“CLASSICAL” UNIVERSITY IN TODAY’S RUSSIA: BRILLIANCE AND POVERTY
OF CLASSICISM
Oleg Karmadonov
Irkutsk State University
Irkutsk, Russia
Nearly phenomenological beginning.
Once the sun was the sun, and the moon was the moon. There were once
universities,
institutions,
and specialized technical schools in the Soviet Union. Social upheavals,
overcome by Russia for the last seventeen years, had a deep effect on the
language bases of our social organism; the meanings were changed. Actually,
everything began in the former USSR with semantic transformations. "Categories
of evidence" – individual moments of the general symbolic structure of
the socium – acquired different (and often – diametrically different) meanings.
Categories of evidence are a kind of key elements around which basic social
discourse is organized; they are the sets of constitutive, regulative and
teleological symbols, which are accepted as "adequate" in the given society,
in the given epoch. The categories of evidence of the Soviet society in
the late 1985 included such concepts as Revolution, Party, God (who "does
not exist", but against whom it is necessary to fight anyway), Private
Property (which "exists", and against which it is also necessary to fight),
Civil War, Great Patriotic War, White Guard, Red Guard, Monarchy, Dissidents,
Capitalism, Socialism, West, East, Peace and Peace to the World, etc. –
conceptual complexes with definite semantic connotations, presupposing
quite definite perception and reaction. System of the Soviet education
in general and higher education in particular was simultaneously the object
and the subject of the translation of symbolic complexes. Ideological component
of education was evident and went without saying, and it was no mere chance
that the reformations of the Soviet higher education began with the call
to "humanize the high school", which was pronounced in the decree of the
Higher Education and Science Committee of the USSR in 1990. This process
took about three years; some social disciplines left, others came instead
of them, but teachers, however, stayed the same and where others could
have come from? It was not the first time when our leaders "had to work
with the existing human material" (Josef Stalin). Titles of disciplines
were changed as well as titles of educational institutions where these
disciplines were taught. The previous set of the state universities has
been replenished with the new ones – technical, medical, linguistic, military,
etc. Institutes became universities with great pleasure,
as well as technical schools – colleges and lyceums. Somewhere in that
period, in early 90s, a strange word-combination appeared in Russia – "classical
university". It is not recorded at any legislative act and is not even
defined in its content, but it is widely used and always taken into account.
Everybody ‘understands’ what the talk is about. For instance, the Program
for Support of the Social Sciences Departments by the Russian Branch of
the Open Society Institute (Soros Foundation) from the very beginning limited
the grants' submission by representatives of "classical universities" in
Russia. This is referred also to the Moscow Social Scientific Fund, realizing
now in Russia the mega-project of establishing of the so called Interregional
Institutions of Social Sciences – here also take part only those which
bear an unofficial title of "classical". Hans George Gadamer noted: "Everything
comes to the way the things are said". And in fact, "the pronunciation"
of things contains the relation to them and the contemplated system of
actions towards these things. It is known, that formation of the identity
is always a dichotomy: on the one hand, it is a positive process – "there
are the people like me", on the other hand, a negative one – "there are
the different ones". The first process is an act of solidarity; the second
one is an act of estrangement. Appearance of solidarity as well as that
of estrangement presupposes the definition of conventional semantic complexes.
People (groups, organizations) "come to an agreement" about how they are
going to be named, what relation to the world this name presupposes, and
what actions this relation assumes. The development of these processes
is very characteristic in the conditions of long social crisis. In one
of his works the author considered survival strategies of different socioeconomic
groups in the crisis society from the point of view of the dichotomy "prestige
– pathos"."Prestige is always sanctioned
by the definite system of meanings and preferences. Hence, if system of
meanings changes, prestige of groups, professions also will change, as
well as their social apprehension. The social function of prestige is consolidation
of a socioeconomic group, protection of its status, supporting the self-respect
of the group's members, emphasizing (evident or hidden) self-exceptionality,
all that makes the group be dynamic and maximally adapted to the external
environment, i.e. the main purpose of prestige is an elementary survival
of the group."1
Another strategy is pathos, that system of self-definition and world
definition, which is chosen by the group non-prestige from the very beginning
or deprived of such status. "Group or profession, which is not prestige
from the point of view of both society and public, creates certain pathos
for surviving. A codex of norms, traditions, regulations and inner legends
also accompanies this pathos. Socioeconomic group-outsider refuses to bear
the Cain stamp of non-prestige and considers its unenviable social and
economic position as a kind of Crossway, saint martyrdom that is to be
paid in the future. Thus, group's pathos has the same function as prestige,
therefore these concepts are not antitheses, they are two sides of one
medal. To say more exactly, pathos is a substitute for prestige. The latter
circumstance does not underrate pathos's significance and effectiveness.
Groups, deprived of prestige, - for instance, criminal societies, hippies,
unqualified workers, various social outcasts, - create and realize successfully
their own group pathos, which allows them to participate in social reality
relatively harmonious. We can say that pathos is a way of particular interpretation
of this reality, bringing it into accordance with own position."2
The question is whether today's Russian "classical" universities were prestige
in comparison with institutions in the past? The answer is - undoubtedly.
Generally, the status of teacher-training institute, polytechnic institute,
etc. was lower than that of universities. It was connected both with objective
factors, such as scientific resources, teaching level, alumni's chances,
etc., and with subjective perception of titles. The high school subdivisions,
as actors of the educational field, were equal, of course, but universities
were, nevertheless, "more equal than others" in the former Soviet Union.
Higher educational institutions differed, and this difference was reflected
already in the titles. During the process of re-definition of concepts
there appeared a threat just to prestige of universities, mostly, due to
loss of a referent. Almost every institute became a university
in Russia and the possibility of reference and correlation almost disappeared.
At the same time, institutes got the possibility to acquire prestige,
mostly, again, due to loss of referent. As a result, "new-defined" universities
just proudly bear their new title, and ex-"original" universities had to
create a new term of self-definition. To identify themselves representatives
of these ex-"original" universities say a mysterious word "classical",
smiling each other as conspirators. Evidently, that this definition is
used with a quite understandable purpose – returning suffered prestige
by increasing distance, re-definition of identity through positive and
negative acts of identification. In this process, however, just a pathos
component
prevails, i.e. compensative complex reaction of a deficient social organism.
Main and radical difference between prestige and pathos is that the first
is always ascriptive category – prestige is always ascribed to a group/organization
from outside, by society. Pathos is produced by the inner discourse of
group/organization. From this point of view, the word-combination "classical
university" is a category of pathos, not prestige.
Main problem.
The Latin word classicus is double in its meaning. It means "first-rate,
exemplary" as well as "typical, characteristic". At the Soviet time this
duality was successfully combined in the practice of universities' functioning:
on the one hand, they provided first-rate and exemplary education, on the
other hand, availability of this education, generally, did not differ very
much from that of institutions. Mostly, just the possibility for different
social groups to get higher education, including university one, characterizes
both general social-economical and political realities of the given society,
and the peculiarities of the existing educational and social politics.
In 2002 the author conducted research concerning the problems of higher
education availability in modern Russia following the example of regional
universities3.
Irkutsk State University (ISU - the "classical" one) was a basis object
of research. As the referent Irkutsk State Pedagogical University was used.
It was chosen due to a certain similarity with the "classical" one. As
well as the latter one this institute always had a set of various specializations
including both humanitarian and natural sciences. In this connection, it
would be more correct to correlate just these institutions, but not, for
example, the "classical" university and technical, medical, linguistic,
etc., ones. At the present moment in ISU there are 16 graduating faculties
and departments, where more than 12 thousand students are. The total amount
of employees is 2500, and 700 of them are teaching professors and assistants.
There are both traditional specializations and new ones, such as psychology,
sociology, management, social work, political science, international relations,
public relations and others – in the whole, that set of disciplines, which
every "classical" university should have if it wants to respect itself
and to survive during our hard times. About 30% of student pays for their
education, although the proportion varies among the departments, depending
on field's attractiveness and alumni' prospects. The tutorial fee also
varies. Today average fee is a little more than $1000 per year. Students'
composition in ISU has seriously changed for the last 10 years both by
geographical origin and social-status characteristics. In the Soviet time
student content include proportionally both town and country inhabitants.
The geography of entrants and students was rather wide; entrants came from
Caucasus, Yakuty, Western Siberia, the Coast and Far East. Today the embrace
is much smaller. But the most important thing, I think, is that about 87%
of entrants and students are the youth from Irkutsk and nearby towns. As
for their social status about 92% of students come from "white-collar"
environment – they are children of state officials and businessmen (see
Table
1). The causes of it are simple and complicated simultaneously. First
of all, the quality of elementary education and so the competitive ability
of country schools' alumni are deplorable today. It is connected, first
of all, with the constant deficiency of young and qualified teachers in
countryside. It is already common when some subjects are not taught in
country school, and others are taught in such a terrible way that it would
be better if they have not been taught at all. It is a widespread situation
when one teacher has two "overlapping" specialization, as far as can be
overlapping military service and physics, foreign language and chemistry,
physical culture and history. Thus, it is quite natural and logic that
when it comes to entrance exams to the university, alumni of these schools
fail completely. They fail because of lack of knowledge, but they are not
more successful at commercial entrance – due to lack of money. Besides,
those who entrances at the base of full tutorial fee must, nevertheless,
passes a test on according specialization, so the chances of those few
entrants whose parents can pay are still very small. As well as of those
of entrants which are from working families. These ones can receive decent
education in town, but are not payable enough, thus the access to the most
attractive and prestige fields (management, economics, law, etc.) where
all budget places are distributed in fact already in the beginning of the
calendar year is practically closed for them.
And that is a main problem: on the one hand, these young people are
not competitive (and it does not matter whether it is their fault or not),
on the other hand, there is an obvious inequality of accessibility of higher
education not only in Irkutsk region but in Russia in the whole. The Federal
Law on Higher and Professional Education of the Russian Federation (1996)
says that "State provide the priority in development of higher and post-graduate
professional education through… 2) making higher education more accessible
for Russian citizens, keeping the number of students studying at the expense
of the federal budget;… 5) creating the conditions for equal accessibility
of higher and post-graduate professional education" (The Law on Higher
Education of the Russian Federation, Chapter 1. General statements.
Issue 2. State policy and state guarantees of Russian citizens' rights
in the sphere of higher and post-graduate professional education).
The Law declares also "Competition's conditions must guarantee citizens'
rights in the sphere of higher education and provide the entrance of mostly
prepared citizens who are able to master proper level of the curriculum"
(Chapter 2. System of higher and post-graduate professional education.
Issue
11. Admission to higher education institutions). However, the matter
is that in Russia today the whole social strata may be considered as "unprepared"
and "unable" just due to "unhappy" circumstances of their birth, primary
socialization and quality of secondary education. Whole social strata are
deprived of the possibility to receive higher education and, thus, the
possibility to increase living chances and improve the quality of living
standard. One of the questioned during my survey experts expressed it quite
clearly: "University loses the country, and the country loses its future."
According to the received data (see Table 1)
it is evident that the number of young men – natives of workers' and farmers'
families, who strive to receive higher education in ISU, has not decreased
dramatically for the last 10 years (from 44% in 1992 to 32% in 2002), especially,
in comparison with the dynamics of total quantity of entrants from other
regions and the country (45% in 1992, 14% in 2002). What has really decreased
dramatically it is the number of representatives of the given social strata,
which were entered at the end in the University – 43% in 1992 and only
8% in 2002! The referent has a little different result. The number of entrants
to the Irkutsk State Pedagogical University (ISPU) from the number of workers
and farmers has decreased almost in the same proportion – from 54% in 1992
to 44% in 2002 (see Table 2). But geography
of entrants shows stable positive balance in favor of the country (56%
in 1992 and 53% in 2002, in the ISU, correspondently, 45 and 14%). The
number of taken into the ISPU representatives of these strata although
decreased significantly (from 51% in 1992 to 25% in 2002, i.e. twice),
however, not so much as it did in the Irkutsk State University (more than
five times!).
It is evident, that the youth of working and farming origin still strives
to receive higher education, however its chances become more and more illusory
every year. It might be connected first of all with the demands placing
upon entrants' knowledge, they might be milder in the "new-defined" pedagogical
university than in "classical" one. At the same time, it looks as if there
are other reasons, one of which is that aspiration for distance, for defining
oneself as something unique, "first-rate and exemplary", which is characteristic
of the old university in new conditions. In other words, there is an evident
tendency to some elitism of traditional university, and, so to say, to
"elite-making" function. It is known that in the Soviet time technical
institutions bear the function of creating the management link in the country,
and there is no need to list here the general secretaries and others leaders,
who have technical education. The first and the last exception for the
Soviet epoch was M.S.Gorbachev (Not taking into account, of course, the
founder of the Soviet regime). Today, in the conditions of diversification
of social practices, and therefore life sceneries and success technology,
this monopoly of technical institutions is not just broken, it is practically
separated from them. Today’s Russian social elite is produced by those
higher education institutions which, having the charisma of "classical"
ones, opened and/or improved teaching elite disciplines to "elite" children.
At the present moment, there are only two such disciplines – economics
(in all its modifications: finances, management, marketing, international
business, etc.) and law, again in all its kinds. Technical, linguistic
and other universities, surely, may open (and they open) these specializations
and can take (and they take) a lot of entrants, but it is well known that
their diploma are regarded lower than diploma of "classical" university.
Increasing the distance in this sphere, thus, is evident and successful,
and in the case of the named disciplines prestige component of the given
process prevails over pathos component. Voldemar Tomusk writes almost the
same: "Last time there appeared more than enough educational institutions,
offering exclusive teaching in business and law and striving to satisfy
need of new elite in new distinctive status-symbols (The type of higher
education is among these. – O.K.). One of the most characteristic features
of the sphere of new elite preparation is its aspiration to maximum possible
distance from "mass" education, first of all, at the expense of high tutorial
fee."4
Thus, today's Russian youth of farmers' and workers' families in its majority
is actually deprived of the possibility to receive higher education, as
maximum, and, as minimum, the possibility to acquire the specializations,
which are most prestige and high rated at labor market. Representatives
of these strata experience today quite obvious deprivation, and what is
more hopeless is that there is nobody to blame of it.It
is clear that situation is based on general social-economical circumstances
in today's Russia. Nevertheless, if a state declares "making higher education
more accessible for Russian citizens, and keeping the number of students
studying at the expense of the federal budget", it is logical to expect
some concrete actions in realizing of this policy.
Among the experts, questioned during the research, I can mention deans
and professors of the ISU, officials of the committees on science and higher
education of the Irkutsk regional administration and Legislative Assembly
of the Irkutsk region, 14 men in the whole. The absolute majority of experts
expressed worry about admission to higher education institutions and social-demographic
changes at entrant's and student's profile. Nobody defined the situation
as "normal" or "connected with new time requirements". The experts articulated
the necessity of qualitative changes in admission's practice, of its compositional
and structural transformation. Besides, the main accent was made on the
necessity of correction of existing Russian laws in the sphere of higher
education, especially in that part of it which declares social guarantees
to the Russians, entering higher education institutions, but doesn't define
mechanisms of these guarantees' proving. As necessary conditions and concrete
steps in the situation's improvements the following was suggested:
1) improvement of federal social policy regarding principles of higher
education accessibility, what presupposes conscious and responsible policy
of guarantees and preferences in regard to certain social strata and groups;
2) "favorable" regime can be realized through organizing the system
of preparatory courses for entrants from the country and for entrants of
low means, through revival so-called "working departments";
3) necessity of root causes' elimination, i.e. – qualitative change
of content and practice of elementary and secondary education in the country.
Revival of the practice of obligatory distribution of alumni can become
one of methods.
Obviously, that the latter is a very attractive measure, though it appeared
to be very difficult for the experts to answer whether the state has a
right to do so in new democratic conditions. On the one hand, why not?
After all, it is the state that still pays for teaching more than 70% students
in this country and, thus, has a right to claim a kind of compensation,
at least as several years of work in important fields of social life, such
as education, particularly. On the other hand, salary of these specialists
is very low, especially in the country, in this connection, whether a state
has a right to make its citizen to receive this pittance for several years?
It is clear that besides pure administration it is necessary to use supplementary
encouragement stimuli. To define these stimuli is rather easy; it is necessary
just to analyze the set of social problems (except salary), which a young
graduator from a Russian university meets. This is, first of all, absence
of accommodation and very small chances to get it, deficit of long-used
household articles, low ability of family supporting, especially, with
children. It seems that our country, even during today's deplorable condition,
can, nevertheless, guarantee certain basic consumer set for a young specialist,
who agrees to work for several years in very important but problematic
dimensions of the social. Why not supply this young specialist, with or
without family, with an apartment in a regional center or other towns after
4-6 years of his work in the country? Why not develop the interest-free
credit system for a young family of alumni, who agree to go where it is
necessary to, to acquire household articles. Why not correct the system
of social security (child benefits, resettlement allowance, etc.) in that
its part that is oriented to young families, agreeing with direct distribution?
These questions may look like rhetoric, for the answer is obvious – where
should the state find money for all this? However, Russia is still the
rich country of poor people, and a system of national product distribution
can be more aiming, directory than it is now, and the order of priority
can be different. Besides, regional component should be taken into account
here, after all, young alumni, in majority, work in the region they have
received higher education at; thus, supportive system, approved at the
federal level, can and must be sponsored during its realization by regional
budget.
This system of actions is, evidently, the matter of future, very vague,
by the way. At the same time, the practice of higher education institutions'
functioning in Russia can and must be analyzed and re-estimated in its
various aspects right today. In this work we have raised the problem, which
seems to be most painful in the social aspect and which is fraught with
serious negative consequences for the whole society. It is scarcely probable
to achieve indeed equal society, but the society of equal possibilities
is more probable thing. Nobody can deprive university of the function of
socialization's agent, and in any society, even in absolutely "non-ideological"
one, university will remain the inductor and mediator of meanings, semantics
and orientations. Certain complex of ideas creates certain society, and
university, as a phenomenon of historical extension, both of retrospective
and perspective character, is, on the one hand, an object of "social construction
of reality", and an active subject of this process, on the other hand.
Values and ideas, realized through the inner practice of higher education,
create a corresponding type of society and social relationships. The practice
of distance increasing, deprivation and actual segregation, consciously
(or not) realized by "classical" university in today's Russia, makes a
basis for turning the society into flock, creating future disintegrated
socium in this country. To turn pathos into prestige again university should
re-acquire the second component of the word "classical", become not only
exemplary, but available, i.e. – re-acquire the feeling of real social
responsibility. Otherwise, there will be no university. There will be a
quasi-patrician Lyceum.
References: