Course catalogues have become a standard feature across European higher education. They are widely available online, largely aligned with ECTS requirements, and embedded in institutional systems. On paper, they represent a clear success of the Bologna Process, offering a shared structure for academic transparency and recognition.
Yet, a closer look at how these catalogues function in practice tells a more nuanced story.
Findings from the DACEM survey of higher education staff across Europe reveal a consistent pattern: while course catalogues are structurally sound, they are not always designed with mobility in mind. Staff generally describe them as “adequate but improvable”, highlighting a gap between formal compliance and everyday usability.
One of the most notable strengths lies in the area of recognition. Information related to ECTS credits, grading systems, and credit transfer is widely available and relatively well understood across institutions. This provides a stable foundation for mobility, ensuring that academic recognition processes are supported by a common framework.
However, beyond this core function, limitations quickly emerge.
Where course catalogues fall short
A recurring issue is the quality and completeness of course-level information. While course titles and credit values are usually accessible, more detailed elements—such as learning outcomes, assessment methods, or workload expectations—are often missing or inconsistent. For staff supporting students, this creates uncertainty when preparing Learning Agreements and assessing academic fit.
Timing represents another structural challenge. Course catalogues are frequently updated too late in the academic cycle, sometimes only a few weeks before the semester begins. In some cases, course offerings may still change after students have finalised their Learning Agreements. This misalignment between institutional planning timelines and mobility processes introduces a level of instability that both staff and students must navigate.
Language also remains a significant barrier. Although many institutions offer courses in English, the corresponding catalogue information is not always fully translated. Partial translations, missing English descriptions, or limited filtering options make it difficult for incoming students to identify suitable courses and understand their content.
Even when information exists, accessing it is not always straightforward. Staff frequently point to usability issues, including complex navigation, weak search functions, and unclear structures. In many cases, relevant information is scattered across multiple platforms: course catalogues, faculty pages, international office websites, and additional documents such as PDFs or spreadsheets. Rather than a single point of reference, students and staff must piece together information from different sources.
This fragmentation is closely linked to how course catalogues are managed. Responsibility for updating information often lies with individual faculties or lecturers, while international offices act as intermediaries without direct control. As a result, maintaining consistency and timeliness becomes a shared challenge rather than a centrally coordinated process.
Interestingly, the survey also highlights a difference in perception between one’s own catalogue and those of partner institutions. Staff tend to view their own systems more favourably, while expressing greater caution when relying on external catalogues. This reflects a broader issue: mobility depends on trusting information produced elsewhere, yet that trust is not always fully established.
At the same time, the findings point to ongoing development. Many institutions report improvements, new systems, or gradual steps towards better integration and digitalisation. Examples of well-functioning catalogues show that clarity, completeness, and ease of use are achievable, even without complex technological solutions.
Overall, course catalogues are no longer a weak link in European higher education, but they are not yet fully equipped to serve as comprehensive mobility tools. Moving forward, greater alignment, improved interoperability, and a more user-centred approach will be key to bridging the gap between structure and practice.
For those interested in exploring the findings in greater depth, the full report offers a detailed analysis of staff perspectives across Europe, along with country-level insights and practical examples. Download it here.
To stay up to date with the latest developments, including upcoming publications and the project’s final event, subscribing to the DACEM mailing list is the best way to remain informed as the work progresses.
Cover photo by Maria Tyutina