Bulgaria has made strides in expanding and modernising its tertiary education system to better align with labour market demands. Today, tertiary education institutions (TEIs) enjoy significant autonomy, benefit from transparent, performance-based funding, and provide students with robust information to guide study choices. Tertiary attainment rates have risen and the research and innovation performance of TEIs has improved. However, attainment remains low among disadvantaged and ethnic minority populations, and there is scope to further modernise study programmes and teaching practices. This chapter outlines policy options to further strengthen Bulgaria’s tertiary education sector, starting with governance reforms – including institutional differentiation, strategic mergers or consortia, resource pooling, and increased accountability in internal institutional governance. It also explores how the Ministry can empower institutions to develop career policies that reward quality teaching, enhance data collection to better understand the student experience, and simplify applications and expand financial support for disadvantaged learners.
Education and Skills in Bulgaria
Abstract
In the decades since its transition to a market-based, parliamentary democracy, Bulgaria has renewed and strengthened its tertiary education system. It has steadily raised tertiary attainment, boosted the research and innovation performance of institutions, and worked hard to better align provision to labour market demands. Informed by European norms and international best practices, Bulgaria’s policy framework now accords significant intellectual and managerial autonomy to its tertiary education institutions, funds them through transparent and performance-focused budgeting, and provides learners with robust information with which to make study choices.
Nonetheless, important opportunities for improvement remain. While overall tertiary attainment rates have risen, they remain low among Bulgaria’s disadvantaged and ethnic minority populations. The country’s landscape of tertiary education institutions does not yet offer a mix of focused research excellence and high-quality professional education. And there is scope to modernise study programmes, embrace innovative pedagogical practices, and cultivate graduate capabilities that align with emerging skill demands. This chapter outlines policy options that Bulgaria might consider addressing these concerns and further improve its tertiary education sector. It does so while recognising the special challenge of designing and implementing policy in the current Bulgarian context, where governments have changed frequently, and trust between stakeholders is in short supply.
Section I: Provides an overview of Bulgaria’s tertiary education sector, focusing on international comparison of its policies.
Section II: Compares the sector’s performance with OECD benchmarks on international indicators.
Section III: Provides recommendations on how Bulgaria can learn from OECD policies and practices to further improve tertiary education.
Governance and structure of the tertiary education system
Public tertiary education institutions in Bulgaria vary widely in size and scope but have less differentiated roles and missions compared to many OECD systems
There is wide variation in the size, staff resources and breadth of offerings provided by Bulgaria’s 51 tertiary education institutions (TEIs). The Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, for example, has 20 133 students, 1 821 teaching staff, and 119 study programmes; while the Higher School of Civil Engineering “Lyuben Karavelov” comprises only 394 students, 38 instructors, and one accredited professional field (NEAA, 2023[1]). Viewed in total, the Bulgarian public tertiary education sector has a distinctively “long tail” of very small and specialised institutions, which often provide one to three programmes of study and undertake little research activity (Government of Bulgaria, 2023[2]).
Despite these differences in size and scope, there is little differentiation in the roles and missions of Bulgarian TEIs. Prior to legislative changes in 2021, Bulgaria’s Higher Education Act (HEA) recognised three types of TEIs, whether public or private: universities, specialised higher schools, and independent colleges (operating outside a university structure). All but three of Bulgaria’s 51 TEIs were either universities or specialised higher schools as of 2024. These institutions operate within the same institutional funding methodology for the public ones, academic career legislation, quality assurance regime, ranking system, and institutional governance framework. They are also authorised to award degrees from the bachelor’s (including professional bachelor of) to PhD level. This limited differentiation contrasts sharply with practices widespread in many OECD countries, where governments typically establish distinct institutional profiles for the missions of TEIs, the degrees they can award, and, often, their internal governance models, academic career structures, and public funding regimes. Many OECD governments use this planned differentiation to create tertiary education sectors that balance research and innovation excellence, high quality professionally-focused learning, and engagement in community and regional development, while offering learners diverse programmes and pedagogies (OECD, 2023[3]).
The Bulgarian Strategy for the Development of Higher Education, 2021-2030 has recognised the benefits of further differentiation for the quality, efficiency, and diversity of the country’s tertiary system, and raised the possibility of establishing further differentiation though granting the status of “research, educational, and professional higher education institutions with distinct characteristics” (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]). A significant step towards greater diversification was taken in 2021, with the establishment of a “research university” status. This status is based on a scientometric methodology focused on publications, citations, and patents, and is awarded for renewable four-year periods. By 2022, ten of Bulgaria’s public TEIs had been designated as research universities and were promised an additional EUR 6-15 million by 2030 to boost their research and innovation performance (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[5]).
Private institutions tend to have more focused offerings and a modest share of enrolments
Bulgaria’s private TEIs have a wider scope of legal autonomy than public institutions and depend upon private rather than public financing. In 2024, 13 of Bulgaria’s 51 TEIs were private, enrolling just over 11% of the country’s 196 608 tertiary students. As in many other tertiary education systems, their educational offerings are concentrated in study fields with relatively low costs of delivery (e.g. business, computing, and social sciences), and in bachelor’s and master’s-level instruction, rather than PhD training. Bulgaria’s private TEIs have shown a relative high capacity for innovation in education provision. For example, they were the first in Bulgaria to adopt the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and they have embraced flexible study modes and digitally enhanced teaching and learning more swiftly and fully than many of the country’s public TEIs.
Shorter, professionally focused programmes occupy a modest place in Bulgaria’s mix of tertiary educational provision, though efforts to expand their scope are underway
Teaching and learning in Bulgaria’s TEIs has traditionally been classroom-based and focused on the acquisition of theoretical knowledge within extended study programmes. The types of short cycle tertiary programmes (ISCED 5) that are increasingly prevalent in OECD countries are much less developed in Bulgaria and have not been adopted as part of the tertiary offer. Recognising this gap, Bulgaria has introduced several policies to develop more professionally focused and applied programmes. For example, in 2008, Bulgaria renamed its three-year (180 ECTS) “semi-higher education” or “specialist” degree to a “professional bachelor’s degree,” offered as an alternative to its four-year (240 ECTS) bachelor’s degree. However, the professional bachelor’s has struggled to gain a place in the mix of tertiary education provision. The share of students in Bulgaria enrolled in these programmes has slowly fallen over time, dropping to only 4.8% of all bachelor’s students in 2022-23 (NSI, 2024[6]). On average across OECD countries, around 19% of first-time entrants to tertiary education were enrolled in ISCED 5 programmes in 2022 (OECD, 2024[7]).
More recent efforts to enhance the professional orientation of programmes have proven more successful. Legal amendments to the HEA in 2018 granted Bulgarian TEIs more flexibility to engage practicing professionals in teaching and to engage students in work-based learning while in conventional study programmes. Such opportunities were previously limited in Bulgaria due to constraints in career policies and accreditation guidelines. Moreover, with the backing of European Structural Fund (ESF+), the competitive grant project “Modernisation of Higher Education” has funded grantees to collaborate with representatives of firms and professions to develop competency-based programmes. Bulgaria is also using ESF+ to offer state-reimbursed contracts to facilitate internships for tertiary education students (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]). While using competitive grant-based funding to promote professionally focused learning can be beneficial, this requires careful planning to ensure the scale and sustainability of initiatives.
A largely separate network of public research organisations creates further fragmentation and hampers efforts to build critical mass in research and innovation
Bulgaria has a distinctively large national network of 91 public research organisations (PROs). These are often grouped under umbrella “academies” that have distinct focus areas and funding sources. The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences is the largest umbrella research organisation, comprising 42 separate PROs that cover natural, biological, engineering, and social sciences etc. The Bulgarian Academy of Sciences receives funding directly from the stated budget after an Act adopted by the Bulgarian Parliament, whereas some specialised research centres are affiliated with line ministries. For example, the Agricultural Academy comprises 17 research institutions and receives funding from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry. Bulgaria’s PROs operate outside of the tertiary education system. However, both PROs and TEIs carry out research and educational activities, especially doctoral education. For example, the 42 research institutes affiliated to the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences collectively host 201 accredited doctoral programmes.
The overlapping responsibilities between research and TEIs create several inefficiencies. Notably, this arrangement contributes to a highly fragmented public research and innovation sector, making it difficult for Bulgaria to establish the capacity needed to perform research and innovation that meets international academic standards and attracts global research talent and investment. For example, Bulgarian public research and TEIs won only 2 European Research Council grants from 2012-22, compared to 57 in Czechia and 48 for Hungary’s researchers (European Commission, 2024[8]). Bulgaria is currently engaged with the European Commission in a Policy Support Facility to design and implement structural reforms to address this fragmentation and create a more coherent public research system (European Commission, 2024[9]).
Collaboration among TEIs (and with PROs) has been limited, but recent measures aim to promote efficiencies and raise the quality of teaching and research
One way to raise the efficiency and quality of teaching and research is to foster greater collaboration and consolidation among tertiary institutions (OECD, 2020[10]). Many OECD tertiary education systems, ranging from Finland to state systems in the United States, have made this a priority in recent decades, permitting them to better adapt to rising international competition and collaboration in the field of scientific research, and to make better use of public funds as student numbers diminish. Over the past two decades, international organisations and non-governmental organisations in Bulgaria have made repeated calls for intensified collaboration and mergers among Bulgarian TEIs, and between TEIs and PROs (OECD, 2004[11]) (European Commission, 2018[12]). Nonetheless, Bulgaria continues to maintain a large number of small and highly specialised research and tertiary education organisations. In 2022/23, 16 of Bulgaria’s 38 public TEIs enrolled fewer than 2 000 students (Government of Bulgaria, 2023[2]), and, together, its TEIs and public research centres maintained over 2 000 specialised doctoral programmes that enrolled about 6 500 students (NEAA, 2023[13]).
While Bulgaria has not merged TEIs, its 2021-30 Strategic Plan for the Development of Higher Education has made “shar[ing] common resources for teaching and research” a key priority for system development, and it has chosen to mobilise European Union (EU) funding to this end. In the research domain, for example, Bulgaria invested ESF+ (and matching national funds) of approximately EUR 200 million in six Centres of Excellence and 10 Centres of Competence to establish collaborative research and innovation in designated areas of national priority among universities, public research institutes, and firms. EU and national funding have also been set aside to support shared infrastructure for technology transfer and start-up incubation, including the Sofia Tech Park, a collaboration among five public universities in Sofia, and an Association of Science and Technology Parks in Bulgaria (Sofia Tech Park, 2023[14]).
The sharing of resources and capabilities in the sphere of teaching and learning has been far more limited than in the research domain. Bulgaria has not established system-wide resources that many OECD countries use, such as a national centre for teaching and learning, or a national body to support the acquisition and use of digital technologies by TEIs. Moreover, Bulgarian TEIs have not collaborated in developing and delivering shared study programmes, owing to restrictions on collaboration contained in degree legislation, accreditation guidelines, academic career policies, and public funding formulae. At the same time, there has been modest progress to encourage educational collaboration. Recent amendments to the HEA and revision of accreditation policies have provided limited authorisation for TEIs to jointly develop study programmes, share instructors, and award degrees. ESF funding through the “Modernisation of Higher Education Institutions” procedure also provided financial support to encourage these developments.
Bulgarian tertiary institutions have gained autonomy in many areas, but their institutional governance structures hinder its strategic use
Public TEIs in Bulgaria have gained more legal autonomy in recent decades, and in several areas now operate in a way similar to institutions in many OECD tertiary education systems. Within national guidelines, TEIs may set their own policies for student admissions and staff selection, promotion, and compensation. They also have discretion in how they allocate and manage public funds; can enter into partnerships with Bulgarian and foreign institutions; and can use their own resources to establish companies for the commercialisation of research results (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[5]). However, in certain spheres of operation – such as establishing or eliminating programmes, faculties, or satellite instructional sites –– they operate with less autonomy than is typical in many OECD countries. This is due to the legislation that sets the regulatory regime, including the Higher Education Map of Bulgaria, which tightly controls the offerings and enrolments of TEIs to achieve regional balance in provision and align with future labour market needs.
Although Bulgarian TEIs are endowed with significant legal autonomy, there are longstanding challenges with their internal governance and management structures. In particular, the composition and role of Academic Councils and the structure of the rector position reinforce findings from over a decade that Bulgarian “public TEIs are run primarily for the benefit of their faculty” (Bassett, Danchev and Salmi, 2013[15]). While all Bulgarian public TEIs are required to have certain bodies as part of their governance arrangements, only the Board of Trustees has membership external to the institution, five of whom are designated by the Rector, with the three remaining Trustees designated by the Minister of Education and Science, the Mayor of the Municipality in which the HEI is located, and by the Students’ Council. Although Boards of Trustees are to meet at least quarterly and adopt their own rules of operation, their set up contrasts to that of Boards in many other OECD countries, as Bulgarian Board of Trustees do not form a separate decision-making body. Instead, they participate as a small minority within the Academic Council of higher education institutions, the body with primary responsibility for overseeing an institution’s educational and scientific activities, as well as financial performance.
The management structures of Bulgarian TEIs involves limited accountability. Notably, the rector is elected by the General Assembly, a body comprised of all professors, associate professors and assistant professors who work under a basic employment relationship with the University, as well as representatives of students, postgraduate students, and employees. However, since this body is strongly guided by academic staff, rectors tend to be effectively accountable to university faculty rather than a broader scope of stakeholders. (Bassett, Danchev and Salmi, 2013[15]). Moreover, management experience is generally not a major consideration in rector appointments and once in the role, rectors have a modest number of supporting professional management staff and limited management information to support their work (Bassett, Danchev and Salmi, 2013[15]). This makes it difficult for some rectors to exercise strategic leadership in ways that align institutional resources – especially staffing levels, workloads, and salaries – with institutional missions. A consequence of this management structure is that many Bulgarian public TEIs lack robust capacity to form and act on a strategic vision for their institution.
Public governance of TEIs combines broad planning goals, performance-based steering, and highly detailed statutory and regulatory controls
Responsibility for the development and implementation of tertiary education policy in Bulgaria lies with Parliament, the Council of Ministers, and the Ministry of Education and Science (MES), as well as the National Evaluation and Accreditation Agency (NEAA), which functions as an independent agency under the Council of Ministers (see Chapter 2). As in many OECD countries, policy development in Bulgaria’s tertiary education sector is broadly informed by long-term plans, notably the Strategy for Development of Higher Education 2021-23 and the National Strategy for the Development of Scientific Research 2017-30 (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[5]). Though these strategic documents do not consistently guide national policy decisions, they are compulsory elements of Bulgaria’s collaboration with the European Commission in agreeing Operational Programmes for EU Structural and Investment Funds.
A distinct feature of public governance in the tertiary education sector is the tension that now exists between performance-based policy steering instruments and the tight legal controls over some aspects of the operation of TEIs. On one hand, Bulgaria has introduced a series of “light touch” performance-based policies that aim to encourage improvement through public metrics (e.g. on graduate labour market outcomes, publication outputs, or international collaborations), and associated rewards and penalties. The Bulgarian University Ranking System serves as a leading instrument to support these policies, by consolidating public data from different sources into a central web portal that compares and ranks the accredited professional fields within the TEIs. Among other things, the University Ranking System is being used to inform performance-based institutional funding and performance contracts agreed with TEI rectors.
At the same time, Bulgarian authorities continue to draft highly detailed decrees that exercise restrictive controls over some operations of TEIs. This control approach has been fuelled in part by legitimate concerns about the improper use of autonomy and risks of corruption throughout Bulgaria’s public sector. However, the continuation of control policies alongside Bulgaria’s lighter touch policy steering tools deeply circumscribes the operation of TEIs. For example, the initiation and expansion of study programmes is closely controlled though an elaborate methodology. Moreover, while Bulgaria’s “Act on the Development of the Academic Staff” initially liberalised and decentralised responsibility for the hiring and advancement of academic staff, national regulations were also adopted by decree, setting out detailed criteria, indicators, and weights on how TEIs structure hiring and promotion. Decrees implementing the Act, totalling 42 pages in length, specify for each of nine disciplinary groupings a set of minimum standards to be met for career advancement, each with corresponding indicators and point values. “Agrarian Sciences and Veterinary Medicine”, for example, has 26 indicators, focusing on publications and citations (10), dissertation and habilitation outputs (5), citations, management or participation in research projects (4), dissertation supervision (1), innovation outputs (patents and inventions) (2), and publication of textbooks or teaching aids (2) (Government of Bulgaria, 2019[16]). Imposing this level of standardisation and transparency seeks to prevent improper decisions on academic staffing policies (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]). However, it simultaneously undermines the intent of Bulgaria’s reforms to widen the autonomy of TEIs within a policy framework of performance-based steering.
The supply of study places in tertiary education is broadly equivalent to demand, but there is keen competition for places in some fields and surplus of places in others
Admission to tertiary education in Bulgaria is determined by the results of applicants in the state matriculation examination, the matura, as well as other examinations that institutions may choose to require. Entry into highly competitive programmes in regulated professions – such as medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy, and architecture – depends upon the results of programme‑specific entrance examinations set by universities and for which students commonly undertake private tutoring. Nearly all secondary school graduates who pass the matura have an opportunity to study at a public TEI if they wish. In academic year 2019/20, study places in public TEIs were available for 87% of those who passed the matura (but not limited to secondary education graduates), although nearly one in five of those places were for fee-paying students. However, aggregate supply does not ensure that the mix of programmes and locations at which they are offered fully responds to applicant preferences. A total of 3 729 study places remained vacant in 2019/20, most of which were approved for fee-paying students (World Bank, 2021[17]).
The process of gaining admission to tertiary education in Bulgaria has information and transaction costs that are substantially higher than in OECD countries with more co-ordinated admission regimes, such as Lithuania or the United Kingdom. These costs stem in part from the separate examinations used by Bulgarian institutions (rather than common system-wide examinations in the same study field), limited co-ordination in examination calendars, and the use of in-person (rather than remotely accessible) examinations. To mitigate inequalities in enrolment arising from differential access to private tutoring and burdensome admission procedures, and to widen access to selective study fields, private philanthropies have developed interventions – of limited scope – aimed at highly disadvantaged populations. The Trust for Social Achievement, for example, has offered intensive support for a small and highly selective annual cohort of 15-20 Roma students who aspire to enter competitive study programmes in Bulgarian universities, providing them with preparatory courses, ongoing performance assessment, personalised advice, and support with university application and registration (Trust for Social Achievement, 2024[18]). Over 2021-23, the Trust likewise provided more than 600 Roma students with financial support, assistance preparing for the matura and university entry exams, and career orientation.
Academic staff in tertiary education
Academic employment is more stable than in many OECD countries, but low pay and weak links between achievement and rewards make it harder to attract young staff
Compared to peers in many OECD member countries, academic staff in Bulgaria have a high level of employment stability. While there are some exceptions, nearly all full and associate professor teaching staff (94%) in public TEIs are employed under full-time contracts that provide indefinite employment (NSI, 2024[19]). Assistant professors hold fixed-term appointments. While only a small share of academic staff in Bulgaria faces job precarity, academic careers in the country are characterised by several other challenges, including a comparatively low and flat pay scale, a weak link between achievement and reward, and a distinctively old age profile. Among peer countries with available data, Bulgaria has one of largest shares of academic staff aged 50 and older (Eurostat, 2024[20]) (see Figure 5.2).
Wage data for academic staff in Bulgaria are not collected and published by MES. However, in January 2024, national legislation set the minimum salary for entry-level (“Assistant”) academic posts in public TEIs at 125% of the national average gross salary over the past 12 months (Dukovska, 2024[21]). Following a lecturers’ strike, the Council of Ministers raised the monthly starting salary from EUR 925.44 to EUR 1 073.71 in May 2024, and then to about EUR 1 287 in August (Petrova, 2024[22]). Compensation rises with rank, and non-governmental wage aggregation websites estimate the 2024 average salary for an associate professor to be EUR 2 497.06 per month (ERI, 2024[23]). These figures are lower than salaries for comparable academic ranks in many other EU countries. A study from 2013 estimated that academics in Bulgaria earned roughly 75% below the EU average (Torrisi, 2016[24]). While more recent comparative wage estimates of Bulgaria’s academic staff are unavailable, low salaries continue to be seen as one of the primary reasons academic careers in Bulgaria are not attractive to young scholars or accomplished researchers. In fact, Bulgarian early-stage researchers have in the past been among the most outwardly mobile in the EU (Soete et al., 2015[25]), and earlier programmes to encourage their return have been small in scope and unsuccessful.
Bulgarian policymakers have adopted policies meant to boost the attractiveness of academic careers and stimulate the revision of curriculum and pedagogical practices that are better adapted to new learner expectations, digital technologies, and emerging employer skill demands. For example, multi-year performance contracts between the Ministry of Education and Science (MES) and the rector of each public higher education institution typically contain scores of performance indicators, some of which focus on renewal of curriculum and pedagogy as well as the recruitment and advancement of academic staff. However, limited opportunities for advancement within the career structure and weakly differentiated compensation contribute to persistent difficulties in attracting young scholars. Once teaching staff achieve academic rank in a Bulgarian TEI, they may continue in their post unless subject to two consecutive negative attestations (NSI, 2024[19]). This generates low rates of turnover and few incentives for good performance, leaving few opportunities for younger staff to benefit from the contract stability their older colleagues enjoy. Moreover, while TEIs possess legal authority to “differentiate teachers' pay according to the results of their evaluation…in most places…seniority is more important than actual results and quality of teaching” (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]). This “disincentivizes innovation and quality enhancement on the part of those with most years of experience in the profession and discourages younger staff” (World Bank, 2021[17]). Bulgaria’s 2021-30 Strategy for the Development of Higher Education has identified “age transformation” (i.e. rejuvenation) of tertiary education staff as “an urgent and pressing requirement” (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]). However, Bulgaria’s relatively low levels of public spending on TEIs makes additional large investments in careers difficult, and the reluctance of institutions to develop performance-linked compensation limits confidence that funding rises would be used effectively.
Distribution of academic staff at education level by age groups, 2022
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of percentage of academic staff under 35 years old. The EU average includes all 27 member states of the EU as of 2020, after Brexit. The OECD-CEE average includes Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, and Slovak Republic, data for Czechia are not available.
Source: Eurostat (2024[20]), Distribution of academic staff at education level by age groups, https://doi.org/10.2908/EDUC_UOE_PERD02.
Funding of tertiary education
Per-student expenditure in tertiary education is substantially lower than the OECD average, though broadly typical of regional benchmarks
Bulgaria’s share of GDP spent on TEIs in 2021 was moderately lower than the OECD average, though typical of several Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries (see Figure 5.3). Given Bulgaria’s relatively modest GDP, this level of investment in tertiary education resulted in a per-student expenditure that was substantially lower than the OECD average, but also broadly similar to regional comparators (see Figure 5.3).
Total expenditure on tertiary institutions (public and private), 2021
Note: The OECD-EU average includes the 25 countries that are members or accession countries of both the EU and the OECD (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden). Countries are sorted in descending order of expenditure on tertiary education institutions.
Source: OECD (2024[7]), Education at a Glance 2024, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en; OECD (2024[26]), Distribution of government, private and non-domestic expenditure on educational institutions, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/f8 (accessed on 29 October 2024); OECD (2024[27]), Expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/f6 (accessed on 29 October 2024).
Tuition and fees are an important source of revenue for tertiary education, but student aid policies do little to offset their potentially inequitable impacts on disadvantaged learners
The share of private spending ranges from single digits in most Nordic systems to nearly half or more in OECD Anglophone and East Asian countries, with Bulgaria falling on the slightly higher end of this scale. In 2021, private spending on TEIs accounted for 35% of total spending in Bulgaria, which was a higher share than the OECD average (29%) and all other peer countries (OECD, 2024[26]). However, Bulgaria also had the smallest share of spending accounted for by non-household entities (1%), such as firms and foundations.
Most private expenditure on tertiary education in Bulgaria comes from tuition fees. As in other tertiary education systems, private TEIs in Bulgaria may set their own tuition fees. Public TEIs set tuition and fees within annual limits established by the Council of Ministers, which was EUR 1278 for full-time domestic BA students in 2022-23. Tuition fees, which vary by study field, may be waived by public tertiary institutions to encourage students to enrol in “protected specialties” or fields with labour market shortages. In 2022-23 a total 12,361 students were exempt from tuition fees, approximately 7 percent of its domestic students in public TEIs.
Student grant and loan policies to help learners meet the costs of study have been much less fully developed in Bulgaria than in many OECD countries. For example, fewer than 1% of tertiary education students in Bulgaria obtained loans to meet study and living costs in 2021/22. Need and merit-based grants are also available, but part-time students, those who enrol in non-state study places, or have insufficient grades or academic progress are ineligible. Partly as a result of these restrictions, only about 9% of full-time students received need-based grants and 15% of full-time students received merit-based grants in 2021/22 (European Commission, 2023[28]). Given the small proportion of students who receive need-based grants, international donors have provided hundreds of scholarships annually targeted to disadvantaged student populations (Trust for Social Achievement, n.d.[29]; Trust for Social Achievement, n.d.[30]).
Research and development funding in Bulgarian tertiary education is very low but there has been recent growth in capacity to secure external funding
The share of research and development (R&D) expenditure per tertiary student in Bulgaria is very low (see Figure 5.4). On average in OECD countries, R&D expenditure makes up 31% of expenditure on tertiary education institutions. In Bulgaria this share is only 4%, which translates to an estimated USD 531 on R&D per full-time student (PPP) (OECD, 2024[31]; OECD, 2024[27]). This level is well below other OECD-CEE tertiary education systems, which spend on average USD 3 788 on R&D per student. Bulgaria’s low levels of R&D spending in tertiary education not only reflect the limited national budget for R&D, but also the effects of having an extensive network of non-university research institutions that receive a share of overall R&D funding (see Figure 5.4). Positively, there has been substantial growth in Bulgaria’s capacity to secure external funding to support R&D. This is largely due to sustained technical assistance, the maturation of TEI capabilities for grant-seeking and the establishment of an independent executive agency to manage the allocation and implementation of EU funded projects in the education and science sectors. Research and innovation spending from national funds is significantly less than EU financial support, highlighting the need to plan for the sustainability of R&D investments at the end of the current EU programming period (2021-27).
Note: In Panel A, countries are sorted in descending order of Gross domestic expenditure on R&D (GERD) by business enterprise sector. In Panel B, countries are ranked in descending order of total expenditure on R&D in TEIs per FTE student. Total expenditure on R&D per FTE students in Romania was USD 29 PPP in 2021.
Source: Eurostat (2024[32]), GERD by sector of performance and fields of R&D, https://doi.org/10.2908/RD_E_GERDSC; OECD (2024[27]), Expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/lg (accessed on 29 October 2024).
The allocation of funding for the annual instructional budgets of public TEIs employs a methodology that is transparent, predictable, and largely viewed as fair
The MES provides annual funding to public TEIs in Bulgaria to support their instructional activities, as well textbooks and publication costs, student support, scientific and “artistic-creative activities”, and capital expenditures. In 2016, there was an important shift in the allocation of institutional funding from an input basis to a performance basis. This change aimed to address widely held concerns that Bulgaria’s enrolment-based funding model for public TEIs contributed to a proliferation of badly designed study programmes and an erosion of teaching and learning quality (Milenkova and Hristova, 2017[33]). Today, the methodology for funding public TEIs in Bulgaria considers three factors: (a) the number of study places awarded to the institution (by “state order”); (b) per-student funding levels for those study places, weighted by study field; and (c), a “comprehensive assessment” of the relevance and quality of the education offering. The latter is based on indicators contained in the Bulgarian University Ranking System, which focuses on the research outputs of programmes and institutions, as well as graduate labour market outcomes. By 2023, these “relevance and quality” factors accounted for 61.4% of the funding allocated to public institutions for their instructional activities (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[5]).
Overall, Bulgaria’s current funding methodology for public TEIs is uniform, transparent, based upon widely used data, and generates results that are seen to be predictable and fair. As Bulgarian society is marked by low levels of trust (Tilkidjiev, 2011[34]; Thürk and Bailer, 2023[35]) and public policymaking is shaped by concerns about corruption (see Chapter 2), this has been a key achievement. Nonetheless, there are two shortcomings to the current funding methodology. First, the scientometric-methodology used to determine institutional funding appears to skew resources too far towards STEM disciplines and the institutions in which they predominate, while disadvantaging humanities and arts, many social sciences, as well as new disciplines and interdisciplinary scholarship. A second shortcoming is the inattention paid to the distinctive needs of disadvantaged student populations. This is not necessarily uncommon: among 27 OECD countries participating in the OECD 2020 Higher Education Policy Survey, just seven indicated that their institutional funding formulas took account of student disadvantage (Golden, Troy and Weko, 2021[36]). However, Bulgaria’s core funding of public TEIs is based on enrolment numbers and an extensive set of performance metrics, none of which capture the needs of disadvantaged student populations. Rather, the funding methodology in Bulgaria slightly favours institutions that enrol students with outstanding “secondary education diploma GPA” results, few of whom may be from the most disadvantaged households (see Chapter 4).
Use of digital education technologies
Innovative use of blended, hybrid and fully online provision is emerging, but remains limited, especially in public TEIs
Bulgarian TEIs were able to ensure the continuity of studies during the COVID-19 pandemic by successfully pivoting to the emergency use of distance and hybrid learning (OSI-S Consortium, 2020[37]). However, digitally enhanced teaching and learning remain modestly used, evidenced in part by the limited scope of fully online and hybrid study offerings, particularly in public TEIs. In 2022/23, 5% of all tertiary education students in Bulgaria were enrolled in distance education programmes. This share was far higher in private TEIs (22%) than in public ones (4%). The modality of hybrid learning, which uses both distance and in-person learning, is not recorded in national data systems.
Key elements of a digitally enhanced learning infrastructure are also less fully developed in Bulgaria than in many OECD tertiary education systems. The sector has not formed a co-operative body to support the acquisition, use and evaluation of digital technologies. There is also no national centre to support the development and use of open education resources, nor a dedicated open university to support digitally enhanced distance learning. Cognisant of these limitations, Bulgarian policymakers have adopted a national policy framework for digitalisation, and a wide-ranging set of strategic objectives and activities for digitalisation in tertiary education, including “increasing significantly electronic distance learning programmes, improving and updating the curricula and platforms for electronic distance learning, digitalising content, and creating new interactive digital resources” (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]). These aims have been backed by investments in digitalisation of the curriculum and learning resources and digital training for academic staff, both in Bulgaria’s past (2014-20) and current (2021-27) ESF+ operational programmes.
System information and quality assurance
The structures, resourcing, and missions of bodies responsible for system-level data create information and analysis gaps that hamper further improvements in system performance
Unlike OECD countries of broadly similar scale, Bulgaria’s MES does not have a dedicated statistical unit with a strategic view of available data and that provides custom analysis. Rather, responsibilities for collecting and disseminating tertiary education data rests with:
The National Statistical Institute of Bulgaria, which has a whole-of-government remit for the collection and dissemination of data and hosts a modest body of education tables on tertiary students, staff, and institutions on its InfoStat website.
The National Centre for Information and Documentation (NACID), an agency under the MES that is responsible for maintaining a wide range of registries related to the staffing and research activities of TEIs, as well as other areas (Government of Bulgaria, n.d.[38]).
The Ministry of Education and Science (MES), which is responsible for the Bulgarian University Ranking System (BURS). With the support of the Open Society Institute Sofia and Sirma Group, it disseminates a wide range of data through the BURS to support learners in making study choices and inform public funding allocations to TEIs.
The structure, resourcing, and missions of these bodies hampers the capacity of policymakers and stakeholders to monitor – and possibly improve – system performance. For example, data capacity of Bulgaria related to managing system efficiency is limited. The Higher Education Map points to a tenfold difference in the ratio of lecturers to students among study fields (Government of Bulgaria, 2022[39]). There may be sound pedagogical or policy grounds for such wide variation in staffing levels among programmes. However, Bulgarian authorities have limited public data with which to analyse and evaluate resource allocation within and among TEIs, including staffing disparities. Moreover, while the Bulgarian University Ranking System has been used to inform performance-based institutional funding (for the state TEIs only), the use of rankings does not consider “the cost at which outputs were obtained” (Tochkov, Nenovsky and Tochkov, 2012[40]). As a result, the government is unable to reward public TEIs that manage their resources most efficiently (Tochkov, Nenovsky and Tochkov, 2012[40]). Few OECD tertiary education systems have system-level data that identify the true economic cost at which outputs are produced or use this to evaluate inefficiencies. However, several can use data on salaries and credit-based teaching loads by study field, study level, and institutions to compare instructional costs within and among TEIs (OECD, 2022[41]).
Another information and analysis gap relates to equity. Disaggregating rates of progression and completion by student characteristics (e.g. disability or low parental education) are important tools for monitoring equity in many OECD countries. Some also take student characteristics into account when reporting on graduate labour market outcomes. Bulgaria has made some recent progress in this area through its Erasmus+ SMART project, which is developing indicators that measure “the quality of the academic environment in relation to students from vulnerable groups,” and through reporting on the level of parental educational attainment of tertiary learners in 2024 the Bulgarian University Ranking System. However, these data are not currently used to disaggregate information on the progression and completion of tertiary students and their employment outcomes, nor to adjust the calculation of labour market outcomes important to institutional funding.
Finally, while Bulgaria has a suite of registries and access to labour market data that it can mobilise for policy analysis and evaluation, it has not made use of student surveys to monitor its tertiary education system. One recent exception is that Bulgaria is now obligating TEIs to administer course-based student surveys. However, unlike most EU countries, Bulgaria does not participate in the Eurostudent survey, which provides comparative insights into various aspects of students’ experiences, nor does it host a national survey of students, as tertiary systems in some OECD countries do. This results in the absence of systematic assessments of student learning experiences.
Bulgaria has developed an elaborate system of quality assurance and assessment that is undergoing reform
Over the past decade, Bulgaria has introduced a range of policy measures to improve the quality of teaching and learning in tertiary education. A central element of reforms involves changes to the quality assurance and assessment system. Bulgaria has an independent agency, the NEAA, which is responsible for evaluation, accreditation, and the external quality assurance in the tertiary education sector. However, the Agency takes on several responsibilities that sometimes fall outside the remit of accreditation agencies in many OECD countries. In particular, it has a heavy load of responsibility for reviewing proposals related to comparatively minor changes to programmes (e.g. TEIs seeking to reorganise or establish new programmes and opening specialties within the regulated professions). Partly as a result, the NEAA has had a limited focus on enhancement of teaching and learning quality (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]) and has been unable to take a broad and analytical view of institutional quality. This includes considering trends outside the Bulgarian system, which is common practice in many evaluation and quality assurance bodies in OECD systems.
As in many OECD tertiary education systems, Bulgaria’s NEAA institutional and programme accreditation decisions result in pass/fail outcomes. It also provides assessment scores that are publicised by TEIs and included as indicators in the Bulgarian University Ranking System. However, the NEAA’s procedures for accreditation and scoring have been the focus of recurrent criticism. TEIs find that accreditations are too numerous, too reliant on burdensome self-study and peer review processes, and are insufficiently objective. The NEAA’s procedures therefore fail to sufficiently balance the costs of accreditation compliance with the potential benefits for quality improvements. The MES also finds accreditation processes excessively burdensome, and that assessments fail to adequately distinguish among TEIs. For example, it was reported that almost all TEIs “were awarded an institutional [and programme] score of more than 9” out of 10. Moreover, the assessment procedures are seen as being vulnerable to inconsistency and favouritism (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]), as well as lacking potentially helpful international expert participation in the peer review process, which can help in maintaining independence and rigour.
In response to these criticisms, the NEAA has outlined three key reforms. While these are intended to reduce the burden and subjectivity of its accreditation and assessment procedures, they have limitations and carry important opportunity costs. Notably, none of the planned reforms include measures that focus on providing support and rewards to instructors. As a result, policies to enhance teaching and learning quality in Bulgarian TEIs will need to be supported outside of the process of accreditation. The NEAA’s key reforms include:
1. Aggregating programme accreditation scores to determine institutional scores. Programme scores will be weighted according to the number of students enrolled and the total number of students in the TEI to determine the institution-level score. This reform risks substantially diminishing the distinct institutional-level process of accreditation and contrasts with the trend in OECD countries, in which institutions are recognised to be responsible for the quality of programmes, and accreditation centres assess them on their capacity to meet this responsibility.
2. Introducing an indicator-based methodology. The NEAA plans to implement an initial set of 60 quantitative and 40 qualitative indicators on the quality of study programmes. These indicators are to be substantially based upon pre-populated data from the National Centre for Information and Documentation under the MES, diminishing the compliance burden of institutions. This indicator-based methodology aims to structure the work of reviewers in their application of accreditation criteria, reduce the subjectivity of their judgements, and increase trust in the comparability and reliability of accreditation. This approach diverges from an emerging pattern in OECD countries, best described as a risk-based approach to quality assurance, in which indicators identify patterns and problems as a basis for subsequently intervening with targeted qualitative assessments.
3. Introducing co-ordinated accreditation across all study programmes in the same field. This change will involve reviewing a total of 408 programmes in 52 study fields during a five-year cycle (2023-27) (NEAA, 2022[42]). In co-ordinating accreditation across an entire field of study, the NEAA aims to permit more fully comparable and reliable assessments, as well as create wider opportunities for peer learning. The benefits of comparability and peer learning could be substantial, but the administrative and logistical risks of this approach may be large considering the NEAA’s current resourcing levels.
Main reform priorities
Bulgaria has a wide-ranging and ambitious set of reforms focused largely on research and development, while support for equity and learners has received relatively limited policy attention
Bulgaria’s current reform strategy for tertiary education places a strong emphasis on improving R&D to enhance international competitiveness and industry partnerships. This approach is widely supported by government actors and tertiary institutions alike. There have also been significant investments in this area, largely drawing on EU funding, to support initiatives like collaborative research and innovation centres, technology transfer and start-up incubation. As noted, Bulgaria has also adopted policies to improve the efficiency and quality of tertiary education, including performance-based funding of public tertiary institutions, the Bulgarian University Ranking System, and reforms to the accreditation of tertiary institutions and programmes. While initiatives have sometimes prioritised performance-based steering of substantially autonomous TEIs, others have limited their autonomy in hiring and promotion, and in establishing and designing new study programmes.
Relative to policies that address research, quality, and efficiency in Bulgaria’s tertiary education sector, enhancing equity has not been a central focus of planning and policy, despite the low levels of tertiary attainment among students from disadvantaged backgrounds and ethnic minorities (see Chapter 2). While focused support for disadvantaged students and monitoring of their study trajectories is largely under-developed, initiatives to support a more learner-oriented and competency-based approach to tertiary education are emergent. Some study programmes have received competitive grant funding to spur digitally enhanced teaching and work-engaged learning, the scope and impact of which remains limited. However, collecting and using information about the experience of learners has received little attention from both policymakers and TEIs.
Access and participation
Tertiary education attainment has slowly risen, and current rates are typical of the region
In recent decades, the share of adults in Bulgaria who have obtained a tertiary qualification has risen. In 2023, 30.5% of working-age adults had completed tertiary education and this rate increases to just over one-third (35.8%) among 25-34 years-olds (OECD, 2024[43]). While Bulgaria’s tertiary attainment level is lower than the OECD average and EU policy targets, it is broadly typical of tertiary education systems in the CEE region, where rates of tertiary education attainment among young adults range from 22.5% in Romania to 46.3% in Poland (see Figure 5.5). Bulgaria also faces a shrinking age cohort and high emigration (see Chapter 2), which is contributing to decreasing enrolment and unused capacity in TEIs. In fact, the number of bachelor’s students decreased by 3.9% between 2018-22 (Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria, 2023[5]). This trend highlights the importance of ensuring that students who do enrol in Bulgarian TEIs are able to complete their programmes. However, aggregate data on drop out and study times in Bulgaria, which can help better understand of the progression and outcomes of tertiary students, are not publicly available.
Educational attainment of 25–34-year-olds, 2022
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of educational attainment of 25-34-year-olds.
Source: OECD (2024[43]), Adults’ educational attainment distribution, by age group and gender, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/lj (accessed on 29 October 2024).
Quality of programmes and outcomes
Many Bulgarian TEIs struggle to attract international students and retain domestic students
Compared to average rates of inward student mobility in the EU, Bulgaria’s tertiary education system is not highly attractive to international students at the bachelor’s or doctoral level. One exception is its medical, dental, and pharmacy programmes, which provide a well-regarded offer of price and quality to internationally mobile students at the master’s level (Mitchell, 2023[44]). Conversely, Bulgaria has a distinctively large proportion of domestic students who choose to undertake their higher education studies outside of Bulgaria. This share was about 11% in 2021, compared to an OECD average of 2% (OECD, 2024[7]). While students may seek to earn tertiary education degrees outside of Bulgaria, in part, to improve their prospects for access to other EU labour markets, this high rate of study abroad forms – and reflects – a popular perception within Bulgaria that the quality of tertiary learning lags that of other EU jurisdictions (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]).
Consistent policy focus on aligning tertiary education to Bulgaria’s skills demand has begun to show results, though some gaps persist
Available data suggest that Bulgaria’s policies to address skill mismatch (e.g. aligning the supply of publicly funded study places to labour market skill demands) are paying off. The employment rate among Bulgarian tertiary graduates is broadly similar to the OECD average (see Figure 5.6). Moreover, the share of tertiary graduates who were working in “positions requiring higher education” within five years after completing their studies increased from 46% to 61% between 2014-24, though this rate is substantially lower for graduates with bachelor’s degrees than for those with master’s degrees (BURS, 2024[45]). While exactly comparable OECD data are not available, Bulgaria’s patterns of graduate employment appear broadly comparable with other tertiary systems, such as the United States, where 48% of bachelor’s graduates enter into “graduate jobs” a year after graduation (Burning Glass Institute, 2024[46]). However, it is lower than the United Kingdom, where 60.4% of bachelor’s graduates aged 21-30 (i.e. comparatively recent graduates) were employed in “high-skill” jobs in 2023 (UK Government, 2024[47]).
Employment rates of recent graduates from tertiary education, 1-2 years, 3-4 and at least five years after graduation, 2022
Note: Countries are ranked in descending order of the employment rate of young adults for one to two years after completing tertiary education.
Source: OECD (2023[48]), Education at a Glance 2023 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7f76adc-en.
Other data on aggregate employment and earnings outcomes among Bulgaria’s tertiary education graduates also resemble those of OECD and peer countries. The earnings premium of Bulgarian tertiary graduates relative to upper secondary graduates is substantial, especially for master’s and PhD graduates. Among all adults, the earnings premium of tertiary graduates (72%) exceeds the OECD average (56%) (OECD, 2024[7]). Master’s and PhD holders in Bulgaria earn on average 82% more than upper secondary graduates, though less than the OECD average wage premium of 90% (OECD, 2024[7]). Across all age cohorts, the wage premium in Bulgaria has not diminished for more recent graduates, suggesting that the expansion of student and graduate numbers has not eroded the relative benefit of tertiary attainment.
The tertiary education system’s performance in generating high quality research and linking research to commercialisation and innovation has risen but remains limited
Bulgaria’s tertiary education system lags behind many of its peers in the quantity and quality of research outputs, partly due to its fragmented research system (see above) and very low investment levels (see Figure 5.4). One metric used to assess research capabilities and achievements is the h-index (i.e. the number (h) of scientific publications that have been cited more than h times). Over the period 1996‑2023, Bulgaria’s h-index – which includes citations from researchers in Bulgarian TEIs, public research organisations and firms – was lower than most OECD countries, but similar to some, including Lithuania and the Slovak Republic (see Figure 5.7). Co-ordinated policies to incentivise scientific publication through performance-based funding and EU investments have spurred a rise in scientific publications by Bulgarian researchers. For example, the quantity of Bulgarian Web of Science and Scopus publications more than doubled in 2018-22 compared to the period of 2013-17 (OSI-S Consortium, 2023[49]).
h-Index for each OECD and accession country, 1996-2023
Source: SCOPUS (n.d.[50]), SJR country ranking based on SCOPUS data, https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/data (accessed on 29 October 2024).
The translation of Bulgaria’s investments in scientific infrastructure and publication activity into commercial and innovation impacts remains limited. Licenses and startups resulting from Bulgaria’s public research organisations and TEIs “appear to be very low, though it is hard to say definitively due to lack of data” (Aridi et al., 2020[51]). Patenting activity on the part of Bulgarian TEIs and its public research organisations makes up a small share (17%) of the nation’s patent applications (Konstantinov, 2022[52]). The institutions participating in Bulgaria’s Centres of Competence and Centres of Excellence remain “strongly focused on scientific research excellence and less so on commercialisation, market orientation, innovation capacity-building, or self-sustainability” (European Commission, 2021[53]).
Equity
Social disadvantage is not mitigated by Bulgarian tertiary education
Educational inequalities that are present in Bulgaria’s tertiary education system begin early in life, persist through schooling, and show evidence of inter-generational transmission. National data on educational attainment among mothers and fathers of Bulgarian tertiary education students became available in 2024. These data show that “nearly 37% of students surveyed…stated that they come from families in which neither parent has higher than secondary education, and less than 2% say that they come from families in which the parents have only primary or lower education.” The data also revealed wide differences in social backgrounds by study field, with the most selective disciplines (e.g. medicine) disproportionately comprised of students from the most highly educated households (BURS, 2024[45]). Among the 47 countries in the European Higher Education Area with comparable data, only five had lower shares of tertiary students from households with low parental educational attainment than Bulgaria (World Bank, 2021[17]). Social inequalities observed in Bulgaria’s tertiary education sector are also compounded by other factors of disadvantage, notably ethnic and regional origin (see below).
The comparatively poor performance of its tertiary education system in mitigating social disadvantage is reflected in the modest attention given to narrowing educational disadvantages in Bulgaria’s tertiary education strategy, policies, and practices. Among the 160 measures Bulgaria identifies to implement its Strategy for the Development of Higher Education 2021-30, only one – “support preparatory courses for people from vulnerable groups” – focuses on disadvantaged learners. While ESF+ funds have been used to fund designated beneficiaries (non-governmental organisations) to carry out targeted and small-scale interventions in support of ethnic minorities, the principal national funding stream does not contain equity-focused financing criteria. Moreover, TEIs themselves do not commonly have mission statements or institutional strategies that prioritise widening opportunities for disadvantaged populations, nor dedicated institutional capacities that focus on outreach and providing targeted academic and social support to these populations.
Participation in tertiary education is marked by a large urban-rural gap
Bulgaria’s gap in tertiary attainment between urban and rural areas is much larger than the average among EU countries (see Figure 5.8). There are also gaps among regions within Bulgaria, with the tertiary attainment rate ranging from 21% in the Northwest region, one of poorest areas in the country, to 41.8% in the comparatively prosperous Southwest region, in which the capital city of Sofia is located (Eurostat, 2024[54]). Regional and rural gaps in tertiary participation are not only the result of difference in prosperity, but also result from differences in the physical accessibility of tertiary education. In 2023 10.4% of Bulgaria’s population lived in its Northwest region – one-third that of the Southwest region (Eurostat, 2024[55]). However, more than five times the number of tertiary institutions (28) were based in the Southwest (including Sofia), than in the Northwest region, which hosted only two TEIs and three affiliates (i.e. branch or satellite campuses). Of the 52 officially recognised fields of study in Bulgaria’s tertiary education system, students in the Southwest had 50 fields available to them, while learners in Northwest region had 13 fields of study available at local institutions (Government of Bulgaria, 2022[39]). Bulgaria’s Higher Education Map seeks to reduce these disparities by providing policymakers with detailed analysis to guide decisions about the opening, closure, and expansion of enrolment capacity in public TEIs. Adopted in 2021 and updated annually, the Map’s effects on the spatial distribution of tertiary instruction remain to be seen.
Tertiary attainment of 25–54-year-olds in rural areas, towns, and suburbs as a share of the attainment rate of the same cohort living in cities, 2023
Note: Countries are sorted in descending order of tertiary attainment in rural areas as a percentage of the attainment rate of the same cohort living in cities.
Source: Eurostat (2024[56]), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913.
Tertiary participation rates for Roma and Turkish minorities have risen
Similar to other levels of the education system, evidence suggests that Roma and self-identified Turkish communities are especially under-represented in Bulgaria’s tertiary education sector. Analysis of 2011 Bulgarian census data puts the Roma tertiary education attainment rate at 0.3%, and that of Bulgaria’s Turkish population at 4.1% (Imdorf et al., 2022[57]). However, nationally representative survey data from 2019 indicate that tertiary education attainment among Roma 21-25-year-olds had reached 5.4% – a marked gain when compared to the 46 to 50-year-old age cohort in the survey, whose reported rate of tertiary attainment was 1.9% (Trust for Social Achievement, 2020[58]). These results suggest that the level of tertiary attainment among young Roma adults in Bulgaria may exceed that found in other European education systems, which typically range between 1% and 4% (Rutigliano, 2020[59]).
Good governance: Strengthening tertiary education governance at the system and institutional levels to improve quality, efficiency, and equity
Bulgaria faces tertiary education governance challenges at the system and institution levels. There is limited diversity in the types of tertiary education provided and institutional capabilities are fragmented, hindering the creation of regionally and internationally competitive centres of excellence. To address these challenges, Bulgaria will need to consider system-level governance reforms that yield a consolidated TEI network with greater inter-institutional differentiation. While this would lead to fewer institutions, the remaining institutions would be better able to scale capacity and carry out their research, innovation, and professional education missions at a good level of quality. For TEIs to seize opportunities for increased collaboration and consolidation, their internal governance will need to be significantly strengthened. In particular, the Boards of Trustees need stronger capacity to enable institutions to take strategic decisions and implement policies that reflect the needs of the entire institution and the communities it serves.
Recommendation 5.1: Initiate system-level governance reforms to improve the quality and efficiency of the tertiary education system
Bulgaria’s current policy framework for tertiary education has created a system that is not yet sufficiently diversified to meet the needs of learners or the economy. Academics and institutional leaders are strongly incentivised to pursue a “scientific” mission, while rewards for engaging in work-engaged professional education, applied research, and regional development are few. Evidence from OECD countries suggests that a focus on these latter aspects is an important feature of successful tertiary education systems. Professionally oriented tertiary options are particularly crucial as the proportion of the population participating in tertiary education increases. The current situation in Bulgaria leads to an overly broad dispersion of doctoral education across TEIs, and a much more limited offer of professionally-focused programmes than is typically found in OECD systems. Bulgaria recognises these challenges and the importance of creating a new tertiary education sector that provides “differences [i.e. different policies] with respect to the requirements, funding, accreditation, training organisation, scientific research, management, and other...activities” (Government of Bulgaria, 2021[4]). Drawing on experience from OECD countries, Bulgaria could consider a set of complementary system-level governance reforms to pursue these aims. Broadly, these reforms include improving differentiation among institutions; developing a framework to better focus responsibility for doctoral education; expanding collaboration among institutions; raising the quality and efficiency of tertiary education through merger or consortia and creating shared resources to support the common needs of all institutions.
Improving institutional differentiation through the creation of applied science universities
Differentiating institutional missions enables each institution to focus on its strengths, which can contribute to higher levels of quality and accommodate the varying needs and demands of learners (OECD, 2019[60]). In Bulgaria, differentiating the roles and missions of public TEIs can help make more efficient use of scare resources to boost research performance and develop alternative educational pathways. One way for Bulgaria to achieve institutional differentiation is by establishing “universities of applied science” that focus on practice-based pedagogies, offer greater flexibility in scheduling, and provide continued education for vocational learners. This policy could build on Bulgaria’s existing efforts to establish professional bachelor’s programmes and promote more competency-focused and work-engaged learning that is more practice based. OECD countries, such as Finland, Germany, Portugal, and the Netherlands offer successful examples of policies that support both professionally oriented tertiary education and excellence in research and innovation. Strategies that well-diversified tertiary education systems have used to differentiate institutions include:
Eligibility criteria for the appointment of academics that recognises professional expertise gained outside of academia. While Bulgaria has already introduced some flexibility in the selection of instructors, introducing advancement criteria that rewards achievements in teaching excellence, applied and practice-oriented research and innovation, and regional engagement can help transition to an academic career system in which habilitation (i.e. a post-doctoral qualification) is not a prerequisite for permanent employment. German universities of applied science have taken this approach (University of Jena, n.d.[61]).
Differentiated career pathways for academics, in which they may opt for career profiles that focus on external engagement with professional communities of practice. One such example is found in the Austrian universities of applied science.
Academic workload policies that recognise the development and supervision of work-integrated learning (Bilgin, Rowe and Clark, 2024[62]), and support the mobility of instructors to move between the private sector and public bodies. One example could involve allowing working professionals with expertise in relevant fields to serve as instructors. This approach has been used in applied science universities elsewhere in the OECD.
Development of applied and practice-oriented research and innovation funding streams. Some examples include the funding for “use-inspired” research available to Swiss universities of applied science and universities of teacher education (SNSF, n.d.[63]), and Portugal’s Polytechnic Modernisation and Valorisation Programme (OECD, 2019[60]).
Differentiated institutional funding and steering models for research and professionally-focused institutions, which adapt funding to the distinctive missions of institutions, such as those developed for Finnish universities of applied science (OECD, 2023[64]).
Student information portals that equally feature study options in professional and research institutions, such as the Netherlands’ Study Choice 1,2,3 (National Centre for Study Choice, n.d.[65]) or give weight to performance measures adapted to the mission of professional education.
Developing a framework to better focus responsibility for doctoral education
Bulgaria could also differentiate TEIs by concentrating responsibilities for doctoral education. While there has been some recent progress in concentrating research capacity in certain institutions, the provision of doctoral education remains widely distributed. Moreover, some public TEIs that provide doctoral education rarely undertake published research activity (as measured in Web of Science) (Government of Bulgaria, 2023[2]). International best practice and research evidence suggest that high quality doctoral education is based on research-led teaching and mentorship, and ample physical and human resources that not all TEIs can provide. While Bulgaria already has some policy tools to help steer the supply of doctoral studies (e.g. the NEAA evaluates and accredits doctoral programmes and the MES, based on the TEIs’ requests and a certain formula, sets the number of doctoral study places in public TEIs), these policies do not effectively distribute responsibility for doctoral education among TEIs. As a result, the number of specialised doctoral programmes in Bulgaria has multiplied.
As part of a broader review to differentiate the tertiary education landscape, Bulgarian officials and stakeholders could develop a framework for the provision of doctoral education. This framework could set out guiding principles to help re-focus doctoral education in the country. In turn, these framework and principles could inform statutory and accreditation reforms that more rigorously align institutional capacity and the performance of research activity to doctoral education. Ireland, for example, has developed a National Framework for Doctoral Education, which sets out nine core principles that aim to raise the standards of graduate education and research (HEA, 2017[66]) (see Box 5.2). Articulating this type of policy framework for doctoral education in Bulgaria could help achieve efficiencies and raise the quality of doctoral programmes, while also helping to further align institutional profiles and strategy.
Ireland’s National Framework for Doctoral Education sets out principles to guide and standardise doctoral training and research across the country. It commits universities and research institutes to a shared vision of high-quality graduate education that emphasises rigorous engagement with research, structured supervision, and a commitment to international best practices. Ireland’s framework highlights key elements Bulgaria could consider as it explores ways to focus responsibility for doctoral education.
Principles of Ireland’s National Framework for Doctoral Education
1. To be awarded a doctoral degree, the candidate must have made an original contribution to knowledge.
2. The doctoral thesis must be of publishable quality and can be presented in a variety of formats.
3. Doctoral education builds deep knowledge of the field and expertise in research methods.
4. Doctoral education is conducted in a learning community where sufficient critical mass of internationally recognised research activity exists to allow students to gain access to a training programme of appropriate breadth and to interact with peers engaged in their field.
5. The framework allows flexibility to support students within individual disciplines or within interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary groups.
6. Doctoral education is conducted in a research environment with a high degree of academic quality and infrastructure and where it is consistent with institutional strategies.
7. The admission of doctoral students considers preparedness of the applicant, the availability of qualified, competent, and accessible supervision and the resources needed for the research.
8. Doctoral studies follow structured oversight, including supervision (normally with a supporting panel), formal monitoring of progress to completion against published criteria, and a clearly defined examination process.
9. A robust quality assurance system underpins all doctoral provision.
Source: Higher Education Authority (2017[66]), National Framework for Doctoral Education, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/04 /national_ framework_for_doctoral_education_0.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2024).
Expanding collaboration among institutions to develop and deliver joint programmes
Bulgarian TEIs have been increasing collaboration in research, but collaboration in the development and delivery of academic degree programmes to pool expertise and enhance quality has been effectively absent. Until recently, this has largely been because of legal constraints, such as the inability to establish joint degree programmes and share instructors. Bulgaria is now taking steps to address these challenges – for example, by changing accreditation guidelines and using EU grants to encourage institutions to partner in their respective areas of excellence. However, while a small number of jointly developed study programmes have been established, they have not been scaled or, in many cases, sustained past their pilot phase. Academics engaged in joint course development and teaching across institutions also face impediments to continued collaboration. For example, Bulgaria does not yet have a simple basis for sharing (and protecting) intellectual property in jointly developed courses. To address practical barriers and further expand collaboration in the provision of joint study programmes among TEIs, Bulgaria could consider:
Further simplifying legal restrictions on collaboration. The tertiary education systems of many OECD countries, such as Spain and the Netherlands, have provided universities with wide scope for the development of joint degree programmes at bachelor’s, master’s, and PhD level. These models can provide options for Bulgaria to further revise statutory and quality assurance criteria to better support the expansion of joint study programmes.
Removing uncertainty about intellectual property in joint programmes. This policy change could encourage continued collaboration among academics working across institutions.
Reviewing the institutional funding model. Bulgaria could review the advisability of providing a parameter in the current institutional funding model to reward institutions that offer joint study programmes. This revision could potentially encourage further adoption of joint programmes.
Raising the quality and efficiency of tertiary education through mergers or consortia
Given the modest share of public resources available to Bulgaria’s tertiary education system and its large number of small public institutions, there have been intermittent discussions about institutional mergers in recent decades. While Bulgarian TEIs have generally been resistant to these proposals, voluntary and targeted mergers of TEIs should remain under consideration, particularly in light of demographic trends. A number of OECD countries have pursued vigorous programmes of institutional consolidation in tertiary education, including Norway (Frølich and Stensaker, 2021[67]) and Finland (European Commission, 2016[68]). Elsewhere, as in Estonia, public research institutes have been incorporated into public research universities through mergers (European Commission, 2019[69]). These types of consolidation policies ultimately help countries capitalise on the complementary capabilities and profiles of different institutions, yielding gains in the quality of teaching and research and the efficiency with which it is undertaken (OECD, 2020[10]).
An alternative policy Bulgaria could consider is to form consortia among institutions. Some OECD countries have found this approach to have similar benefits to mergers while allowing distinct institutional identities and histories to continue. The Netherlands, for example, has formed consortia to collaborate in both undergraduate and doctoral study programmes, as well as in similar study fields. Countries may also organise consortia among adjacent institutions with complementary capabilities. For example, in Austria, two separate universities in Graz have established a jointly governed and managed entity that organises collaboration in natural science research and teaching. This collaboration has not only provided benefits to students, but also academics, who enjoy wider opportunities for interdisciplinarity in their teaching and research responsibilities (NAWI Graz, 2024[70]). The clustering of public TEIs in the Sofia area could facilitate the adoption of consortia arrangements in Bulgaria.
The creation of both mergers and consortia will require legal and funding reforms to realise their potential benefits. Taking an incentive-based approach to these policies would allow proposals to be prepared by TEIs themselves, based on their own assessment of readiness for integration or collaboration, and allow public authorities to financially support them to do so as resources allow (Williams, 2017[71]). Ireland, for example, carried out a voluntary merger process using a public “transformation fund” (see Box 5.3). The availability of EU funding provides an opportunity for Bulgaria to pursue merger or consolidation policies among public TEIs. Latvia used EU funding to provide consolidation grants (see Box 5.3), which could serve as a model for Bulgaria to develop its own process (Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia, 2021[72]).
The Irish Government created a transformation fund to support mergers among TEIs
The Irish Government initiated a substantial transformation of its tertiary education landscape through the merger of 14 Institutes of Technology (IOTs) into 5 Technological Universities (TUs). This strategic move aims to enhance the quality, accessibility, and international competitiveness of Irish higher education by creating more robust institutions that can offer diverse educational pathways, foster innovation, and better support regional development. The government encouraged the mergers by making them a national priority in its development plan for higher education and promulgating a Technological Universities Act to provide a legal framework for the integration of institutions. IOTs were invited to form consortia and submit detailed merger proposals and were provided with substantial funding to support the mergers through the Technological University Transformation Fund, and (following the mergers) the Technological Sector Advancement Fund which supported the strategic development of the new sector.
Latvia has leveraged EU support to help consolidate TEIs.
Considering demographic change, and to further strengthen the sector, Latvia has been using EU funds to support TEI consolidation. The Ministry of Science and Education promulgated a new law in 2021 which overhauled governance of the sector, developed a new typology of public TEIs according to their missions and activities and strengthened their internal management structure. A consolidation of higher education institutions and education programmes is also underway, supported by the European Social Fund (ESF) and Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF). ESF funds have supported about 20 institution-level initiatives to strengthen governance and leadership skills for managers in institutions, improve capacity for strategic development, and reduce the overall number of education programmes. In the case of RRF Funding, individual institutions must prepare for the approval of the Ministry of Education a costed consolidation plan, along with a request for the consolidation grant. Concurrently, there has been a continuous series of mergers of TEIs, leading to an eventual position, as of 2024, of Latvia reducing its number of public TEIs to 15, compared to about 35 public TEIs in 2004.
Source: Williams (2017[71]), Collaboration, alliance, and merger among higher education institutions, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf14d4b5-en. Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia (2021[72]), Konkurētspējīga augstākā izglītība un pētniecība ir reģiona izaugsmes garants [Competitive higher education and research are the guarantors of the region's growth], https://www.izm.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/konkuretspejiga-augstaka-izglitiba-un-petnieciba-ir-regiona-izaugsmes-garants (accessed on 5 November 2024).
Creating shared resources to support the common needs of all institutions
Regardless of scale or mission, TEIs have several shared needs. These range from the acquisition of learning management systems to the provision of professional development for their instructors and the development of legal and ethical guidance on the use of artificial intelligence in teaching and research. In many OECD tertiary education systems, institutions have access to shared resources that are often developed with public investment on the basis that this approach is more efficient and leads to a higher level of quality. These pooled capabilities are provided in a variety of organisational forms that stand outside of line ministries and are adapted to national contexts. Examples include membership bodies (e.g. the German Rectors Conference, HRK), co-operatives (e.g. SURF in the Netherlands), state-subsidised public charities (e.g. JISC, in the United Kingdom), and independent state agencies (e.g. the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in Ireland). Often shared capabilities augment and raise awareness of activities already taking place in some institutions.
While Bulgaria has committed to developing shared research infrastructure (e.g. through its Centres of Excellence and Competence), few shared resources are available to support the educational and business service needs of TEIs. Moreover, the programme-based approach of allocating EU funding has allowed some TEIs to procure goods and services, but these are limited in scope and the approach is a missed opportunity to achieve economies of scale. Bulgaria could consult with stakeholders from across the tertiary education system to identify key priority areas for the development of shared resources. Bulgaria could then engage with OECD countries to identify funding and governance models used to develop shared capacities in these areas that can be adapted to its own national context.
Recommendation 5.2: Make the internal governance of public tertiary education institutions more accountable to the communities they serve
Bulgaria aims to give public TEIs more autonomy. Achieving this goal while maintaining accountability will require strengthening the internal governance and capacities of TEIs. At present, there is limited external representation among the governance bodies of Bulgarian public TEIs. One exception is the Board of Trustees; however, this Board has a limited role in making strategic decisions about institutional resources and missions. Many OECD tertiary education systems have revised national legislation to require internal governing bodies containing members drawn from outside the institution to play a role in approving institutional budgets, leadership, mission statements and other long-term strategy documents. Finland and Portugal, for example, have made legislative changes to public TEI governance in attempts to strike a careful balance between autonomy and responsibility, while making choices that reflect the distinctive challenges facing their system and national legal traditions (OECD, 2021[73]) Bulgaria could consider strengthening the role of its Board of Trustees to help balance its traditional policy approach of regulatory control with current reforms to grant TEIs greater autonomy.
Building the capacity of Boards of Trustees to serve as a voice of public interest
The Boards of Trustees in Bulgarian public TEIs need stronger capacity to serve their role as “a voice of public interest” in the governance of their institutions. The Slovak Republic (see Box 5.4), offers a useful model for Bulgaria to consider in reviewing the design of institutional governance that is currently set out in national legislation. Some key considerations to build the capacity of Broads of Trustees include:
Adopting legal language that precisely outlines the independent authority and responsibilities of Boards, as distinct from the Academic Council. This is important to mitigate the risk that they will overstep their scope of authority – or, conversely, have no role in steering the institution.
Balancing responsibility for the designation of Board members among local public bodies, civil society organisations, TEI bodies (e.g. Academic Council), and the central government. Staggered terms of service can also be adopted to ensure that Board membership is not linked too closely to changes of government.
Training and networking for Board members, to aid them in remaining abreast of policy developments, which they can share with one another as a network of responsible trustees.
Prior to 2022, the Higher Education Act of the Slovak Republic required HEIs to establish a Board of Trustees of 14 members. Six were to be nominated by the rector after approval from the academic senate, six nominated by the Minister of Education after consultation with the rector, one member nominated by staff representatives to the institution’s academic senate, and one member nominated by student membership of the academic senate. The Boards of Trustees (BoT) served in an advisory rather than governing role. The BoTs were originally created following the transformation of state HEIs into public HEIs in 2003, in which state property was transferred to public HEIs. Boards were principally tasked with overseeing the management and acquisition of the institution’s property. Boards were responsible for approving the annual consolidated budget of the HEI after its adoption by the academic senate. They were also to be “consulted” in the development of the institution’s long-term strategic plan, and to approve the salary of the rector.
Revisions to the Slovak Higher Education Act adopted in 2022 changed board membership and selection procedures, as well as board responsibilities. Under the revised Act, one-half of trustees are nominated by public bodies and civil society organisations, among them employers’ representatives, research institutions, regional and local governments, cultural institutions and, in case of religious HEI, church/religious organisations. Nominations are shared with universities bodies to permit consultation, and subsequently chosen by the Ministry of Education, Research, Development and Youth. Half of trustees, among them one student, are nominated by the higher education institution’s academic senate, announced to the government to permit consultation, and subsequently selected by the senate. Additionally, boards contain an odd number of members, with a final trustee agreed by the designated trustees.
Boards of Trustees were authorised by the revised Higher Education Act to join the Academic Senate in the selection of the rector, to provide final approval to their institution’s strategic plan (after Academic Senate and Rector approval), and to approve both the institution’s annual budget, and the allocation within the institution. To aid Boards in exercising their expanded responsibilities, the 2022 legislation directed HEIs to cover expenses related to organisation and administration of BoT, permitting them to establish a secretariat. The Ministry also created a platform, AGORA, to permit networking among Boards of Trustees across the higher education system, and the sharing of information on higher education policy developments.
Source: National Council of the Slovak Republic (2022[74]), Government Bill amending and supplementing Act No. 131/2002, nrsr.sk/web/Dynamic/DocumentPreview.aspx?DocID=505388. (accessed on 22 January 2025).
Quality of programmes and outcomes: Expand institutional responsibility for academic careers and strengthen incentives for innovation and excellence in teaching
Bulgarian authorities have made a sustained and comprehensive commitment to raising the quality and relevance of teaching and learning in tertiary education. Key policy developments include revised guidelines for evaluating and accrediting TEIs and their study programmes, expanded national standards regulating the hiring and promotion of academic staff, and the establishment of National Map of Higher Education that links the establishment and expansion of units and study programmes to regional and labour market needs. To complement these regulatory measures, Bulgaria has used a mix of state and EU funding to support curriculum modernisation, “competency-based” education, wider digitalisation, and instructor professional development. Together, this mix of initiatives is believed to be contributing to gains in the quality and relevance of tertiary education in Bulgaria, as measured by improved graduate employment outcomes.
However, there remains substantial scope to further improve the quality of teaching and learning in Bulgarian TEIs. Instructional staff in Bulgaria are older and more modestly compensated than peers in the OECD and other EU countries. They also work within a career system that prioritises research and publication over excellence and innovation in teaching. Moreover, many public TEIs in Bulgaria have not fully realised the possibilities of digitally enhanced and competency-based learning that is informed by labour market skills demands. Together, these features contribute to the continuous flow of students who choose to pursue tertiary education outside Bulgaria. To address these challenges and make further progress in raising the quality of teaching and learning, Bulgaria could consider broad sets of policies. These include giving institutions more responsibility to hire and promote staff and design instructional programmes, providing stronger steering and incentives for teaching excellence, and collecting information about the student learning experience more systematically. Such policies have been effective in raising the quality of tertiary education in many OECD countries.
Recommendation 5.3: Empower and reward institutional responsibility for career policies that focus on high quality teaching
In OECD countries, recruiting well-trained instructors and establishing career pathways in which excellent teaching is recognised and rewarded provide the foundations of tertiary education quality. Bulgaria has chosen to implement ranking and funding initiatives that more strongly prioritise publication outputs than high quality teaching. Moreover, it has adopted regulations governing the hiring and advancement of instructors that has limited the scope of TEIs to create their own policies for selection and promotion. While Bulgarian TEIs can, in principle, augment national hiring and promotion guidelines with their own criteria, many have not used this flexibility to formulate local career policies that align with their institutional mission and profile, nor have they prioritised teaching excellence. This is due, in part, to the absence of a positive and coherent framework of teaching excellence that could guide and inform public TEIs in the development of their own hiring and promotion policies. The Bulgarian government could consider revising national regulation of academic careers and its funding of public TEIs to empower and reward institutions for placing a stronger focus on teaching and learning quality in their hiring and promotion policies.
Empowering institutions to develop innovative career policies that incentivise curriculum and pedagogical innovation, and high-quality teaching
Bulgaria could provide TEIs with wider opportunity to formulate and implement their own policies for the hiring and promotion of instructors. This would best be done through a framework of “structured and conditional autonomy”, in which institutional autonomy would be exercised within government guidance setting out principles of teaching excellence, and rules ensuring transparency and due process, rather than a highly detailed scheme of regulations and indicators.
Inviting higher education institutions to collectively formulate a framework for teaching excellence, drawing upon and adapting international experience, such as The Career Framework for University (Career Framework for University Teaching, 2024[75]). Teaching. First developed for the Royal Academy of Engineering (United Kingdomch), the Framework is based upon extensive research, expert consultation, and testing in 15 partner universities in 12 countries.
Amending legislation and decrees on academic staff to establish a minimum set of rules that ensure transparency and due process in decisions about hiring and promotion.
Authorising institutions to propose their own policies for the hiring and promotion of academic staff, and the diversity of career pathways available to their academic staff. Proposals would be developed with reference to the national framework of teaching excellence and conform to rules ensuring transparency and due process. They would be formulated following broad consultation, approved by the institution’s Board of Trustees, and linked to the institution’s role and profile within the national tertiary system. This could mean, for example, that institutions could establish a career pathway in which professional expertise and practice – in addition to advanced academic training – would be prioritised in hiring, and in which close collaboration with regional enterprises and innovative uses of work-based learning in the design of study programmes would figure importantly in promotion. Alternatively, Bulgarian TEIs might develop differentiated career pathways, such as those created by institutions in Germany and Scotland (United Kingdom). These career pathways might prioritise institutional missions, such as teaching or external engagement, or offer distinct professional ranks that differ from the traditional academic career paths (see Box 5.5).
Creating a review and approval process for proposed institutional policies on hiring and promotion. This process could permit institutions with approved proposals to implement their own career policies. Review could be undertaken by an impartial and expert body, drawing upon experience with the reform of career policies across the European Higher Education Area and OECD countries, including non-governmental initiatives, such as the Advancing Teaching Initiative. The review panel could also provide guidance to institutions seeking authorisation, identifying considerations to be addressed in their proposed policies.
Continuing authorisation for institutions once the new policy is fully implemented. This could be done by intermittently reviewing an institution’s career policy as part of Bulgaria’s process of institutional accreditation.
Avoiding a mandated approach for institutions to follow the new policy. This could be done by allowing institutions that do not wish to formulate their own career policy (or fail to gain authorisation) to continue operating within existing legal and regulatory frameworks.
Career Pathways focused on institutional missions
The Technical University of Munich (TUM), for example, has recently introduced the “TUM Teaching Scholar Track”, in which “teaching skills and commitment are rewarded the same as research activities”. Advancement in rank is assessed, in part, according to research performance, but it is also “assessed in accordance with strict criteria reflecting international best practice [in teaching]. The assessment criteria include the development of new teaching methods, teaching concepts, textbooks and monographs, and international conferences (teaching methods, education research).”
Non-Traditional Career Pathway
At the University of Strathclyde, academic staff may progress along three distinct pathways in parallel to the traditional “academic” career structure: as Teaching Fellows, Research Fellows, or Knowledge Exchange Fellows. For example, staff may commence as a Knowledge Exchange Fellow, progressing as a Senior Knowledge Exchange Fellow and Principal Knowledge Exchange Fellow. Those in this career pathway may continue with this path through a process of review and internal promotion to the rank of Knowledge Exchange Professor of Practice, or they may seek to move horizontally to the “academic” pathway.
Source: OECD (2022[76]), “A review of technological university academic career paths, contracts and organisation in Ireland”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 64, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b7ee217-en; University of Strathclyde Glasgow (n.d.[77]), Careers & Employablity Service: Postgraduate Careers Module, https://www.strath.ac.uk/professionalservices/careers/students /modules/postgraduatecareersmodule/ (accessed on 19 February, 2025).
Rewarding institutions for creating and implementing career policies that incentivise teaching quality and pedagogical innovation
Developing career policies requires a major commitment of time and effort on the part of tertiary institutions and should be rewarded. To assist TEIs in developing and gaining approval of career policies, and to initially reward institutions for taking on this responsibility, Bulgaria could provide a fixed duration funding bonus that can be used to support career development and recognise teaching excellence. In the longer run, innovation and customisation of career policies should be recognised as providing its own rewards, since it can increase the capacity of institutions to attract and retain highly talented individuals and permit academic staff to align their preferences and abilities to the diverse missions of the institutions they serve. The Bulgarian University Ranking System could likewise be revised to recognise TEIs that have developed career policies, with this forming part of the “teaching and learning” or “teaching and learning environment” indicators that it calculates.
Consider policies to promote instructional quality in tertiary education
Bulgaria has chosen to centre its tertiary education quality assurance efforts on the implementation of an elaborate indicator-based methodology that focuses on the quality of study programmes, and to complement this with a process of programme-focused peer review. While this approach sets out detailed metrics that aim to drive the design of study programmes and teaching and assessment practices, some of the indicators are overly prescriptive. For example, one metric asks programmes to report on the proportion of courses in which “final grades are based on at least two grades received during the semester in addition to that of the [final] exam” (NEAA, 2023[78]). This approach contrasts with the risk-based approach to quality assurance used by an increasing number of OECD countries whereby indicators of institutional-level performance and student outcomes are used to identify patterns and problems as a basis for subsequently intervening with targeted qualitative assessments (OECD, 2025[79]). Bulgaria’s current approach to programme-level quality assurance imposes a substantial compliance burden on institutions and reinforces a culture of compliance with external demands rather than the sense of institutional initiative and responsibility for quality in curriculum design, teaching, and assessment that the planned reforms to the NEAA aim to achieve. To address these concerns, Bulgaria can consider some of the following quality assurance policies from OECD countries:
Subject new quality assurance practices to an independent international review. Bulgaria could consider subjecting its recently adopted programme-focused and indicator-based quality assurance practices to an independent and international review. This review could be informed by careful consultation among students, instructors, administrators, and the external stakeholders of TEIs. It could focus on assessing the costs and benefits of current quality assurance practices and weigh the capacity and willingness of TEIs to transition to institution‑level quality assurance.
Explore ways to recognise and disseminate quality practices. OECD countries use a range of policies that are specifically focused on enhancing the quality of higher education teaching, including public recognition for excellent practices, the training and mentoring of early career academics, and the establishment of national bodies – or national network of campus-level bodies – that have responsibility for enhancing the quality of teaching and learning. These are not part of the tertiary landscape in Bulgaria, but careful consideration could be given to adopting one or more of these practices that may be well-suited to national needs and traditions.
Recommendation 5.4: Collect information to form a fuller picture of the student learning experience
While Bulgarian authorities have mandated the use of course-based evaluations in tertiary education, these do not provide system-level information about the student learning experience. This context is exacerbated by the fact that Bulgaria does not have a national student survey or participate in the Eurostudent survey. Moreover, the MES does not receive or report rates of student progression and completion of studies. This makes it difficult for policymakers and institutions themselves to develop policies that enhance the supports and teaching that students encounter in Bulgaria’s tertiary education system. This section outlines two ways that Bulgaria could establish a stronger student focus into its plans for improving the quality of teaching and in tertiary education.
Collecting reliable data on student perspectives to support quality monitoring and improvement
To inform improvements to teaching and learning quality, Bulgaria needs to address the current gap in understanding of how students experience tertiary education. One way to collect information from learners is by participating in the Eurostudent survey, which would not only provide feedback on the social and learning experiences of students in Bulgarian TEIs, but also how these compare to other tertiary systems. Another approach would be to develop and implement a national student survey. Several OECD tertiary systems implement such surveys to monitor the experiences of students. For example, the Australian Student Experience Survey, is an annual survey of undergraduate and postgraduate students that “focuses on aspects of the student experience that are measurable, linked with learning and development outcomes, and potentially able to be influenced by higher education institutions” (QILT, 2023[80]). In implementing a national survey, Bulgaria should aim to achieve response rates that make it a trusted basis for understanding performance.
Calculating student progression and completion rates
In several OECD member countries, rates of student progression and completion for tertiary institutions are a key means by which quality is monitored. For example, the United States Department of Education College Scorecard, collects such information in an online portal that receives more than one million unique visitors each year (RTI International, n.d.[81]). These same data can also serve as key parameter for accrediting bodies to monitor the quality of TEIs. To address its current data gap on tertiary student progression and completion, Bulgaria should develop an agreed methodology to calculate these indicators. The process for collecting and calculating this data should be efficient, for example by drawing on student registers if possible. Once the indicators are developed and collected, Bulgaria could ensure these data are housed in a way that permits their joint use as an input to institutional accreditation and evaluation. Patterns of progression and completion depend not only upon the quality of support and instruction, but also upon the social and academic profile of entrants, and the mix of study programmes. Therefore, rates of progression and completion must be read with care, understood in conjunction with other data, and not be used, by themselves, to form a basis upon which institutions are rewarded or penalised.
Equality of opportunity and access: Creating incentives and support to facilitate wider access to tertiary education among disadvantaged groups
A rising share of Bulgaria’s adult population has gained a tertiary educational qualification in recent decades. However, while Bulgaria’s tertiary attainment rates are now on a par with regional peers, they remain below the OECD average. Moreover, as in most countries, opportunities for tertiary attainment are unevenly distributed along key dimensions of social disadvantage, ethnicity, and region. In particular, learners in Bulgaria’s poorer regions have limited physical access to institutions and fields of study and there is persistent under-representation of Roma and Turkish communities. There is also evidence of inter-generational transmission of educational inequalities. This section draws on OECD experience and research to offer policy suggestions on how Bulgaria could promote equity in tertiary education by simplifying admissions procedures, expanding targeted supports, and directing resources to support disadvantaged learners.
Recommendation 5.5: Simplify access and expand targeted support to disadvantaged learners
Tertiary education policymaking has a limited capacity to advance equitable learning opportunities, since it must work with inequalities generated in early childhood education and care, schooling systems, families, and communities. Nonetheless, public authorities and tertiary education leaders in Bulgaria have a range of measures available to them with which to mitigate inequalities in access to, and outcomes of, tertiary education. These include simplifying burdensome admissions processes and expanding targeted interventions to help disadvantaged applicants better navigate the system. Below we briefly review policy design in each of these areas and provide potential ways to support the goal of further widening access to tertiary education.
Simplifying application and entry practices to reduce barriers to enrolment
Compared to tertiary education systems in OECD countries that have co-ordinated tertiary (or, university) admission regimes, such as Lithuania or the United Kingdom, Bulgaria appears to have an admission system that imposes higher information and transaction costs on aspiring entrants. This is largely because institutions use separate exams in the same study field, there is limited co-ordination in exam calendars, and exams are administered in-person (rather than remotely accessible). Burdensome admission procedures are especially likely to deter or reduce applications from first generation tertiary students whose families will often possess less educational, cultural, and economic capital to support them in the application process than peers from more highly educated families (Barsegyan and Maas, 2024[82]).
Bulgaria could explore ways to simplify application and entry practices to reduce enrolment barriers for disadvantaged groups. For example, many OECD systems have wide experience with well co-ordinated centralised admissions processes (e.g. UCAS in the United Kingdom). Others, such as Finland (see Box 5.6), are engaged in moving from complex to much simpler admissions systems and could provide Bulgaria with a useful point of reference for similar changes in its admissions procedures. Conducting a public review that involves input from rectors, student representatives, and especially non-governmental organisations active in supporting interventions for disadvantage learners could help to better understand access barriers in Bulgaria and inform the development of such policies. It will be important for any policies to recognise the autonomy of Bulgarian TEIs to take decisions about the composition of their entering student cohort.
Expanding targeted interventions to widen access for vulnerable groups
Private philanthropies in Bulgaria have tried to reduce the burden of admissions procedures for disadvantaged young people, especially from ethnic minorities. Though beneficial, these interventions are usually of limited scope. Since it will likely take time to simplify application and entry practices, Bulgaria could consider drawing on EU funding to expand targeted interventions to help mitigate inequities in tertiary education enrolments in the short term.
Finland’s highly autonomous universities have long had an especially complex regime of examinations for entry. Individual departments set separate entry examinations, with up to a total of 120 entrance exams administered over the course three weeks in late May and early June. This entry regime required some prospective students to travel to several different entrance exams across Finland and prepare for separate entrance tests. Under the leadership of the Finnish Rectors Conference, a new entrance exam model is to be implemented in 2025, reducing the number of entrance exams from approximately 120 to nine. Students will be able to take one entrance exam and use it to apply to several universities and fields of study. Entrance exams will have a common section for all applicants that assesses skills and abilities crucial for all educational fields, as well as sections intended solely for applicants in particular fields, assessing their proficiency in subjects relevant to their chosen field of study.
Source: UNIFI (2024[83]), ”Entrance Exams For Universities Will Be Renewed in 2025,” https://unifi.fi/en/entrance-exams-for-universities-will-be-renewed-in-2025-universities-are-currently-reviewing-a-draft-of-the-new-entrance-exam-model/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
Recommendation 5.6: Provide students and institutions with the resources they need to improve equity in the tertiary education sector
At present, financial support for disadvantaged learners in Bulgaria in meeting the cost of tuition and fees is less widely available than is typical among OECD tertiary education systems in which students pay tuition fees. Moreover, institutions have limited incentives and resources to support disadvantaged learners to access and succeed in tertiary education. This recommendation explores policies Bulgaria could consider to lower access barriers and encourage TEIs to mitigate inequities more proactively in their enrolment policies. Aligning resources with equity goals can help Bulgaria establish a more inclusive tertiary education system.
Reviewing the current financial assistance for disadvantaged students
Given the small share of tertiary students who are able to obtain need-based financial support and the modest share of low-income learners, Bulgaria should review the equity of present funding arrangements for tertiary students to ensure that cost is not a barrier for disadvantaged groups. In particular, there should be a focus on identifying whether some learners are deterred from applying to or enrolling in tertiary institutions owing to tuition fees, and an effort to identify what level of financial support would be needed to incentivise application and enrolment. Additionally, there should be analysis of learners who enrol but do not succeed in completing their studies, with attention to the impact of study costs on persistence.
It would be inadvisable to opt for a fully tuition-free system for all BA and PhD students in state‑supported study places, as was proposed by the government in early 2024. This would require a large increment of additional public spending, estimated at the time to be EUR 61-66 million per year. Without this offsetting investment, educational expenditures per student would fall, risking declines in instructional quality and completion (Deming, 2019[84]). Moreover, this across-the-board approach would inequitably allocate additional public subsidies without regard to family ability to pay or graduates’ post-schooling earnings. A more equitable and sustainable approach to supporting disadvantaged learners would be to substantially expand the scope of need-based grant support.
Strengthening incentives for tertiary institutions to focus on equity
Bulgaria’s TEIs are not incentivised to make widening access for disadvantaged learners an institutional priority. Several factors contribute to this. Parameters for institutional funding, evaluation and reaccreditation do not create incentives for an equity focus. Performance agreements between MES and university rectors do not contain access targets. Also, transparency with respect to disadvantaged students is low, with no reporting on the intake of disadvantaged students, or their progression and completion. The inclusion of “prestige” parameters in the Bulgarian University Ranking System, though comprising a modest share of the ranking (10%), signals a limited regard for inclusivity. Bulgaria could strengthen incentives to encourage institutional plans and organisational capacities to expand their focus on the inclusion of disadvantaged populations.
Many OECD countries have chosen to establish clear expectations for TEIs to engage in widening access and sanctions for failure to do so. In the United Kingdom, for example, the principal regulatory body, the Office for Students, requires institutions to have access and widening participation plans, in which they outline strategies for recruitment, support, and retention of students from low-income backgrounds, ethnic minorities, and those with disabilities. These plans are reviewed regularly, and universities must report on their progress to the Office for Students, which holds them accountable for meeting their commitments (OfS, n.d.[85]). Australia’s Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, in contrast, aims to increase tertiary access, retention, and completion for students from disadvantaged backgrounds by allocating funding to eligible institutions based upon the number of students they enrol from disadvantaged backgrounds, which they, in turn, are to use for outreach and student support (Australian Government, n.d.[86]). These and other practices in OECD member countries could provide insights for Bulgarian authorities to encourage a stronger focus on equity in public TEIs. Bulgaria could build on the work of its START project, which is developing equity-focused indicators that could be incorporated into existing policy instruments, such as the BURS and institutional accreditation policies. Importantly, the definition of disadvantage used for reporting and funding policies should be agreed through consultation with representatives of institutions, non-governmental organisations, and external experts.
References
[51] Aridi, A. et al. (2020), Enhancing the Contribution of Bulgaria’s Public Research to Innovation : A Survey-based Diagnostic, World Bank Group, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/501911605783029938/Enhancing-the-Contribution-of-Bulgaria-s-Public-Research-to-Innovation-A-Survey-based-Diagnostic.
[86] Australian Government (n.d.), Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP), https://www.education.gov.au/heppp (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[82] Barsegyan, V. and I. Maas (2024), “First-generation students’ educational outcomes: The role of parental educational, cultural, and economic capital – A 9-years panel study”, Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, Vol. 91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rssm.2024.100939.
[15] Bassett, R., P. Danchev and J. Salmi (2013), Strengthening higher education in Bulgaria : options for improving the models of governance, quality assurance and financing of higher education, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/694441468006586259/Final-report.
[62] Bilgin, A., A. Rowe and L. Clark (2024), “The Impact of Work-Integrated Learning on Academic Workload: Drivers, Time and Tasks Involved”, Creative Education, Vol. 15/9, https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2024.159110.
[46] Burning Glass Institute (2024), Talent Disrupted: College Graduates, Underemployment, and the Way Forward, https://www.burningglassinstitute.org/research/underemployment (accessed on 10 31 2024).
[45] BURS (2024), Rating of universities in Bulgaria 2024, https://rsvu.mon.bg/#/?locale=en (accessed on 31 October 2024).
[75] Career Framework for University Teaching (2024), The Framework, https://www.teachingframework.com/framework/ (accessed on 19 May 2025).
[84] Deming, D. (2019), “The Economics of Free College”, Policy Brief 14, https://econfip.org/policy-briefs/the-economics-of-free-college/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[21] Dukovska, D. (2024), Higher Education Act Amended on First Reading: Bulgarian News Agency, https://www.bta.bg/en/news/bulgaria/606343-higher-education-act-amended-on-first-reading (accessed on 23 January 2025).
[23] ERI (2024), Compensation data based on experience, https://www.salaryexpert.com/salary/job/university-professor/bulgaria (accessed on 30 October 2024).
[8] European Commission (2024), European Research Council Datahub, https://erc.easme-web.eu/#.
[9] European Commission (2024), “Support to Bulgaria on its policy to address the fragmentation of its public research system”, Research and Innovation, https://projects.research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/en/statistics/policy-support-facility/psf-country/support-bulgaria-its-policy-address-fragmentation-its-public-research-system (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[28] European Commission (2023), Bulgaria - National Student Fee, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/countries/bulgaria/national-student-fee#tab-1 (accessed on March 2024).
[53] European Commission (2021), Strategic evaluation of the Bulgarian Centres of Competence and Centres of Excellence and recommendations for their further development.
[69] European Commission (2019), Final Report, Peer Review of the Estonian R&I System, Publications Office.
[12] European Commission (2018), The research evaluation and performance-based funding system in Bulgaria, Publications Office of the European Union.
[68] European Commission (2016), Finland, university mergers and institutional profiling – One of twelve case studies produced as part of the project on structural reform in higher education, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2766/118884.
[20] Eurostat (2024), Distribution of academic staff at education level by age groups, https://doi.org/10.2908/EDUC_UOE_PERD02 (accessed on 5 February 2025).
[32] Eurostat (2024), GERD by sector of performance and fields of R&D, https://doi.org/10.2908/RD_E_GERDSC (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[54] Eurostat (2024), Population by educational attainment level, sex and NUTS 2 region (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFSE_04 (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[56] Eurostat (2024), Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%), https://doi.org/10.2908/EDAT_LFS_9913 (accessed on 3 October 2024).
[55] Eurostat (2024), Population on 1 January by age group, sex and NUTS 2 region, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/product/page/DEMO_R_PJANGROUP (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[67] Frølich, N. and B. Stensaker (2021), “Mergers and missions: Investigating consequences for system diversity”, Higher Education.
[36] Golden, G., L. Troy and T. Weko (2021), How are higher education systems in OECD countries resourced?: Evidence from an OECD Policy Survey, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[2] Government of Bulgaria (2023), Registry of Active Students, Ministry of Education and Science.
[39] Government of Bulgaria (2022), National Map of Higher Education in Bulgaria (unpublished), Ministry of Education and Science.
[4] Government of Bulgaria (2021), Strategy for Development of Higher Education in the Republic of Bulgaria 2021-2023.
[16] Government of Bulgaria (2019), Regulations on the Implementation of the Development of Academic Staff in the Republic of Bulgaria Act (as amended), https://www.mon.bg/nfs/2020/08/regulation-development-acadstaff.pdf.
[38] Government of Bulgaria (n.d.), National Centre for Information and Documentation (NCID), https://nacid.bg/en/about/main-activities/ (accessed on March 2024).
[66] HEA (2017), National Framework for Doctoral Education, https://hea.ie/assets/uploads/2017/04/national_framework_for_doctoral_education_0.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[57] Imdorf, C. et al. (2022), Regional and Ethnic Disparities of School-to-Work Transitions in Bulgaria, https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7102/12/4/233.
[52] Konstantinov, I. (2022), Leadership in Higher Education Through Intellectual Property-Based Innovation at Universities.
[33] Milenkova, V. and S. Hristova (2017), “Higher education in Bulgarian context: Peculiarities and challenges”, SEEU Review, pp. 10.1515/seeur-2017-0022.
[5] Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria (2023), Accession candidate country’s self-assessment of policies and practices in the area of education and skills. Guidelines and questionnaire Bulgaria (unpublished), OECD Education Accession Review.
[72] Ministry of Education and Science of Latvia (2021), Konkurētspējīga augstākā izglītība un pētniecība ir reģiona izaugsmes garants [Competitive higher education and research are the guarantors of the region’s growth], https://www.izm.gov.lv/lv/jaunums/konkuretspejiga-augstaka-izglitiba-un-petnieciba-ir-regiona-izaugsmes-garants (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[44] Mitchell, N. (2023), Why British Students are Flocking to Bulgaria to Study, https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20231128123130214.
[65] National Centre for Study Choice (n.d.), Studiekeuze123 - Homepage, https://www.studiekeuze123.nl/ (accessed on 19 May 2025).
[74] National Council of the Slovak Republic (2022), Government Bill amending and supplementing Act No. 131/2002, https://www.nrsr.sk/web/Dynamic/DocumentPreview.aspx?DocID=505388 (accessed on 23 January 2025).
[70] NAWI Graz (2024), Cooperation for Excellence, https://www.nawigraz.at/en/ (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[1] NEAA (2023), Accredited professional fields and Majors from the regulated professions in University of Structural Engineering and Architecture “Lyuben Karavelov” – Sofia, https://www.neaa.government.bg/en/131-accredited-professional-fields/471-accredited-professional-fields-in-university-of-structural-engineering-and-architecture-lyuben-karavelov-sofia (accessed on 22 January 2025).
[78] NEAA (2023), Criteria for programme accreditation of doctoral programmes in accordance with ESG - Part 1 (1-10) and pursuant to Art. 78, para.3 of the HEA, https://www.neaa.government.bg/images/Criteria_EN/Kriterii_ONS_EN.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[13] NEAA (2023), Evaluation and Accreditation of Distance Learning, https://www.neaa.government.bg/en/evaluation-and-accreditation/distance-learning.
[42] NEAA (2022), Self-Assessment Report, https://neaa.government.bg/en/publications/self-assessment-report.
[6] NSI (2024), Students Enrolled by Educational Qualification, Degree, Citizenship, Mode of Attendance, Sex, and Kind of Ownership of the Higher School, https://www.nsi.bg/en/content/3390/students-enrolled-educational-qualification-degree-citizenship-mode-attendance-sex-and-kind-ownership-higher-school (accessed on April 2024).
[19] NSI (2024), Teaching Staff by Academic Rank, Sex, Employment Status and Type of Higher School in the 2022/2023 Academic Year, https://www.nsi.bg/en/content/3398/academic-staff-employment-status-academic-rank-sex-and-type-higher-school (accessed on April 2024).
[79] OECD (2025), “Ensuring quality in VET and higher education: Getting quality assurance right”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 118, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/812ff006-en.
[43] OECD (2024), Adults’ educational attainment distribution, by age group and gender, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/lj (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[26] OECD (2024), Distribution of government, private and non-domestic expenditure on educational institutions, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/f8 (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[7] OECD (2024), Education at a Glance 2024: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c00cad36-en.
[27] OECD (2024), Expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/f6 (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[31] OECD (2024), Full dataset - Indicators, source, destination and nature of expenditure on education, http://data-explorer.oecd.org/s/ln (accessed on 30 October 2024).
[3] OECD (2023), “Institutional missions and profiles in higher education in Lithuania”, OECD Publishing.
[48] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d7f76adc-en.
[64] OECD (2023), “The future of Finland’s funding model for higher education institutions”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 76, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3d256b59-en.
[76] OECD (2022), “A review of technological university academic career paths, contracts and organisation in Ireland”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 64, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2b7ee217-en.
[41] OECD (2022), “Resourcing higher education in Ireland: Funding higher education institutions”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 51, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/67dd76e0-en.
[73] OECD (2021), Improving Higher Education in the Slovak Republic, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[10] OECD (2020), Resourcing Higher Education: Challenges, Choices and Consequences, Higher Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/735e1f44-en.
[11] OECD (2004), Reviews of National Policies for Education: Bulgaria 2004, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[85] OfS (n.d.), Access and participation plans, https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/for-providers/equality-of-opportunity/access-and-participation-plans/ (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[49] OSI-S Consortium (2023), Key Highlights from the Bulgarian University Ranking System 2023, https://osis.bg/?p=4645&lang=en.
[37] OSI-S Consortium (2020), Students’ perception of online training during the Covid-19 pandemic in the spring of 2020, https://osis.bg/?p=3638&lang=en (accessed on March 2024).
[60] Paris (ed.) (2019), OECD Review of Higher Education, Research and Innovation: Portugal, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264308138-en.
[22] Petrova, P. (2024), Assistant Professors’ Minimum Monthly Pay Set at BGN 2,516: Bulgarian News Agency, https://www.bta.bg/en/news/bulgaria/722179-assistant-professors-will-get-monthly-salary-of-bgn-2-516 (accessed on 23 January 2025).
[80] QILT (2023), Student Experience Survey, https://qilt.edu.au/surveys/student-experience-survey-(ses) (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[81] RTI International (n.d.), College Scorecard postsecondary education data, https://www.rti.org/impact/college-scorecard-postsecondary-education-data#:~:text=With%20an%20average%20of%20105%2C000,(ED's)%20most%20visited%20websites (accessed on 4 November 2024).
[59] Rutigliano, A. (2020), Inclusion of Roma Students in Europe: A literature review and examples of policy initiatives, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[50] SCOPUS (n.d.), SCOPUS data, https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/data (accessed on 29 October 2024).
[63] SNSF (n.d.), Funding opportunities for universities of applied sciences and universities of teacher education, https://www.snf.ch/en/dBEmBql13iLqRjsX/page/funding/funding-opportunities-universities-applied-sciences-universities-teacher-education (accessed on 5 November 2024).
[25] Soete, L. et al. (2015), Peer Review of the Bulgarian Research and Innovation System, European Commission.
[14] Sofia Tech Park (2023), Gabrovo Will Establish An Association of Science and Technology Parks in Bulgaria, https://sofiatech.bg/en/news/sofia-tech-park-and-the-technical-university-gabrovo-will-establish-an-association-of-science-and-technology-parks-in-bulgaria/.
[35] Thürk, M. and S. Bailer (2023), “Perceptions of corruption and anti-corruption efforts in Bulgaria”, Working Paper 44, pp. https://baselgovernance.org/publications/wp-44.
[34] Tilkidjiev, N. (2011), “Trust and Well-Being: Bulgarian in a Comparative Perspective”, Slovak Journal of Political Sciences, Vol. 11/1.
[40] Tochkov, K., N. Nenovsky and K. Tochkov (2012), University efficiency and public funding for higher education in Bulgaria, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14631377.2012.729306.
[24] Torrisi, B. (2016), “Asymmetric Salary and Uniformity of Academic Positions at Universities in the EU28”, Open Access Library Journal.
[18] Trust for Social Achievement (2024), Candidate-student courses for young people of Roma origin for admission to medical universities in Bulgaria, https://socialachievement.org/en/what-we-do/funded-projects/EDU/candidate-student-courses-for-young-people-of-roma-origin-for-admission-to-medical-universities-in-bulgaria/ (accessed on May 2024).
[58] Trust for Social Achievement (2020), National Survey on Roma Educational Attainment and Employment, https://socialachievement.org/web/files/richeditor/dokumenti/REPORT_TSA_ENG.pdf.
[29] Trust for Social Achievement (n.d.), Continued Support for Roma Students at the American University in Bulgaria, https://socialachievement.org/en/what-we-do/funded-projects/EDU/continued-support-for-roma-students-at-the-american-university-in-bulgaria/ (accessed on May 2024).
[30] Trust for Social Achievement (n.d.), Scholarship Support for Roma Students Enrolled in Medical Studies, https://socialachievement.org/en/what-we-do/funded-projects/EDU/scholarship-support-for-roma-students-enrolled-in-medical-studies/ (accessed on May 2024).
[47] UK Government (2024), Graduate labour market statistics, https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/graduate-labour-markets (accessed on 10 31 2024).
[83] UNIFI (2024), Entrance exams for universities will be renewed in 2025, https://unifi.fi/en/entrance-exams-for-universities-will-be-renewed-in-2025-universities-are-currently-reviewing-a-draft-of-the-new-entrance-exam-model/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[61] University of Jena (n.d.), Habilitation and equivalent qualification, https://www.uni-jena.de/en/42416/habilitation-and-equivalent-qualification#:~:text=For%20a%20professorship%20at%20a,university%20professor%20(see%20here) (accessed on 4 November 2025).
[77] University of Strathclyde Glasgow (n.d.), Careers & Employablity Service: Postgraduate Careers Module, https://www.strath.ac.uk/professionalservices/careers/students/modules/postgraduatecareersmodule/ (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[71] Williams, J. (2017), “Collaboration, alliance, and merger among higher education institutions”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 160, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cf14d4b5-en.
[17] World Bank (2021), Higher Education in Bulgaria: Situation Analysis and Policy Direction Recommendations, https://sf.mon.bg/?go=page&pageId=451.