken, and the quality loop is closed on institution-wide quality challenges, such as drop-outs.
• The UL should specify university-wide objectives for societal engagement and impact. These objectives should be linked to activities, monitoring, and the measurement of activities. Societal engagement should be more strongly linked to the university’s management system.
• The university’s fragmented structure challenges the effectiveness of the common quality system. The university should look for synergies in its existing structures, processes and responsibilities related to quality assurance and enhancement to overcome overlaps and to some extent inefficiency in its use of resources.
• The university should move from an individual approach to an institutionalised approach in joint study programmes. This would guarantee a solid common knowledge base, a platform for sharing experiences and good practices as well as common guidelines.