GasTerra is a Dutch company active in the  global  trade and supply of natural gas. The Transition Award  is a prize  for the best  student  proposal for fighting climate change. The total prize money of  100,000 Euros  will be  divided between the universities representing the student teams that developed the best idea. 

Having followed classes on marketing communciation and branding,  MIC team members, Jessica Kalb, Hasina Juma, and Merike Kiesel put their ideas on how best to change the way people think, believe and act to work.  Early on they decided that magic-bullet communication methods were not going to hold.  Instead the team focused on universities ‘ financial incentive to reduce energy wasting behaviour and their desire to serve as role models. To encourage  students to reduce energy consumption while on campus,  the team worked on positive incentives such as their desire to innovate, and  even more important: their desire to win games!  Being the excellent students of communication that they are, they  proposed  the  ” Carbon Campus Battle”, also known as the C2B.  Its central idea is to reduce student and staff electricity consumption in universities in  the Netherlands in the course of one semester. The aim of  the Campus Battle is not only to promote the importance of sustainable energy use, but also to bring about a lasting behaviour change among students and  university staff.  It is hoped that the C2B Battle will  spark off innovative ideas that will  for example result in more energy efficient buildings. Participating in  the Carbon Campus Battle is a fantastic opportunity for universities in the Netherlands and in Europe  to claim  climate change leadership in  their communities and countries.
 
The Campus Carbon Battle challenges students and universities to see to be the difference.

Good luck Jessica, Hasina, and Merike!!!

When I first heard about the Studentsmedia (www.studentsmedia.nl) battles in September 2011 and that I, as a  MIC student, would have the chance to be part of one of the NRG Battles Europe, I could never have imagined it would change my life so much. I worked on a Siemens’ case in the NRG Battle that took place on October 7, 2011, at the Euroborg, Groningen. It was very interesting to participate in such an event that brings together students and multinationals from the Energy sector. The professional way it is presented and the genuine interest of companies to see innovative solutions from students is amazing. 

Not long after this first experience, I was selected to work on a case of Rijnstate Hospital (www.rijnstate.nl) as part of the Health Battle that took place in November 2011 in Arnhem, the Netherlands. This time I had the opportunity to be the team coach and pitch the idea our team developed. Although it was a great challenge, staff from the MIC supported students during the whole battle. Actually we went together with one of our professors from Groningen to Arnhem, a 2h30 pleasant drive through the beautiful landscapes of the Netherlands. 

Some time passed and in January 2012 I received a call from Mr. John Kamminga, Global Recruiter for the NRG Battle, asking me to be the Brazil Ambassador for the NRG Battle – World Edition in Kuala Lumpur in June 2012. I was pleased to have this chance and accepted it right away. I have been promoting the event in Brazil since then. I had also applied to the NRG Battle World but received no answer of any company until a few days ago, when I could not believe my inbox message. 

I was selected by Shell to work on a case during the NRG Battle in Kuala Lumpur. To be among the 100 students selected for the battle – among nearly 3,000 – just confirmed that the MIC programme has definitely been a boost on my CV even before concluding the course.

I should say I am very pleased and definitely share this not only with my family & friends but surely with MIC staff that could not be more supportive, caring and extremely well prepared. I do believe that a great formula for success is: believe in yourself and get ready, what means, believe in yourself and study a lot!

Working in an international environment is something special. I work together with colleagues from the United Kingdom, Lithuania, Italy, Bulgaria and the Netherlands. Our current student body consists of students from Albania, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, China, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Taiwan, the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Rwanda, United States, and Vietnam. Not only do our students have different cultural backgrounds, they also have different educational backgrounds (and some already even have professional work experience). It’s an incredible mix.

Our students are very gifted, there is no doubt about that. They had the courage to leave their home countries to study in two different countries within a period of ten months. They are adventurous, ambitious, and up for big challenges and new life altering experiences. It’s a privilege seeing them develop into interculturally competent communication professionals. There are plenty of initial frustrations among students when working on projects together with students with different perspectives, norms, values and habits. Being part of an international community is fun, but at the same time it definitely isn’t always easy. However, during the programme the students become culturally aware. They realize that they view things from their own cultural perspective and start understanding and learning from those of others. Our international project groups form their own unique identities that spark synergy. It’s the groups’ ability to outperform even its best individual member, and it’s wonderful to see here at the MIC.

It’s great to read what some of our students say about this:

“This great chance of being in a classroom with people from, literally, all around the world is unique, it brings new perspectives and paradigms which allows a much wider view of the world. For an international professional life that is without a doubt a substantial competitive advantage.”

“I think that living in a foreign country and working together with students with different cultural background was the most challenging part of the whole programme. Despite the initial difficulties everything worked out at the end!”

“Regarding the fact that almost every student has a different national and cultural background, you can learn a lot, especially to think out of the box and look at issues from a different perspective, one that may differ from your own. In this sense, the international classroom has definitely broadened my horizon.”

We are currently looking forward to next academic year. So far, our applicants for the September 2012 start are from 42 different countries. We are very excited about this. It promises to be another very dynamic group and a great year full of new perspectives, new ideas and new experiences.

As part of the specialisation International Public Affairs at Hanze UAS, MIC students have participated in the 11th European Brussels Forum from 25 March – 31 March 2012. This Forum is annually organised by the Munich European Forum Association (MEF).

The MIC students were participants in an international simulation conference entitled “Navigating troubled water: New policy approaches in a time of transition.”

During simulation, the students took over the roles of a heads of state or government ministers. All participants are called upon to choose and prepare a position (that of a country* or political party) in one of four committees: North Atlantic Council,G20,Council of the European Union,Media Committee.

How to Manage Sensitive Issues in a Strategic Manner

At the conference, I was representing the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.

Knowing the positions of your member countries and being tuned to their sensitive issues can be the difference between a productive Council for the European Union meeting or a hostile one. This is an important lesson I learned during the European Brussels Forum.

We started off the third day of the forum by setting the agenda for the Euro Crisis by having member states state which issues they wanted to discuss and that was followed by a vote on each item.  One of the items suggested by a non-Eurozone member was the discussion of non-Eurozone countries being present at the Eurozone Summits.  When we began to vote on these items, I did not give my vote to this issue and nor did the other Eurozone members.  This item did not make it to the agenda as we felt it was not a priority matter. 

Once the formal debate started, Sweden and the other non-Eurozone members were enraged about the matter.  On one hand, Eurozone members were talking about more Europe though collaboration, but we were not willing to discuss the further integration of non-Eurozone members into Union.  Non-Eurozone members believed this was a huge contradiction and believed Eurozone member were saying one thing, but acting in a different manner. 

Since the debate got very heated immediately Eurozone members passed a motion for informal caucus where we discussed how we should proceed on the matter.  We all admitted that we did not realize how important this issue was to non-Eurozone members.  At the same time, we also made a point that these countries made a conscious choice not to adopt to the Euro.  From our perspective, non-Eurozone members were gaining a lot by simply attending our meetings and we needed to ensure we got something in return.  We knew if the item was not placed on the agenda, non-Eurozone members would block all of our initiatives.  All motions required a qualified majority of 26 votes and the Eurozone members alone only had 24.  As a group, we decided to place the issue as the last issue on the agenda.  The non-Eurozone members were not thrilled by this decision as they wanted to discuss the matter earlier.  We reassured them that we would discuss this important matter and we would not forget about it. They needed to trust us on it.  There was a sigh of relieve among the Eurozone members that we rectified the situation, but little did we know that the worse was still to come. 

In the afternoon session, we continued our discussion on which growth measures should be implemented to restore competitiveness in the single market.  We made significant process and by 8 pm we had a draft working paper on the European Prosperity and Stability Plan (EPSP).  The working draft was reviewed and edited and at 9:30 pm when we suppose to vote on the growth package, the non-Eurozone members said they would block the passing of the EPSP if we did not discuss the admission of non-Eurozone members into the Eurozone Summit .  Eurozone members were infuriated that the Eurozone would pass such a threat to us.  The EPSP was a visionary plan that allowed Europe to have a highly diversified and developed economy to ensure the Union’s competitiveness on the global stage. This plan would benefit all member state countries.  There was no question that the Eurozone members had to find a way to pass EPSP.  Eurozone members were not going to allow non-Eurozone members to derail EPSP.  It also didn’t help that the non-Eurozone members were also not clear on what they would give Eurozone members if they were able to attend the Eurozone meetings.  After intensely debating for 12 hours, Eurozone members suspended.  

After the official meeting, the Eurozone members had a private meeting to develop a negotiation strategy. What was at stake is a historical step towards further European integration while taking a step forward in solving the Euro Crisis.  Only time will tell if these negotiations are successful.

Learning outcomes
This situation at the conference taught me the importance of engaging in a constructive dialogue with your members at all times.  When the conversation gets overheated and individuals start throwing personal attacks, it’s best to call an informal caucus meeting to allow people to cool down and regroup.  I also learned that the Eurozone members had to speak with one voice when dealing with the non-Eurozone members and sometimes this required me to make some compromises on some of my negotiable items. 

This conference taught me that if you’re able to research a subject area, extract relevant information and communicate it a concise manner, then you don’t need to be an expert on the subject matter. I also learned that in order to avoid misunderstandings you must communicate your argument using language that your audience will understand otherwise you will waste a lot of precious time explaining yourself at the meeting.

As part of the specialisation International Public Affairs at Hanze UAS, MIC students have participated in the 11th European Brussels Forum from 25 March – 31 March 2012. This Forum is annually organised by the Munich European Forum Association (MEF).

The MIC students were participants in an international simulation conference entitled “Navigating troubled water: New policy approaches in a time of transition.”

During simulation, the students took over the roles of a heads of state or government ministers. All participants are called upon to choose and prepare a position (that of a country* or political party) in one of four committees: North Atlantic Council,G20,Council of the European Union,Media Committee.

Building up experience at the European Brussels Forum

In the Brussels European Forum I am representing the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy in the Council of the European Union. Today our discussion topic was the European Defence Agency. We negotiated all morning and afternoon and made some substantial progress concerning the role and future development of the EDA. Our positions were very diverse and every participant wanted to get his or her point across that is why the right negotiation strategy was crucial to achieve results.

We not only played our role during the official negotiation sessions but also during coffee and lunch breaks. Actually, these breaks were the most important parts of the day as we could use this time to talk privately with other delegates and make allies.

In the late afternoon and after long and intense negotiations we could finally write down a resolution of the decisions made and it was time to agree and to vote on these issues.  But for some reason the different delegates were suddenly not sure anymore if they understood the different agreements in the same way. The Council could just not agree anymore on any of the articles written down. And we started discussing basic questions from the morning session all over again.

However, the delegate from the United Kingdom and me had to prepare a press conference and present our “results” to the media. In 20 minutes we did the best we could to prepare a statement to present our “unified” European voice confident to the media.

It was the first political press release I wrote and also the first time to be the spokesperson in such a context. It was a really good experience to develop such a statement under time pressure and knowing that actually no information can be given to the press.

We went up the stage and felt not at all prepared or confident with our statement but had to present it anyway. After our statement the floor was open for questions of journalists. Somehow, inside information about very delicate topics and accusations of delegates during the sessions had slipped to the press. We had to stand there and were bombarded with questions and we could not answer. It was a really awkward position to be in but at the same time challenging and interesting.

I think I learnt a lot from this experience. Even though it was just a simulation I could feel the pressure of the delicacy of the issue and had to experience how cautious I have to be with information I give to the media. I could apply my communication knowledge to frame the little information we had in the right way.   

I can say that I am really glad I could participate in this simulation conference. Although it was hard work to prepare the topics, positions statements and negotiation strategies before the conference it was definitely worth it. I had so much fun this week and I also learnt a lot for my future career from this experience.

As part of the specialisation International Public Affairs at Hanze UAS, MIC students have participated in the 11th European Brussels Forum from 25 March – 31 March 2012. This Forum is annually organised by the Munich European Forum Association (MEF).

The MIC students were participants in an international simulation conference entitled “Navigating troubled water: New policy approaches in a time of transition.”

During simulation, the students took over the roles of a heads of state or government ministers. All participants are called upon to choose and prepare a position (that of a country* or political party) in one of four committees: North Atlantic Council,G20,Council of the European Union,Media Committee.

My first day at my first MEF

I will tell you a secret: Munich European Forum (MEF) is so much more interesting then I really expected. It is part of one of my specialisations at Hanze UAS: International Public Affairs. When I just got involved in the first discussions at MEF I totally understood the whole interesting point of participating in the meeting.

The Forum is a simulation meeting that involves three important international institutions: G-20, EU-Council and NATO. The highlight is that each participant plays a role; incorporate a character, a head of state responsible to address the agenda. The main focus is on debate and set up agreements even under different perspectives over the same subject. It is possible to develop strategies not only in a political perspective, but, also, improve professional characteristics and focus on your weaknesses turning it into opportunity of knowledge.

This was our first day. We still have the whole week to work and address proposals related to climate change issues, international financial system, strategies towards the Middles East or Euro Crisis. It does not matter from where we come from, what background we have; we will always find a way to apply our learned experience here and strengthen our personal or professional life. The routine is hard, we have 11 hours of debate daily with people from all over the world representing a character and defending different points of view. Today, we move towards the first roles about procedures during the meetings and addressed the first resolutions about different issues; and this is just the beginning.

For me, the most important result of this meeting has already been achieved: I realized that strategy, negotiation and persuasion are techniques necessaries in any field of knowledge. We, as “communication” people, sometimes do not realize the importance of getting involved in situations like this, usually analyzing “how will we send a message?”, rather than “which strategy do we need to have in order to achieve our objectives?” or “how to use persuasion techniques to a corporate communication perspective?” As a Brazilian Master’s in International Communication student, I would never imagine how this experience could contribute to my professional framework without having been part of this meeting. Actually I strongly believe that all of us MIC students, could not have imagined it being relevant to our program, but I now believe this to be untrue.

MIC students work on real issues for real clients.

The MIC offers students not only the possibility of inspiring classes in universities across Europe. We also cherish our network with organizations in the field. Here I show you a couple of examples:

Presentations at Quintel

Quintel is not a big company. It employs around 15 people. But it has an important core activity. They create the Energy Transition Model (www.energietransitiemodel.nl), a simulation model that aims at making people more aware of the importance of sustainable use of energy. Quintel invited the MIC students to their head quarters in downtown Amsterdam, to develop a plan to increase their awareness and to improve the possibilities of the model by using social media integrate social media. The MIC students had the opportunity to present their plans in the presentation room of the company. It was a great opportunity, and we managed to deliver presentations which were appreciated by our client.  According to Wouter Meyers from Quintel, the ideas presented to him provided valuable input for the future decision making of the company. For the students, it was an interesting insight in Dutch business culture. As one of the students expressed: “The client looked me straight in the eyes all the time. Where I come from, this is considered very rude!”

Doing your dissertation as an intern!

At MIC we encourage students to do their internship in a professional environment. Our interns often get wonderful placements. In the past 2 weeks, I visited 2 interns at their “job”.

Saatchi & Saatchi in Sofia is a young, creative subsidiary of the international advertising agency. They do the campaigns for important brands in the Bulgarian market. Here, one of our students is working on a number of those campaigns. Her main project involves the campaign for one of the key global brands: should the advertising of this brand be adapted to the local market, or should they stick to the global branding strategy?

At SkyTeam, one of our students is doing a project in a very international environment. Sky Team is the global airline alliance, partnering 15 airlines including Air France, KLM, AllItalia, China Southern and Delta Airlines. It is the perfect corporate communication environment, creating excellent opportunities for a challenging dissertation project in the top of the international airline business. Because of the qualities of the MIC program and the MIC students, Sky Team offers a kind of “preferred suppliership”: they want to be first in line when it comes to recruiting MIC-students for internship positions!

Being an international student is definitely a life-changing experience! I think that anyone who has spent so much as a semester studying abroad can relate to my previous statement so I don’t need to argument it, right?

It changes you as a person, it adds and builds character in such a way that nothing else will ever do and all that… But though I could preach about the general benefits and also give opposing arguments to studying abroad, I am not going to do that. Not now, anyway…

Still, as a future communicator, I can’t help but think of how important it is to be in an environment that opens our minds and challenges every day.

It has already been said, we live in a “global village”. Now, more than ever, we need to understand our clients, no matter where they come from! And we absolutely need to understand our public if we ever plan on being successful in our jobs!

Easier said than done, isn’t it? For some it might be harder than for others, but I would always say that the best way to do that is to study abroad (if you can, of course).

Be the “Foreigner”, the “Traveller”, the “Weird International”. Break your boundaries and exceed your limits (don’t we all love clich?s!?).

Learn how to listen to other cultures and adapt to them!

Be a kind guest to your new home, no matter how temporary it might be!

Be a business card for your own culture, but also let your new one embrace you!

You will see how much easier it gets to face a challenge or adjust to any new working environment. You will also find it a lot easier to understand those who are different. You will know how to listen to people, whether they are your colleagues or your clients, because you’ve actually done it before!

And these are just a few of the “perks” of studying abroad…

How can all that not help a future communicator? I think it does!

Lecturer International Business Environment, Hanze UAS

One of my jobs is teaching International Business Environment at the MIC programme of the GH consortium at Hanze UAS. The European business environment is an important aspect of this subject. You can find my opinion on the European debt crisis in the attached article, published on the internet on the 23rd of January 2012, and the related interview on Aandeelhouders TV (web TV adressed at professional investors). The article below is one in a row of articles I recently published online. I hope to discuss this topic with the MIC students (including the communication and psychological aspects of the European debt crisis) soon again!

Long Live the Euro!

The euro should have never been adopted. Nevertheless, it is very likely and also very desirable that this tormented currency will continue to exist for a long time. The costs of a break up of the euro zone will be catastrophically high and will by far exceed the costs of saving the common currency. We should learn to live with the euro. ‘You cannot unscramble scrambled eggs’ as Nobel-prize winner Stiglitz pointed out.

Why the euro should have never been adopted

There are three reasons why the euro should never have been  come into being (at least not in this form):

• The euro countries did not form an Optimal Currency Area (OCA). An OCA is an area in which flexible wages and prices guarantee equilibrium and competitiveness of the countries in the area. A system of national currencies with flexible exchange rates is then not needed anymore.
• At the decisive moment in 1997, almost no country satisfied all five entry criteria.Italy,Spain,PortugalandGreecedid not even fulfill one of them. This was in particular the case for the public debt, which amounted 122% GDP forItalyand even 128% forBelgium. The norm was (and still is) only 60%.
• The euro was supposed to be the central element of an Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). However, even today the economic union has not been completed; a fiscal union with compulsory budget rules has not been realized as yet (fiscal union).

 Why was the euro launched, nonetheless? Mainly because of political reasons. The euro was considered in particular as an instrument to accelerate European integration, both economically and politically. Countries were also admitted if they appeared to be determined to satisfy the criteria in the near future. Joining the euro zone was supposed to stimulate member states to implement sound economic policies. This should also apply to the competitiveness of a country: the removal of the option of competitive devaluations would force them to decrease wages and prices or increase productivity if their products would become to expensive. It was assumed that they would be disciplined by the forces of the international markets.

Back to the drachma, the lira, the peseta and the escudo?

For quite some time, it went fairly well with the euro. However, in the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, two big problems emerged:

• The public debt of a number of countries is rising sharply. In 2009, it was revealed thatGreecehad been cheating about the real figures of its budget and national debt. The belief that a number of European countries were able to service their debts disappeared. This resulted in far higher interest rates, making it almost impossible to finance sovereign debts.
• Strong imbalances in intra-EU trade. Some countries, likeItaly,SpainandGreece, were not able to remain competitive, while others such asGermanyand theNetherlandsmanaged to increase their competitiveness. But by the introduction of the euro, the safety-valve of currency devaluations has been lost.  Despite stagnating economies and high unemployment, wages and prices in the Southern member states did not adjust. This rigidity is mainly caused by various market regulations and social provisions. According to the OECD, between 2000 and 2010 the unit labour costs inItalyrose 26% and inGreece56% more than inGermany; for theNetherlandsthe difference was only 2,6%.

A return to the old national currencies would enable the weak member states to become competitive again, to increase growth and hence also to generate more income for governments.

Costs of a euro zone break up would be enormous

Despite all this, a return to the old currencies is not an option. The consequences would be disastrous, according (among others) the economic bureaus of UBS, ING Bank and Willem Buiter of City Bank. The losses during the first year are estimated to be around  9 to 10% of GDP (ING Bank) to 25-50% (UBS, depending on the country in question), or 1500 to 5000 billion euro in total. There will also be a strong spill-over effect to the rest of the world. The consequences of a euro exit will be different for strong and weak countries. For the latter, the cost might amount to 40-50% of GDP, according to estimates of UBS. The costs will also be significant over subsequent years, before the economy of a weak country possibly will stabilize.

The process of the break up of the eurozone

Exit of the eurozone is formally not allowed; the Treaty of Lisbon only offers the option for a member state to leave the EU as such. Entry to the eurozone is irrevocable. Hence, a

member state can only leave the EMU via a change of EU treaties, which requires the consent of all member states. There is no legal basis for expelling a member state either.

A withdrawal from a member state from the eurozone will definitely require quite some time. It cannot be realized overnight . But assume that a weak country, such asItaly,SpainorGreecefor all that will decide to do this. The euro must be converted into a new national currency – from a technical point of view a very complicated operation, which took around three years in the opposite case of the conversion to the euro.  The new national currency will immediately depreciate against the euro and other currencies – which is also the intention, because it would make a country more competitive. It is expected that the loss of value will amount to at least 50% (against the euro).The debts, denominated in euros or other foreign currencies, will strongly increase in terms of the new national currency (up to 100%). This will almost for sure trigger a default of the country in question. The country’s  banks will also get in deep trouble, because preceding the exit most depositors will try to withdraw their money from banks, causing a complete collapse of the national banking system. Governments can decide to limit bank withdrawals or even close the banks entirely for some time, but this will paralyse the economy and international trade with that country.

Exit of strong euro countries will have disastrous consequences as well. Their new national currencies will immediately appreciate, leading to a complete collapse of their exports to the weaker countries. Their banks have to write down most of their loans to weak countries and weak countries’ banks; many will face default as well. Financial markets will crash and institutional investors (such as pension funds) will be confronted with massive losses.Europewill export its crisis to the rest of the world. The total cost of a disintegration of the eurozone will not cost some hundreds, but rather thousands of billions of euros.

ECB as lender of last resort

Will this scenario actually happen? I consider this as very unlikely. Okay, the politicians finally seem determined to complete the EMU, among others by establishing a kind of fiscal union. And they pretend that they will capitalize the European emergency fund sufficiently. However, the Northern member states have been quite reluctant so far with financial support, because they do not want to spoil the ‘big spenders’ in the South and they will keep them responsible for their own mess. There is only one institution, though, who can prevent a collapse of the eurozone on a short notice: the European Central Bank (ECB). Formally, the ECB is not allowed to buy newly issued sovereign bonds, because that would led to monetary financing of sovereign debt (the ‘Weimartrap’). Indirectly, the ECB is intervening already for quite some time: by supplying European banks with almost unlimited and cheap money and by massively buying sovereign bonds on secondary markets. In case of emergency, the ECB will without doubt also buy sovereign bonds directly. If these interventions are successful, the ECB’s money will not be lost, because countries will not default and government bonds in the hands of the ECB can be sold on the market in a later stage at regular prices. The final costs of such a rescue operation will most likely be hundreds of billions rather than thousands of billions of euros.

Conclusion: the euro will stay……

The responsible politicians and monetary authorities would have gone out of their minds if they would let the euro crash. When it comes to the point they almost certainly will not let it happen. With only a fraction of the cost of a break up, the euro can be saved. A good rescue operation must be complemented with a comprehensive package of structural reforms (e.g. increased budget discipline and more flexibility on labour and product markets). Without these reforms, such a rescue would look like trying to fill a bucket with a hole in it.

Originally published in Dutch in:

De Kritische Belegger, 23 January 2012

http://www.dekritischebelegger.nl/economie/lang-leve-de-euro/

Venue was booming Sofia, Bulgaria’s capital and home to the New Bulgarian University, one of the founding partners of the consortium. On a personal level it was great to connect with all of the members with whom I have worked these past five years .

A fascinating group of people. Let me share some thoughts on why. I think the time is ripe for that. Many international consortia wither away over time and are unable to bring their projects to full bloom. I understand from the inside out why that happens because I know how difficult it is to work successfully in an international team.

But the opposite is happening within our consortium; the programme is booming, worldwide cooperation opportunities present themselves, the students are doing great and some are getting job offers even before they graduate. Across the consortium we are receiving the same vibes: something good is happening.

So why is the MIC on a roll?? An easy question to ask, but not an easy one to answer.

Let me try and describe, from my point of view, one of the main ingredients of the MIC success, the consortium organisational committee, consisting of one representative per partner. This committee is responsible for the overall organisation of the programme and meets at least once a year to tweek, groom and develop the programme.

The consortium has included the same people from day one. This means we have been working intensely together for the past 5 years. Working so close together on such a complex task is anything but easy and we have experienced our share of disagreement, misunderstanding and frustration. But what makes the consortium strong is that we are always been convinced that the strength of the cooperation lies not in the problems we encounter but in our ability to solve them.

The factor X is crucial to any success and there is plenty to go around in the consortium. Good chemistry is almost tangibly present. We genuinely like each other. We inspire each other. We have a good time and we enjoy each other’s company. We can laugh at ourselves and our silly struggles. We can compromise for the good of the consortium. One plus one is three.

In Sofia, the university’s vice rector joined us during lunch and said to us afterwards that he could feel the positive energy between us. It was good to hear.

So who is this part of this winning combination? All of the professional profiles are posted under the consortium button on the website. Below, no professional profiles, but my impressions of the flesh and blood of the team.

Roberto Razeto is our suave and handsome Italian, a gentleman in every sense of the word. His quietly spoken contributions to the discussions are always on the mark and we sit up and listen. He has developed the Italian IULM  program to include the world’s leading experts such as James A. Thurber and Michael Stoppard. The study trip Roberto is organising to Washington and New York will prove to be a highlight for the students, without a doubt.  His smile is disarming and his sense of humour brings us closer together.

We are all a little bit in love with Roberto. We can’t help ourselves. If the consortium  needs to make a fashion statement, these Italians from IULM in Milano will do the trick. They instantly upgrade the appearance of the whole consortium team.

Tolya Stoitsova is one of the whirlwinds of the consortium team. She is professor, doctor, dean, grandmother, world citizen, visionary educational innovator and above all a genuine sweetheart. She is committed to the consortium with heart and soul and I marvel at the way she steers through the bureaucracies she encounters to reach her goal. Tolya is omnipresent and unyielding in the most positive sense of those words as possible. She has put together and leads an excellent Bulgarian MIC team, of which Desislava Ljubomirova Boshnakova and Stoyko Iliev Petkov are its most prominent members.

I admire her drive and perseverance sometimes it seems against all odds. But she is a winner and it shows. If anything that – in my opinion -  is her priceless contribution to the consortium.  

Renata Matkeviciene is the lone wolf of Vilnius University. Her gentle perseverance has successfully established the MIC programme at her university. I sometimes wonder how she pulled it off. She is clearly focussed on cooperation across Europe. She was able to incorporate new European educational insights and competency based learning in Lithuanian’s oldest and most respected traditional universities. And successfully so, we have already welcomed our first graduates. I feel she is unjustly humble of her achievements. She too is an expert in steering clear of bureaucratic collisions.

You know for a fact that she has moved mountains, but to hear her talk about it,you would think it was all in a day’s work. The MIC could not have asked for a better ambassador in Lithuania.

Rudiger Theilmann is a relatively new member of the MIC organisational committee, joining us only last year. An ex pat German he represents Leeds Metropolitan University, one the UK’s top PR universities and favourite student cities. I saw Rudiger overwhelmed at first when he joined our explosive meetings, but he fitted in amazingly well in a very short time. He has done an absolutely great job of streamlining procedures in Leeds. He happily told us in Sofia that teachers are now lining up to teach the MIC while in the past they seemed hesitant. The programme is selling itself these days, he told us proudly. The excellent achievements and work ethics of the MIC students are really being noticed. We put Rudiger’s picture with his MIC students in the slideshow on the homepage of our MIC website.

Iekje Smit
Consortium Chair