New trends in higher education
V.D. Chukhlomin,
T.P. Roudenko, Omsk State University, Department of Commerce,
A transition to the
market economy under conditions of a prolonged economic crisis and the
demolition of the totalitarian system have quite a significant influence on the
system of specialists training, in general, and the system of higher learning,
in particular. In its turn, reformation mood amidst higher educational
institutions staff has to a great extent cleared the way for perestroika and
transition to the market economy: a number of University faculty members found
themselves among the political and economic leaders of the end of the 80s and
the beginning of the 90s.
It seemed natural
that the first Decree of President Yeltsin was a famous Decree on Education
which enunciated a leading role of the system of education in social
development. However, the results of these reforms within the first four years
look discouraging, if not catastrophic for the Russian system of education
which was seen by many people – and not only in Russia – as one of the
achievements of the Epoch of Communism. Let’s consider Omsk State University as
an example of what is going on in the sphere of Russian education.
Omsk State
University was founded in 1974 by a special decision of the Party leaders in
Moscow. State universities have always been elite educational institutions in
Russia where the best professors worked and the best scientific schools were
created. By that time Omsk had become the second (after Novosibirsk) industrial
center of Siberia. So it was reasonable to set up the University here, the 13th
institution of higher learning in the town. Unlike other educational
establishments which oriented themselves on the training of specialists for
particular professions, state universities were allowed to provide general or
nonvocational education. Due to this they attracted progressive-minded scholars
and free-thinking students. Local authorities, who had to accept this
situation, did not care much about universities’ development, construction of
their new buildings and students’ dormitories, as universities were financed
direct from Moscow.
Cancellation of
detailed regulation of university teaching process and financial control has
become the most significant result of the reform. State Committee for Higher
Education (now it is renamed as Ministry for Education) which is located in
Moscow and is in charge of state universities within Russian Government
determines “the rules of the game”. This Committee supervises
activities of public organizations which unite representatives of top
universities. These are, first of all developing State Educational Standards
Projects. These Standards assess the subjects and their scope to be taught at a
university, so that the latter is able to certify students and award them
appropriate degrees. The Standard determines the content of approximately 70% of
a curriculum, the rest is for the University to do independently. Apart from
devising standards, Learning and Methods Unions draw decisions concerning this
or that university’s ability to provide training in particular specialities.
Without these approvals universities do not have right to independently
implement specialist training and degree awarding.
In comparison with
the previous situation the system of higher education has become much more
liberal. In fact, any faculty member may teach what s/ he wants and the way s
/he prefers, actual monitoring being conducted by Head of Department or Dean.
Nothing similar to reports from American University teachers or Deans exists
there. Many University Rectors are concerned about it, but so far nobody has
been courageous enough to really exercise control, because teachers’ salaries
are so low that some of them might leave universities, regarding these
inspection measures to be insulting.
The system of
Standards is also being critisized. The Committee logic is clear: if the
government finances universities, and if according to the result of their
academic achievements students are given diplomas not of a particular
university pattern, but of a pattern universal for the whole country, then
there should exist a particular standardization of curricula contents.
Moreover, the government is afraid that in the absense of standards some state
educational institutions will radically reduce the curricula scope, which, in
its turn, will lower the quality of state diploma of education. The essence of
the criticism is that in reality the difference in diploma quality is
universally recognized: university diploma are valued much more than those from
other institutions of higher learning. Meanwhile, state universities, especially
the ones located far from Moscow have to go through numerous statutory approval
procedures before setting up new department divisions. For example, for the
last two years Omsk State University has unsuccessfully been trying to get a
license for training specialists in the field of finance and banking, though
all the new commercial banks located in Omsk give employment to this University
graduates in the first place. Without real control over curricula content,
extremely complicated standardization and licensing procedures look artificial
and bureaucratic, at least with regard to state universities. The latter should
be authorized to independently create curricula, new and unconventional
including, as far as all specialities are concerned.
Like in many other
cases the Russian reform has stopped half-way. Another reason to critisize the Committee is the fact that the
government systematically does not meet its commitments to finance
universities. A new model of the system of education envisages governmental funding
of universities from the federal budget in volumes necessary for training the
number of students set by the Committee for a university in question. Every
year the Committee informs a university about how many students and in which
specialities it may enroll this time. In the case of Omsk State University this
norm is about 600 full-time students annually. In the past the Committee
provided the University with detailed instructions as to what sum of money it
may spend and for what purposes. The University had four bank accounts, the
main account control including 18 positions. Nowadays there are two bank
accounts at the University’s disposal (one – in roubles, the other – in foreign
currency) with only three expense items of budgetary funds. These are teachers’
salaries, students’ stipends and other expenses covering equipment investments,
running expenses and future development investments.
Financing per normative (i.e. percentage ratio of en
rolled students/ratio of percentage to enrolled student body) is another
significant change in university functioning. University rectors
enthusiastically accepted financing per normative since, on the one hand, they
are tired to persuade the Committee of the necessity in every rouble spent. On
the other hand, efficient decisions concerning resources application can be
made only locally. In the period of the 1992 hyperinflation when a new
financing system started functioning, Omsk State University decided to spend
additional funds on teachers’ salaries. 26 monthly salaries were paid during 12
months. At that time it seemed that only two-three crisis years should be lived
through to hold teachers’ staff. In 1993-1994 Omsk University purchased several
generations/classes of computers PC 386 and 486. However, since mid -1994 the
Government actually stopped financing universities by other expense item. The
crisis broke out. Fearing the possibility of being closed institutions of
higher learning did not cut down admission of students in 1994 or in 1995.
Fearing public protests, the Government neither closed any higher educational
establishment, nor reduced enrollment, though it was clear that federal budget
funds would not be enough for both this number of students and institutions.
The latter have to find resources to cover their expenses on their own.
Practically all the universities have established Boards of Trustees, Alumni
Associations and asked for local authorities’ assistance. These sources do not
give enough money. To do research in universities has become complicated due to
weakness of their production facilities and production crisis, as a whole. In
this situation, it seems that the only way for universities to survive is to
provide fee-paying educational services.
In the period of crisis enterprises can’t show great
demand for educational services. Financial organisations resort to special
agencies services rather than to universities to train their specialists. The
only actual customers are governmental agencies (employment agencies) .
Governmental agencies have state budget funds specified for unemployed
retraining. These agencies strictly audit estimates of costs on education and
do not allow to significantly increase expenses on teachers’ payment. That’s
why the university on the whole receives very little sums from this source,
while teachers working for these agencies can get 5 – 6 times more money than
when instructing students. It’s interesting, but despite this difference in
salaries teachers seem to consider their work with students more important and
serious than the one by a contract with agencies. Of late, community demand is
especially strong in the so-called “top priority” professions,
primarily in the spheres of law and economics, the early years of perestroika
being obviously the peak in the latter. But recently law specialities lead
without question. Probably, this is due to the fact that our entrepreneurs
believe that in this country it is not possible to gain economic wisdom and
business skills from textbooks and that university professors can’t explain
what’s going on in Russian economy, while “law is worth studying”. In
the past, Omsk State University admitted 100 students per year to instruct in
“Jurisprudence”. Nowadays this number has been reduced to 75, but at
the same time the University enrolls over 100 extra students annually, the
so-called “beyond-the-plan students”, i.e. above the number set by
the Committee. Still this doesn’t help meet the needs: the number of applicants
is by far larger. And that is despite a high (as to regional scale) tuition fee
of $1500 and even $2500 a year.
Within Omsk University budget structure the share of
receipts from educational services exceeds 40%. This sum of extra earnings
approximately equals running expenses, and,consequently, is not enough for the
University development. According to our estimates, twice as much is needed to
make renovations and to purchase minimum of required equipment plus to provide
University functioning at the -end-of -the-70s level. The main secret of the
University vital capacity in 1994 – 1995 is that local authorities permitted
institutions of higher learning not to pay their bills for public utilities,
primarily, for central heating, in Siberia the bills for the latter running as
high as wages fund. And nobody knows how long this situation will last. Mind,
that the University gets extra earnings from “beyond-the-plan”
students tuition fees at the Departments of Law and Economics as well as for
extension courses in new specialities, such as management, marketing, commerce,
social public services, psychology. The University could earn more, if other
departments were able to market their programs. The problem is that the main
departments were set up in the period of the global opposition between the USSR
and the USA. Those main departments are the Departments of Mathematics and
Physics which today have the most highly qualified staff, computer classes,
laboratories and best-stocked library. For several years in a row these
departments can’t or can hardly enroll the set number of students, still they
are the main users of the University’s assets. Like the majority of industrial
enterprises these departments are not ready for conversion, but choose the ? of
passive survival”. Under the democratic procedures of choices the University
authorities are not able to radically reform existing curricula. Such a
situation is likely to be in industry on the whole, too.
Perhaps, this fact helps understand why of late there
is an obvious tendency among young people to get humanitarian education. They
see what a disastrous position enterprises of defence industry, research
institutions and universities have found themselves in. So today the younger
generation chooses humanities. Omsk State University can be proud of the fact
that it was the first state institution of higher learning in Russia to open
the Department of Theology among its new specialities of humanitarian cycle.
Some divisions of the History Department, such as Ethnography and Archaeology,
as well as those of the Arts Department, Linguistics and Journalism, in
particular, are popular among students. We can’t but mention a great desire
among students to study a foreign, sometimes, two foreign languages while at
the University, and not only as an obligatory subject during the set period of
time- one and a half through two semesters – but also at some elective,
intensive or extension courses.
Finally, we should add that according to our estimates
under radical reconstruction towards active marketing of new educational
programs the University would be capable to normally function even at the
current level of financing. If the University changes the 1:8 faculty-students
ratios established now in Russia to 1:15 or 1:20, it will cope with paying
teachers competitive salaries. Unfortunately, by the end of 1996 the university
had to pay its first bill for central heating. So there emerge the main
problem: to be or not to be.
Список литературы
Для подготовки данной работы были использованы материалы
с сайта http://www.omsu.omskreg.ru/