Abstract:

This study identifies a structural tension in the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) between its foundational purpose—quantifying the study time required for students to achieve the intended learning outcomes of each course—and its widespread use as a tool for mobility and credit recognition. While policy frameworks in Spain promote regular, uniform credit units (typically 6 ECTS) to facilitate transferability and ease curriculum design, this standardization often disregards the actual formative needs of students. As shown in previous work on STEM programs at the Universidad de Sevilla, rigid credit structures frequently diverge from the real workload students require to succeed, generating curriculum misalignments and distorting performance indicators such as pass rates, progression, and time-to-degree.

Building on this discussion, we examined similar engineering degrees at the Universidad de Sevilla and the Universitat Politècnica de València—programs that are formally well-aligned and designed to guarantee credit recognition. Despite their structural affinity, the academic preparedness of incoming students differs substantially between institutions. Applying the VAC methodology, which estimates the minimum credit load required for students to attain learning outcomes based on empirical performance data, we found systematic differences in the minimum credits needed for comparable courses. These discrepancies indicate that cohorts enrolled in nominally equivalent degrees face different workload demands, despite having curricula explicitly designed for mobility and transferability.

The empirical evidence therefore reveals inconsistencies in the current conceptualization and implementation of ECTS credits. When credit values are fixed primarily to support mobility, they cease to function as indicators of the study time that specific student populations actually require. This misalignment is further amplified by uniformity policies—such as the widespread 6-ECTS structure—that impose homogeneity across programs with heterogeneous academic profiles and disciplinary requirements. As demonstrated in earlier analyses, such practices hinder student progression, generate artificial delays, and contribute to inequities in performance outcomes across institutions and fields of study.

Overall, these findings reinforce the need to reconsider the dual function of ECTS credits. If credit systems are to reliably support both mobility and quality assurance, their allocation must be grounded in empirical evidence of student performance rather than in administratively convenient conventions. The results from the comparative engineering study underscore that credit transferability cannot be fully achieved without first addressing the underlying variability in students' formative needs, which remains largely invisible under current regulatory frameworks.

Keywords:

Quality assurance, performance indicators, curriculum design, credit allocation.