ROLE
OF UNIVERSITIES IN A CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SOCIAL REALITIES
OLEG KARMADONOV
RESEARCH PAPER
Perhaps never before in global affairs has education
been as pivotal to individuals and societies. Perhaps never before has
education been confronted with such societal crises as we face today. However,
perhaps never before have individual people had so many opportunities to
control their own destinies; and educators so much creative potential to
prepare them for life in the future. We have many challenges and many problems
to overcome, but recognition of problems is part of the solution.
Jiri Kotasek,
(“Visions of Educational Development in the Post-Socialist Era” in:
Ryba, Raymond (ed.) (1997). Education, Democracy and Development. An International
Perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. P. 25).
PRELIMINARY
NOTES
The
paper consists of two sequent parts, the first of which is devoted to the
studying the university as an object and subject of social transformations,
with particular regard to the methodological issues, while the second one
discusses the most crucial, in our point of view, problem of higher education
in today's Russia – an access to higher learning. Thus, the first chapter
is mainly theoretical and descriptive by its nature, while the second one
is trying to convert the speculation into an applied issue, analyzing the
problem of deprivation and drawing the means for solving the situation.
The last is discussed further and more comprehensively in another part
of report – the Policy Paper.
CHAPTER
1. UNIVERSITY IN TRANSFORMATION AND TRANSFORMATION IN UNIVERSITY
General
theoretical approach
The
rate of the humankind’s history is accelerating steadily. The processes
of social life at present are changing their dimensions and directions
dramatically, outpacing the capacity for scientific foresight. To social
scientists desperately trying to catch the kaleidoscope of social reality
the latter may seem to be either a cosmos, where everything is brought
in order and has its reason, or chaos, where arbitrariness rules. Given
this challenge, the present methodological crisis in social science is
quite understandable. The whole toolbox of analytical means created so
far was designed to study relatively stable objects: self-sustaining institutions,
habit-driven processes, and recurrent phenomena. But the usual tools for
social analysis very often do not fit the dynamics of today’s societies.This
is most problematic in the study of the role of universities in social
transformation.
One
observes various attempts within the social sciences to overcome the methodological
and theoretical crisis. Ways of analytical discourse are offered by such
approaches as theories of global system and post-modernism. However, it's
obvious that these approaches are, actually, the embodiments of the same
old antinomy of cosmos and chaos. Though the productivity of those directions
need not be proven, I prefer a different point of analysis and different
level of philosophic discourse. Herbert Spencer noted that, "The control
exercised by the aggregate over its units, is one tending ever to mould
their activities and sentiments and ideas into congruity with social requirements;
and these activities, sentiments, and ideas, in so far as they are changed
by changing circumstances, tend to re-mould the society into congruity
with themselves."1
Thus, social change could be considered dialectically - as constant mutual
reciprocal modificationbetween a
thing and its perception. In other words, we suggest that social reality
is the place of constant meeting of denotement and denotatum, when the
state of the given social reality is dependent directly on the results
of this meeting.[2]
So, the interpretation of social space supposes not only attention to material
objects and "tangible" phenomena, filling this space, but to the forms
of social discourse, which are not shown directly. I mean the forms and
the ways of existence of social consciousness often called social mindscapes,
mental
landscapes, cognitive maps, etc.
The
symbolic nature of the world deserves greater attention from social sciences
because, on the one hand, it is really a stable characteristic of changing
social reality, but, on the other hand, this characteristic is as dynamic
as this reality. Expressing this methodological and theoretical paradox
in other words: in the subject of sign systems or symbolic forms, we have
a stable correlate of social dynamics transforming with it, and, because
it is always referable, providing us with the possibility to study impressionistic
reality by the most adequate, i.e. impressionistic ways.
Thus,
social transformations, "change of things" is caused by a preliminary change
of notions, by transformation of the content of consciousness. Once again
an arising symbolic system passes through three basic stages during its
formation: 1) indifference (non-engagement, non-involvement); 2) assumption
(acknowledgement of probability, possibility); 3) legitimating (making
the meanings habitual, acquiring of them). At the same time, there is not,
naturally, any momentary radical substitution of one system by another;
during the replacement of "discourse formations, - with the words of Michael
Foucault, - some elements can remain identical, but they belong to different
systems of dispersion and obey to different rules of formation."[3]
Thus, one of the crucial factors in the process of constitution of symbolic
systems is time.
Social
transformations in post-communist countries, with all their specifics and
originality, are, nevertheless, a part and reflection of the general, global
process of social alteration, which is intrinsic in any human community.
The question is just about the scope of those alterations, about their
ontological, historical, and cultural conditions, about their rate, character,
and the level of brutality/constructiveness. Many social scientists in
Russia as well as abroad (though, mostly abroad, the reason for which is
not quite clear) reckon that the collapse of the Soviet Union was not inevitable,
at least in the 80's – 90's of the twentieth century.[4]
There were no economic, military, nationalist reasons for that. Neither
was the internal indignation or external threat. With those conditions
the Soviet system hypothetically could exist for a long time. But it did
not. And it is the great riddle for social scientists, as well as for laymen.
You cannot explain this dramatic event just with the means of the "overtaking
modernization", or corrosion of a structure, though those explanations
make sense to some extent as well. To understand and to explain what happened
in the USSR since 1985 I would like to draw upon the character in the fairy
tale "The Emperor's New Clothes". Commencing on 1985 the ruling Communist
Party of the USSR looked more and more like this personage. Except there
was no "boy". It was the Communist Emperor himself who began to cry and
proclaim not only his obvious nakedness but also his disgusting criminal
nature and records. It was the Communist Emperor who began to hit his chest
with his fists, to tear his hair from his head, and to eagerly try to convince
his own people that he, actually, had no moral right to rule over them.
"The power comes from the above, the legitimacy comes from below", - Max
Weber, - at first, the people did not want to believe what they were persuaded
to believe in. But the naked Emperor desperately insisted, and finally,
after a mountain of incontrovertible proofs was presented, the people were
forced to change their views and world-perception in general. As soon as
that happened (approximately in 1990), the Communist Emperor lost his legitimacy.
Strange to say, it turned out that he did not like that, he recovered his
wits and began to tell the people that, well, he was ugly and malicious,
but not so much, and, you know, he still had a bit of clothes on him, not
a lot, and not very clean, but yet a few rags. But it was too late. The
power having lost its foothold was falling down deeper and deeper until
it collapsed entirely in 1991. The nationalist movements and economic problems
were the aggravating factors, but not the decisive ones in this process.
It was the internal change, the alteration of mind, of the mass conscious'
content, that was the powerful and determining impetus to alteration of
the external reality in the country, that used to be called the Soviet
Union. The job at which any number of dissidents never succeeded was accomplished
successfully by the primary object of their struggle.
Thus,
social upheavals, held in check by Russia for the last seventeen years,
were initiated with the semantic change, and in turn had a deep effect
on the language bases of the whole social organism; the meanings were transformed.
"Categories of evidence," individual moments of the general symbolic structure
of the socium, during perestroika acquired different (often diametrically)
meanings. Categories of evidence are a kind of key elements around which
the basic social discourse is organized; they are the sets of constitutive,
regulative and teleological symbols, which are accepted as "adequate",
“obvious,” and taken for granted in the given society, in the given epoch.
These are the symbol sets that reflect social reality and determine the
perception of and the attitudes toward this reality.[5]
The categories of evidence of Soviet society in late 1985 included, for
example, 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.
Russian
university: external and internal transformations
The
system of Soviet education in general and higher education in particular
was (still is, and not only in the former USSR) simultaneously object and
subject of the translation of symbolic complexes. Education, whether institutionalized
or informal/familial, plays a major role in society. In schools, students
consolidate their identities and learn what their position is in society.
School reinforces stigmas or privileges attached to students’ groups outside
of school. With the words of Michael W. Apple, “The school, as a rather
significant agent of cultural and economic reproduction (after all, every
child goes to it, and it has important effects as both a credentialing
and socializing institution) becomes an important institution here.”[6]
As a highly social activity, the role of education can only be grasped
by understanding the dynamics of society, for which Pierre Bourdieu’s generative
structuralist method provides useful tools. According to Bourdieu[7],
society is derived from many smaller and varied systems with rules and
purposes of existence of their own. Each of these systems is a field. A
field is defined as the space in which forces clash and struggle with each
other. The understanding of the functioning of the field is provided by
the habitus—the set of tools, internal and external knowledge, and skills
that an individual acquires from and uses in these fields in order to function
effectively in society. In the field, an individual may possess different
kinds of capital: political, cultural, economic, symbolic, and social.
Power is always at stake in a field, and those who have it have a predominant
position within the field. As owners of capitals, those in power can change
or perpetuate the rules of the field. When the functioning of the field
becomes self-evident (that is, when things appear to follow a natural order)
nobody questions the legitimators, and ‘arbitraries’ (cultural, social,
and political) are set in place.[8]
This kind of field is called doxic. A doxic society uses symbolic violence
as a tool for maintaining legitimacy, and will outcast those individuals
who question the functioning of the field. A crisis is a necessary element
if an individual or organization is to question doxa, and crisis can lead
to the voicing of the arbitrariness of the doxa and of the symbolic violence.
The effort to challenge doxa is called heterodoxy. Legitimacy
is a crucial concept in this model, since it is only through legitimacy
that individuals in dominant positions can sustain their positions. Different
forms of capital, whether tangible or intangible, are the currency with
which to measure this legitimacy. The more capital an individual possesses
in a particular area, the more legitimacy the individual has. Bourdieu
and Passeron (1977) explain how the Pedagogic Action Ideological
component of education was evident and went without saying. We, in turn,
can note that it was not surprising or something unusual that the whole
system of higher school in the former USSR was permeated withideological
content of certain type.Definitely,
ideology in the university was not just a part of hidden curricula,
it existed and took affect for the most part in a bold, overt way. So it
is no surprise that this Bolshevic education was to fall the first
prey of perestroika. Thus, 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 were discarded, others came in to replace them.
But teachers, however, stayed the same, where could others have come from?
It was not the first time Russian 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 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
from the very beginning limited the grants' submission by representatives
of "classical universities" in Russia. This is referred also to the Moscow
Public Scientific Foundation, 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 Georg Gadamer noted: "Everything comes to the way the things are said."[9]
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 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. The 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 this 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 a 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."[10]
Another strategy is pathos, that system of self-definition and world
definition, which is chosen by the group which is non-prestige from the
very beginning or deprived of such status. "A 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. The socioeconomic group-outsider
refuses to bear the Cain stigma of non-prestige and considers its unenviable
social and economic position as a kind of way of the Cross, a saint's martyrdom
that is to be rewarded in the future. Thus, a group's pathos has the same
function as prestige. Therefore these concepts are not antitheses: they
are two sides of one coin. 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 harmoniously. We can say that pathos is a
way of particular interpretation of this reality, bringing it into accordance
with own position."[11]
The question is whether today's Russian "classical" universities were prestigious
in comparison with institutes 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" (Orwell) 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 "original" universities had to create
a new term of self-definition. To identify themselves representatives of
these "original" universities say a mysterious word "classical", smiling
at 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.
The main and radical difference between prestige and pathos is that the
first is always an 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.
The
base institution for research
As
the primary base for research leading in Eastern Siberia Irkutsk State
University (13000 students), is being used. Siberia is a most unique phenomenon
of Russia. Various nationalities inhabiting the area have retained their
cultural traditions, original ways of treating nature, traditional methods
of management. The extensiveness of the area, with its ecosystems of many
types varying from tundra to steppe, was the major factor contributing
to gradual adaptation and blending of eastern and western cultures. It
was Eastern Siberia that major trade routes connecting Europe and Asia
used to run through. However, Irkutsk played its role not only as the point
were trade routes crossed, but also as the center of defining strategy
for economic and cultural development of the whole Siberian region. So
Irkutsk became the center of a broad information field. Here accumulated
a considerable amount of information on natural resources and conditions,
on ethnographical peculiarities of people's life, on the opportunities
and perspectives of further regional development. Information and knowledge
give rise to development and serve as sources for the affluence of a country
and independence and wealth of its citizens. Bearing this idea in mind
prominent people of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries
laid the foundations for establishing the Irkutsk State University. It
took Europe several centuries to formulate a University concept, and according
to the concept the University was supposed to be the center of education,
science and culture. That is why the idea to found the Irkutsk State University
had a great number of supporters. Educated people of that time were fully
aware of the necessity of training highly qualified specialists. Being
well equipped professionally and highly responsible for the future of the
country the would-be University graduates were to contribute greatly to
the development of the Siberian region. Russian scientists, statesmen,
patrons of art and science, such as N. M. Yadrintsev, A. P. Shchapov, P.
A. Slovtsov, S. S. Shchukin, G. N. Potanin and many others actively participated
in the process of setting up Irkutsk State University. On October 27, 1918
their efforts were crowned with success: the University was opened. When
the University was established, there were only two graduate faculties
– History-Philological, and Law; the ISU had 450 students then. Two years
later, on October 1, 1920 classes began at five faculties: Physics-Mathematical,
Medical, Veterinarian, the Humanities faculty, and, so called workers'
faculty. The number of students reached 2316, 30 professors, 65 teachers,
and 65 assistants worked at the University. Now, there are 16 graduate
departments, more than 13,000 students, and more than 700 professors and
teachers are involved. General number of the staff is 2500 people.
Program
and curriculum changes
In
the course of the study of the program and curriculum changes the following
results were obtained. During the last 15 years the most dramatic
changes in curricula occurred in the social sciences' departments, such
as departments of History, Philosophy, Law, Journalism, and Economics.
The curricula of Science departments didn't suffer very much during the
process of perestroika and reforms in the field of Higher Education.
Thus, it is quite logical, if we remember that the enormous influence of
the general ideological system in the former USSR was being spread, first
of all, on the social and academic units with appropriate specialization,
these are humanities and social sciences, - those who were responsible
for the spreading of certain sort of ideas, and general world-perception,
which were most desirable for the ruling Communist Party. All the changes
within the curriculum of the aforementioned University's units had the
same goal – to distance themselves as far as possible from the communist
legacy. Let us illustrate this statement with the following three examples.
Regarding
the Department of History: there was a huge aspiration for re-evaluation
of the past, just the same things were happening in a Soviet society at
those times. The main point was – everything after the October Revolution
in 1917 was as bad as one could only imagine, and, vice versa, before this
Revolution, during the Monarchy period of Russia everything was so good,
rational, and even romantic. All that was reflected in the curricula. At
present, however, the pendulum has swung back to a more central position.
Department
of Philosophy: during the Soviet regime there were a lot of silently
(or not) prohibited thinkers. Among them were, for example: American pragmatists
Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, John Dewey; psychoanalysts Sigmund
Freud, Erich Fromm, Karl Gustav Jung, and, to be sure, Karl Popper, one
of the principal enemies of the Soviet (quasi-Marxist) philosophy. It was
very good if these names at least were being mentioned in a critical (matter
of course) context during the lectures. More often they just were kept
in silence. They were taboo, that is all. After perestroika began,
these theories, approaches, and names began to appear in the curricula,
slowly, sometimes reluctantly, but inevitably. Department of Economics:
there
is no necessity to explain that during the Soviet era there was only one
sort of "real" and "sustainable" economic system on the earth in the curriculum
of Economic departments and everywhere in the USSR: namely, planned economy
of the Soviet type. Even John Maynard Keynes, the economist whose ideas
could be considered as rather close to the Soviet concept of "governable
economics" (not the "market", this term was a curse almost), was either
not mentioned at all or glossed upon. Let alone such a notorious person
as Thomas Malthus. The due was given only to those economists whose works
were considered as a prolegomena to the "pinnacle of economical
thought" – the Marxist conception. By those were meant Adam Smith and David
Ricardo. In the course of profound changes in academic life in general
and in the field of Higher Education in particular, the curriculum of economic
disciplines becomes more realistic, loses its ideological content, and
admits the plurality of economic behavior and necessity of private sector.
Thus,
the main sense and significance of the program and curriculum changes in
the Irkutsk State University (as well as in the rest of Russian higher
education) consists, first of all, of an alteration of context, structure,
and coverage of curriculum's material. This process began in 1990 with
the Decree of the State Committee on Higher Education and Science of the
USSR whose main goal was declared "humanization and enforcement of humanities
in Higher School". According to this project a process of transformation
of appropriate disciplines was begun in Universities, and new programs
and curricula were elaborated. This process, in its formal part, at least,
took two years; only in 1992 several general obligatory disciplines were
officially renamed. Instead of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, the course
of General Philosophy was introduced, instead of "Scientific Communism"
the Theory of Social-Political Relations and Sociology appeared. The course
of Political Economy was significantly revised; the division into Political
Economy of Socialism and Political Economy of Capitalism was abolished.
In 1991 at the department of Philology and Journalism the course "Lenin
– as a Journalist and Editor" was abolished, instead the course "Legal
Background of a Soviet Journalism" was adopted, though, in two years was
abrogated as well.
Changes
in the composition of students and staff
As
it was mentioned above, there are 16 graduate departments in the Irkutsk
State University, more than 13 000 students, and more than 700 professors
and teachers are involved. General number of the staff is 2500 people.
There are traditional specializations here and new-born ones. To the first
mentioned we attribute such disciplines as History, Philology, Journalism,
Law, Biology, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geography, Geology, and Physics.
During the last 15 years such graduate disciplines as Management, Economics,
Psychology, Sociology, Public Relations, Social Work, and International
Relations were established. The necessity of appearance of these new fields
was determined by both the demand of new social circumstances in Russia,
and the need for financial survival of the University. About 30% of all
enrolled students pay for their education now, from department to department
this figure can vary, depending on prestige and perspectives of graduates.
Moreover, the price for study can vary as well. The average amount of the
fee in the Irkutsk State University is US$1,000 per academic year.
The peculiarities of the enrollment and composition of students are considered
as the main practical focus of research, and discussed in the Chapter 2.
The
composition of staff is nowadays practically the same as in the Soviet
period. There is a usual obligatory route to the position of the higher
learning teacher. One should graduate from the University, then enter the
post-graduate courses in the chosen field, defend a thesis of Kandidat
Nauk (Candidate of Sciences) and there you go, you have got a newborn
lecturer. However, a certain kind of anachronism must be attributed to
the general system of post-graduate education. In Russia you still should
defend your post-graduate thesis twice, first – the Kandidat thesis
(candidate for a Doctor degree?), then – the Doctorate one. This system
obviously doesn't make sense, but there is a strong resistance in an academic
establishment to any efforts to change something here. Resistance originates
from the side of the "old guard" of Russian academia, first of all. These
people do not want changes because they consider it as a direct threat
to their position, authority, and, generally, the meaning of their entire
life. They earned their Doctorate degrees after so many years of uneasy
movement upstairs, and now this youth will receive the identical degree
just defending their thesis once? It would insult their self-perception,
and make their work and degree not so valuable, as it is now. In
this light it is obvious that the prospects of inculcation of certain principles
of the Bologna process, especially regarding the Anglo-Saxon three-stage
degrees, are rather vague if not doubtful in Russia. At the same time,
it is interesting that the issue of unification of the European higher
education system, and, consequently, the role and place of Russia in this
process so far is not discussed widely in Russian academic circles and
society. Probably, Russia, as usual, is just taking her time.Or
she feels that her chances to be included in the club of those lucky ones
are minimal, anyway. Or she perceives the prospects and benefits of the
Bologna process as the rather questionable ones. Or she is aware that her
own territory, the population, the present needs, and future goals determinate
the adequate approach to her human resources, which are to be used nowhere
but in Russia, first of all. Probably, it does not make sense for Russia
to enter into the Bologna, especially, keeping in mind an opinion
that this process is actually possessed of a European form, but an American
content in its main desirable objectives. Such as, for example, the task
of massification of higher education, diversification of its forms, inculcation
of the all-life learning, adequate credit transfer system, the modular
courses, diversity of students in respect to social class, age, and ethnicity, a
vocational and professional
education, a high
measure of institutional autonomy,a
relatively flat academic hierarchy rather than a powerful guild of full
professors, etc. With the words of Martin Trow, who is one of the adherents
of such a vision, “European systems are moving towards American models:
not because the United States is rich and a superpower, or because of the
power of American popular culture, elements in the Americanization of so
many other institutions in other countries. It is because American higher
education as a system is simply better adapted, normatively and structurally,
to the requirements of a “post-industrial” age, which puts
a great premium on the creation and wide distribution of knowledge and
skill, and is marked by such rapid social and technological change that
decision-makers in all countries begin to see (or at least believe in)
the necessity for broader access to postsecondary education.”[12]
Thus, Russia, actually, could be up-to-date in the field of higher education
without joining the Bologna Club. In short, she could incorporate
some useful features of the American system of higher education directly,
without the European mediation. Anyway, regarding the degree system
it seems that Russia, at least in the visible future, is condemned to sustain
and retain her own degree-granting practice due to many reasons, not last
of which is incurable misunderstanding of the newly introduced titles among
the Russian society, including actual and potential employers. As Voldemar
Tomusk put it, “Instead of the previous, five-year long university study
cycle, leading to the qualification of a ‘specialist’, bachelor and master
degrees were introduced. The problem the reform immediately faced, however,
was that Russia had no tradition of a short-cycle higher education. Anybody
who had completed less than a full ‘specialist’ cycle was considered as
a drop-out. And so it happened that as support for the short cycle was
missing, the reform failed.”[13]
We should point out again that it still is not clear, whether Russia needed
this
reform.
As concerns the validity and respectability of the Russian diplomas in
the rest world it will depend on the general quality of Russian higher
education, which should be confirmed by the real achievements in different
academic fields, including the realm of social sciences, and has nothing
to do with the introduction of newly academic titles and/or entering into
the Bologna process.
Changes
in the destinations of graduates
While
in the Soviet period the direct assignment of graduates existed, during
perestroika
this practice was entirely abolished. Now everybody is on his own when
he is looking for a job after university. There are both positive and negative
features of this situation. The positive ones: nobody tells you where you
are supposed to work; you are not obliged to spend three years of your
life in a place where you do not want to be; nobody hinders you from changing
your field of specialization, or from entering another institution of higher
education during the first years of your after-university life. In short,
you are free. The negative features: you are free to a discouraging extent.
It is not easy, actually, to find a decent job. If all established and
respectable (to a degree, at least) employers demand at least 3-4 years
of working experience, then where could today's graduate gain this? Next
– the non-prestigious occupations and remote areas suffer a cruel shortage
of specialists; nobody wants to be a low-paid teacher at the country school,
or the an equally poorly paid physician in a small city or, worse, village.
But these specialists are really needed. It is a paradox. From the one
side, the State says– "we urgently need you there, guys" (and, in fact,
it has the right to say so, for, after all, it still pays fee for 70% of
the students), but, at the same time it says – "do not expect us to pay
you very well". And everybody knows that the State means – "your value
is how you are paid, sorry". There is a draft legislation, which is aimed
to resolve this problem, being circulated now inside the State Duma of
the Russian Federation. This legislation, if adopted, will reinstall the
former system of assignment of graduates. It is not quite democratic, of
course, but who would dare to call Russia a democratic country in a strict
sense of this word? Meanwhile, according to my research, about 65% of the
Irkutsk State University's graduates (last 5 years) do not work in their
specialized field. Moreover, during the opinion poll we discovered that
about 45% of senior years' students already now are not going to work in
their field. The most common phrase and firm conviction is – "I am not
obtaining any profession here in the University, I am obtaining an education".
Development
of ‘outreach’ activities and changes in research policies and funding
Irkutsk
State University has long-term international connections and ties. These
contacts include both collaborative research projects and collaborative
teaching programs. ISU is conducting different scientific projects along
with such partners as Texas University, Illinois University (USA), Poznan
University, Gdansk U, Krakow U (Poland), Hokkaido U (Japan), Heilunzian
U, Fudan U, Liaonin U (China), Tuebingen U, Bonn U (Germany), Ulan-Bator
U (Mongolia), and many others. These projects are comprised mostly of research
in various fields of science; humanities projects include, first of all,
collaboration in the sphere of archeology (Paleolithic encampments near
Baikal Lake, joint diggings with the Hokkaido University). So far 400 international
students from 28 countries are involved in the different graduate programs
of the ISU. Besides, in 1991 the Siberian-American Faculty of Management
was established here as a joint project of the Irkutsk State University
and Maryland University (USA). Graduates receive joint (double) diploma,
and degree in MBA. For the last few years the University has been one of
the TEMPUS Program implementers.
During
the Soviet period the research in the ISU was funded entirely by the programs
of the Ministry of Education of the USSR. In last 15 years the sources
were diversified. Now there are many various financial sources of funding,
as for basic, fundamental research, as for individual projects. Still,
the main source is the Federal Government, which operates in this sphere
not only through the special programs of the Ministry of Education of the
Russian Federation, but also through the two huge grant-giving bodies,
which were established under the patronage of the Russian Government. These
are: the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, and the Russian Foundation
for Humanities. These organizations are entirely dependent on federal funding.
The amount of money they award through the annual competition is rather
modest, yet, it is something, at least. (The author happened to be the
recipient of both Ministry of Education of the RF, and the Russian Foundation
for Humanities, so I can judge firsthand). As concerns research projects
which are funded by international organizations, I can say that in the
ISU there are two grantees of the John and Catherine Mac Arthur Foundation,
one huge and long-term project is being conducted due to the generous grant
from the Ford Foundation, a complex and multi-focused research institution
("Inter-Regional Institute of Social Sciences") was established last year
due to the joint funding from the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation,
and Eurasia Foundation. A number of scholars and scientists either have
got training, or conducted research due to the fellowships from the International
Research and Exchange Board (IREX), United States Information Agency, and
the Fulbright Scholar Exchange Program. In this light, it is possible to
say, that certain members of the University faculty are accustomed already
to the new social circumstances, they adapted to new realities, they do
not ask the Government for extra money, additional professional training,
etc. These people rely upon themselves mostly, and they do not consider
the State as someone who owes them everything. At the same time, this kind
of academics is the University's minority, of course, and they consist,
mostly, of relatively young people, those who were 20-30 years old in 1985,
when perestroika began. Anyway, the ISU is an active participant
of the State 1997-2002 Program for Higher Education and Fundamental Science
Integration Support, also the University is included in the five Russian
higher education institutions that receive the biggest amount of grants.
Changes
in governance and decision-making
There
were no declared "self-governance", "autonomy", and other attributes of
a University both in a status and everyday practice of higher education
the USSR. The Irkutsk State University was not an exception. All the management
from the top – the Rector, to the bottom – heads of Department, or Chair
were to be appointed by the Ministry of Education, according to recommendations
from the side of local organization of the Communist Party of the USSR.
It was a common practice. A kind of elections could be seen at those times
only within the political structures of the University, namely, the Komsomol
("The Union of the Communist Youth"), and the Communist organizations.
But nobody could call those procedures "elections" in the strict sense
of the term. At the same time, there is no need to consider this phenomenon
(as well as regular "elections" of deputies of the Soviet Parliament) as
absolutely formal and useless. Maurice Duverger wrote once, that "in certain
conditions one (and only) ruling party could accomplish (unwillingly? -O.K.)
a task of the primary political shaping of the mass."[14]
And that is true if we look at many countries, which have undergone "the
second modernization". I mean so called dictatorships of development
– South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia, probably China. We can attribute
to those examples the USSR, as well. Indeed, the Bolsheviks during their
simultaneously fascinating and frightening social experiment at least instilled
into the mass consciousness the perception of elections and suffrage as
something common, usual, that is to be taken for granted. Providing we
remember what the Russian people were in terms of their political education
before 1917, it was a real advancement; it was indeed the initial political
shaping of the mass in this country. At the same time, the price for this
kind of 'civic education' was enormous. Though, it still enabled further
movement – to the real democracy, or, at least, to the real elections.
The first real elections of the rector of Irkutsk State University happened
in 1989. Professor Fedor Schmidt became the first democratically
appointed leader of this university. Now it is usual, common, and to-be-taken-for-granted
practice on the all levels of the university's structure, from top to bottom,
from the departments' chairs and deans, who are elected by their own colleagues,
to the rector. Officially this practice was consolidated in 1996, with
the adoption of new "Law on Professional and Higher Education of the Russian
Federation". (Chapter 2. The System of Professional and Higher Education.
Item
12. The Management of the Higher Education Institution.).
Thus,
the University mirrored all changes that happened in the countries of the
former Eastern Bloc. Like other social institutions the Higher Education
was an object of profound social alteration, but unlike many others it
was also a subject of those transformative processes. The last is determined
by the unique role, which is to be accomplished by any institution of higher
education in any country and epoch. It always produces new quality of the
human generations, it is changed and changes simultaneously. "Every generation
comprehends the truly human all over again", - Soren Kierkegaard
wrote.[15]
We could add that not only every generation learns "the truly human," it
also construes and constructs the human reality all over again. And more
than often it is to be done through the University – the Universe, which
is changed and changes.
CHAPTER
2. THE PROBLEM OF ACCESS TO HIGHER EDUCATION IN RUSSIA
Description
of the situation
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 other 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 universities. The Irkutsk State University (ISU -a
"classical" one) was a basic object of research. As referent the 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 the
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 the students pay 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 the 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 Pacific Coast and Far East. Today the range is much narrower.
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 to find that some subjects are not
taught in country schools, and others are taught in such a terrible way
that it would be better if were not taught at all. It is a widespread situation
when one teacher has two "overlapping" specializations, to the extent that
an overlap exists between military service and physics, foreign language
and chemistry, physical culture and history. Thus, it is quite natural
and logical 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 enter on the basis of full tutorial fee must,
nevertheless, pass a test according specialization, so the chances of those
few entrants whose parents can pay are still very small, as arethose
of entrants who are from working families. Although the latter can receive
decent education in town, they cannot pay enough, and, thus, the access
to the most attractive and prestige fields (management, economics, law,
etc.), where all the federal budget-paid vacancies are distributed in fact
already in the beginning of the calendar year, is practically closed for
them.
And
that is the 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 "The state is to ensure the priority of development of higher and
post-graduate professional education through… 2) making higher education
more accessible for Russian citizens, securing the proportion 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 that "Competition's conditions must
guarantee citizens' rights in the sphere of higher education and ensure
an admission of most suitable citizens." (Chapter 2. System of the higher
and post-graduate professional education. Issue 11. Admission to
higher education institutions). However, the trouble is that in Russia
today the whole social strata may be considered as "unsuitable" 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 those questioned during my survey of 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 proportion of young people from workers' and farmers' families,
among those who apply 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 the proportion of entrants from other
regions and the country (45% in 1992, 14% in 2002). What has really decreased
dramatically it is the proportion of representatives of those social strata,
who were finally admitted into the University – 43% in 1992 and only 8%
in 2002! In the comparable institution, the result was slightly different.
The proportion of entrants to the Irkutsk State Pedagogical University
(ISPU) coming from among workers and farmers decreased almost in the same
proportion – from 54% in 1992 to 44% in 2002 (see
Table 2). But the geographical origin of entrants shows stable positive
balance in favor of the country (56% in 1992 and 53% in 2002, as compared
to 45% and 14% in the ISU). The number of admitted 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 desire to
receive higher education, however their chances become more and more illusory
every year. This might be connected first of all with the demands placed
upon entrants' knowledge, which might be less stringent in the "new-defined"
pedagogical university than in the "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 bore 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 the "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 do open)
these specializations and can take (and they do take) a lot of entrants,
but it is well known that their diplomas are regarded significantly lower
than diplomas 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."[16]
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 it looks like there is nobody to blame for it.It
is clear that situation is based on general social-economical circumstances
in today's Russia. Nevertheless, if a state declares its intention of "making
higher education more accessible for Russian citizens, and securing the
proportion of students studying at the expense of the federal budget",
it is logical to expect some concrete actions in realizing of this policy.
The
possible means of solution formulated by experts
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 persons in all. The absolute majority of experts expressed
worry about admission to higher education institutions and social-demographic
changes in the profiles of entrants and students. Nobody defined the situation
as "normal" or "connected with new time requirements". The experts articulated
the necessity of qualitative changes in admission practice, of its compositional
and structural transformation. Besides, the main accent was placed 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 Russian citizens entering higher education institutions, but doesn't
define mechanisms for realizingthese
guarantees. 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, which presupposes a conscious and responsible policy of
guarantees and preferences in regard to certain social strata and groups;
2)
a "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 of so-called "worker 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
the methods.
Obviously,
the latter is considered as a very attractive measure, even 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% of university
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, the salary of these specialists
is very low, especially in the country. In this connection, does state
have a right to make its citizens 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 Russia, 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 opportunities is
more probable thing. Nobody can deprive university of the function of socialization's
agent, and in any society, even in the absolutely "non-ideological" one
(if there is any), 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,
and higher education in general in today's Russia, makes a basis for turning
the society into a 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 sense of real social responsibility.To
put it in words of Stephen D. Kertesz, “In our apocalyptic age the universities
are expected to assume new functions. Although the primary objective of
institutions of higher learning is, as always, to transmit knowledge and
prepare the forthcoming generations for tomorrow’s task, their involvement
in the world’s acute social and political problems has become nearly unavoidable.
If the by-products of this involvement may defeat some of the purposes
of higher education, the universities cannot sweep under the rug the unpleasant
realities of our time.”[17]
And this goal is still to be accomplished by the University in Russia,
despite all unfavorable circumstances.
REFERENCES