Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Der Abschluss Bericht des Projektes "Cosmice", welches von ÖH und European Students' Union (ESU) durchgeführt wurde
Citation preview
Cha
lleng
es o
f St
uden
tM
obili
ty in
aCo
smop
olit
an
Euro
pe
⁄ when reality illustrates the disconfirmation of the common nation-state ontology of politics and society ⁄
CoSMiCE
⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan EuropeVienna, February 2015
Content: Isabella Albert, Gabriela Bergan, Elsa Hackl, Manuela Hugentobler, Pernille Hoj, St ep han Kerschbaumer, Aengus Ó Maoláin, Erin Nordal, Erik Pedersen, Florian Rainer, Lana Rauch, Beate Treml, Miro Verdel, Simone Widmer, Janine Wulz.
Project Cordination, Proofreading and Editing: Office for International Affairs of the Austrian Students’ Union
Image Credits: Statistical graphics are provided by the Austrian Institute for Advance Studies (IHS), Vienna.
Layout: Marie ReichelProduction: Fairdrucker GmbH, Wintergasse 52, A-3002 Purkersdorf
Contact: [email protected] The authors publish their articles under the Creative Commons License CC BY-NC-SA 3.0. You are welcome to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format if you follow the license terms.
Imprint
This publication reflects the views only of the authors, BMWFW & Stadt WIEN cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Realized with the friendly financial support of:
Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe
⁄ Isabella Albert ⁄ Gabriela Bergan ⁄ Elsa Hackl ⁄ Manuela Hugentobler ⁄ Pernille Hoj ⁄ Stephan Kerschbaumer ⁄ Aengus Ó Maoláin ⁄ Erin Nordal ⁄ Erik Pedersen ⁄ Florian Rainer ⁄ Lana Rauch ⁄ Beate Treml ⁄ Miro Verdel ⁄ Simone Widmer ⁄ Janine Wulz
4
5
PrefacePreface
Dear Reader, It is always a very positive occurrence when the Ministry and the Students are looking eye to
eye on a higher education policy issue. The CoSMiCE project (Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe) of the Austrian and Slovak students unions tackles mobility themes which constitute such common ground. It is therefore a pleasure for me to present my view on this topic which is of vital importance to young people in higher education and to our society at large. Mobility is one of the cornerstones of Internationalization, and at the same time a vital part of national and European higher education policies. In its physical, and prevailing form, it is the very exercise which adds directly to the personal advancement and the academic learning of a student. It is a proven fact that quality mobility prepares the individual perfectly well for the challenges of our complex world because a study stay abroad exposes the student to new ways of thinking and doing. The latest survey on transnational academic mobility confirms what is already common knowledge: The ERASMUS Impact Study, published in September 2014, high-lights the skills and competences acquired abroad, which substantially and positively influence an individuals career as well as social life: tolerance, problem-solving and employability skills, critical self-reflection, etc. So it is no surprise that students have always championed mobility and fought to remove the obstacles to it. But also governments have understood the significance of an international education for higher education graduates and have promoted student mo-bility through a host of national and transnational schemes and programs. Transnational student exchange has existed always, but it really took off with the fall of the iron curtain. The Ministry of Science and Research launched the CEEPUS program to promote the exchange among uni-versities in Central and Southeastern Europe. Another outstanding example of Austrias com-mitment to the promotion of student mobility is the positive performance in the ERASMUS student mobility scheme with annually rising exchange figures from 1992 all the way up to the academic year 2013/14, which is due, among others, to the provision of additional national funds. Most of program mobility is credit mobility, with only a part of ones studies done abroad: Yet, degree mobility, with a whole degree program spent outside ones own country, is gaining ever more importance. The nationally funded AUSTRIA MUNDUS program, for example, has helped Austrian higher education institutions enhance their participation in ERASMUS MUNDUS joint programs. Austria has been actively engaged in the strengthening of the European Higher Ed-ucation Area/Bologna Process from the very beginning. We have nominated Austrian experts
Austrian Ministry of Science, Research and Economy
6
Pre
face
for all Bologna Working Groups to follow-up on the 3-year work program between the Bucha-rest conference in spring 2012 and the Yerevan conference to be held in May 2015. Some of the policies covered contribute indirectly to the promotion of mobility, such as fair and transparent reco gnition procedures, recognition of prior learning, standardized quality assurance measures, as well as improving the social dimen sion and lifelong learning. And the Working Group on “Mobility & Internationalization”, in particular, has a direct impact on mobility activities. Its main aims are improving the mobility of university teachers and staff as well as the quality of mobility, the access of under-represented student groups to mobility and the portability of financial stu-dent support for transnational studies.
A further step towards enhancing the international experience was the inclusion of mobility strategy elements in the performance agreements (“Leistungsvereinbarungen”) with the public universities. They are asked to build mobility windows into curricula, to offer more degree pro-grams in a foreign language (preferably in English), to improve recognition procedures, to de velop more joint study programs and more “internationalization at home” features for curricular and extra-curricular activities. The students play a pre-eminent role in the successful implementation of many of these mobility measures as they are involved in developing curricula, and because they can become active in getting international and national students together in order to provide the non-mobiles with the opportunity to engage in intercultural exchange with the international students present at their higher education institution. Students with mobility experience should act as multipliers and motivators to provide potential mobile students with relevant information. The impact factors influencing student mobility identified in the CoSMICE study covering 10 European countries coincide to a great extent with the topics covered by our common endeavor to create a European higher education area free of stumbling blocks to the movement of students and teachers. “Recognition”, “Financial Support”, “Brain Drain and Brain Gain” and the “Social Dimension” are high on the agenda of most governments in the EHEA.
I warmly welcome the CoSMICE project and I am fully convinced that the recommendations and findings of the surveys and analyses will go a long way in dismantling more of the obstacles to mobility, of which there are still too many.
Elmar Pichl, Director General for Higher Education Austrian Ministry of Science, Research and Economy
7
Preface
Scientific exchange across countries and across disciplines will very much define the future of higher education. Already today, regions and cities benefit especially from the networks of ex-perience and knowledge foreign students create. Foreign students have the potential to enhance the quality of the academic environment and expat student life increases cultural diversity. One of several positive developments is the increasing number of students participating in Erasmus mobility programs and studying in a foreign country.
The money students spend in their place of study has a tremendous financial impact on a region. For Vienna this amounts to almost two billion Euros of added value annually. On top of this there is the demographic impact universities and their students have on cities such as Vienna. University towns are well advised, therefore, to support students, for instance by sup-plying affordable housing, welcome services and unbureaucratic support.
Vienna is aiming to become Central and Eastern Europe’s capital of science and research. Consequently we want to create and promote an attractive environment for international stu-dents and highly qualified teachers and researchers. This publication identifies the challenges and problems that a growing number of mobile students are facing. It is an important contribution to the efforts of improving the academic welcome culture.
PrefaceImprovin the Welcome Culture in “Univercities”
Alexander Van der BellenCommissioner for Universities City of Vienna
8
9
Content
11 Introductory words 12 Contextualization21 Cosmopolitanism 22 Challenges of student degree mobility38 Reasons and barriers49 Recognition of degrees60 Brain drain, brain gain69 Mobility models77 Commodification, a commentary79 Interview I 82 Interview II86 Reflections of a pulse at a free end 87 Further recommended readings
Content
10
Intr
od
uct
ory
Wo
rds
11
Introductory Words
Introductory wordsChairing Team, Austrian Students’ Union
Degree Mobility is a repeatedly discussed topic in the shadow of credit mobility, therefore it has a subordinated status in European-wide discourses. Though we believe that this topic should be at the very core in the discourses on the future of higher education, since it is the most visible attri bute of an essentially borderless European Higher Education Area. Degree Mobility forces a country to reflect on its identity and self-conception due to its interaction with academic mi-gration. Therefore the Austrian Students’ Union (ÖH) and the Slovakian Students’ Union (SRVS) launched the idea of a common project to discuss on degree mobility and asymmetric mobility flows. CoSMiCE, an acronym for Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe, tries to link up with challenges and barriers of degree mobility perceived by students- above and beyond, to raise awareness in this dynamic process. Our focus on degree mobility is targeting students which are following a full study programme abroad. In order to sensitize Students’ Un-ions in Europe for the overarching theme of degree mobility ÖH and SRVS organized a European wide seminar in Bratislava from 29.04.-01.05.2014. The outcomes of this seminar are now sum-marized within this publication.
One of the reasons to bring up the Bologna Process was the easement for students (credit) mobility. So while Bologna was intended to bring a homogenous system and to create a Euro-pean Higher Education Area there are still implementation problems on all national levels, such as the fact that higher education institutions are more or less in competition with each other. The developments of higher education systems based on neoliberal assumptions forces the insti-tutions to be rather competitive than cooperative. Shouldn’t be the recognition of qualifications a prior objective for a solidly and attractive EHEA to build upon further common goals? A further aspect which should be taken in account are the financial expenses of mobile students, since a lot of students can’t even afford studying in another country. We urge the national states all over Europe to take a deeper and diligent look on the social dimensions of higher education. Social standards must be increased to guarantee meaningful student mobility. To stage a critical input in this discussion we did this publication, though, beyond that, we launched a platform for pro-found networking - http://sudo.oeh.at/en/map/ - to enable worldwide student unions to interact and cooperate.
We thank you for taking interest in our publication and hope you will get an interesting in-sight through our work and utmost concerns.
12
Contextualization of CoSMiCEFlorian Rainer
The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is a major idea to gain a joint collaboration in the tertiary education sector to ensure comparability in the standards and quality of higher education qualifications. Though, each participating country has different prerequisites in socio-political and economic policy notions. This causes considerable differentiation and non-uniform patterns, at the international, national and institutional level. International or European university mobility and national social and university policies are not balanced and are characterized by large struc-tural differences. Funding mechanisms and restriction criteria differ not only among single-Eu-ropean states and their concepts but also within states and their higher education structures.
The concepts of internationalization and welcome culture of higher education institutions, in particular to degree mobility, is of different attraction to students. Students who decide to study abroad have to face several problems, problems of the European complexity due to different elaborated conceptualizations and different approaches to higher education philosophies based on their individual welfare considerations. Internationalization is a dynamic process which is forcing countries amongst other aspects to reflect on ethnicity and migration, on their iden-tity, belonging and their concepts of encountering international students. Due to this European complexity mobile students are affected of multilayered challenges. Following from that, we used the progressive project-title ‘Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe’ to de-liberate our widened approach.
The Bologna Process, as an extensive reform within the EHEA, claims the goal to provide a framework for fundamental issues such as higher education governance, the social dimension of higher education and research and qualification schemes for mutual recognition for an increas-ingly complex society. This publication is part of the European complexity.
Cultural encounters can evolve in different forms of results- mutual understanding, acqui-sitions and identification, acknowledgement, changes and rearrangements, but also different-iation and exclusion, contempt and submission. Mobile students are in processes of “trans-locational positionality” (cf. Anthias, 2008), and what’s more not only humans are mobile but also services or goods, ideas, beliefs and activities. Translocationality has to be understood not only in the way that social structures are in motion but also that they’re in constant change. These “arenas” are “multi-layered and multi-sited” (Levitt & Jaworsky, 2007, S.131). Thereby we are fac-
Co
nte
xtu
aliz
atio
n o
f C
oSM
iCE
13
ing a huge array of issues which are questioning new interaction processes by means of mobility processes. Mobility is already a largely established tool in the EHEA but degree mobility inter-fuses this academic space in an intensity which brings new challenges along. Degree mobility gives those challenges a new quality of perspective since the number of mobile degree students increases steadily and are structured by a different background and supportive infrastructure than other mobile students. Therefore, we are arguing for including degree mobility even more in the general debate on mobility by governments to forward the idea of a cosmopolitan Europe with a widened approach.
Internationalization is of growing importance for universities, and in consequence for society, therefore we have to find the right questions to enrich this crucial discussion. In this publication we are focusing and reflecting on the perspectives of students’ unions; to position ourselves in the dialogue of higher education. The ‘Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe’ - project tries to build a framework for those questions and to give a broad discussion new im-pulses. Many European countries see their system of higher education suffering from effects of unbalanced mobility. As a result, many of them tend to increase the access restrictions to their institutions of higher education in protectionist behaviour, and the action takes a paradoxical turn. Others, however, have solved their problems different.
Asymmetric developments in the academic landscape
Mobility is in the interest of students, academics and of society- for several reasons. It indicates developments and cultural exchanges of social and academic values, it promotes tolerance and reduces discrimination. As already stated, mobility in the EHEA does not only mean mobility of people but also ideas, networks and activities. Therefore, the social context and above all the public perceptions are changing- connected by the idea of science and education.
What is the purpose of a university within internationalization, and how can those purposes still be an orientation framework for society?
There is definitely the need to rethink some developments. As a logical consequence we have to state questions about goals and aims of those reforms and how we should measure their results. That implies that we also have to negotiate about what we believe that a higher education insti-tution and its community stands for. Therefore we should also provide higher education institu-
Contextualization of CoSMiCE
14
tions and its students the scope to develop and reflect ideas and beliefs related to society, since HEIs are key players in the mobility of values. It’s about not to mistake the core idea of science - respecting the autonomy of science and its access - while promoting the process of internationalization. Otherwise we would have to quit on academic freedom and its principle of free art and science, research and teaching. Higher educa-tion policies shouldn’t be turned into economic policies.
The international strategies of HEIs have merely focused on recruitment and partnerships. Nonetheless, teaching in English isn’t internationalization, nor does it imply to have a lot of in-ternational students or the more partnerships the more international the institution is, more and above isn’t it studying or staying abroad. Nonetheless, mobility is an important part of it, though, it has to be stated that mobility shouldn’t be seen as goal in itself, mobility is part of an interna-tionalization process. Moreover, internationalization abroad and internationalization at home are at one side of the coin, they’re interdependent.
Globalization of internationalization developments
Nowadays a global knowledge society evolves, including higher education and moreover every student is affected. Competition as well as cooperation are becoming multipresent principles of the EHEA developments. Mobility, as one main goal of the Bologna Process, which pushes the idea of cross-border delivery of education and the internationalization of the curricula even fur-ther, as well as learning outcomes and its contextual interconnections are becoming mainstream, from margin to center. Embedded in institutional, national and regional cultures and systems; the way of setting courses within international activities expresses itself in different ways by disci-plines and their relation to society- so the context develops as well and adapts its particular idea of welfare in its policies.
Innovative approaches are needed as well as the involvement of non-traditional ideas in in-ternationalization processes. No single approach or paradigm should dominate, we need com-prehensive processes. This means learning also from other non-western national and cultural contexts, a clear contribution and avowal to the quality and equality of global education and research. Nonetheless, some non-European countries are emerging as key players and begin to challenge the dominance of western discourses. Therefore, the questions rises again- do we need to offer a greater clarity to the why of internationalization? Or do we need to focus more on the understanding of the impact of international and intercultural learning outcomes and emphasize research on the benefits? How are internationalization and mobility linked to financial resources, elitism and international opportunities within commodification tendencies?
Co
nte
xtu
aliz
atio
n o
f C
oSM
iCE
15
Insufficient financial resources at local insitutions, language barriers, limited experiences of staff and faculty members as well as geographic preferences should be prioritized activities in discussions. The social cohesion and the public role of higher education have to be scrutinized. The globalization of internationalization is growing and the quantity should be driven by quality.
Asymmetric developments and asymmetric flows
Asymmetries are evolving because of different kinds of parameters- different preconditions on the basis of socio-economic backgrounds of mobile students, asymmetries of corporate actors and individuals, discrimination and sociocultural facets. Above all, there are non-synchronici-ties in the speed of the implementation of the Bologna-Process as well as different deflections to the national political sphere. The EHEA is a multiple of transnational spaces, a superposition of educational spaces in political and scientific fields. A social construction of space with different conceptions of culture and ways to deal with other cultures. Therefore, the question arises: how can everyone be involved in an equal global knowledge process and how it is possible to realize a non-hierarchical global scientific discourse? Is it even possible? Within the EHEA?
Asymmetries already start with the enrolment procedure, there is the risk that the choice that was made is linked to future chances in finding work. Benchmark and ranking tendencies are un-derlining this image. One goal of the Bologna Process is to become internationally competitive as EHEA, though there is also competition inside the EHEA, on a regional, a national and increas-ingly on a European and global level. We are facing competitive problems within the Bologna Process and thereby we are producing mobility flows which let the question appear: what does the establishment of a homogenous EHEA actually mean, and how are mobility flows reflected in the policy papers of the Bologna Declaration?
Following from that, regional policies can lead to strategically alliances and selective cooper-ation to improve their status. Regions that want to be part of the ‘higher’ league, nationally and internationally, constantly have to change. Therefore politics must provide the regulatory policy so that the national location for international mobile factors is attractive and remains attractive. This includes also prestige-aspects, residential and recreational values and cultural offers. As a logical consequence there is the situation of polarization with the concept of excellence. On the one hand there is the claim for equality on the other the need of differentiation. Therefore, the question arises again: how can everyone be involved in an equal global knowledge process and how it is possible to realize a non-hierarchical global scientific discourse? Is it even possible? Within the EHEA?
Contextualization of CoSMiCE
16
Immobility as a pre-stage of mobility
Immobility is accordingly to the current political programs and discussions of reforms of the social dimensions of mobility implied as still to be achieved: as a pre-stage of mobility, as a possi-bility we are awaiting to overcome us. Each and every individual is invited to move; to structure one’s own life independently and to develop thereby a distinctive profile. At the same moment the emphasis on the distinctive profile doesn’t mean an individualization which would trouble the subjective integrity of a person, on the contrary: Those who distinguish themselves from others represent precisely those basic points which are increasing our social network. The de-standardization of one’s own vita in a modern society is linked to the fact that distinctive profiles are becoming a norm and the needs of individuals are linked to the collectives’ request. And that’s an enormous increase of intensity in the process of our socialization (vgl. Liesner, 2006). Being mobile is a new benchmark orientation based on a competitive gospel.
The essential question: why to be mobile in academia at all?
With this publication we tried to demonstrate that students encounter mobility limits which are not fully based on principles of equality or solidarity principle. It is rather the case that asym-metries and imbalances of mobility flows relate to different possibilities and requirements of stu-dents to tertiary education due to their socio-economic background as well as different forms of support; an asymmetric mobility is thus obtained also by financial circumstances. Accordingly different mobility arenas can evolve. On the one hand we are gaining a migration of the elite, on the other hand a mobility which adheres to a different level and thirdly, a mobility that does not take place. Moreover, it shows an interrelation and interdependence of the challenges of social and financial facets that students are confronted with.
Some conclusions to have a contextualized understanding of the following project-structure (compare Bologna conference on student mobility, 2008)
⁄ Mobility has grown from a simple idea in which students go abroad to a complex issue, where social, economic, financial and cultural issues have to be considered. ⁄ Student mobility in the EHEA remains quite unbalanced. A limited number of countries and institutions attract most of the mobile students. Unbalanced flows of mobile students are persisting. The Bologna Process should contribute to brain circulation and not to brain
Co
nte
xtu
aliz
atio
n o
f C
oSM
iCE
17
drain. ⁄ We should consider that a general solution is hard to figure out/can’t be found, each by-pass mobility problem needs its own solution. ⁄ The discussion about funding and financing international cooperation and mobility is still marginal.
The following consequences and notions can be deduced:
⁄ Mobility remains a challenge within the Bologna Process, but especially degree mobility should be paid more attention both within and outside the EHEA. ⁄ Asymmetries and imbalances in academic mobility, staff included, should be on the agenda. ⁄ A general inter-governmental debate on degree-mobility is requested - with a special attention on challenges faced by students during their academic life. ⁄ More and better statistical data is needed to give governments a basis for further improvements. ⁄ Access to higher education and mobility programs should be favored - democratization, mobility and quality are essential components of the EHEA and beyond. ⁄ Education isn’t simply the acceptance of the socio-political status quo, it rather includes the ability to engage in a critique of one’s own society, and to ultimately challenge the soci-ety to attain its own highest ideals. ⁄ Shared principles such as solidarity and trust should be the base for common agreements on admission and funding. ⁄ Responsibility should be redefined due to transnational cooperations. Responsibility shouldn’t be defined by national borders.
The CoSMiCE project
CoSMiCE is trying to link up with these challenges by developing a foundation for a discussion, furthermore to stage a critical input in this dynamic process. A huge step towards a European Area of Higher Education is the dismantlement of mobility barriers, therefore CoSMiCE is about providing an in-depth insight into those challenges of student mobility. Students who decide to study abroad have to face several problems, for example with the recognition of obtained degrees or financial issues, but moreover some are confronted with evident inequalities or xenophobic matters.
Contextualization of CoSMiCE
18
The architecture of the EHEA is enormously complex and constantly ongoing therefore we have to identify our work as a process, a process of understanding and reflecting the definitions and structures of the policy papers. To state that the Bologna Process and its operators and par-ticipants are as well in the constant process of understanding these developments allows us to uncover possibilities of influencing the process. The scope of action should be taken in advantage and critically observed.
CoSMiCE is an open project designed to analyze the current situation of student mobility in Europe focusing on the mapping of mobility in the EHEA and the resulting public perception of student mobility - with a special focus on asymmetrical developments. The project will also present mobility models already realized in some European regions, and show how some of the problems have been solved (successfully). Furthermore, there is an analysis of the Austrian-Ital-ian agreement on mutual recognition of academic degrees, followed by an article about brain drain and brain gain. The publication will be closed by interviews with experts, conclusions and further reading suggestions. We hope to provide you a pleasant and enriching reading.
Co
nte
xtu
aliz
atio
n o
f C
oSM
iCE
19Excluded: mobile students with unknown country of origin. Source: UNESCO – Institute for Statistics, Education database 2010. This Calculation and graphic has been made by the Austrian Institute for Advanced Studies, 2014.
Contextualization of CoSMiCE
46%
60%
60%
Orig
in of
mob
ile st
uden
ts
Europe Americas
Mobile students in Mobile students from
Asia Oceania Africa
Desti
natio
n of m
obile
stud
ents
0%
24%
27%
10%
13%
54%
12%
12%
1%
2%
20
Excluded: mobile students with unknown country of origin. The EHEA average is calculated based on the student numbers in the EHEA, not on country level. Missing data: Albania, Andorra, Bosnia and Herzego-vina, Holy See, Montenegro, Russian Federation, and Macedonia. Not displayed due to their outlying values: Cyprus, Luxemburg, Liechtenstein. Source: UNESCO –Institute for Statistics, Education database 2010. This Calculation and graphic has been made by the Austrian Institute for Advanced Studies, 2014.
Co
nte
xtu
aliz
atio
n o
f C
oSM
iCE
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
0%0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Share of outgoing mobile students
Shar
e of i
ncom
ing m
obile
stud
ents
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
AT
UKCH
FR
CZDK DE
NOIF
IS
SK
MTMD
GEHRLT
LVRSPTITES
AMKZ
ROSIUAPL
TR
AZ
EE
SEFINL
HU BEEHEA
GRBG
21
⁄ The word ‘cosmopolitan’, which derives from the Greek word kosmopolitês (‘citizen of the world’), has been used to describe a wide variety of important views in moral and socio-poli tical philosophy. The nebulous core shared by all cosmopolitan views is the idea that all human beings, regardless of their political affiliation, are (or can and should be) citizens in a single community. [...] Different versions of cosmopolitanism envision this community in different ways, some focusing on political institutions, others on moral norms or relationships, and still others focusing on shared markets or forms of cultural expression. [Pauline Kleingeld, 2002]
⁄ Oh think (think) / Think about what you’re tryin’ to do to me / Woo-hoo think (think) / Let your mind go let yourself be free. [Aretha Franklin, 1968]
⁄ It is not that we are without culture but we are drawing on the traces and residues of many cultural systems, of many ethical systems – and that is precisely what cosmopolitanism means. It means the ability to stand outside of having one’s life written and scripted by any one community, whether that is a faith or tradition or religion or culture – whatever it might be – and to draw selectively on a variety of discursive meanings. [Jeremy Waldron, 1992]
⁄ […] And after the crisis we will need more Europe again in order to overcome the next crisis – always following the cosmopolitcal imperative: cooperat or bust! [Ulrich Beck, 2012]
⁄ So being critical of cosmopolitan politics does not necessarily mean doubting cosmopol-itanism in its normative, cultural or sociological forms - ‘normative meaning what you value and want to achieve and ‘cultural’ or ‘sociological’ meaning what cosmopolitanism already exists in culture and society. For instance, you can doubt cosmopolitanism as politics but still agree with it as a value. At the same time wheter cosmopolitan politics can work does depend in part on whether there is cosmopolitanism in culture and society. So while you can be in fa-vour of some bits of cosmopolitanism and not others they are still all connected. [Luke Martell, 2011]
⁄ Lust for comfort suffocates the soul, this relentless restlessness liberates me / I feel at home whenever the unknown surrounds me / I receive its embrace, aboard my floating house. [Björk, 2008].
Cosmopolitanism Cosmopolitanism
22
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility Challenges of student mobility
Florian Rainer & Janine Wulz
Introduction
The CoSMiCE project focuses on students degree mobility in Europe from a students perspective. Students’ unions all over Europe, representing 11 million students, have discussed their benefits and challenges of students mobility and defined the key impact factors on a country‘s approach towards students mobility. This article puts spot on these factors and discusses their impact on European students mobility.
The CoSMiCE project
CoSMiCE, an acronym for Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe, is a pro-ject organized by the Austrian Students’ Union (ÖH) and the Slovakian Students’ Union (SRVS). This students’ project tries to link up with challenges and barriers of degree mobility perceived by students and seeks to raise awareness in this dynamic process. Our focus on degree mobility is targeting students studying abroad which are following a full study programme. In order to sensitize the participants for the overarching theme of degree mobility ÖH and SRVS organized an European wide seminar in Bratislava from 29.04.-01.05.2014.
Representing a European-wide study, the CoSMICE project polling 47 students’ organizations and 10 in-depth country studies in Armenia (ANSA1), Austria (ÖH), Belgium (VVS2), Denmark (DSF), Estonia (EÜL), Finland (SYL/SAMOK), Germany (fzs), Latvia (LSA), the Netherlands (LSVB) and Poland (PSRP), provides a qualitative insight in European students’ degree mobility from students’ unions’ perspectives and experiences. The questionnaire was distributed to all 47 National Unions of Students (NUS) from 39 countries that are members of the European Stu-dents’ Union (ESU). This survey, which had over 20 open questions3 relating to degree mobility has been approved by representatives of several unions (VSS-UNES-USU, FZS, SRVS, ÖH & ESU). As countries within the EHEA differ strongly in their shares of incoming and outgoing stu-dents, the sample of states chosen for CoSMICE cover a wide range in this spectrum. Austria and Germany have high shares of incoming mobile students and outgoing mobile students studying
1 Please find the full name of the unions’ abbreviations as annex.2 Represents only the students in the Flemish community of Belgium.3 e.g. Are there problems with recognition/nostrification perceived by your union?
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
23
Challenges of Student Mobility
abroad, though Austria has 5,44 more incoming mobile students than outgoings, Germany has a ratio of 1,8. Denmark shows a low number of outgoing students, the incoming mobile students are more than threefold. Belgium, Finland and the Netherlands have average mobility flows in relation to other EHEA countries. Estonia and Latvia are representing countries with a high out-bound ratio. Armenia, a Non-EU country, and Poland are having both low shares of incoming mobile students and low shares of outgoing mobile students5 (cf. UNESCO Institute for Statistics 2010).
The method of content analysis (Bohnsack 1997) was used to analyze the answer patterns pro-vided by the respondents. Six main factors that have an impact on student mobility itself and the perception of student mobility in the national context have been isolated. Those impact factors - Recognition, Tuition Fees and Restrictions, Financial Support, Social Support, Public and Media Perception, Brain Gain and Brain Drain - explain the diverse perceptions of European countries regarding student mobility, as well as the diversity of concepts dealing with incoming students. According to the authors, the clusters are reflecting the perceptions of students’ unions to present a picture of the challenges and national variations across the European Higher Education Area. Moreover, the student project will be summarized by a publication with several contextualizing articles and interviews which will be released in January 2015.
Student mobility in Europe
Internationalisation of higher education is gaining momentum among policy makers as well as practitioners at European, national and institutional levels. Internationalisation includes degree mobility and credit mobility. While degree mobility is conducted with the purpose of completing a whole cycle, to acquire a degree of Bachelor, Master or Phd. Hence it is different to credit mo-bility where students remain enrolled in their home institution and leave it to gain single credit points (ECTS). Other forms of internationalisation are cross-border delivery of education as well as formats of ‘internationalisation at home’ like internationalisation of the curriculum, interna-tionalisation of teaching and learning, and internationalisation of learning outcomes.
In the 1970s the European Union started to cooperate on education and started first actions to enable mobility in higher education. Since the 1990s, international dimensions in higher education have become more reflected in policies, finances, strategies and research (Kehm 2011), the ERASMUS program already started in 1987. In 1999, by adopting the Lisbon strategy and
4 Import -export ratio divides the net incoming mobile students by outgoing mobile students5 For detailed information please have a look on the study of IHS Austria (2014) regarding calculations on degree mobility flows in the EHEA.
24
starting the Bologna Process the European Higher Education Area was established. In 2012 the Mobility 2020 strategy was adopted, promoting “high quality mobility of students, early stage researchers, teachers and other staff ”, including a mobility target by 2020 “at least 20% of those graduating in the EHEA should have had a study or training period abroad”. The Communiqué by the European Commission “European higher education in the world” (COM (13)) launched 2011, outlines in its strategy the promotion of international mobility of students and staff, for example through enhanced services for mobility, tools for recognition of studies, better visa pro-cedures for foreign students and emphasis on two way mobility – into and out of Europe. More-over “internationalisation at home” and cooperation, for example in the field of joint degrees, are promoted.
Beside other factors, as learning foreign languages, internationalisation of curricula or knowl-edge transfer, physical mobility is the most visible part of internationalisation. Students mobil-ity is enabled by the key factor of recognition of degrees and academic achievements (Treichler 2009). To grant the recognition for ERASMUS- supported and other mobile students the Euro-pean Credit Transfer System is being established since 1989.
The increasing number of mobile students indicates that the concept of internationalisation in European higher education has been subject to further development over the last twenty years “from the fringe of institutional interest to the very core” (deWit 2011: p.7).
International student mobility is figurated by an “outcome of a complex interplay of external and internal push and pull variables” (Choudaha, deWit 2014: p.7).
A recent study (Niederl and Bader 2014) in Austria defined numerous factors for internation-al students mobility: Push factors can be personal, as the socio-economic situation, the individual academic abilities, social relationships, former international experiences. Other factors might be related to the situation in the home country, as the opportunities at home universities, quality of national offers or a high relevance of international degrees at the home-countries labour mar-ket. Moreover financial opportunities (scholarships, loans), demographic, economic and polit-ical framework, living standard and living costs are relevant. Pull factors could be related to the field of study, the quality and reputation of higher education institutions, scientific freedom or a multilingual study offer. Other factors are related to service, as information on the host country, administrative support, recognition of degrees and qualifications, cooperation with international institutions and networks. A third group of pull factors are related to the place of study: study and living costs, security, openness, international communities living there, living and working standards and career perspectives as well as cultural, economic, educational, language, political and religious reasons. Other factors are cultural offer, public services, public transport system or the climate (Niederl and Bader 2014)Mobility, as an important factor of internationalisation
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
25
Challenges of Student Mobility
is driven by various interests, aiming for international cooperation but also facing competition and economic factors. On the one hand, students mobility supports knowledge transfer, mutual understanding and peace, and provides opportunities for personal development as global citi-zens and engagement in global networks (Treichler 2009 Hénard, Diamond and Roseveare 2012). On the other hand, students mobility is more and more influenced by market processes such as orientation on global rankings or the fact that international students are increasingly seen as a source of additional revenues from exports of higher education services (OECD 2013a).
Commercial interests are not the only challenge internationalisation and mobility have to face. Another challenge are imbalanced mobility flows, that can lead to conflicts concerning funding and admission policies (Pechar 2014). The loss of intellectual capital, the so called ‘brain drain’, is a main source of worries in developing and emerging countries (EAHEP 2010) and individual challenges can mean additional burdens as costs and high risks for individuals as far as success is concerned (Treichler 2009).
Following from that, it can be said that internationalization of higher education might be led by different factors as political strategies for economic and or diplomatic reasons, the improve-ment of a countries’ home education system or their promotion of country and culture, though two central characteristics can be prescinded. In consequence we can assume that cooperation and competition move from margin to center.
In the following, we will focus on students mobility as an important aspect of international-isation. During the last years, international students mobility was growing. In 2013, more than 4.3 million students were mobile worldwide (OECD 2013). In a real European Higher Education Area, according to the Communiques of the Commission, students are able to move freely across Europe and are no more bound to national borders when choosing their preferred university for their studies. Apparently, this goal is yet to be achieved. With the implementation of the Bologna Process, the EHEA has taken significant steps to its full realization, however, numerous challeng-es are still to be overcome. Moreover, several aspects should be re-problematized. In this article we discuss the diverse realizations and enablings of student degree mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe.
Impact factors on European student mobility
Recognition
Recognition is an essential prerequisite to ensure mobility, as signed in the Lisbon Recognition Convention (1997). All countries participating in the survey offer access to assessments of prov-
26
ing the students’ qualifications, in addition they are part of the ENIC/NARIC network to ensure transparent and reliable procedures. Still students’ unions of the reporting countries describe that the procedures of recognition are accompanied by diverse challenges and obstacles. Furthermore there is no exact data available on the work of the national education bodies, apart from Belgium and Germany, which report that 25-30 % (SVR Migration 2012) of the enquiries were rejected. In most countries (AT, DE, DK, ES, NL, PL) the recognition depends on the Council appointed on the faculty level of the particular institution whether a diploma is approved or not. “Therefore it is a subject of discussion”, LSVb (NL) states. PSRP (Poland) opines that “there is no clear pro-cess of appeal if a diploma is rejected, which causes doubts”. If your application doesn’t meet all the requested entry requirements higher education institutions oblige you to do supplementary examinations. It is a common way to full recognition to complete supplementary courses before or shortly after starting the programme, ÖH (AT), DSF (DK) and PSRP (PL) report. Exceptions of the conventional recognition process are bi- or multilateral agreements concluded by govern-ments which allow a simplified procedure for certain degrees and certificates to enter the higher education sector.
Moreover, there are financial obstacles that students must take. Students holding foreign quali fications are subject to admission expenses and at the same time expenses to prove the equi-valence of their certificates. The Austrian Students’ Union denotes that the procedure of recogni-tion can take up to 3 months with costs of €150 plus extra administration charges. In Germany there are costs of €43 for EU students and €68 for Non-EU students for getting the diploma recognized at the particular higher education institution. “Indirect fees for non EU citizens are raised via those application expenses”, fzs (DE) observes. Non-EU country students are facing problems to a greater extent with recognition processes due to political regulations and different structures in their higher educational institutions’ curricula.
Restrictions and fees
In all participating countries the legal body entrusted with admission to higher education pro-grammes is the very HEI itself. Nevertheless, in all countries there are also general policies that relate to admission. This creates different forms of entrance qualifications, as well as a lack of transparency in handling the access to higher education.
In most countries (AM, BE, LV, NL, PL) higher education institutions are charging incoming students with tuition fees, as well as their citizens, though there is the tendency to charge in-coming students generally higher. Distinctions appear as well with the required charges between EU, EHEA but Non-EU and NON-EHEA countries. Furthermore the amount of fees depends
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
27
Challenges of Student Mobility
on the language in which the programme is held, programmes in English are calculated with additional fees, as reported from EÜL (ES), LSA (LV) and PSRP (PL). Students in Austria and Germany do not have to pay tuition fees while studying within the minimum of duration of their particular programme plus two semesters respectively four semesters of toleranc. Consequently different patterns to the levying of fees can be deduced:
⁄ Fees for international students are higher than for domestic students (LV) ⁄ Fees for Non-EU students are higher than for domestic students (AT, BE, NL) ⁄ Fees for Non-EHEA students are higher than for EHEA students (DK, ES) ⁄ Countries make no distinction between international and domestic student fees (AM) ⁄ Countries are not charging tuition fees from foreign students (FI) ⁄ Fees are contingent upon the language in which the programme is held (ES, LV, PL) ⁄ Fees are contingent upon the duration plus semesters of tolerance (AT, DE) ⁄ Students from developing countries - as defined by the respective government - don’t have to pay fees or get just a minimum of charge (AT, BE)
The level of tuition fees varies enormously, moreover it is tied to various conditions such as the country of origin of the student, the programme the student is enrolled in and the language of in-struction. Estonia, for example, doesn’t charge students from the EHEA if they study in Estonian language, though they charge students for programmes taught in English and students outside of the EHEA. Austria levies €363 from EU students and a twofold amount from Non-EU students. In Latvia, in the Netherlands or in Denmark the fees for certain programmes can cost up to €20.000 per academic year.
Further access arrangements can be quotas for particular study programs or restricted access in the so called mass disciplines by acceptance tests or by numerus clausus. Restrictions in the fields of study related to health science have been reported in Austria, Latvia and the Netherlands. The acceptance of only a significant number of applicants in medical subjects due to limited re-sources got Austria and the EU to agree on a special authorization, until 2016 up to every fourth university place is awarded to Non-Austrian students, thereof 20% EU citizens and 5% Non-EU students. Limited places and restrictions based on high school grade average, the so called numerus clausus, is a common practice in Germany and the Netherlands. Above all, an essential requirement is the ability to communicate in the given language, which has to be proven by cer-tificates of a language proficiency test.
28
Financial suppor t
Within the European Union, diverse financial support mechanisms for student mobility exist, consisting of grants, loans, exemptions from fees or scholarships. There are different restrictions and various ways to access the subsidies of each country. Moreover, in every country specif-ic bilateral agreements allow particular incoming students getting portable grants and scholar-ships for certain degrees. Armenia, for example, offers financial supported study places in inter-governmental or international projects. In Denmark the availability of scholarships is supported by all higher education institutions and the government. Likewise for EU, EEA and Swiss stu-dents which can receive the same grants (about € 780) as Danish students but linked to several requirements. Students can receive these scholarships in other countries (DK, FI, NL) as well, mostly under the terms of visa, residence permits, work permits or a work permit of their parents in the hosting country. Consequently different patterns of financial support can be deduced:
⁄ Grants and loans are available ⁄ The host country offers only individual based scholarships ⁄ Grants are only accessible by certain requirements ⁄ Requirements: Country of origin, visa, residence and work permits, particular subject, parental income
Additionally, it can be perceived that governments pay subsidiaries in different rates according to the subjects (DK, ES). Estonia offers only scholarships for special subjects like IT or engineer-ing and above they are only accessible if the course of studies is in Estonian language. Foreign students are not entitled to apply for student loans, but they have the right to receive educational grants similarly to Estonian students. Germany offers individual based scholarships. Latvia de-mands at least one academic year to be eligible for €500, yet loans in Latvia have the same condi-tions for every student no matter of the country of origin.
When it comes to financial support for outgoing mobile students the situation is diverse as well. Every participating country in this study has its very own financial mechanisms to sup-port outgoing students, but with the exception of Denmark and Finland which have concluded together with Iceland, Norway and Sweden the Nordic Agreement in 1996 (Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research 2012). The agreement has been set up to finance the im-balanced mobility and to increase the opportunities for students. “This means that students from the Nordic countries, who apply for public courses and programmes in other Nordic countries, are automatically granted admission if they hold the right qualifications for the programme. Also,
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
29
Challenges of Student Mobility
the agreement establishes reciprocal recognition of all forms of examinations and descriptions or statements of educational attainment”, DSF (DK) reports. The annual reimbursement in 2014 is approximate €4025 per student.
Austria established mobility scholarships based on the income of the students’ parents while Denmark pays subsidiaries to the tuition fees in the respective country. LSVb (NL) reports that they have a portable grant system as well. Finland offers mobile grants and loans, this financial support consists of a grant (€298), housing supplements (max. €210, depending on the country) and an optional loan guarantee (up to €600). PSRP (PL) states that they have “private scholar-ships for incomings, but outgoing students are not allowed to apply for loans and need or merit based scholarships in Poland when they study abroad (even within EHEA).” Germany makes their national student support system (BAföG) also available for outgoing students with the same terms and requirements, though not every student is eligible for this support scheme. “The ap-plicability depends mainly on the parents’ income, the age and the study progress. For studying in other EU countries or in Switzerland the whole programme time is supported. For studies beyond the EU in most cases just one year is supported by BAföG. BAföG is half a loan and half a grant”, fzs (DE) explains.
Social suppor t
The social support of students is organized differently but almost all participating countries pro-vide information about their particular higher education location via several media. Beyond that, countries or the individual institution offer guidance and consultation services as well as social activities alongside academic duties. Armenia is currently creating a supporting network for stu-dents and the other reporting countries already established a network of social support. Austria has a widely elaborated informational and social supporting network offered by universities and the Austrian Students’ Union. A lot of higher education institutions have an Office for Inter-national Affairs as well as buddy networks (AT, BE, DK, ES, FI, DE, LV, NL, PL), which promotes social contacts among foreign and local students. Furthermore informational campaigns and webpages are common to assist students at their new location, by providing information on deadlines, orientation or special dispositions. Orientation weeks are organized for example in the Netherlands, which are linked to a program called ‘Make it in the Netherlands’ that “aim is to make international students feel more at home”, LSVb (NL) states. Estonia provides as well a tutor system, which assists foreign students with their daily issues. Germany moreover offers welcome packages, regularly scheduled events and cultural activities. PSRP reports that Poland is above all preparing their students for going abroad.
30
Yet another factor of social support is the inclusion of students by language, therefore Aus-tria, Belgium and Poland report that they offer courses with special allowances. Latvia organizes several university students’ council in English language so foreign students can get involved more easily. “Latvian language courses are even required in Latvia if you stay longer than half a year”, LSA states.
The housing situation is reported as being challenging for foreign students because of hin-dered access to information and rental requirements, like a work permit or a particular amount of income. In Belgium and Germany some student accommodation places are reserved for in-coming students. In Finland the student housing is ruled by Non Profit Organizations and “the queues are quite long”, SYL and SAMOK explain the obstacles they are facing.
Media perception
The public and media perception of international students can be regarded as merely positive though there are aspects of skepticism and criticism, mainly related to the funding of higher education, financial benefits and employment issues. Among European countries, the degree and profile of student mobility flows diverge. On the one hand there are countries that accept more students than they send out, and on the other hand there are countries which send out more students than they accept. Therefore student degree mobility is perceived in different manners around the EHEA.
ANSA (AM), VVS (BE) and EÜL (ES) have no information on their media perception since this matter isn’t an object of public discussions. SYL and SAMOK (FI) report that there is not much debate on this topic in Finland, though “they very welcome foreign students within the academic community”. In Denmark, for example, eastern European students – after the EU ver-dict - are seen as “welfare tourists” (DSF) who have now access to university and grants, while employers in Denmark point out that they wish to have more international talents to choose from. Others see the international students as a valuable contribution to society and its edu-cational system, as they contribute with new perspectives. It often can be observed that countries with a high share of incoming mobile students such as Denmark or Austria portray the incoming students as people who take away university places when studying for free. Though the discussion in Austria isn’t completely international focused, Austrian media reports are merely concentrated on German students who are stylized and typified as evaders of their Numerus Clausus system. In return Germany is a favoured destination in Europe, “nonetheless Germany is a net exporter and the media reports mainly on incoming students. Newspapers narrate that only one out of two international students are actually graduating”, fzs (DE) denotes.
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
31
Challenges of Student Mobility
The DAAD study (2014), which demonstrated the positive effect in several respects – aca-demic and economic – of international students however was important for the positive pub-lic perception in a lot of countries, Students’ Unions of Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Poland report. LSA (LV) shares a similar appraisement; it considers incoming students as a “treat to the states’ economic development in long terms” as well as the Netherlands, who try to stim-ulate the mobility flows. Therefore all political parties are gathering and working out strategies for the realization of a balanced internationalization strategy. In 2013, they already launched a plan to make the Netherlands a more attractive country for international students. “International students are mainly seen as value, also in economic matters”, LSVb (NL) reports.
Poland perceives international students as a valuable part of the internationalization of higher education. Consequently they try to make studying in Poland more attractive, since they are regarded as beneficiary for the development of their country. “They are seen as a motivator to improve public administration. Creating comfortable conditions for foreigners is one of our pri-orities, both in academic and general contexts”, PSRP (PL) describes the public perception.
Brain drain and brain gain
Accompanied by the international student mobility flows emigration and immigration depend on structural conditions and prerequisites of the higher education sector and labour market issues. Therefore, there is a public debate and in a sense a competition for top students. It is dis-cussed as a significant advantage and considerable benefit to get and keep these students, and as a disadvantage for countries that do not have the means to keep their students.
Armenia and Belgium have no information on Brain Drain nor on Brain Gain. LSA (LV) reports “brain drain affection due to a high unemployment rate, it is seen that a lot of incoming students leave the country after finishing their degree.” PSRP (PL) perceives similar affections, “it is said that insignificant percentage of incoming students stay in Poland after finishing”. Even for Austria it is hard to make the foreign students stay due to the insufficient resources and avail-able prospects in work. Therefore, Austria established the RedWhiteRed-Card, a special working permit for qualified employees from Non-EU countries (Federal Ministry of the Interior 2014), though only 213 out of 1700 student applicants from Non-EU countries got it in the year 2013 (Der Standard 2014). Staying in a country is primarily linked to working conditions, however language requisitions are described by ÖH (AT) and LSA (LV) as the main barrier. Following from that, these countries perceive effects and are aware of Brain Drain. The most important Brain Drain movement from Germany is towards North America by 10.000 students. For this reason the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) established the german academic
32
international network (GAIN). On the other hand “Germany is requested by 25% of the inter-national students to stay after their studies”, fzs denotes.
Otherwise in Denmark, “in 2008 30% of incoming students found a job”, DSF explains, and “four out of five students wish to find a job after graduation.” Denmark therefore expanded the work permit period for international students to three years as opposed to six months be-fore. Though it has to be considered that a study from 2008 showed that half of the students of Denmark, who finished their degree abroad in 2003, stayed abroad afterwards. Similar outcomes are reported by LSVb (NL) where 64% of the international students wish to stay after the comple-tion of their studies in the Netherlands. EÜL (ES) explains that “educational migration to Estonia has been stable in the recent years, making 12% out of the whole migration, but it is still about two times lower than the EU average (23%) and even more for Finland (27%).” SYL and SAMOK (FI) report that 70% of the international students are staying at least one year in Finland.
Conclusions and outlook
The perception of student mobility is very diverse among the in-depth analysed countries. The concepts of internationalization and welcome culture, in particular to degree mobility, is of dif-ferent attraction to students. Students who decide to study abroad have to face several problems, problems of the European complexity due to different elaborated conceptualizations or different approaches to higher education philosophies based on their individual welfare considerations. Internationalization is a dynamic process which is forcing countries amongst other aspects to re-flect on ethnicity and migration, on their identity, belonging and their concepts of encountering international students. Due to this European complexity mobile students are affected of multilay-ered challenges. Following from that, we used the progressive project-title ‘Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe’ to deliberate our widened approach.
The following table provides and overview of the in-depth analysed countries approach towards students degree mobility.
Country/ impact factor
Recognition Tuition fees and restrictions
Financial support Social support Public percep-
tion
ArmeniaNo problems / Big problems for outgoings
$852 per academic year Low-interest loans
Social support network in development
No information No information
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
33
Challenges of Student Mobility
Austria
Problems perceived / long duration and charges
Limited access to certain subjects
Scholarships with different restrictions
Various forms of support
Most reports upon German students
Structural problems, Brain Drain is perceived
Belgium Rejection rate of 30%
€500 for EU students / up to €3845 for Non-EU students
Grants due to bilateral agreements
Housing is perceived as a huge problem
No information No information
Denmark Supplementary courses
Fees only for Non-EHEA students
Danish study grants for EU students with requirements / Nordic Agreement
Various forms of support
International students are perceived as ‘welfare tourists’
30% of incoming students found a job / 50% of outgoing students stay abroad
Estonia Problems perceived
No fees for studies in Estonian
Scholarships for studies in Estonian
Tutor system Less discussions / Internationals are welcome
12% of migration
Finland no information No fees
Scholarships with different restrictions / Nordic Agreement
Various forms of support
No object of discussion
No affection / About 70% stay after finishing their studies
Germany rejection rate of 25%
Fees for University entrance certificate
Individual based scholarships
Mainly organized by local Students’ Unions
Diverse perception of internationali-zation
Brain Drain movement from Germany towards North America
Latviaproblems with Eastern European countries
Fees for incoming students, dependent on the subject
Scholarships after studying one year
Language courses are obligatory for stays longer than a year
Internationals are considered as threat to economy
Affection of Brain Drain perceived / High unemplo-yment rate
Netherlands no information
Distinction between EU and Non-EU, fees starting from €1800
Scholarships with different restric-tions / Portable grant system
Various forms of support
International stu-dents are mainly seen as value
64% of inter national students would like to remain after the completion of their studies
Poland problems perceived
Free for EU students / English programmes are charged
Merit-based Grants, Exemption from tuition fees, Scholarships
Various forms of support
International students are regarded as valuable part
No information
Table 1: Index of impact factors
34
The isolated impact factors show the countries perception towards students mobility. However, the indicators impact needs to be seen in correlation with each other. Moreover, other factors as a country‘s welfare system or economic situation do influence the approach towards students mobility as well, but have not been analysed within the CoSMiCE project. The isolated impact factors also put spotlight on areas where students see the need of modifications to enable students mobility for all.
A main challenge for mobile students is related to financial efforts. Tuition fees, living and study expenses, travel and high income differences between European countries are the main barriers for student mobility. Mobility grants are seen as the main solution to overcome this, by many students representatives. Even though there are already mobility grants and portable grants and loans, mobility is not affordable irrespective to the individual socio-economic background.
Moreover, the chance to apply for financial support in the host country is often related to work permit and residence permit - regulations to be eligible for official backings are very diverse among countries.
Language policies differ considerably between the countries. On the one hand, they aim to support the integration of international students, by a broad offer of lectures in English or op-portunities to learn the language of a country for free. On the other hand, in some countries, by the requirement of a certain level, language becomes a barrier to receive grants or access to higher education institutions. In those cases language is used as an exclusive regulation tool. The non-uniform patterns can increase the asymmetries of mobility flows, too, within the social di-mension of the mobile students.
The balance between mobility flows is seen as very diverse. Countries, with a high outbound rate and a low inbound rate, are faced with ‘Brain Drain’ discussions and target to rise incoming mobility. Other countries are faced with a high number of incomings and are faced with funding and admission issues. Those countries have differing reactions. While some countries developed policies based on solidarity and agreements between the main involved countries, other coun-tries target to solve the problem by exclusion of international students in some areas. While these policies are mostly related to national or even nationalist discussions, others aim for a European discourse. Following from that, the share of principles in admission and funding of HE can be seen as prerequisites for meaningful mobility. Common agreements and negotiations based on democratization and quality should be favored.
The main findings of the CoSMiCE project show the high diversity between European Coun-tries and their regulations. Access criteria, financial and social support and language policies are not only contrastive, they are regulated by various bodies and are highly complex. Moreover, regulations lack of transparency and international comparability. Students barely get the infor-
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
35
Challenges of Student Mobility
mation they need to decide on their individual mobility due to diverse information policies and complex bureaucratic systems. Additionally, the complexity is not only related to educational policies but also to migration and labour market policies.
Another main finding is related to the public discussion on students mobility. The Public and media perception is very ambivalent among all countries. On the one hand, mobility is seen as attractive and even necessary, on the other hand, discussions on brain drain and imbalanced student mobility flows led to negative perceptions of mobility.
To overcome the barriers towards students mobility, not only broad system reforms in the areas of students support or migration policy are required. Measures are also needed to enhance the information towards students by more transparency, social support, but also creating trust between educational systems and solidarity among European countries. Mobility remains a chal-lenge in the space of a Cosmopolitan Europe, over and above special attention should be given to degree mobility and profound cooperation models within the EHEA and Non-EHEA, to finally overcome an higher education area of contrasting contexts and interplays of protectionist behav-ior rather than solidarity based cooperation,.
As this survey has shown, national policies regarding students mobility are influenced by national debates and thus provide ambivalent opportunities for incoming and outgoing students - in terms of financial support, social support but also migration policies and societal prejudices are factors that enable or hinder mobility. These ambivalent national policies lead to a situation, where students can barely overview and compare the different approaches and are often over-whelmed by the complexity of national systems, even if there are support measures. Degree-seek-ing students are not only confronted with financial and socio-economic barriers, but are also left alone in preparing, organising and funding their mobility. Most likely this will lead to a less so-cio-economic diversified group of degree students, which should be further researched in future.
A conclusion of the described complex national approaches towards students mobility might be, that students degree mobility must become not only an European issue, but an European responsibility to finally create a common European Higher Education Area.
References
⁄ Bohnsack, R. 1997. ‘Dokumentarische Methode’ in R. Hitzler and A. Honer (eds.). Sozialwis senschaftliche
Hermeneutik, Opladen: Leske and Budrich, pp. 191-213.
⁄ Cerdeira L. and Patrocinio T. 2009. Social support, a key for student mobility in European higher education
area. Internationalisation and the Role of University Networks. EMUNI Conference on Higher Education and
Research.
36
⁄ Council of Europe. 1997. Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in
the European Region, Higher Education Policy online publication September 12. http://bit.ly/X50wiq
⁄ Choudaha, Rahul, deWit, Hand. 2014. Challenges and Opportunities for Global Student Mobility in the
Future: A Comparative and Critical Analysis.
⁄ DAAD. 2014. The Financial Impact of Cross-border Student Mobility on the Economy of the Host Country,
online publication September 12. http://bit.ly/1qCZXcN
⁄ De Wit, H. 2011. Trends, Issues and Challenges in Internationalisation of Higher Education. Amsterdam:
CAREM. http://bit.ly/1uOWAhg
⁄ Deardorff, D.K., de Wit, H., Heyl, J. and Adams, T. (eds) 2012. The Sage Handbook of International Higher
Education. Sage.
⁄ Der Standard. 2014. Österreich hat ein Brain Drain Problem, online publication September 2012. http://bit.
ly/1s2mnFM
⁄ EAHEP. 2010. EU-Asia Higher Education Platform. http://www.eahep.org/
⁄ EACEA. 2013. Eurydice Overview. Staff Mobility in Higher Education.
⁄ National Policies and Programmes.
⁄ European Commission. 2013. European higher education in the world. Communication from the Commis-
sions to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Com-
mittee of the Regions. COM (2013) 499 final.
⁄ Federal Ministry of the Interior. 2014. Rechtsvorschrift für Niederlassungs- und Aufenthaltsgesetz, Residence
Policy online publication September 12. http://bit.ly/X7Z2UJ
⁄ Grabher, Angelika; Wejwar, Petra; Unter, Martin; Terieva, Berta. 2014. Student mobility in the EHEA. Under-
representation in student credit mobility and imbalances in degree mobility. Institut für Höhere Studien, Wien.
⁄ Hawawini, G. 2011. The Internationalization of Higher Education Institutions: A Critical Review and a Radi-
cal Proposal. Faculty&Research. Working Paper. INSEAD.
⁄ Hénard F., Diamond L., Roseveare D. 2012. Approaches to Internationalisation and Their Implications for
Strategic Management and Institutional Practise. A Guide for Higher Education Institutions. OECD Higher
Education Programme IMHE.
⁄ Kehm, Barbara 2011. Research on Internationalisation in Higher Education. International Higher Education
Congress: New Trends and Issues. Istanbul.
⁄ Knight, Jane 2004. „Internationalization Remodelled: Definition, Approaches, and Rationales“. Journal of
Studies in International Education, 8 (1), 5-31.
⁄ Knight, Jane 2010. Internationalization and the Competitiveness Agenda. In Laura M. Portnoi, Val D. Rust
and Sylvia S. Bagley, Higher Education, Policy, and the Global Competition Phenomenon, p. 205-218. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan.
⁄ Niederl, Andreas; Bader, Lena. 2014. Maßnahmen zur Studienortattraktivität aus internationaler Perspektive.
Chal
leng
es o
f Stu
dent
Mob
ility
37
Challenges of Student Mobility
Draft Final. Johanneum Research. Unveröffentlicht.
⁄ Nordic Council of Ministers for Education and Research. 2012. Agreement on Admission to Higher Educa-
tion, Higher Education Policy online publication September 12. http://bit.ly/X2jtSR
⁄ OECD 2013. Education at a Glance. 2013: OECD Indicators.
⁄ OECD. 2013a. Education Indicators in Focus- 2013/05 (July)
⁄ Pechar, H. 2009. Can research universities survive without control over admission? Reflections on Austria’s
exceptionalism in higher education policy. In: Journal of Adult & Continuing Education, Vol.15, No.2, p.142-
154.
⁄ SVR für Migration. 2012. Mobile Talent? The Staying Intentions of International Students in Five EU Coun-
tries, online publication September 12. http://bit.ly/XpItnL
⁄ Treichler Ulrich. 2009. Internationalisation of higher education: European experiences. Asia Pacific Educa-
tion Review. March 2009, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 93-106.
⁄ The Bologna Declaration. 1999. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education.
⁄ The Lisbon Treaty. 2007. Treaty the heads of state and government of the 27 EU Member States, esp. Article
165. http://www.lisbon-treaty.org/
⁄ UNESCO. 2009. World Conference on Higher Education: The New Dynamics of Higher Education and Re-
search For Societal Change and Development. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001832/183277e.pdf
⁄ UNESCO. 2010. Institute for Statistics Education Database, online source September 12. http://bit.ly/1uDbmsv
⁄ uni:data: Zahlen und Fakten zum Hochschulbereich. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und
Wirtschaft. Abgerufen am 10.7.2014
⁄ uis.unesco.org: UNESCO Institute for Statistic. Abgerufen am 10.7.2014
⁄ Zaussinger, Sarah.; Grabher, Angelika; Dünser, Lukas; Laimer, Andrea; Unger, Martin. 2012. Internationale
Studierende. Zusatzbericht der Studierenden-Sozialerhebung 2011. Institut für höhere Studien. Wien.
Annex
⁄ Armenia - ANSA - Armenian National Students’ Association
⁄ Austria - ÖH - Österreichische Hochschülerinnen- und Hochschülerschaft
⁄ Belgium - VVS - Vlaamse Vereniging van Studenten
⁄ Denmark - DSF - Danske Studerendes Fællesråd
⁄ Estonia - EÜL - Eesti Üliõpilaskondade Liit
⁄ Finland - SYL/SAMOK - Suomen ylioppilaskuntien liitto/Suomen ammattikorkeakouluopiskelijakuntien liitto
⁄ Germany - fzs - freier zusammenschluss von StudentInnenschaften
⁄ Latvia - LSA - Latvijas Studentu apvieniba
⁄ The Netherlands - LSVb -Interstedelijk Studenten Overleg
⁄ Poland - PSRP - Students‘ Parliament of the Republic of Poland
38
Reasons and barriersIsabella Albert
A minority of students is mobile. There are manifold reasons and barriers for students to be mobile. At the moment, the organization of students is not the primary reason. In the past years, surveys investigated various reasons why students are mobile; similarly, there are surveys tackling the question which students are not mobile. In the subsequent sections, some surveys investi-gating the preconditions of students which go on to be mobile will be introduced. As so often, with regard to mobility too, the social background and the parents’ support are decisive factors. Students are given a ‘mobility capital’ from their respective homes, which leads to a higher (or lower, respectively) chance to be mobile.
Thus, as a matter of principle it is not possible to consider mobile students as a homogenous group. They differ not only with respect to their social background, but they are prepared differ-ently and aim for different destinations. A current US-survey1 thus groups mobile students who are strivers, explorers, highflyers and strugglers (in descending order):
Strivers gather extensive information about their destination and quite precisely plan their stay abroad. These students know best about financial support and commonly manage to carry out their stay as and where they wish.
Explorers not only look for academic experiences. Students in this group choose their desti-nation university by means of environment and non-academic offers. They look for a personal outcome.
Highflyers, on the contrary, primarily aim for the universities with the highest academic repu-tation, making them most likely to choose expensive universities and study programs.
Strugglers, finally, account for about 20% of mobile students. They are undecided about their choice of study and thus make their decisions more on financial than on academic grounds.
These are predominantly questions of organizing. Students differ regarding their interests, priorities and organizing skills. Of course, also the socio-economic background is important. If students struggle to finance their studies, matters of finance play a big role in deciding about stays abroad. Only if daily-life-matters are clear, academic reputation starts to become an important factor.
1 Choudaha R., de Wit H (2013). Challenges and Opportunities for Global Student Mobility in the Future: A Comparative and Critical Analysis. In: Bernard Streitweiser, Editor, Internationalization of Higher Education and Global Mobility. Oxford Studies in Comparative Education Series, Symposium Books.
Reas
ons
and
Barr
iers
39
Caruso et al. 2 add economic reasons to the named academic, cultural and financial one. With-in any of these groups, they differentiate between pull and push factors, push factors making students want to study abroad, pull factors making students decide for a given country. In any of the categories, there is a correlation between pull and push factors: If the bad reputation of the home university is a push factor, a top ranking of another university is a pull factor (see ‘rankings’ below).
Selectivity of a higher education system counts among the academic reasons as well: Low chances in the home admission system are a push factor. Correspondingly, for students affected low selectivity abroad is a pull factor.
Among the social factors, social, cultural, and political factors are dominant. Cultural dispo-sition and cultural ties function as push-/pull factors and thus influence mobility. Students, who speak a given language, rather choose a country as a destination, where that language is spoken (see below for more information on language). Regarding political reasons, the opposition is not that apparent. Political instability is a push factor. The corresponding pull factor is not only political stability of the destination country, but also its immigration policy. As for economic reasons, employment opportunities in both the home and the destination country are the crucial factors, with employment opportunities both before and after graduating being important. The dependency on the global economic situation is a factor, as well: Countries with a generally good economic situation are favourite destination countries; accordingly, students leave economically weak regions (see chapter brain drain below).
Reason: cultural competence
For students reasons are masked in terms like “cultural experience”. Subject of this article is the signification of this term, of the attractiveness and offers of mobility for students. CoSMiCE has asked forty student representatives from all over Europe, what they understand by ‚cultural com-petence‘. All of them have been working in international student representation and know about the special issues of mobility, some of them first hand. All of them are student body represent-atives and have, from their respective cultural backgrounds, ‘cultural competence’.Firstly, cultural competence can be defined negatively, as the ability to pass the barriers of culture.
2 Raul Caruso and Hans de Wit “Determinants of Mobility of Students in Europe: a preliminary quantitative study”, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Centre for Higher Education Internationalisation (CHEI), August 2013
Reasons and Barriers
40
To pass this barrier, a series of qualities is needed:
⁄ knowledge of culture ⁄ awareness and understanding of developments in ones surrounding ⁄ tolerance towards the people in the world around you ⁄ adaptability to behavioural patterns of others ⁄ ability to integrate oneself in the community ⁄ ability to negotiate with others ⁄ willingness to communicate
Students do not necessarily have to bring every single one of these qualities from home, so as to make use of them from the very first day onwards. It is rather important to be ready for passing this barrier, to dare and to prepare for it, are the points necessary to say of oneself, to have ‘cultural competencies’. This is the main challenge foregoing a stay abroad. And whoever has passed this barrier once assumingly won’t take as long the next time to prepare for passing – and, addition ally, better understands other people’s attempts to cross the cultural border. All of them are student body representatives and have acquired, from their respective cultural backgrounds, ‘cultural competence’.
Mobility capital
Looking at these factors and incentives, it becomes clear that the decision to be mobile is not the result of a one-time choice, but rather of social background and personal biography.3
In Carlson’s study, students described their stay abroad as a consequential result of their pre-vious experiences with foreign cultures and countries. This experience may consist of factors as diverse as international contacts within one’s family or school student exchange programs. Murphy-Lejeune even calls this background of mobile students their ‘mobility capital’, which consist of familiar and personal experiences, knowledge of languages, knowing, how to quickly adapt to new circumstances, and personal traits4. This ‘mobility capital’ should not be regarded as a prophecy on the biography, or an inalienable predetermination, but rather as an opportunity. I n
3 S. Carlson „Becoming a Mobile Student – a Processual Perspective on German Degree Student Mobility“; Popul. Space Place 19, 168–180 (2013)4 Murphy-Lejeune E. 2002. Student Mobility and Narrative in Europe. The New Strangers. Routledge: London.
Reas
ons
and
Barr
iers
41
this case, the decision to be mobile depends on one’s previous experiences.Students are commonly good at estimating their language skills. Especially students with
good language skills show an interest for stays abroad. A Latvian survey showed that for under-graduate students, there is a correlation between the language skills and the willingness to work in European foreign countries. 5. This may be a chicken-and-egg problem, as students who show an interest in working abroad are rather inclined to learn another language. On the other hand, it becomes evident again, how important the previous experience is for becoming mobile.
The decision to become mobile is also affected by the moral support that one receives (Carlson). In most cases, this support comes from one’s family. Positive experiences and the encouragement to be mobile facilitate the decision. But yet again, the diversity within the group of mobile students needs to be pointed out. One reason to be mobile can be people that have been among one’s acquaintances, but also the wish to differ from others that have not been mobile. This can happen on a personal or on a larger level. Carlson calls this the “way students react to social embeddedness”. In the UK, the personal barrier no. 2 for not being mobile is to be forced to get out of contact with family and friends, thus ranking even before financial issues. Carlson concludes: „It enables us to observe how student mobility results from a process that starts long before the students themselves actually begin to think about studying abroad.“
Challenges for first generation students
Stays abroad during one’s studies, are commonly regarded as a special extra, which is a prob-lem especially for first generation students. Thought first generation students formally have the same status as students from an academic background, “they nonetheless experience substantial tension in navigating a system in which they have traditionally been excluded.”6 For these stu-dents, Higher Education as it is has a lack of value. First generation students less frequently draw on the universities’ advisory packages; they thus less frequently receive information about study programs abroad. Values such as personality development usually receive a higher appreciation from traditional students. If cultural understanding is subsumed under this term, first gener-ation students lack an important motivational effect for planning a stay abroad. Findley et al.7 too
5 D. Grasmane, S. Graesmane et al. „IMPACT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SKILLS ON EMPLOYABILITY“ ERACON 2011 AND CARRER-EU 2011 Conference Proceedings: Organizer European Association of Erasmus Co-ordinators (EAEC)6 A. Spengen, „The Experience of First Generation University Students“, Sociology Publication Paper 32 (2013).7 A. Findlay, R. King et al. „World class? An investigation of globalisation, difference and international student mo-bility”, Transactions of the institute of British Geographers.
Reasons and Barriers
42
discuss the group of internationally mobile students as self-reproducing (cf. infobox ‘rankings’ below). This they infer from the fact that students are mobile at more expensive universities, at which first generation students are less likely to study.
Special needs education
Students with special needs are underrepresented in international mobility. Special needs stu-dents have to manage additional barriers to be mobile8, such as acquiring a secure medical care (depending on the extend of the impairment), a flat that is able to accommodate special needs students, additional costs for an assistant companion or special help for integrating into the for-eign environment. The discussion about the inclusion of special needs students differs worldwide. The definition of “special needs” alone can already be different for each country, students can be seen as “special needs” in one country but not in another. This means one the one hand that “special needs” is a construct of society, on the other hand, such a definition is essential, when it is connected to (financial) benefits offered to special needs students in order to finance their studies. Some countries reserve extra capacities for special needs students in study programmes at their academic institutions. For this regulation, a certified status of “special needs” is essential to have a chance at obtaining the possibility to study. In addition to this question of a definition, the acceptance of special needs students at the university of choice is crucial. It is an additional challenge for special needs students to make the step and dare to rush into a new environment. For special needs students, the availability of information is a decisive factor for studying in a for-eign country. Another pivotal factor for special needs students is being from a family with higher education (and the respective income), as not having this financial support restricts the mobility of special needs students even more than it does that of non-special needs students.
Challenges for older students
According to a recent survey from Austria9, students older than 30 years are less mobile than their young fellows. This, however, is not only due to their age as it is, but to the structural premises of stays abroad. Older students more often have already started a family, and more often are depen-
8 P. Matthews et al.; Attitudes of College Students Toward Study Abroad: Implications for Disability Service Providers; Journal on Postsecondary Education and Disability, volume 13, #2, Summer 1998, published by the Asso-ciation on Higher Education And Disability9 A. Grabher, P. Wejwar „Student mobility in the EHEA. Underrepresentation in student credit mobility and imbalances in degree mobility”, Institut für Höhere Studien (IHS), Wien Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna.
Reas
ons
and
Barr
iers
43
dent on a working employment, as most support programs have an age restriction. Students who have already been working or who work part-time during their studies, usually already have a higher standard of living than they would have in an unfamiliar environment. This point enables us to relate to the foregoing paragraph: Older students frequently have a lower socioeconomic background. Having earned a second school diploma, they go on to work first and may only then or via adult education earn the requirements to access universities. This educational background makes these students overrepresented in the group of students older than 30. In this regard, these students are multidimensionally discriminated against. Efforts have to be taken regarding student financing, the ability to be mobile with a family, and access to higher education for students with all family backgrounds.
Structural conditions – which short term measures can be taken
A lot of what has been said so far moves along an abstract political level. The dependency on one’s family and the social background is a problem that can neither be solved quickly nor within the higher education institutions themselves. However, students still are not enabled to be mobile due to reasons which could long have been removed: The difficulty of financing is a long-known obstacle, leading to intensifying the socioeconomic differences in the mobility statistics. Infor-mation, timing and recognition then are problems that question the European higher education area but can be tackeled shortly.
Finance
Though for the British Council financing the stay abroad is only personal barrier no. 3, for the students affected, finances are their primary obstacle10. The financial questions that students face are not only travel and living expenses, but – depending on the duration of the stay – also costs resulting from current contracts at home. Students are furthermore likely to lose their job, which they usually cannot take up again after returning; and they hardly take up employment abroad. These are financial obstacles that affect the entire duration of the stay and keep students from becoming mobile.
Oguz’ investigation11, whose primary concern are mobility barriers between Turkey and the
10 S. Sweeney „ Going Mobile: Internationalisation, mobility and the European Higher Education Area“; The Higher Education Academy, Helsigton/ York.11 G. Oguz, „Erasmus Student Mobility in Higher Education Institutions: The European Union and Turkey“.
Reasons and Barriers
44
EU within the Erasmus program, nonetheless delivers some results that can be transferred to de-gree mobility. Rationally planning students calculate the distance of the destination and, mostly correspondingly, the financial and non-financil expenditure needed to realize a stay against the expected outcome (cf. Strivers above). Financing studies also means financing stays abroad. This means not only subsidies for short-time mobility, as Erasmus, but also financing of degree mobility. Experience acquired abroad steadily becomes more important for the future career and must not be open for those who got the respective ‘capital’ from home. Models such as the Scandi navian mobility treaty can have an exemplary function for Europe12.
Information and timing
Oguz points out that all prerequisites for mobility can be given and still students don’t become mobile, if they are not informed sufficiently. Many stays abroad fail because of a lack of right information. Prejudices about a given country exclude it from the list of potential destination countries. Good (or: better) and free information on stays abroad are essential for enabling stu-dent mobility. This task lies with the higher education universities.
Lastly, for the informed students, the timing needs to be adequate: The time and way of applying differs from country to country, even from university to university. A crucial difference is, e.g., whether to apply for a study place before earning the diploma needed, as in the UK, or only afterwards, as in Germany. According to Carlson, applicants do not wait for all applications to return, but decide before they know all results. If in this case universities abroad decide faster, students are more likely to study abroad. Oguz gets the same result and adds the recognition possibilities to these organisatorial incentives. With regard to degree mobility, this is primarily the recognition of the previous degree, either the diploma granting access to higher education or the graduation certificate.
Admission
Admission to study for international students or students from another country with a higher education entrance qualification is usually tied to specific conditions. The recognition of the de-gree depends on whether there is a corresponding agreement between the country of the admis-
12 Article 7 Nordic Agreement, e.g.: www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation/agreements/trea-ties-and-agreements/education-and-research/agreement-concluded-by-denmark-finland-iceland-norway-and-swe-den-on-admission-to-higher-education.
Reas
ons
and
Barr
iers
45
sion authorization and the country chosen as destination. A listing with the countries that have such an agreement is available for each country (e.g. Denmark). In most cases, a correspondent school leaving certificate is enough to gain study admission. Mandatory language assessment tests are common as well. Proficiency in either the national language or the language of the study program is needed. The language level needed is either centrally managed or is decided on by the academic institutions (e.g. Italy13, Azerbaijan14 and Denmark15 ). There are some wide-spread English language tests but institutions can also decide to design their own. What those tests have in common is that they are not free of charge. An according language course or to take a test has to be financed by the prospective students. Language courses that are mandatory and subject to charges pose a barrier before the beginning of studies. The attendences of courses at language centres are often not open to the public depending on the country, not available or simply not financially feasible. This in turn restricts the possibility to take up studies to the circle of people that can rely on the support of their families and bring sufficient financial sources with them.
Recognition
The decision to study abroad is no absolute decision, but is closely related to any opportunities after graduating. Short term mobility can, due to little recognition of courses, extend the duration of the study program for up to a year, depending on the flexibility of the curriculum. Regarding degree mobility, the opportunities after graduating are even more important. After two to four years of studying at a university, the certificate must be worth more than a piece of paper.
The recognition of the degree for pursuing another one, such as graduate or doctoral studies, or for the labour market at home or in a third country must be guaranteed. This is a crucial impli cation of the European study reform, and thus universities and legislatives must take action. If recognition does not work, the reform must be regarded as having failed (see article on Recognition).
Residence and work permit
Studying in another country naturally means living in it, too. This requires a residence permit or right of residence. Before the start of studies, one does not only have to concern oneself with the rules surrounding the study but also the legal regulations of the country of destination.
13 http://www.study-in-italy.it/php5/study-italy.php?lang=EN&idorizz=3&idvert=1514 http://www.educations.com/study-guides/asia/study-in-azerbaijan15 http://studyindenmark.dk/study-options/admission-requirements
Reasons and Barriers
46
Which regulations apply for a visa or a residence permit differs for each country. In Europe, there is a general distinction between EU and non-EU countries. Additionally, there are further transfer- and partnership agreements between singular countries or an association of countries.
Which regulations are in use can be found out via the internet or through an embassy. The availability of up to date information and translation of this into different languages differs for each country16 and is especially well in countries with their own regulations for students. For example, the Netherlands and Great Britain both have their own terms for different phases of duration of the study stay, which simplifies information.
Generally, there are special student visa for people that enter the country with the goal of studying. Such visa cost money on the one hand (e.g. Francce 74€, Netherlands 900€16) and are bound to conditions on the other hand. Common conditions are for example: a language certificate (refer to paragraph on Language Skills) and the confirmation that a fixed monthly sus-tenance fee can be paid. In most cases, a student visa does not cover the entirety of the study stay but is limited to one to two years. Generally, students can expect a revision of their visa. The ex-tension of thus is often linked to the progress of the studies. As always, conditions depend on the progress or the expected average time of studies for students is not beneficial to students, as those times are usually calculated in a way that covers only the minimum time required for courses. As international students usually have the additional hurdle of a language barrier, this visa regu-lation adds even more pressure on the students. For international students, it has to be considered that the study time is dependent on various factors as well. For example, for students with family, special needs students and students from conflict areas, there are additional complications.
A lot of countries have established visa regulations over the last 10 years that are supposed to simplify the access to their education system for “the highly qualified”16. Often, for students those regulations apply that hold for the shortest amount of time.
The permission to stay in a country on a permanent basis is often connected to certain condi-tions, like an established employment or industry-sector-specific demand for labour. Addition-ally, certifications of language skills or a certain income (or guarantor) are needed in a lot of cases. Those kinds of regulations are loosened especially for postdoctoral employees and doctorate stu-dents and, to a lesser extent, for general students as well.
A deciding factor in the right of residence is thus an employment in the target country. Most visa allow for a transition period between the graduation and the expiration of the visa. In France, graduates have 6 months to take up an occupation. During these 6 months, most graduates might
16 B. Sykes, E.N. Chaoimh, Sachverständigenrat deutscher Stiftungen für Integration und Migration GmbH (Hrsg.); „Mobile Talente? Ein Vergleich der Bleibeabsichten internationaler Studierender in fünf Staaten der Eu-ropäischen Union“; Berlin 2012
Reas
ons
and
Barr
iers
47
find an occupation16, though due to language barriers as well as a wide-spread discrimi nation17, international graduates have a harder time finding a job. This is why preferred destination countries for international students are countries where the student visa extends for 2 years after the study (Great Britain until 2012). In Sweden on the other hand, a certificate of an employment has to be provided when graduating in order to be allowed to stay.16
Even during the time of study a work permit (record of permit to work as part of the legal status) is important for students. For most students, the cost of living is not affordable without a job, especially in the more expensive EU-countries. In order to provide international studies not only for students from rich families, it is essential for international students to have a residence permit in their country of choice. In only a few countries international students are equal to other students in labour legislation (cf. Germany18, Austria19, Finland20, Poland21). Certain additional restrictions on working time apply that lie beneath those for other students. Further country- specific regulations are common, for example in the Netherlands the employer has to obtain a working permit for international students that they want to employ. In other countries such as Poland an asset assessment applies to EU- and EEA-students. Job positions are only filled with non-EU citizens if no no EU citizen is available. The restrictions on working hours can be so complicated as to make it unattractive for employers to employ international students.
Not only in regard to mobility are rankings a threat to the quality of educa-tion.
Within the Bologna process mobility is described as a mean to assure a high quality of education for students and to have the chance to choose their matching higher education institution. Insti-tutions themselves have an interest in attracting high numbers of international students. This can be seen as an implication of competition. The reputation of a higher educaiton institution is fre-quently equated with its quality. Rankings attempt to express their quality in ranking positions.
High positions in rankings do in principle not express quality but always are relative to other universities. Commonly, lots of differentiated parameters are added to one single number. The way of calculating and the internal weighting leading to the ranking result are highly intrans-
17 http://www.zeit.de/studium/uni-leben/2014-05/fotokampagne-diskriminierung-student-hochschule18 http://www.internationale-studierende.de/fragen_zur_vorbereitung/finanzierung/jobben/19 http://www.oeh.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Broschueren/2013/Studieren_in_OEsterreich_deutsch_Juni_2013_web.pdf20 http://www.helsinki.fi/urapalvelut/materiaalit/students_guide.pdf21 http://www.studyinpoland.pl/en/index.php/about-poland/7-living-in-poland
Reasons and Barriers
48
parent. Rankings that evaluate only faculties instead of universities and that offer teaching-only results, as U-Multirank, do not explain their parameters. It is thus impossible to retrace the reali-zation of the results. Independent of one’s own person and interests and predispositions, a relative scala defines what ‘good education’ is. This institutionalized differentiation into good and bad education has to be rejected. The fundamental right to education has to be realized by making all education instutions high quality ones.
Findlay et al. investigate the influence of the reputation of an institution on mobile students. They identify a subgroup of ‘world class universities’ who admit only students from universities with a similar reputation. Another group of universities is defined as different from this world class group. This leads to a global university hierarchy. Primarily traditional students consider the reputation of universities, and traditional universities attempt to approach their admission requirements to the prerequisites of students with academic family backgrounds. Every group of universities strives towards exchanging students only within their own or a higher group. Especially with regard to selectivity of admission to tertiary eduaction and of social equality in partaking in society and higher education, the competition between higher education institu-tions and the differentiation into classes, e.g. by means of rankings, is to be rejected.
Conclusion
Students are a diverse group with different motivations for being mobile. Their respective motivations are decisively influenced by their social backgrounds, which Murphy-Lejune calls ‘mobility capital’. Carlson and Sprengen as well identify singular factors which fit into the concept of ‘mobility capital’. Thus, the influence from home and the previous academic and international experiences are especially important for the students’ future way of life. Students whose par-ents have earned an academic degree and whose acquaintances and family members have been abroad are more likely to be mobile while studying, especially when it comes to degree mobility. Nonetheless, university offers are important as well. Particularly stimulating low-level advisory packages reach students indifferent of their respective backgrounds. Universities are able to turn international experiences into a natural part of the students’ life and live internationality through, e.g. easier recognition of degrees obtained abroad.
The students’ dependency on the family background is not only a matter of experience but finance. Students who are responsible for financing their stay abroad themselves are, as Sweeney shows, less likely to be mobile. Sufficient financing also of stays abroad would thus lead to making students less dependent on their socioeconomic background when it comes to decide about stays abroad.
Reas
ons
and
Barr
iers
49
The recognition of degrees is still an obstacle to the mobility of people within the EU and the EHEA. Due to different academic cultures and mutual diffidence the european countries were not able to establish an effective system of recognition of degrees on a european level. Neverthe-less, some steps were done toward a system of mutual recognition of degrees.
Aim of this article is to give a short introduction to the matter of recognition of foreign degrees wi-thin the EHEA followed by a more profound analysis of the italian system. In doing so, special attention will be given to the austro- italian agreement on mutual recognition of academic degrees.
Introduction
In 1998 the anniversary of the foundation of the Sorbonne University of Paris was the opportunity for the ministers for education of the four major European countries to sign an agreement, the „Joint De-claration on harmonization of the architecture of the European higher education system“1 or, shortly, the „Sorbonne Declaration“, in which they affirmed their willingness to „build upon the intellectual, cultural, social and technical dimensions“ of the European continent. On the basis of this agreement and within the Council of Europe (fruttiferi) negotiations began. Only one year later, in 1999, the representatives of most European countries signed the „Bologna Declaration“. The Declaration gave birth to the famous and often cursed „Bologna Process“ and the „European Higher Education Area“ (EHEA). Within the EHEA national laws should have been harmonized to dismantle existent formal and bureaucratic ob-stacles to an effective mobility of European citizens. The same Bologna Declaration notes that effective mobility needs a „system of easily readable and comparable degrees“. At this point the question is: Has this objective been reached?
Why is recognition of degree still of importance?
Recognition of degrees is „a formal acknowledgement by a competent authority of the value of a foreign educational qualification with a view to access to educational and/or employment activities“2.
1 The Sorbonne Declaration was signed by the ministers of France, United Kingdom, Germany and Italy on May 25 1998.2 Article I of the Lisbon Convention
Recognition of degreesStephan Kerschbaumer
Recognition of Degrees
50
Having said that, the recognition of degrees is of importance every time the holder of an acade-mic degree crosses a national border to get access to higher education or to the labour market of a state different than the issuing state.
The access to many areas of the labour market is restricted to holders of an academic title. This is the case in the public sector: to apply for a top level position in public administration or at the government an academic title is often required by law. But the private sector makes no exception. While non-public employers normally make no distinction between domestic and foreign acade-mic titles, national laws restrict access to specific professions or to specific kind of employment to the holders of an academic title3.
Moreover, the recognition of degrees matters every time a holder of an academic degree tries to get access to further higher education in a country different from the issuing one.
From a legal perspective, an academic degree is an administrative act issued by an admini-stration body or other legally allowed bodies4. The validity of the academic degrees, such as the validity of every administrative or sovereign act, is limited to national borders. If not recognized, an academic degree has no value in other countries than the issuing one5.
In the field of the recognition of degrees national governments traditionally act very cauti-ously. Due to this fact only a few steps forward were made over the past decades. The reason for this slowness, if not standstill, has to be found in the lack of trust in foreign educational systems. In this perspective the “Bologna process“ should have removed the ground of this mistrust by harmonizing the national educational systems and setting common standards6. In theory, the recognition of degree should become easier within the EHEA.
3 National laws can limit the access to specific professions by using two types of instruments: 1. restrict the access to those who have an academic title under national law (this happens, for example, in the corporate law, where em-ployees entrusted with particular duties have to have an academic title); 2. restrict the access to those who have passed an exam (f.e. lawyers, engineers, doctors, … ); to apply for this exams an academic title is required.4 Apart from public universities (and, in the german-speaking middle-european area, Fachhochschulen), aca-demic degrees can be issued by specially allowed bodies under private law.5 As an example for many other national regulations shall be considered the italian legislation. Article 170 of the Royal decree („regio decreto“) 1592 of 1932: „Foreign academic titles shall have no value within the Kingdom“ (in the original text: „I titoli accademici conseguiti all’estero non hanno valore legale nel Regno“). 6 F.e. on the basis of the Bologna- process the participating countries adopted the „three-cycle system“ in which academic titles are Bachelors, Masters or PhDs.
Reco
gnit
ion
of D
egre
es
51
Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning higher education in the European region7
In 1997, even two years before the EHEA was established by the Bologna Declaration, a joined con-vention on the recognition of degrees, prepared by the Council of Europe and the UNESCO,was open for signature: the Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning the Higher Edu-cation in the European Region8. It was not the first time that the Council of Europe had prepared a convention on this matter9. But the Lisbon Convention is certainly the most developed.
Nevertheless, the Lisbon Convention has only a vague content. Its purpose was not to de-termine a detailed regulation on the mutual recognition of degrees. On the contrary, the aim of the Convention was to supply a framework for national legislators to regulate the recognition of foreign degrees. Within this framework the member states are free to design their national regulation at their discretion. For this reason the procedure of recognition can be different from country to country. F.i. in the Convention is written that every member state has to name a na-tional authority to be competent to decide upon recognition of degrees. Having said this, the Lisbon Convention is very useful to get an overview on how the recognition of degrees should work in its member states.
According to the Convention a central authority of the member state or an “individual hi-gher education institutions or other entities“ specially designated by the member states shall be competent to assess and to acknowledge foreign degrees (Article II.1, par. 2). In doing so some fundamental rules have to be respected. The access to the assessment10 of a foreign degree shall be “adequate“. Any form of discrimination is prohibited. (Article III.1). The assessment itself and the recognition of foreign degrees shall be “transparent, coherent and reliable“ (Article III.2).
7 The so called „Lisbon Convention“ is named after the city where it was signed on 8-11 april 1997. The Conven-tion is open for signature by the member states of the Council of Europe and the member states of the Unesco Euro-pean Region (Article XI.1). Apart from most of the Council of Europe member states, the Convention was ratified by Australia, Belarus, the Holy See, Israel, Kazakhstan, the Kyrghyz Republic and New Zealand. The Italian Parliament adopted the Lisbon Convention with the law 148 of 2002. On October 6 2010 Italy deposited its ratification note at the Secretariat of the Committee of the Lisbon Convention. The convention entered in force on February 1st 1999.8 The „Recognition of Qualification“ is a much broader matter than the recognition of degrees. Academic degrees are only one part of the broader category of „qualifications“ as defined by the Convention itself.9 For instance, in the far December 14 1959 in Paris was signed the European Convention on the Academic Recognition of University Qualifications now replaced by the 1997 Convention (Article XI.4 of the Lisbon Convention 1997).10 The Lisbon Convention distinguishes between the „assessment“ of a degree and the „recognition“ of the degree. While for assessment is meant the „written appraisal or evaluation“ of a foreign degree, the recognition consists in a „formal acknowledgement by a competent authority of the value of a foreign educational qualification“ (Article I).
Recognition of Degrees
52
Under the national laws the applicant may be committed to provide, in good faith, appropri-ate information on the degree for which recognition is sought. At the same time the institution having issued the degrees shall have the duty to provide, upon the applicant’s request, infor-mations „to the holder of the qualification, to the institution, or to the competent authorities of the country in which recognition is sought“. If recognition is refused, the body undertaking the assessment shall give reasons why the application didn’t fulfill the relevant requirements (Article III.3). However, the competent authority shall decide upon the application “within a reasonable time limit“ (Article III.5).
The principles described manage the procedure related to the assessment and the recognition of foreign degrees. Regarding the recognition itself the Lisbon Convention considers two diffe-rent and alternative models: 1. academic degrees issued by the authority of another contracting party shall be acknowledged automatically (Article VI.1); 2. the recognition shall be issued upon request of the holder of the academic degree (Article VI.2). Anyway, recognition can be refused only for “sub stantial differences“. Given article III.3, it shall be the body undertaking the asses-sment to prove those “substantial differences“ and not vice a versa. It shouldn’t be the applicant to prove the absence of them.
The recognition of degrees under italian law
The recognition of degrees in general
The adoption and the implementation of the Lisbon Convention was the opportunity for the Italian legislator to review its regulation on the recognition of foreign degrees11. Nonetheless, no compared to the past no real innovation was implemented. Though the recognition of foreign degrees takes place only upon request of the degree’s holder, while the competence to assess and to acknowledge foreign degrees belongs to the higher education institution and to the central Italian government.
As written before, under the Italian law there exist two bodies entitled with the power to acknowledge foreign degrees. Depending on the grounds for which recognition is sought the assessment and the acknowledgement of a foreign degree shall be done by: 1. the universities and
11 With the law 148/2002 (legge 148 del 2002) the President of the Italian Republic was authorized to ratify the Lisbon Convention on the recognition. Other laws with a more detailed have followed: 1. decree 214/2004 (decreto del Ministro dell’Istruzione dell’Università e della Ricerca 214/2004) regarding the recognition of degrees issued by foreign institutions operating in Italy; 2. decree of the President of the Italian Republic 189/2009 (decree of the Presi-dent of the Republic 189/2009) regarding the recognition of foreign degrees for not academic reasons.
Reco
gnit
ion
of D
egre
es
53
equivalent institutions, if the recognition is sought to get access to higher education, to continue a course of study at a university or to get an Italian academic title; 2. other governmental bodies, if recognition is sought for other grounds.
In the first case, if recognition is sought to get access to higher education in Italy or to get an academic title under Italian law, universities and institutions of higher education, within their autonomy and in accordance with their regulations12, shall have the power to acknowledge, upon request of the holder, foreign academic degrees, except as otherwise provided in relevant bil-ateral treaties under international law (article 2 of the law 148/2002). Universities and institutions of higher education shall decide upon the application within ninety days (article 3 of the law 148/2002).
Given the university’s autonomy – explicitly recognized in the law – other provisions were not given by the national legislator. It is the duty of the universities and other institution of higher education to list the documents the holder has to attach to their application. The universities have to implement an administrative procedure for the assessment and acknowledgment in respect to the national law and the European conventions. For this reasons it depends on the regulations established by the universities as wells as on their practice how good or how bad the recognition of degrees works. Problems of effectiveness seem unavoidable. To call it by name, the statutory period of ninety days, within which universities shall decide upon the holder’s application for recognition, will not assert in reality. There aren’t any legal consequences for the case the term is not respected.
Surely, against the defaulting public authority the applicant has the right for compensation of their damages. If the requested public authority delays willfully or negligently in responding to the application for recognition, it has to compensate the damages that the applicant is suffering13. But it is questionable if such measure is enough to ensure a timely decision upon the application. First of all, the applicant would have to proof the malice or the negligence of the public authority. Secondly, the applicant would have to proof an effective damage due to authority’s default. On the other side, according to the Italian law, if the legal deadline expires without any response by the competent public authority, the application has to be considered as granted14. It is unlikely that the practice would follow those guidelines.
If the application is approved, the Italian university will issue an act that awards the applicant
12 In the italian text of the law is written that the competence to recognize foreign degrees shall belong to the „Università e gli Istituti di istruzione universitaria, che la esercitano nell’ambito della loro autonomia e in conformità ai rispettivi ordinamenti“.13 Article 2bis, law n. 241 of 1990;14 Article 20, law n. 241 of 1990;
Recognition of Degrees
54
with an equivalent Italian academic title. But a necessary condition is, that there exists an academic title similar to the foreign title in the Italian system.
This way of recognition presents undeniable advantages. The acknowledgment has general legal force: once a foreign degree got recognized its holder can use their degree every time they want. In this way the recognition issued by a university allows the holder of the acknowledged degree to get access to higher education in Italy as well as to the national labour market. Moreover the holder is allowed to use their academic title on Italian territory.
If recognition is sought for a different reason, other than to get access to higher education or to get an Italian academic title, the foreign degree shall be acknowledged by a govern mental authority (article 5 of the law n. 148/2002). But the 2002 law did not determine the specific authority that shall have the competence in this matter nor the specific procedure of assessment and recognition. On the contrary, article 5 refers only to a future decree that should contain such provision. Such decree was adopted in 2009, at a distance of seven years, with the decree of the President of the Italian Republic n. 189. Latter contains a complex regulation according to which the assessment and recognition competence belong to different authorities.
If recognition is sought to get access to a competition for a job at the public administration, foreign degrees shall be acknowledged by the council of ministers, i.e. the Italian government, with prior advice by the minister for education, university and research, pursuant to article 38, paragraph 3, law n. 165 of 2001 (article 2). Latter doesn’t use the term „recognition“, but the terms „equation“ of qualifications and “equivalence“ of academic titles15. Consequently, if the „equi-valence“ is granted, the foreign degree is considered as corresponding to an Italian degree for the purpose of the job competition. At the same time no academic title under Italian law is issued. The acknowledged title cannot be used for other purposes.
Given article 4 of the decree n. 189 of 2009, if recognition is sought for a different reason spe-cifically listed, a foreign degree shall be acknowledged by the competent public authority, with prior advice by the minister of education, university and research. To give example: the minister of foreign affairs shall have the competence to acknowledge a foreign degree to allow its holder to apply for a competition for a job at a international organization announced by the minister himself.
Dichiarazione di valore
In all these regulations the Italian legislator obliges the applicant for recognition to attach a speci-fic act: the so called „dichiarazione di valore“. It is a document issued by the competent diplomatic
15 In the italian text fo the article 38, paragraph 3 is written „equiparazione dei titoli di studio“ and „equivalenza tra i titoli di studio“.
Reco
gnit
ion
of D
egre
es
55
or consular representation of the Italian Republic for the country in which the foreign degree was issued16. In the „dichiarazione di valore“ the competent authority shall certify the course, the legal value of the foreign degree or qualification and the legal nature of the institution that has issued the degree. All in all, the „dichiarazione di valore“ is a notarial act in which the competent con-sular or diplomatic authority shall declare that the foreign act, for which recognition is sought, is substantially equivalent to an Italian academic degree, but the dichiarazione itself is not the act of acknowledgment. Latter is still issued by the competent authority on the Italian territory (university, council of minsters and other public authorities). But, the dichiarazione di valore is a necessary act for the acknowledgment. Without it, the holder’s application for recognition has to be rejected for formal reasons.
In recent times the dichiarazione di valore isn’t important anymore if the foreign degree was issued by a authority within the European Union. Recently, the Consiglio di Stato, the highest Italian court for administrative law, ruled that in those cases the dichiarazione is no longer de-cisive17. If the dichiarazione di valore isn’t attached, the competent authority cannot refuse the application only for this reason. On the contrary, eventual rejections have to be justified with a substantial reason, i.e. with regard to the content of the academic course that had preceded the degree. Formal aspects not linked to the competences and skills certified by the foreign degree, such as the dichiarazione di valore, aren’t sufficient to justify any rejection.
In the context of doing the assessment of a foreign degree, the public authority shall use all
16 compare article 3 of the decree n. 189 of 2009; for the „competent diplomatic of consular representation“ is meant the italian diplomatic or consular representation that exercises its territorial jurisdiction in the country in which the foreign qualification was issued (in the italian text is written: „Rappresentanza diplomatica-consolare italiana competente per territorio nello Stato al cui ordinamento si riferisce il titolo di studio“).17 In this way ruled the Consiglio di Stato in its decree n. 4613 of september 04th 2007; in the italian text is writ-ten: (point 7) ) „ … alla c.d. dichiarazione di valore non può essere riconosciuto un ruolo decisivo e discriminante nei procedimenti di riconoscimento di titoli conseguiti all’estero; la p.a. ha, infatti, l’obbligo di motivare la sua decisione con riguardo ai contenuti formativi del diploma, non semplicemente in relazione ad aspetti estrinseci rispetto alle competenze ed alle abilità professionali attestate dal titolo, quale formalisticamente è la dichiarazione di valore, ma sulla base di una valutazione sostanziale, mediante l’impiego (da valutarsi caso per caso da parte del responsabile del procedimento) di tutti gli strumenti istruttori normalmente disponibili (inclusa la corrispondenza diretta e/o diplomatica, considerata tuttavia nel suo aspetto ordinario di fonte di informazione non aventi carattere esclusivo o infungibile). La richiesta della dichiarazione di valore, insomma, corrisponde ad una mera prassi, che non esclude il potere-dovere dell’amministrazione di compiere le proprie autonome valutazioni anche qualora la rappresentanza diplomatica interessata (anche, se del caso, a cagione dell’assenza di forme di raccordo o di coordinamento tra la stessa e gli istituti universitari nazionali) non abbia fornito il riscontro richiesto o l’abbia fornito in termini generici od insufficienti. Non può essere, pertanto, accolta la tesi … secondo cui l’Università, nel suo ambito di autonomia, avrebbe ben potuto esigere, a sua assoluta discrezione, qualsiasi documento avesse ritenuto indispensabile, indipen-dentemente dal suo contenuto.“
Recognition of Degrees
56
investigative tools normally available (including direct and/ or diplomatic correspondence). For these reasons the Consiglio di Stato ruled if the public authority still demands a dichiarazione di valore, it’s only a matter of habit.
The note verbale between Italy and Austria
Intranational and international mobility of South Tyrolean students
The northernmost Italian Province Bolzano/Bozen, better known as Südtirol or South Tyrol, is of specific interest if the matter of recognition of degrees is discussed.
South Tyrol, as well as the bordering italian province Trentino, is a former part of the historic Tyrol within the Austrian- Hungarian monarchy. Both South Tyrol and Trentino were annexed by the Italian Kingdom after World War I. After World War II South Tyrol and Trentino became part of the italian autonomous region Trentino- Alto Adige/ Südtirol18. Since 1972 both are reco-gnized as autonomous provinces with larger legislative and administrative power19. Historically South Tyrol is a society in which mainly three different ethnic groups were living for centuries. Almost two thirds of its inhabitants declare themselves as German- native speakers and a quarter of them declare themselves as Italian- native speakers. In addition, there is a groups that repre-sents almost 5% of the South Tyrolean inhabitants, that declare themselves as part of the Ladin- speaking minority20.
This ethnic structure of the South Tyrolean society has a huge impact on the mobility of stu-dents. Mainly German- native students move abroad to study on a german- teaching university. For them Austrian universities are very attractive21. Latter are geographically close to South Tyrol. Thereto in South Tyrol exists an academic culture due to elder generations that have studied at
18 The german term „Südtirol“ is legally recognized since the constitutional reform of 1999. Before then only the italian name had legal value.19 In the italian legal system the Italian Republic is subdivided in the state, regions, provinces and municipalities. For this reasons, provinces are at a lower level in comparison to the region. Normally they have only administrative power. The autonomous provinces of Trento and Bolzano are two exceptions of this rules. They have both, adminis-trative and legislative power. A new phenomenon in italian constitutional law are the „città metropolitane“. Latter should replace the provinces as body that rules large cities, such as Rome or Milan.20 Following the number given in the Statistische Jahrbuch für Südtirol 2013, Bozen, 118 the South Tyrolean population is composed of the following groups: 62.3% german- native speakers, 23.4% italian- native speakers and 4.1% ladin- native speakers. The remaining 10,3% declared to be part of another ethnic group;21 In the academic year 2012/2013 5.150 South Tyrolean students were registered at austrian universities. In comparison, in the same academic year 6.143 students from South Tyrol were registered at italian universities. They are mainly registered in the north italian universities, such as Trento, Verona, Bologna and Padova. Only a small group of students move to other, mainly european, countries. Data are from ASTAT.
Reco
gnit
ion
of D
egre
es
57
Austrian universities, mainly in Innsbruck and Vienna. Latter universities still welcome almost 90% of South Tyrolean students studying in Austria22.
On this background the recognition of Austrian degrees in Italy is at the center of attention. The recognition of degrees is one important matter in protecting the rights of the German-speak-ing minority in South Tyrol and its right to have access to higher education. In fact, the right to access to higher education needs that everyone has the formal and actual possibility to study in a language they understand, preferably their mother tongue. For this reasons, the German- native’s right to have access to higher education needs to provide them access to German-teaching uni-versities and to remove all legal and non- legal obstacles that would impede them to study in their own language. This implies that academic degrees from German- teaching universities shall be easily recognizable in Italy.
The Austro- Italian Agreement for the development of cultural
relations between the two countries
In the immediate post-war period Italy and Austria convened to deepen their relationship in the area of culture, education and arts. Already in 1952 the Republic of Austria and the Italian Re-public signed a pertinent agreement, the agreement between the Italian Republic and the Republic of Austria for the development of cultural relations between the two countries. Part of this agree-ment was the mutual recognition of academic degrees23. For that reason both governments, the Italian and the Austrian, should appoint a commission of experts whose task was to create a list of academic title admitted to the new system of mutual recognition. In that list at every Austrian academic title should be juxtaposed the corresponding Italian title, and vice a versa.
As a result the mutual recognition of degrees got much easier. The holder of an Austrian or an Italian degree is allowed to apply at the competent authority24 of the non-issuing state to get an act which declares the foreign degree equivalent to a domestic degree. Moreover, latter act allows
22 Date are from ASTAT and refer to the winter semester 2008/2009.23 Article 10 of the Agreement of Rome, March 14th 1952 for the development of the cultural relationship be-tween the Republic of Austria and the Italian Republic: „Ciascuno dei dure Governi si impegna a riconoscere, sulla base della reciprocità, i gradi e i diplomi accademici rilasciati ai rispettivi cittadini da Università e Istituti di istruz-ione superiore dell’altro Paese, salvo tuttavia le limitazioni e le esclusioni stabilite dalle vigenti leggi in ciascuno dei due Stati. - Una Commissione di esperti dei due Paesi nominata a tal fine dai rispettivi Governi stabilirà entro tre mesi dalla ratifica del presente Accordo l’elenco dei titoli ammessi al reciproco riconoscimento e le condizioni per il medesimo.“;24 In Italy the universities are competent to acknowledge austrian degree on the basis of the nota verbale.
Recognition of Degrees
58
the applicant to use the corresponding academic title on the territory of the recognizing state25.The commission of experts presented a first list of academic titles in October 1955. This list
was one site and a half long and contained a list of twenty-one academic titles. Already one year later, in 1956, the same commission provided a supplement to the list. Other supplements were adopted periodically, the last in 2012.
The decisions of the commission of experts were adopted by the Republic of Austria and the Italian Republic using the instrument of the „note verbale”, i.e. the diplomatic correspondence between the Austrian Embassy in Rome and the Italian Minister for Foreign Affairs. The administrative procedure that has to be applied to get a nota verbale changed is long and complex. It’s not unusual that such pro-cedure stops because one signature or a specific act is missing. It is this one point, that surely has to be improved. The list made by the commission of experts shall enter in force quicker, if not automatically, i.e. without further acts issued by the Austrian and the Italian government.
Concluding Remarks
The system established by the Austro- Italian Agreement of 1952 was a huge step towards a better and faster recognition of degrees. The recognition of Austrian or Italian academic degrees respec-tively in Italy or Austria got more easier, the outcome of the assessment and acknowledgment procedure got more foreseeable and transparent. Given that recognition of degree can be refused only in exhaustively listed cases, the acknowledgment of an academic degree became something similar to a very right of the applicant.
Nevertheless the system of the note verbale has some disadvantages. Only the academic titles exhaustively listed in the note verbale benefit of this system of mutual recognition. The recogni-tion of not listed academic titles still needs the ordinary procedure of assessment and acknow-ledgment of foreign academic degrees. Accordingly, this system is unable to adapt itself to na-tional reforms of the higher education system. Similarly the system of the nota verbale reveals its rigidity every time universities implement new academic courses by using their legally reco-gnized autonomy26.
Further, PhDs and academic titles issued by Austrian „Fachhochschulen“ (Universities of
25 After the recognition of a austrian degree, its holder is allowed to use in Italy the italian title „dottere“; if recog-nition is sought in the other direction, after its recognition the holder of an italian degree is allowed to use in Austria the corresponding austrian academic title (f.i. „Mag.“, „Dipl.-Ing.“).26 Probably the most famous reform implemented with the Bologna- process was the three- cycle system based on bachelors, masters and PhDs. Consequently both, the austrian and the italian legislator seized opportunity and reformed existing academic courses and introduced new courses. Consequently, the expert commission met to update the nota verbale, but it needed years until the new nota verbale could enter in force.
Reco
gnit
ion
of D
egre
es
59
Applied Science) are not part of the nota verbale. The holdesr of those titles have much more difficulties to get their degrees acknowledged in Italy. The very reason for this loophole is that universities of applied science are completely unknown in the Italian higher education system.
At the end one question is still unanswered: Can the Austro- Italian nota verbale be a model for a European system of recognition of degrees within the EHEA? As explained before, the nota verbale was a huge step toward. But the system isn’t modern anymore. The 1952 agreement be-tween Austria and Italy is the result of the then existing circumstances. The memory of the war was still fresh. Mutual mistrust still existed. Since then a lot of things have changed. For instance, with the creation of the EHEA and the implementation of the Bologna-process the national high-er education systems were harmonized. Mutual mistrust in the standards of other higher educa-tion systems got dismantled. Nonetheless, a European regulation on transnational recognition of degrees is still missing.
The Austro- Italian model based on a closed list of academic titles can’t be used as a model of best practice for this purpose. Sure, the creation of a list of foreign academic titles that should be acknowledged is one method to make the assessment and acknowledgment procedure more fore-seeable and after all more transparent. But, the Austro- Italian system based on the nota verbale has one big disadvantage: the procedure to revise the list is too bureaucratic and therefore too complicated and takes too long. Amendments to the list are only adopted after several years. The reason is simple: it would be inefficient, in terms of time and money, if the whole procedure took place to add single new academic courses to the list.
For this reason a european system of recognition of degrees could base on a such lists of for-eign degrees, but the list shall be created by an expert body. Their decisions shall be immediately binding, but easily amendable by the body itself. F.i. in such system the authority competent for the assessment and the acknowledgment of foreign degrees could have the right to indicate for-eign degrees not included in the list for which recognition was sought. Simultaneously the body should have to justify why certain foreign degrees did not find their way into the list. In this way it should be ensured that the list is constantly updated considering also the actual need of the holders of foreign degrees.
At long last, in a modern higher education system, and therefore in the European Higher Education Area, the recognition of degree shall be understood as an original right of the degree’s holder, not as an irksome concession with the nation’s discretionary power. Every new regulation has to be judged on this basis.
Recognition of Degrees
60
With increased possibilities for communication and transport in an age of globalisation, peo-ple are increasingly moving around the world and both temporary and permanent migration is ever-more commonplace. Also in higher education, more and more students are travelling or moving abroad for their studies.
Student mobility can be perceived as a stimulant for brain drain, leading to detrimental con-sequences for both small and developing countries. However, it can also be seen as positive for a students’ home country, with possibilities of building networks, strengthening the knowledge base and expanding social, political and cultural perspectives.
This article will aim at addressing the question of whether the effects of student mobility can be correlated with issues of brain drain and brain gain. First, an overview of concepts such as student mobility, brain drain and brain gain and balanced mobility will be presented, along with the current trends in mobility flows. Educational policies and migration policies have been set in place in order to deter brain drain, and two examples of these types of policies, from Hungary and Norway will be discussed. We will then dive in to the reasons why students remain abroad after a mobility period, and whether or not this can be considered brain drain for their home country. Finally, we will conclude with suggestions for the way forward, and how it may be possible to improve the situation.
Student mobility, balanced mobility, brain drain and brain gain
According to the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) student mobility has dramatically increased just within the past four decades, from 250,000 students in 1965 to approximately 3.7 million students in 2011 (OECD 2011). This is only taking into ac-count students participating in mobility to obtain a full degree, and not short-term or credit-mo-bility. For the purposes of narrowing the scope of this article, only full-degree mobility will be discussed. Additionally, for simplicity’s sake, the term ‘student mobility’ will be used throughout the article to refer to full-degree student mobility.
Student mobility and brain drain: perceptions, causes and the way forward
Erin Nordal & Gabriela Bergan
Stud
ent m
obili
ty a
nd B
rain
dra
in:
perc
epti
ons,
cau
ses
and
the
way
forw
ard
61
Balanced mobility and trends in mobility flows
Balanced mobility refers not only to an equal number of outward-mobile students and incoming mobile students, but also maintaining a relative equilibrium between the number of outward-mo-bile students from two or more countries or regions and inward-mobile students between two or more countries and regions. Mobility flows, especially between continents, are commonly from East to West and South to North (Kehm 2005). Teichler & Jahr (2001) define this as ‘vertical’ mobility, where students from poorer countries and nations choose richer countries or universi-ties for studies. Students are often attracted to more prosperous regions and countries in hopes of obtaining an education of higher quality than they would in their home country. However, mobility remains an opportunity for the elite, especially in developing countries. Hardly any stu-dents from these countries study abroad; it is mainly privileged families that can afford to send their children abroad (ibid.).
Brain drain and brain gain
Brain drain can be defined as the departure of a country’s highly trained citizens with valuable knowledge, competence and skills from low-income countries and regions to wealthier countries and regions who, due to this emigration, are not able to contribute to the economy, research and development of their country. Nonetheless, it has to reach a significant amount of emigration to be considered brain drain, as well as have an impact on the country being ‘brain drained’ (Spring 2009). Brain gain, however, refers to a situation in which more prosperous countries seek to attract educated individuals. These individuals do not return to their home country after being trained and obtaining knowledge, competences and skills abroad (ibid.).
Education and migration policies: stimulating and refraining brain drain
A number of countries have made different sets of policies and special programmes to hinder both brain drain and brain gain. Countries experiencing a large amount of emigration amongst graduates--what is often interpreted as brain drain--have in some cases attempted to limit citi-zens’ mobility, whereas countries experiencing a large amount of immigration of graduates, have attempted to create scholarship programmes as a way of taking responsibility in order to limit the perceived brain drain that may result. We can look at several different examples of each.
Student mobility and Brain drain:
perceptions, causes and the way forw
ard
62
The Hungarian ‘study contract’
In an attempt to limit brain drain, a ‘study contract’ has been implemented in Hungary, where according to the Hungarian admissions and higher education information website, www.felvi.hu, within twenty years after graduation, students are required to work in Hungary for twice the time of their studies subsidised by the state in order to receive either a partial or full scholarship for their studies. If they don’t work the entire amount of time specified in the contract, students are required to pay back the entire cost of their studies, in addition to an interest fee.
However, as a result of austerity measures in Hungary, public funding of higher education has plummeted; tuition fees have increased dramatically, where some students are paying up to 8,000€, and the number of state-funded, either fully or partially, study spaces has decreased dramatically. This has meant that most students are increasingly dependent on receiving any form of support possible. Students who can afford to finance their studies themselves or receive support from their parents to cover the costly tuition fees and living costs can avoid signing the contract. These privileged students can also choose to obtain their degree abroad without the support of the Hungarian authorities. In other words, the few, elite students retain the possibility of free movement, while those who are in need of state support become trapped into signing the contract and being forced to work in Hungary for double the length of their studies.
The National Union of Students in Hungary, HÖOK, has worked intensively against this with campaigns, advocacy work and demonstrations. They state clearly that it will have seriously neg-ative effects on the access to education, as more students will choose not to study. According to a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on 15-year olds’ expectations after completion of upper secondary education, less than half of Hungarian students (41%) have goals of achieving a university degree, representing a 12% drop since 2003 (OECD 2012, p. 78). With numbers already on the fall, such a measure as the ‘study contract’ will only serve to limit access and higher education will remain a good for the elite few who can afford to pay. This type of preventative measure against brain drain will in that case have many more negative effects that will outweigh any positive benefits.
The Norwegian Quota Scheme
In Norway, a programme called the Norwegian Quota Scheme is designed to contribute to ca-pacity building in developing countries, by providing scholarships to students from countries in the South, Western Balkans, Eastern Europe and Central Asia to study for a degree in Norway. The intention is that providing education for these students will benefit their home countries, as
Stud
ent m
obili
ty a
nd B
rain
dra
in:
perc
epti
ons,
cau
ses
and
the
way
forw
ard
63
well as strengthen cooperation between higher education institutions in these countries and Nor-wegian higher education institutions (SIU 2014).
Through this programme, students are provided with a loan to cover all costs of studying and living in Norway. After the completion of studies, students must return to their home coun-try and be a resident there for at least 12 months, and can then apply for cancellation of their debt--effectively making their loan into a full grant. However, if they return to Norway within 10 years after the cancellation of their debt, they will be required to pay back the entire amount of the support (The Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund 2012).
This measure is put into place in an attempt to prohibit brain drain from developing countries, and brain gain for Norway, however there are also debates about whether or not it is acceptable to restrict the mobility of these individuals, and also whether it can lead to brain waste in their home country, a concept further elaborated on later in the article. In this context it can refer to a situation where students return to their home country and have gained knowledge and skills that cannot be used due to a lack of relevant employment opportunities and sufficient infrastructure.
Countries have formulated their migration policies in order to address the issue of brain drain and brain gain. The efficiency of these policies, some of which are explained above, is question-able, and the effect of hindering brain drain is not always recognisable. This may be explained by the fact that states look at only one side of migration: the economic incentive for migrating. As Rizvi explains, “skilled workers in the developing countries continue to be interested in emi-gration for a wide variety of reasons, which relate both to the opportunities that individuals are able to pursue abroad and to the changing structure of the global economy” (Rizvi, 2006 p.176). The economic factor is thus essential for a skilled individual willing to migrate.
However, the decision of migrating is not only driven by economic factors, but also by cultural and strategic ones. Migration has become an increasingly common phenomenon for skilled stu-dents and workers. Alumni and peers can provide a strong cultural support and network for migrating to a developed country. The diasporic networks also contribute to the perception of migration as a perfectly normal process in one’s life. Strategically, students opt for mobility and an education abroad as this can be viewed as the most direct ticket to migration. State policies on migration and higher education do not reflect all the aspects of migration and mainly tend to look at ways to prevent migration for economic reasons. The cultural and political incentive for skilled migration must be taken into account. This statement can also be made for the state’s policies that encourage high-skilled mobility.
The economic aspect of education and migration in state policies is reflected by the fact that international education based on cooperation and aid has been replaced by its commercialisation. The European Students’ Union explains in its policy on higher education that “ When economic
Student mobility and Brain drain:
perceptions, causes and the way forw
ard
64
reasons steer the internationalisation of higher education with the objective of making profit, higher education institutions focus on attracting fee-paying students and establishing offshore campuses and franchises. The risk is that only economically exploitable programmes prosper and certain countries or regions stay in the focus of interest at the expense of quality in education and the rights’ of students” (ESU, 2013).
The complexity of Migration Paths
It has been a common perception that students’ motivation to study abroad is to acquire an im-proved quality higher education, learn a new language, experience a new culture and travel. The perceived reasons for a student to remain in his or her host country or return to his or her home country are often oversimplified. It is assumed that if a student decides to stay it is to get a better salary and enjoy better working conditions. If a student decides to return, it is because they wish to contribute to the development of his or her home country. As this section will elaborate on, these simplistic approaches do not fit the current migration reality, and therefore the concept of brain drain becomes even more difficult to apply and measure.
Over the years, migration has become an increasingly complex phenomenon. The difficulty to track migration and multiple mobility when it comes to international students and skilled peo-ple, results in ambiguous analyses of brain drain. As Rizvi explains “The concept of brain drain is highly problematic. In an age of globalisation, the key issue has become not where people are physically located but what contribution they are able to make to the social, cultural, and eco-nomic development of the countries with which they identify” (Rizvi, 2006 p.189). The situation where students remain in their host country for employment reasons after the completion of their studies can result in an ambiguous situation where the concept of brain drain and brain gain becomes obsolete.
The term “mobility” suggests in itself a temporary and evolving situation. When the migration path of a person is unidirectional, it is possible to consider that the person from a developing country remaining in a developed country constitutes a brain loss for the country of origin and brain gain for the hosting country. However, the migration path of a student and a skilled worker is more often multi-directional, and migration statistics do not provide sufficient information about the trajectory of a person. Migration statistics focus on the instant, meaning that they reg-ister the moment a person enters or exits a territory. It does not provide further information on the person’s mobility once inside the country’s territory. Therefore, multiple mobility and multi-ple-migration make it difficult to measure brain drain. For instance, a student from China comes to study in the USA but then works in Germany, returns to China for employment and migrates
Stud
ent m
obili
ty a
nd B
rain
dra
in:
perc
epti
ons,
cau
ses
and
the
way
forw
ard
65
again to work in Canada, does not render a complete brain loss for China as the individual re-turns working temporarily in China. Neither does it amount to brain gain for the other developed countries where they work, as the situation is temporary. In this case, one can apply the concept of brain circulation.
In several cases, students staying to work in their host country can result in what is termed brain waste. This particular case refers to a situation in which an individual’s country of origin suffers the loss of a brain because the student does not return for employment and does not contribute to the development of one’s country of origin. However neither does it translate into a brain gain for the host country because the now skilled worker is not used to their full potential. This happens when a student or skilled worker gets a job for which they are overqualified for in the host country, “In the situation where a mismatch between the skills offered by the individual and those demanded by the labour market occurs (supply and demand mismatch), experts speak of a ‘brain waste’, where there are only losers (the skilled worker and the country of origin) and no winners” (Wächter, 2006).
Another ambiguous situation resulting from student mobility is when students have gained valuable knowledge and skills and return to their country of origin to contribute to the develop-ment of the country. However, skilled students can then find a mismatch between the knowledge and skills they acquired during their studies abroad and the skills needed in their country of ori-gin. This is due to the lack of opportunities and low infrastructure in the home country. Therefore the returning student is not able to fully contribute to the development of its country. The western values foreign students learn during their studies abroad can also be conflicting when returning to their country of origin as the working environments are less encouraging. Moreover, returning students often no longer accept corruption and the lack of transparency in countries where these realities apply. This type of situation does not result in brain gain for the country that hosted the student for their studies, as the student chooses to return to their country of origin. Neither can it be considered brain gain for the country of origin, as the student is not able to use the knowledge obtained abroad to contribute to the development of their country. The concept of brain waste can also be utilised in these situations.
Finally, some students prefer to stay abroad instead of returning home because they believe that they will be better able to contribute to the development of their country from the outside. In this particular situation, none of the concepts of brain drain, brain gain, brain circulation or brain waste can be fully applied. This constitutes brain gain for the host country as the student remains in the country for employment reasons, however by being employed in the host country, they can contribute to the development of their country of origin. For the country of origin it is not a com-plete brain loss as the country still benefits from its citizen working abroad. Most foreign skilled
Student mobility and Brain drain:
perceptions, causes and the way forw
ard
66
workers retain ties with their country of origin, make investments in their country of origin, send part of their revenue to their relatives, and engage in the international dimension of their job. “By keeping ties with their country of origin, migrants can act as ‘bridges’ that contribute to a transfer of technology and knowledge back to their country of origin. On these grounds it has, for exam-ple, been argued that Indian expatriate engineers working in Silicon Valley have played a central role in starting India’s emerging software industry” (Wächter, 2006).
Conclusion: “the way forward”
After having explained the concepts of student mobility, balanced mobility, brain drain and brain gain, studied what sort of policies states use to encourage student mobility and refrain brain drain, and analysed the complexity of migration paths, it is necessary to look for a suitable solu-tion to brain drain that corresponds to the current globalized environment.
Student mobility, brain drain, brain gain, brain circulation and brain waste are mainly ad-dressed from an economic perspective today. It is this perspective that favours the link between student mobility and brain drain. Students are directly involved in the work with issues of mo-bility, and must advocate for responsible student mobility. The European Students Union states in its policy paper on the internationalisation of higher education, “Solidarity, responsibility, di-versity and cooperation should be the main concerns in the development of an international environment”. This means that the marketisation of international education and the aggressive recruitment of highly skilled and educated workers is damaging for the international education based on cooperation and leads to more severe brain drain.
It is thus the common responsibility of developed and developing countries to address the issue of imbalanced mobility. Student mobility must be a mutual process between the sending country and the receiving country where the benefits of mobility are not only economic for either the students or the states. The benefits for students and states must be cultural and promote dem-ocratic values that will contribute to the development of the developing countries. Only this way balanced mobility will be achieved.
The European Students’ Union genuinely believes that equal access to higher education is the way to achieve a more democratic, open and knowledge-based society. Equal access to higher edu cation is far from being reached, and it is even further from being reached for student mobili-ty programmes. This is the very reason why we cannot claim that student mobility alone en hances brain drain in developing countries. There are still too few students that have access to mobility programmes, meaning that the impact those students have on brain drain is rather small. More-over, students from developing countries who have access to mobility programmes are generally
Stud
ent m
obili
ty a
nd B
rain
dra
in:
perc
epti
ons,
cau
ses
and
the
way
forw
ard
67
privileged students who can afford the cost of participating in mobility programmes. The cost of mobility programmes continues to rise, as do tuition fees for foreign students in North America and Europe, making it impossible for those who cannot afford studying abroad. This is what is meant by the commercialisation of international education that increases the chances of student mobility serving as a channel for brain drain.
Nonetheless, there are many possibilities for improving the situation and balancing mobility in order to ensure that countries retain the knowledge and network graduates gain by going abroad. For years, the European Students’ Union advocated for the full portability of student financial support, not only to make mobility possible for all students, but also to improve issues related to brain drain (ESU, 2013 Policy Paper on the Internationalisation of Higher Education). Especially providing portable grants to cover any possible tuition fees and the costs of living is important to ensure that students from countries with poorer living standards and challenges in the labour market, as well as developing countries do not feel an economic pressure to remain in a richer country to pay off loans taken for their studies.
The recognition of credits and degrees obtained abroad must also be improved and ensured for all students. The European Students’ Union believes it is important to have clear and trans-parent procedures for recognition, and decisions should be made within a specified and reason-able time period. Countries still need to create policies to ensure this, and to remove the bureau-cratic burdens associated with recognition of credits and degrees obtained abroad (ESU, 2013 Policy Paper on the Quality of Higher Education).
Programmes such as the European Union’s Youth Guarantee and other policies that ensure employment for students after graduation can also contribute to improving the situation. Finally, investments in higher education infrastructure and decent working conditions for academic and administrative staff will provide incentives for mobile students to return to their home countries and use the knowledge, network and broadened social, cultural and political perspectives they have gained abroad in order to further develop research, teaching and learning in the countries’ higher education sector.
This article has also shown the importance states’ policies have on influencing international students’ decision to remain in their host countries. Student mobility programmes alone do not enhance brain drain, as students’ decisions to remain in a country after the completion of their studies are a joint economic, cultural and political decisions. Higher salaries, improved working conditions and increased opportunities weigh in when deciding to remain in the host country, as do countries’ policies on migration and education. Likewise, the networks and links students have with skilled workers of the same nationality in the host country play an important role in their reasons for migration.
Student mobility and Brain drain:
perceptions, causes and the way forw
ard
68
References
⁄ European Students’ Union (ESU) (2013). Policy paper on Internationalisation of Higher Education. Vis-
ited 16. April 2014. [http://www.esu-online.org/news/article/6064/2013-Policy-paper-on-internationalisa-
tion-of-higher-education/]
⁄ European Students’ Union (ESU) (2013). Policy paper on Quality of Higher Education. Visited 17. April
2014. [http://www.esu-online.org/news/article/6064/2013-Policy-paper-on-quality-of-higher-education/]
⁄ Felvi: Everything Education (2014). Student grant contract. Visited 16. April 2014. [http://www.felvi.hu/
for_foreigners/higher_education/student_scholarship_contract]
⁄ Kehm, B. (2005) “The Contribution of International Student Mobility to Human Development and Global
Understanding.” Online Submission (2005).
⁄ Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Education (SIU) (2014). Quota Scheme. Visited 16. April
2014. [http://www.siu.no/eng/Front-Page/Global-menu/Study-in-Norway/Quota-Scheme]
⁄ The Norwegian State Educational Loan Fund (Lånekassen) (2012). Cancellation of Debt. Visited 17. April
2014. [http://lanekassen.no/nb-NO/Toppmeny/Languages/The-Quota-Scheme/Cancellation-of-debt/]
⁄ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2011), Education at a Glance 2011:
OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2011-en]
⁄ Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) (2012). Grade Expectations: How Marks and Education Policies Shape Students’ Ambitions.
OECD Publishing. Visited 16. April 2014. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264187528-en]
⁄ Spring, Joel (2009). Globalization of Education: An Introduction. New York: Routledge.
⁄ Teichler, U., & Jahr, V. (2001). Mobility during the course of study and after graduation. European journal of
education, 36(4), 443-458.
⁄ Rizvi F. (2005) “Rethinking “Brain Drain” in the Era of Globalisation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 25:2,
175-192 Wächter B. (2006), “Brain drain: what we know and what we do not know”, Portland Press Ltd, pp 51-
65
Stud
ent m
obili
ty a
nd B
rain
dra
in:
perc
epti
ons,
cau
ses
and
the
way
forw
ard
69
The Swiss mobility model Simone Widmer & Manuela Hugentobler
What is it about the Swiss?
From an outside perspective, Switzerland seems to be a normal, European national state. But it is only since 1848 when its member states (“cantons”) finally decided to work together within a federal state and to overcome the confederation, based on treaties. It isn’t really a surprise but nevertheless remarkable, how the history of cantons as independent, sovereign states still in-fluences the political system in Switzerland today. In addition, also in Switzerland, universities existed long before there was an agreement to establish a national state – the University of Basel, for example, was founded in 1421.
Today, most universities and universities of applied sciences belong to one or more cantons and are primarily financed by these. They receive supplementary federal subsidies, which are, in comparison with the financing coming from the respective home-canton(s), marginal.
An example: the university of Zurich
To illustrate this, let’s take a look at the annual accounts of the University in Zurich from 2013: The canton of Zurich paid 601,1 Million Swiss Francs (CHF, ~500,4 Million Euro) and the Feder-ation participated with an amount of 128,6 Million CHF (~107 Million Euro) to the total of 869, 5 Million CHF (~723,8 Million Euro) basic funding of the University of Zurich. In addition to the basic funding by the Canton of Zurich and the Federation, there is another source of finan-cial support: Subsidies from other Cantons. These subsidies are a crucial factor for the proper function ality of the Swiss higher education system. In 2013, other cantons paid an amount of 139,7 Million CHF (~116, 3 Million Euro) to the University of Zurich, which is, as you can see, more than the federal subsidies.
Mobility models Mobility M
odels
70
Abandoned by the federal government, cantons develop solidarity
Actually, the system of these cantonal compensations was established as a solution to the on going financial problems of Higher Education Institutes in the beginning of the nineteen-eighties. Then, the cantons with their own university (Geneva, Vaud, Fribourg, Neuchâtel, Basel, Zurich, Bern, St. Gallen – the so called university cantons), asked repeatedly for higher federal subsidies, but all efforts failed. To maintain their universities, they had to find other financial resources. So they came up with the idea, that for every student, who’s receiving an education at a university, which is not located in the canton of their origin, the canton of origin has to pay a certain amount.
The regulations en détail
An inter-cantonal treaty, the ‘Interkantonale Universitätsvereinbarung’ (Inter-cantonal Agree-ment on Universities) was developed and signed and since then two times fully revised. In ex-change for a guarantee of non-discrimination of ‘non-cantonal-students’, cantons contract to un-dertake the cost of their own students who study at universities outside their home-canton. In the beginning, there were relatively low amounts to pay and they were equal for all students, irrespec-tive of their chosen subject. Nowadays, the treaty distinguishes between three so-called faculty groups. Each course of studies is assigned to one of them. The first and ‘cheapest’ group includes the humanities and social sciences. For students in this group, cantons pay 10’600 CHF (~8825 Euro) p.a. For Students of the exact sciences, natural and technological sciences, phar macy, en-gineering and the pre-clinical training (first and second year of study of medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine), who are assigned to the second group, cantons have to pay 25’700 CHF (~21’390 Euro) p.a. per student. The third and most expensive group is the clinical training of human medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine. For students choosing these disciplines, cantons pay 51’400 CHF (~42’790 Euro) each.
For regions, where the problem of brain-drain is a serious disadvantage, the fees are reduced: The three cantons (Uri, Valais and Jura), which are worst affected, pay ten percent less, three other cantons (Glarus, Grisons and Ticino), which are also severely, but less affected, pay five percent less.
The big picture
While it is reassuring to see that politicians did not establish higher tuition fees for students but have put the responsibilities there where they belong – on an institutional level – a somehow
Mob
ility
Mod
els
71
anachronistic touch of these regulations is quite obvious. Although it was commonly understood by the contracting cantons to leave their institutions open to all students within Switzerland, they didn’t insist on a possibly much easier solution, which would be a federal regulation or at least enough federal subsidies for assuring to maintain the functionality of all universities in Switzer-land. Instead, they designed a system, which forces them to pay for each student who decides to leave her or their home-canton for their studies. This system is much more evoking of a con-federation than a federal state – composed of treaties between member states instead of a unitary regulation by the federal governing body.
The comments on the newest version from 1997 tells us about the goal of the agreement: “The new agreement has, just like the former ones, the purpose to secure equal access to universities for the members of all the cantons and to spread the cost of university education among the cantons appropriately”. This goal is also the great advantage of the system – it allows students to circulate freely within their national state and prevents them from paying exorbitant tuition fees – until now. From a social dimension perspective, the agreement helps, but it is not enough – in Switzerland, the highest barrier for persons with financial difficulties are the high living expenses. Therefore it’s crucial to take into account the problematic grant scheme in Switzerland, which lies, how surprising, in the power of the cantons.
Mobility M
odels
The Nordic mobility treatyPernille Hoj & Erik Pedersen
There is a large imbalance in mobility between Nordic countries. Denmark receives a lot more students than they send out. Especially in recent years, the number of Norwegian students com-ing to Denmark has increased. The idea behind the Nordic Agreement is to financially compen-sate Nordic countries that receive more students than they send. It is meant as a way to “share the burden” between the Nordic countries without decreasing mobility. However, the agreement does not preclude any bilateral agreement between the countries. Also, bilateral agreements be-tween institutions have precedence over this agreement.
Neither does the agreement imply exemption from the residence permit regulations in the countries. The agreement is mostly giving incentives for countries to receive students from other Nordic countries – not providing incentives for students to go studying abroad. The agreement
72
Mob
ility
Mod
els
covers some of the costs of the students receiving education in a Nordic country other than the student’s home country.
The Agreement on Admission to Higher Education in Nordic Countries
In September 1996, the so-called “Agreement on Admission to Higher Education” was con cluded and signed by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden within the Nordic Council of Ministers. The agreement is aimed at providing increased opportunities for students in Nordic countries to receive education and take examinations at higher education institutions in other Nordic countries.
admission and recognition
Students from the Nordic countries, who apply for public courses and programmes in other Nor-dic countries, are automatically granted admission if they hold the required qualifications for the course or programme.
The requirements for admission are bound to be the same as those for domestic students. This means that students from the Nordic countries, when applying for courses and programmes in other Nordic countries, are treated the same way and in accordance with the same or equivalent rules as applicants from the host country.
“The parties [the Nordic countries, i.e Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Iceland] under take a reciprocal obligation to grant to applicants domiciled in another Nordic country admission to their respective public courses of higher education on the same or equivalent terms as applicants from their own countries. An applicant who is qualified to apply for admission to higher education in the Nordic country in which he/she is domiciled is also qualified to apply for admission to courses of higher education in the other Nordic countries.”1
Furthermore, the agreement establishes reciprocal recognition of all forms of examinations, descriptions and statements of educational attainment. The completion of courses and pro-grammes and qualifications gained in one country are automatically recognised by the other countries of the agreement.
funding
1 http://www.norden.org/en/about-nordic-co-operation/agreements/treaties-and-agreements/educa-tion-and-research/agreement-concluded-by-denmark-finland-iceland-norway-and-sweden-on-admission-to-high-er-education
73
Mobility M
odelsThe agreement also contains co-funding of students. Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway pay, per calendar year, to the host country an amount of 75 % of the number of students, who re-ceive study support in their home country, and who are enrolled in a higher education institution in one of the other Nordic countries of the agreement. Note that Iceland is excluded from this funding scheme, as stated in the according text of the agreement:
Reykjavik declaration article 7 states that:“Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden shall pay, per calendar year, to the host country
(i.e. the country in which the courses are taken) an amount in respect of their students attending courses of education in another Nordic country. Iceland shall be exempt from the above provi-sion. The Nordic Council of Ministers shall approve the size of the amount to be paid by each of the four countries referred to above. For the courses of education conducted in another Nordic country covered by Article 1, payment shall be made in respect of 75 per cent of the number of students who receive student grants from the country in which the relevant student has his/her permanent residence and in accordance with the regulations laid down in that country. The an-nual reimbursement per student is DKK 22,000.”’2
The payment from one country to another is settled in form of a reduction or an increase of the share of the annual budget for Nordic co-operation levied on the respective countries.
In 2012, a new agreement was made in Helsinki. According to information in University world news, the new agreement means that the yearly compensation per student for Denmark is DKK 30, 000 (US$ 5,200) from 2014. The compensation will be regulated according to the con-sumption index calculated each year by Statistics Denmark.
balance/imbalance
The Agreement is, however, not by any means designed to balance degree mobility.There is still imbalance of student mobility in the Nordic countries. For example, for every
Danish student in Norway, there are almost 13 Norwegian students in Denmark. The main pur-pose of the agreement is not to balance mobility flows between the Nordic countries, but to com-pensate those countries (i.e Denmark) that have more incoming than outgoing students. There is no incentive built in to the agreement to balance mobility flows.
The agreement in some ways tackle “problems” related to imbalanced mobility. But it is focused to share the cost of students studying in the receiving country. However, the agreement doesn’t tackle the real underlying problem – to increase the number of (Danish) students study-
2 http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20121031163939447
74
Mob
ility
Mod
els ing in another Nordic country. Denmark has obviously not had put enough effort into providing
opportunities or advocate for students going abroad.
problems
The agreement does not take into consideration the different costs of education between the countries, institutions and programmes. This means that for example Swedish medical students in Denmark are still not a good business for Denmark, since there is a lot more expenses to study-ing medicine compared to other fields of study.
Also, the agreement only includes Nordic countries – which means that there are still problems with imbalance of mobility in Denmark that cannot be tackled by this agreement. At the same time, the number of Nordic students studying in Denmark is falling compared to other interna-tional students (where most is from around Europe).
The biggest improvement in the agreement that could be done is to implement a focus on changing the mobility flows between the Nordic countries. With the current agreement there is no incentive to increase the number of outgoing students. That is the main issue why Denmark has pushed for this agreement and also the increase of reimbursement. All Nordic countries send more students to Denmark than Denmark in return sends out. It is popular for students to study in Denmark, especially to study medicine. With a huge imbalance in mobility flows Denmark needs to cover costs for non-Danish students. But if the Nordic agreement would focus more on balancing mobility flows this reimbursement wouldn’t be necessary, at least not to the extent it is today.
Since all Nordic students should be treated as domestic students in admission to higher edu-cation, according to the Nordic agreement on admission to higher education, it’s easy to study in another Nordic country. At the same, as we can see, some governments don’t advocate the posi-tive effects on studying abroad. For a mobility agreement to have real effect on the mobility flows, and not just costs for mobility, the focus needs to change. Or at least include both reimbursement and incentives for governments to work towards a more balanced mobility.
Closer view on Denmark
A recent report from the Ministry of Education shows that international students staying in Den-mark after finishing their studies contribute to the economy in such a way that attracting more international students (whether from EEA or not) is good business for Denmark.
Thus, attracting 1000 more international students a year would contribute with a permanent
75
Comm
odification, a comm
entaryimprovement of the public finances of 53,67-107,35 million Euros.3
To make international students stay longer after finishing their degree in Denmark, the govern ment recently expanded the work permit period for international students to three years as opposed to six months before.
Changes in the system to get a more balanced mobility
The Ministry of Education has had a principle about having mobility balance in Denmark. This means that the higher education institutions must only admit a number of international students corresponding to the number of Danish students going abroad to study. The principle is there because international students are often an economical burden to the institution and to Danish society.
This principle has not been fully observed by the institutions (and the ministry) in the passed years, and more and more international students have come to Denmark (as seen in the figures above). The balancing principle has also been criticised by the Danish business organisations, be-cause it makes Denmark refuse potential workforce that can strengthen the Danish economy. The higher educations institutions have recently received fines of up to 4 million Euros from the state because of the imbalance of international students compared to Danish students abroad. This has caused the institutions to consider taking in fewer international students – but also to consider how to get more Danish students to go abroad.
The government has now with the new internationalisation strategy changed the mobility balancing principle, so there are now less sanctions and more flexibility for the higher education institutions. The new strategy will also give more incentives for the institutions to send students abroad instead of attracting international students.The foremost goal for the government is to get more Danish students to go abroad. As of now, Danish students get the amount of money their programme would cost at home (fixed rates for respectively social/political science, humanities and natural science) as a scholarship to pay for tuition abroad if they plan the stay themselves (so-called free moving). But especially for students in social science and humanities, the rates are low, and usually don’t cover potential tuition fees abroad.
An initiative from the government to get more Danish students to go abroad is allowing Danish students to obtain student loans for up to 13405€ to cover the expenses other then those covered by grants when Danish students go abroad to study. Today students have to take grants loans or obtain regular loans (e.g. from a bank) to cover the extra expenses for living and studying abroad.
3 http://fivu.dk/aktuelt/pressemeddelelser/2013/internationale-studerende-styrker-dansk-okonomi
76
New internationalisation strategy
The new internationalisation strategy from the Danish government, aiming at having more Dan-ish students and teachers abroad as well as attracting international students, was released in 2013. This strategy has changed the subsidy system for the higher education institutions sending and receiving students. Prior to the internationalisation strategy, institutions got subsidy funding for every incoming student’s gained ECTS, although the subsidy cannot exceed the value of ECTS gained from Danish student abroad from the same institution. From 2012 on, the institutions get funding for every Danish students they send abroad, regardless of incoming students. At the same time, there are no demands of the institutions to have a balanced mobility. This could make the higher education institutions lose incentives to attract international students.
The new internationalisation strategy also gives the higher education institutions incentives to make more overseas bilateral agreements with ‘attractive’ universities with tuition fees. This is done by providing the Danish institution with a scholarship, which Danish students who go abroad as free movers (not on exchange by an agreement), get from the government to pay for (some of the) tuition. The institution can use the scholarship to pay the institution abroad to make more exchange positions or receive more students than they send out. Since this scholar-ship is rarely high enough to cover all tuition (and especially not on ‘attractive’/’elite’ institutions) it leaves the question of who is to pay the remaining tuition fees – the receiving institution, the home institution or the students.
77
Commodification, a commentaryJanine Wulz
Investing in human capital - commodifying higher education
Thinking the neoliberal way means to see economic growth as base for wealth and wellbeing of a society. Following this idea, investment in (higher) education becomes an investment to realise economic growth, and knowledge is respectively seen as a resource of highest value.
This idea of education is contradictory to a more progressive perspective, seeing education as a base for understanding the formative world, criticising it and overcoming the causes of sup-pression and inequalities. Considering that education should neither be normative nor based on competition or selection, it has to enable solidarity, cooperation and include every person ir respective of his or her socio-economic background.
While millions of students, teachers and others all over the world fight for an educational system following the progressive idea of education, the shift of higher education systems towards the neoliberal paradigm has already been completed.
At the European level this was supported by the Lisbon Strategy in 2000, aiming to “make Europe, by 2010, the most competitive and the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world”. Education plays a key element in this strategy and its follow up, the EU 2020 Strategy, and within the Education and Training Strategy 2020. From that time on European Higher Education politics became driven by the idea of economic growth, labour market orientation and compe-tition. The right to education and the possibility of individual development were bowed under the rationale of economic growth.
The Bologna Process was started in 1999 and aimed at building a European Higher Edu-cation Area to enable international competition, employability and mobility. In consequence, a number of higher education reforms started in the member states: harmonization of structures by introducing the Bachelor and Master system, introduction of ECTS, quality assurance and a general shift from input orientation to outcome orientation. At the end of the process, study programmes and graduates from nowadays 47 Bologna States should be comparable and mobile all over Europe. The European Higher Education Area became a market, organised by the states, based on the idea of competition. However, Bologna also enabled mobility all over the European continent for millions of students.
The principle of competition can be seen at any level of higher education, students compete
78
with each other to get access to higher education and better grades, institutes and teacher compete for (external) research funding, universities compete with each other to attract the “fittest brains” and gain funding, often using rankings, countries compete with each other and Europe competes with other regions and continents. The idea of cooperation is replaced by the idea of competition. Instead of sustainably improving educational structures everywhere (e.g. by exchange and knowl-edge transfer), competition results in the so called “war for talents”, brain drain, imbalanced mo-bility flows and individualises problems, as the socio-economic background of students. Output, which can be counted and serve as indicators in rankings (e.g. the number of publications) gain importance, while students’ satisfaction, the quality of teaching and the idea of making education accessible to everybody loose relevance.
This also leads to the implementation of new management strategies at universities, by the idea of bringing management tools based on neo-liberalistic concepts and mindsets, into higher education. New Public Management is used as a tool to strengthen hierarchy and weaken demo-cracy. Universities are degraded to factories, selling knowledge and education to produce human capital. Students are seen as consumers, and not as part of the universities with rights and obli-gations.
Commodification of higher education can be seen at any area of higher education: e.g. manage ment, funding, teaching, quality assurance and internationalisation. One can ignore this, one can be sad about it. Or one can realise, that the idea of higher education is in a process of continuous change and everybody can support this change in daily university life.
References
⁄ Munch, Richard (2014): Academic Capitalism. Universities in the Global Struggle for Excellence. Routledge.
Com
mod
ifica
tion
, a c
omm
enta
ry
79
Elsa Hackl has worked in occupational and educational research above as a civil servant in a senior position (director at the Austrian Ministry for Higher Education and Research). From 2002 – 2012 she worked at the Department of Political Science of the University of Vienna. She was a visiting Fellow at the University of British Columbia, Canada and at the European Uni-versity Institute, Florence. Elsa Hackl worked as an expert for OECD, the Council of Europe and the Salzburg Seminar. Furthermore, she was a member of the OECD/CERI Governing Board 2004 -2010 and External Advisor for ESCP Europe Course Board from 2006 - 2012.
Florian Rainer: Promoting widespread student mobility is an ‘en vogue’ topic of the
current public discourse. Do you have any experiences with degree mobility, on a personal
level? Any narratives you’ve heard which are positive or improvable?
I have a few experiences, if you go to the UK and then back to Austria, for example, you still have problems with the recognition; it is insecure to get your bachelor diploma recognized. And even in the private sector it isn’t that well known.
Another experience with student mobility concerns the command of the teaching language. I sometimes help students to study German which is quite interesting. And of course there are sev-eral ways to learn the German language, though all students have to do their language proficiency tests. But generally I think, if you are studying chemistry, language isn’t that important than in humanities. It would take you years if you learn the language by entering the particular country. Something needs to be done to shorten this period – like, after an initial language course, offer-ing language training in addition to the study courses. Nonetheless, it is not the best option to teach in English in Austria. To learn English one should go to the UK. There is a sense behind the language, namely culture and history. Therefore foreign students in Austria taught in English would not benefit. What sense does student mobility make if you are not interested in the culture of the specific country? In addition, research in the language policies of the countries of the European Union showed that university staff teaches much better if they speak in their own language. Even in Sweden or the Netherlands, where they have a pretty elaborated level of proficiency in English language.
And besides, how will academia be relevant for its surrounding society if it works and publish
Expert interview IElsa Hackl
Expert interview I
80
in English only? Take Germany or Austria as an example, would teachers and others interested in development in science and society read English publications (even if they are able to do so)?
How are you perceiving asymmetries of mobility flows in the EHEA,
how should we valuate imbalances?
In Europe we have an imbalance of mobile students, though I don’t want to use categories as good or bad. We have to find means or ways how to transfer money for tuition within the EU. Otherwise there will be much pressure on governments to introduce or augment student fees. Countries with no fees feel overwhelmed and have to accept students from other EU member states, as non-discrimination is a major principle of the EU. In case we do not implement a model in which the money follows the student, the introduction of high fees in all countries will be the consequence.
The UK started with a privatization policy in higher education and it seems that other countries may follow. Of course, the UK does not “export” its students, because British students rarely go abroad. There are also drivers different from mobile students for the introduction of high fees.
Common agreements need shared principles about admission and funding.
That’s difficult to achieve, then again shall we give more scope for
development to national governments in the EHEA?
I think you can’t leave it as it is nowadays. I wonder why change seems so impossible. I think one has to develop a model where money follows the student. This concerns, however, only students from EU member states.
Half of the countries belonging to the EHEA are not EU member states – their students can’t move freely. There are some regulations by the EU for students from third countries which apply for the non-EU students of the EHEA. Those countries are faced with brain drain, too, and their higher education institutions are in some cases not big enough to meet the demand. We should help these countries.
In your opinion what would be a wrong political reaction or symbolic gesture
to loose education as a public good and a solidly EHEA?
How should then a Higher Education System in a Cosmopolitan Europe be structured?
Money follows the student would be the best thing. Big pressure is perceived by countries with a huge neighbor with the same language, like Belgium and Austria. In the UK where most mobile students go, all have to pay the same and very high fees. That’s not the political solution I prefer and it entails that higher education is no longer a public good.
Expe
rt in
terv
iew
I
81
In many other areas already happened what was called “negative integration” (Scharpf). This basically means that – in the lack of an amendment of the treaties – new areas become EU compe-tences by “spill over” or an extension of market regulation. In this way one privatizes education. It becomes part of the common market, and the European Union is on its best ways. But what does public responsibility then mean? The government regulates it like any product or smoking or does the government have to pay for it? Officially the Service Directive applies only to private education. But what is private education? How do you specify private education? That isn’t so clear.
Are there are points of recent developments which need to be strengthened? Moreover,
are there missing considerations in the European discourse from your perspective?
I am annoyed by the fact that national policy makers are not willing to decide how to regulate education within the EU and that they do not regulate it differently from a market. They might fear to loose competence but they do so in any case if they leave education to a market regulation. But I see no willingness and no chance to stop the process of “marketization”. Therefore it may be necessary that the EU collapses, because one cannot see anymore what the EU stands for. What is its role in globalization? It seems to be just another force or driver of globalization, although it pretends to shelter the “European social model” from globalization. Normally, the national states protected welfare by taking social affairs out of the market and regulating them differently.
What should happen after 2020? Should we adhere to a common strategy?
What other discussion and development platforms could be realistic?
We will have to make decision. I make an assumption: The Bologna Declaration was signed by countries which were part of the EU or where already in the process of becoming member states. Then they opened the EHEA for others countries. There is always the idea to open education and cul-tural agreements or institutions for countries which are not yet ready for economic integration. This nourishes hopes of integration. (similar happened and secured the further existence of the Council of Europe when it seemed to no longer be necessary beside the EU). In a real EHEA you need to have free mobility of students and staff as well as recognition of degrees. Now these prerequisites of the EHEA exist, in principle and with deficits, only for EU member states, i.e. for half of the members of the EHEA. It seems we are not creating one area, but rather multiple areas.
Expert interview I
82
Aengus is an experienced student representative, a quality assurance and Bologna Process expert with an interest in the social dimension of higher education, access, admissions and pre-tertiary education. Aengus was Gender & Equality- Coordinator of the European Students’ Union from 2012-13.
Miro Verdel, Florian Rainer: What can be identified as a main challenge for student mobil-
ity from your perspective? Based on your experiences as Gender & Equality Coordinator of
ESU, did you perceive barriers because of religion,
disability, socioeconomic background, gender identity, sexual orientation
or even multiple forms of discrimnation?
The most obvious barrier to mobility is financial, though there are several more troubling issues behind this issue. Typically, students who travel abroad to study have a very safe financial back-ground, have no dependents, and have independent support sources in addition to those supplied by their sending state. This does not of course apply to all. Students over a certain arbitrary age (mature-students), students with dependent children or other dependents, students from low socio-economic backgrounds and students from a migrant or ethnic-minority background are considerably less likely to take advantage of mobility programmes. However, the programmes are simply not built to accommodate students with these challenges, far too often the national (local) grant regime is a flat one, making no distinction based on need, and therefore the financially well-off will naturally be the most accommodated.
One group that is pathetically underrepresented in mobility programmes is students with disabilities. Less than one fifth of one percent of Erasmus students have declared a disability. Un fortunately, nowhere in the legislation creating either Erasmus or Erasmus+ is this really ad-dressed in any concrete manner. National (local) grant schemes still rule the roost, and those schemes simply do not prioritise students from non-traditional backgrounds. Even more damag-ing is that the ET2020 goal that 20% of students will have had an international experience during their studies makes no nuances as to whom those students should be. As of now, that it is very often the wealthy, ethnic-majority, able-bodied students who are taking part in mobility is no surprise, but a real shame that should be acted on.
Expert interview IIAengus Ó Maoláin
Expe
rt in
terv
iew
II
83
To address multiple discrimination in any depth would run to several pages of text, so I will simply say that yes, of course it exists, but the contexts across the participating countries are so radically different that there is no short explanation of why, as is the case with all cases of multiple discrimination.
In which way are class and ethnic differences still persisting by accessing higher
education? Especially in matters of mobile students.
Ethnic differences vary hugely from country to country, but a general rule can be asserted. Stu-dents from minority ethnic backgrounds tend to have lower educational outcomes than their ethnic majority peers. This is not solely the case for higher education, and indeed low levels of ac-cess to higher education are reflective of lower education outcomes from secondary and primary education. There are several glaring exceptions to this rule, of course (Swedish-speaking Finns in Finland, Protestants in Ireland, etc.) but when we analyse the largest ethnic minority in Europe, the Roma, we can clearly see dramatic under-attainment of education at all levels. For ethnic minorities that are also over-represented among the lower socio-economic groups in society, obviously this rule is even stronger.
Again, with exceptions, students from ethnic minorities tend to be socio-economically dis-advantaged, and therefore the problems discussed above pertain to them. However, the issues are not solely financial. Among many groups in society, and personally to many students, the speedy completion of studies and entry into the labour market as quickly as possible is a very high pri-ority. For these students, so called “internationalization at home” must be specially targeted so as to ensure as full an educational experience as possible.
Who is actually able to be part of this elite mobility?
It has been my opinion for many years that education, and particularly higher education is the process of creating the elite of the immediate future – I won’t go into many details here, as I’m sure you’re familiar with the philosophical background to that statement: An truly equal society – which, I would argue, is the purpose of equal education- needs an equal education system. Since the dawn of mass higher education, the “class” of people who have always had easy access to it has slowly become the “class” that has access to the more exotic elements of it. International mobility is a very clear example of this, the social makeup of the majority of those students who are able to take part in mobility programmes could be compared to the social makeup of the student body before the Second World War, with adjustments made for gender, which is much closer to binary parity now than it was then. Do you think the internationalization process started new discourses about be-
Expert interview II
84
longing and identity? May new forms of debating about values evolved, par-adoxical turns in creating an EHEA, like nationalist, protectional behaviour? Within Europe I do not believe that internationalisation will lead to more radicalised nationalist behaviours. One of the hallmarks of recent mass-exchange programmes (Erasmus, Leonardo da Vinci etc.) has been the wider world-view that participants have gained while abroad and brought home to their home countries afterwards. However, it might be argued that the strict inter-pretation of “Europe” as practiced by the EHEA and the European Commission (who administer Erasmus+) leads to a certain us vs them thinking when it comes to Europe’s neighbours, and those farther afield. I do believe that a “European” identity is more positive than a “country” identity, but there is a great deal of work to be done to build a “global” identity.
So is known, that students from educationally disadvantaged or socially disadvantaged
families are significantly less likely to pursue studies, people with a migration background
are much more likely to cancel their study. Beyond, both groups rarely
aspire a scientific career as children from academically dominated households.
What measures can be taken to change that?
The key action that should be taken is very early childhood intervention. Generally speaking, students from a disadvantaged background of whatever type tend to report very low parental or familial aspirations. The pressure is to become a wage-earning, self-supporting, person as soon as possible, rather than to invest in one’s own longer-term future. Among the very positive measures being done in this field are Childrens’ Universities, such as those championed by the SiS-Catalyst project. These initiatives bring universities out from being their walls and into contact with children from disadvantaged backgrounds at a time when their aspirations are still being formed. Presenting children with realistic role-models is essential, since many have no experience of what a university-education involves, or have simply never met with people who have attended uni-versity in an informal setting.
These types of initiatives can only really succeed if conducted in cooperation with, and in consultation with the communities involved. There can be significant push-back if “these white, middle-class, snobs” come in to try to “integrate” the kids. In general, the more cooperation and consultation with underrepresented groups the better.
The EHEA is characterized by cooperation and competition.
How will this affect equitable admission policies of HEIs?
To date the EHEA has not been particularly effective in the Social Dimension. This area is considered to be highly political, and ministers are reluctant to compare their circumstances
Expe
rt in
terv
iew
II
85
with competitor countries, likewise to allow an ethereal international body control their access schemes. Unless serious proposals are taken up to establish some sort of equivalent body in the EHEA to EQAR for the social dimension- some type of independent observatory for the social dimension of higher education in Europe, I fear there will be limited progress from this front.
The strongest tool the EHEA has to influence countries are the scorecard indicators. The reporting working group of the BFUG has in the last two mandates been a little reluctant to measure the types of indicators we would like to see measured, likewise it is unbelievably difficult to find comparable data from any group of countries on the social dimension, access, droupout etc. Without this type of data, we are relatively powerless to act.
The EHEA includes today 47 countries which have diverse prerequisites and approaches
regarding Higher Education. What do you perceive as the prerequisites of the
individuum to integrate into transnational ways of life?
The idea that one can identify a single individuum across the 47 EHEA countries is unfortu-nately misguided. The context of any person in Scandinavia, versus one in Bosnia-Herzegovina or Albania, let alone Kazakhstan is completely different. As mentioned above the challenge of collecting credible, comparable data is immense.
A cynical look at today’s prerequisites might yield something like the following: Ensure that your parents are highly educated, healthy, and wealthy, and married to one another. Live in a wealthy, welfare-state model country. Ensure that you are born male (in most of Europe, female in North and North-West Europe) and into the majority ethnicity, religion and culture. Do not be in any way disabled. Do not have children of your own. Be between 18 and 25. Do not be any gender identity or sexuality other than cis and heterosexual. Learn several languages fluently during pre-tertiary education. Read widely during pre-tertiary education. Have enough personal security that you do not need to work during your studies. And so on…
Any further suggestions you would like to offer the Student Movement of Europe?
Many, but for now my advice as always is this: Represent those who are not your members more than those who are lucky enough to be so.
Expert interview II
86
It is definitely hard to discuss future scenarios and to give a proper outlook now though we can state that there are still a lot of goals- based on progressive but equitable principles – to achive. Nonetheless, by reflecting our work and ourselves by the following questions, mainly related to mobility and cooperation, we may get an idea about how we want to position ourselves and our perspectives:
⁄ Why to be mobile in academia at all? ⁄ What is the role of higher education in cosmopolitan societies- who takes the responsibilities, who’s involved in the discourse? ⁄ Is higher education a solely public good? What does this implicate for funding and organization of the EHEA? ⁄ Which actions should be done to overcome the gaps between EU- and Non-EU countries? ⁄ Looking on the future of the EHEA till 2020- will it be a sustainable development based on its commodified principles? What shape should such a common intergovernmental policy forum take? ⁄ How can we widen the participation of underrepresented groups? How can we diminish inequalities of mobility patterns? ⁄ Should there be more research and discourse on cooperation and mobility models? Only parts of the higher education research is done with an international comparatative perspective, and only parts of the concepts of higher education research are influenced by international research discourses. ⁄ Should the research interest of the humanities and social sciences be more included into this discourse? ⁄ What are our possibilities to influence this processes of rethinking the challenges of student mobility and cooperation in a cosmopolitan Europe? ⁄ Europe is probably an effective political utopia, even though the majority of Europe thinks and acts nationally. How can this real existing utopia be forwarded?
Reflections of a pulse at a free endRe
flect
ions
of a
pul
se a
t a fr
ee e
nd
87
Further recommended readings
⁄ Anthias, Floya (2008). Thinking through the lens of translocational positionality: an intersectionality frame for understanding identity and belonging. Translocations: Migra-tion and Social Change. An Inter-Disciplinary Open Access E-Journal. http://bit.ly/1tvp2rp ⁄ Beck, Ulrich and Grande, Edgar (2007). Cosmopolitan Europe, trans. by Ciaran Cronin. Cambridge: Polity Press. ⁄ Grabher, Angelika; Wejwar, Petra; Unter, Martin & Terieva, Berta (2014). Student mobil-ity in the EHEA. Underrepresentation in student credit mobility and imbalances in degree mobility. Austrian Institute for Advanced Studies, Vienna. ⁄ Caruana, Viv (2014). Re-thinking Global Citizenship in Higher Education: from Cosmopolitanism and International Mobility to Cosmopolitanisation, Resilience and Resilient Thinking. Higher Education Quarterly, Special Issue: Globalisation and Higher Education. Volume 68, Issue 1, pages 85–104. ⁄ Choudaha, Rahul; deWit, Hans (2014). Challenges and Opportunities for Global Student Mobility in the Future: A Comparative and Critical Analysis. Oxford: Symposium Books. ⁄ Curaj, Adrian; Scott, Peter; Vlasceanu, Lazar; Wilson, Lesley (Eds.) (2012). European Higher Education at the Crossroads. Heidelberg: Springer. ⁄ European Students’ Union (2015). Bologna with Students Eyes. http://bit.ly/1zDMsyv ⁄ Gürüz, Kemal (2011). The Global higher education Agenda, the knowledge economy, enrollment and increasing demand. New York: Suny Press. ⁄ Krupa, Tomas (2012). Absolventi/Graduates – Freedom is not for free. Film: http://bit.ly/1teFknE ⁄ SiSCatalyst Project (2015). Children as Change Agents for Science in Society. http://www.siscatalyst.eu/ ⁄ Urry, John (2004). The new mobilities paradigm. Manuscript, Lancaster Unviersity.
Further recomm
ended Readings
⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄ ⁄
‘Challenges of Student Mobility in a Cosmopolitan Europe’ was a project organized by the Austrian Students’ Union (ÖH) and the Slovakian Students’ Union (SRVS) to raise awareness of challenges and obstacles related to student degree mobility in the European Higher Education Area. CoSMiCE tries to link up with these challenges by developing a foundation to discuss the current state of affairs and furthermore to stage a critical input in this dynamic and crucial pro-cess of internationalization of higher education.
CoSM
iCE
