The European Higher Education Area (EHEA) is to be established in 2010 (2003). HE institutions, students and other stakeholders are invited to contribute to make HE systems more comparable, compatible and transparent. There is also a strong urge and belief that HE shall contribute to regional economic growth. A Swedish study (Persson & Regnér, 2005) show that the establishment of regional HE institutions have not had that expected effect. The transformation of HE curriculum is by tradition an intra- academic issue, which means that opinions, demands and needs from other stake holders might be neglected or even rejected. With the aim of 50% of a cohort going into HE before the age of 25, the authority, credibility and relevance of the HE might be challenged from "the outside". The changes and reforms that are undertaken might be of high quality and high relevance within the academic value system, but less relevant for the external context and therefore unintended consequences of planned actions might be experienced. In Sweden a longitudinal study of four cohorts engineering students show that the students motives for studying, their expectations on their curriculum as well as on their study environment changed between 1998 and 2002. In the first two cohorts ( 1998 and 1999) the students motives to study were future oriented. They were prepared to work hard in a tough study program and make economic and social sacrifices in order to gain access to a stimulating and profitable work life. In the latter cohorts the students motives to study were more ambivalent and here-and now oriented. They expected to "take a degree", but were not sure if this study program was the best or had the best options for them. They were also more pessimistic about their future work life. This variation between the cohorts remained when it came to their experiences of their first study year. The first cohorts rated their study results and their over all satisfaction lower than the latter cohorts. The latter cohorts worked longer hours but experienced lower work load and gave more priority to non-curricular activities. Faculty had made changes in curriculum as well as in the reception of the students during 1999-2002, in order to increase student satisfaction and study results and prevent drop out. The 2002 cohort also expressed a positive attitude to the curriculum and to the study context, but our results indicate that these students experienced and expressed more ambivalence and pessimism about their future, as students in this study program and as engineers to be. Our results are interpreted within a theoretical frame of reference based on a model for socialisation into Higher Education by Weidman et.al. ( 2001), and on other studies on students experiences of being students ( Coombs, 1978; Twale & Kochan, 2000; Aittola, 1995; Karlsson, 2004; Halamandaris & Powers, 1996; Bay & Daniel, 2003; Bogler & Somech, 2002; Tinto, 1993; Rautopuro & Vaisanen, 2000). Our conclusions are that rational models, based on academic criteria, for changing and implementing HE curriculum might not lead to the intended consequences. Our results indicate that the complexity of the relation between individual students motives and motivation and the intentions and aims of the HE institution must be considered. The first year, even the first months, are crucial for the students considerations of dropping out or staying on.. In meeting the students in their search for relevance and meaning faculty have to establish an "educational bond" with the students, based on their expectations and previous study experiences as well as on the prospects on a future job market.