future of higher education in post communist countries

8/12/2019 Future of Higher Education in Post Communist Countries

1/34

IF . . . Interactivity FoundationSpecial Report

The Future OfHigher Education

In Post-Communist States

Policy Possibilities for Public Discussion

Edited by

Mark Notturno & Ieva NotturnoFellows of the Interactivity Foundation

With the participation of

Igor DubinaRita Gevorgyan

Oltion RrumbullakuIa Jimshitashvili

Edgar Marzpanyan

Tatiana Medvedeva

Ia NatsvlishviliGulmira Yeshmuratova

And the cooperation of

Stuart Umpleby & Wafa Abou-Zaki

Of the George Washington University

The discussions that were the basis of thi s report were cooperative and exploratory.

No statement herein can or should be attri buted to any single participant.

There are poli cy possibi li ties in thi s report that few if any of our participants would endorse,

but which they nonetheless thi nk are useful for publi c discussion.


2/34

Published by the Interactivity Foundation

2011 Interactivity Foundation. Some rights reserved.

This work is licensed under the Creative CommonsAttribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

To view a copy of this license, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/or send a letter to: Creative Commons

171 Second Street, Suite 300San Francisco, California, 94105.

Generally, under the terms of this licenseYou are free

to Share to copy, distribute and transmit this work, including, for avoidance of doubt, foruse in course packs and other course readings and educational materials.

to Remix to adapt this work.Under the following conditions:

Attribution. You should attribute this work in the following manner: The Future of HigherEducation in Post-Communist States: Policy Possibilities for Public Discussion,by theInteractivity Foundation, available under aCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike license.Copyright 2011 Interactivity Foundation. And in your attribution andotherwise, you must not in any way that suggest that the Interactivity Foundation endorsesyou or any of your use(s) of this work.

Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the

resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.The best way to do this is with a link to the web page listed above.

Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the InteractivityFoundation.

Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights. The rights provided by this license are in addition to the rights of reproduction and use,

including brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews that are granted under

sections 107, 108, and other provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act.

Printed in the United States of America

Interactivity Foundation

P.O. Box 9

Parkersburg, WV 26102-0009

www.interactivityfoundation.org
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/


3/34

INTRODUCTION

3 THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN POST-COMMUNIST STATES INTERACTIVITY FOUNDATION

CONCEPTUAL POLICY POSSIBILITIES

FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSIONA. Nurture Integrity

This possibility would nurture the integrity of the educational system with the aim of eliminatingcorruption and improving the quality of all aspects of the educational process. It would instituteprocedures for quality assurance; create a fair merit-based system that rewards the productivity ofstudents, teachers, and administrators; and require periodic evaluations of the system as a whole. Itwould try, in this way, to develop the professional, social, and personal responsibility that isnecessary to eliminate corruption.

B. Create a Culture of FreedomThis possibility would thus try to create a culture of freedom in the university by providing morefreedom to students and faculty wherever possible. But it would also hold them more responsible fortheir decisions and actions.

C.Reach Out to the CommunityThis possibility would encourage universities to play a more active role in public life by devoting moreof their resources to serving their local communities, and by creating a curriculum thatsimultaneously emphasizes higher education in the arts and sciences, job training, and servicelearning. It would, in this way, try to bridge the gap between theoretical and practical education byexpanding and strengthening the universitys working relationships with businesses, state-ownedenterprises, NGOs, government agencies, and other external stakeholders in their local community.

D. Aim at Financial AutonomyThis possibility would focus upon developing and implementing a wide range of activities for raising

funds for higher education and using them effectively. It would, in this way, try both to achievefinancial autonomy for the university and create a reputation for its honest and responsible use ofmoney.

E. End the Brain DrainAnd Begin a Brain GainThis possibility would develop a favorable social environment in our countries and universities thatwould motivate and encourage our students, professors, and qualified professionals to return homeafter studying and working abroad. It would also try to attract the best students, professors, andqualified professionals from other countries to our universities.

F. Promote Classical Higher Education

Not Job TrainingThis possibility would promote the classical ideals of higher education both as the basis for astudents future self-development and self-realization and as a way to ensure happiness andsatisfaction in his or her personal and professional life.

G. Democratize University ManagementThis possibility would introduce a democratic structure of university management to increase facultyoversight of university budgets, curricula, strategic development, hiring policy, identification ofpriorities, and other governance issues. It would also ensure that faculty and students have both avoice and a vote in the governance process.


4/34

INTRODUCTION


THE IFDISCUSSION PROCESSPublic policy discussions too often focusupon the specific actions that governments mighttake to address a problem instead of the broaderconceptual possibilities that might inspire them.This is unfortunate, since the wise choice of apublic policy requires an exploration of a wide

range of conceptual possibilitiesincluding thedifferent concerns, questions, beliefs, values,goals, and interests that might motivate them.The Interactivity Foundation (IF) believes thatgovernments too often act without considering awide range of conceptual possibilities for publicpolicy, and that citizen discussions of contrastingpossibilities can help to improve both our publicpolicy choices and our own ability to make them.

IF thus supports discussion projects that aredesigned to explore, develop, articulate, and testcontrasting conceptual possibilities for publicpolicy in selected areas of concern. We believethat our discussion projects and the conceptualpossibilities that we develop in them can helpcitizens to explore an area of concern with theirneighbors and make individual choices aboutwhich policy possibilities might be worthwhile topursue.

The aim of IF is not to recommend oradvocate specific policy possibilities or actions.

It is to improve public policy by encouragingcitizens to participate in democratic discussions

about their public policy concernsand aboutthe different conceptual policy possibilities foraddressing them. The policy possibilities that wepresent in our reports are developed by citizensin confidential sanctuary discussions for use bytheir fellow citizens. We hope that they will helpto stimulate and aid such discussions, and thatthey will provide both a starting point and aconceptual springboard for citizens who wish toexplore the different policy possibilities and goalsthat we might want to achieve as a society.

In 2011, with the support of IF, eight younguniversity professors from post-communistEurope and Asia participated in a four month IFmini-project in Washington DC to explore thefuture of higher education in post-communist

states, and the different conceptual possibilitiesfor public policy pertaining to it.

Our project on the future of higher education

in post-communist states was conducted incooperation with the Research Program in Socialand OrganizationalLearning at TheGeorge WashingtonUniversity, whichprovided space forour discussions.Participants includeduniversity professors from Albania, Russia,Armenia, Kazakhstan and Georgia who hadcome to the United States under auspices of theUnited States State Departments Junior FacultyDevelopment Program, The Fulbright ScholarProgram, and the Open Society Institutes FacultyDevelopment Fellowship Program to learn aboutnew teaching methods that they might use backhome. These professors met with us, bothindividually and as a group, for over 50 hours toexplore concerns that people in their countriesmight have about the future of higher educationin their home countries, to develop policypossibilities pertaining to them, and to learn how

the IF Discussion Process might be used tofacilitate student-centered discussions in theirclassrooms.

This report describes contrasting conceptualpossibilities for public policy pertaining to thefuture of higher education in post-communiststates that the professors developed during theirdiscussions. It also describes their concerns abouthigher education in their home countries; theirthoughts about actions that might be taken toimplement each of the conceptual possibilitiesthat they developed; and their ideas about thepractical consequences that those actions mighthave for individuals, groups, institutions, andsociety at large. It does not, however, recommend

any of the possibilities that it presentsor any ofthe actions that might be taken to implement

themfor anything other than public discussion.There are possibilities in this report that few, ifany, of the professors would endorse, but which

IF tries to improve public

policy choices by helping

citizens discuss public

policy possibilities that

address their public policy

concerns.


5/34

INTRODUCTION

INTERACTIVITY FOUNDATION THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN POST-COMMUNIST STATES 5

they still thought should be part of the publicdiscussion about the future of higher education

in post-communist states.

THE FUTURE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

IN POST-COMMUNIST STATESHigher Educationhas been a perennial area ofconcern in civilized societies around the world.But it has become a special and growing concernfor the members of post-communist societies as aresult of the collapse of the former Soviet Union.Higher education at the best universities in their

countries used to be highly competitive withif

not superior tohigher education in the West.But today, most people believe that universitiesand university graduates in the post-communiststates can no longer seriously compete withuniversities and university graduates in the West.Whereas their best universities once producedworld-class scientists whose achievements wererecognized around the globe, the members ofEuropes and Asias post-communist societiesnow worry that their universities, their universitygraduates, and their societies are falling behind.Some people believe that this decline is primarilya financial problem, and could be reversed byproviding more funds for higher education.Others believe that it is due to an erosion of

integrity, morality, and quality in those societies.And still others believe that it is more a matter ofvalues and traditions, and that the values andtraditions of democratic open societies are simplymore conducive to higher education than thevalues and traditions of the closed and still veryauthoritarian societies of post-communist states.Indeed, the State Department and Open SocietyInstitute have brought the professors in thisproject to the United States with the idea thatexposing them to the values and traditions of an

open society will help improve higher educationin their countries.

This is the context in which the future ofhigher education in the post-communist statesemerged as the area of concern for this project.It also emerged in the framework of the BolognaProcess, which has led many universities in thepost-communist countries of Europe and Asia torestructure their curricula so that they will be

more like the universities in Western Europe andAmerica.

The Bologna Processis a European educationreform process that attempts to standardizeacademic degrees in Europe so that students areable to transfer their academic credits to otheruniversities throughout Europe. It aims to createa European Higher Education Area that wouldpromote mobility, attract students and staff fromEurope and other parts of the world, and help

universities compete on an international level.Forty-seven countries currently participate in theprocess, including twenty-seven members of theEU. The professors in our project did not discussthe Bologna Process at length during the project.But it was always present in their discussions,and seemed to form a backdrop for the concernsthat they explored and the possibilities that theydeveloped. They generally agreed that it is goodto give students and faculty greater freedom andmobility to study and work abroad. But they also

agreed that it contributes to the brain drain intheir countries, and that it can be misunderstoodand abused. Some professors, especially the olderand more established ones, worried that itsincentives might lead administrators, faculty, andstudents to accept academic requirements,curricula, and teaching methods that they mightnot want to adopt if left to their own devices.Indeed, some of them seem to think that it mightactually weaken their system of higher educationinstead of strengthening it.

But what is higher education? What is it now?And what might it be in the future? What are itsdifferent dimensions? What are its proper goals?What beliefs, values, goals, and interests might

people associate with it? What kinds of curriculaand programs are best suited for achieving those

goals? What concerns might different peoplesuch as teachers, students, parents, employers,

and government officialshave about highereducation, and the future of higher education?


6/34

INTRODUCTION


What are some of the different possibilities forpublic policy that would address those concerns?And how might our universities and our systemof higher education evolve and develop in the 21 stcentury?

These questions reflect broad concerns abouthigher education that are fundamental for thefuture of higher education anywhere in theworld. The professors in our mini-project usedthem as springboards for their discussions aboutthe future of higher education in the post-communist states.

The professors did not try to define the termhigher educationlet alone once and for all.Nor did they strive for consistency in using it.They instead said many different and seemingly

contradictory things about higher education.They said that the aim of higher education is toeducate our young to think critically and to make

judgments of their own; that it is to prepare ouryoung to fill the needs of the job market; and thatit is to prepare them to participate in communitylife as practical researchers and communityleaders. They said that the university should be aplace where we develop theoretical knowledge toaddress our scientific problems; that doing sorequires theoretical instruction and reflection,

conducted in isolation from the immediate caresof the real world; and that the special job of theuniversity and higher education is to provide it.They said that universities should provide anopen atmosphere in which students and teachersfeel free to explore new ideas and to say whatthey think. But they also said that universitiesshould not be ivory towers, that they should holdtheir professors and students responsible forwhat they say and think, and that they can andshould try to interact with the communities that

surround them. They said that their universitiesshould strive to reward merit and to provideincentives for their faculty and students to workharder and better than they currently do. Theysaid that universities need to convince the state toprovide them with more money so that they can

provide quality education to their studentsandthat they need to become financially autonomousand independent from the state. They said that

too many of their students are not prepared forserious academic work at the university level.But they also said that no student, regardless oftheir academic potential or achievement, shouldbe denied the opportunity to pursue a highereducation simply because they are unable to payfor it.

The professors worried about the quality ofeducation in their universities at every level.They worried, in particular, about the corruptingeffect that the pursuit of money has had upon it.They talked at length about academic corruption

not only cheating and plagiarism, which theysaid is widespread among students and teachers,but also teachers taking bribes for high grades,nepotism, and corruption in university finances.

They said that the universities are poorly funded,that their classrooms are over-crowded, that theirbooks and teaching methods are out of date, andthat professors salaries are such that they oftenhave to work several jobs to make ends meet. Butthey also worried that their universities oftenseem more oriented toward making money thanoffering a high quality education. They worriedabout what they should teach to prepare theirstudents for an increasingly global job market,how they should teach it, and who they should

teach.The professors described many concernsthat people might have about the future of highereducation everywhere. But when we asked themto choose the ones that they thought were mostuseful for public discussion in their countries, wefound that they could all be clustered into severalbroad concerns, namely: that the quality ofhigher education in their countries is much lowerthan the quality of education in the West; thatcorruption is now endemic at every level of the

educational system; that professors and studentslack academic and personal freedom; that theiruniversities lack the money to provide a qualityeducation, and too often waste the little moneythat they have; that universities are too oftenisolated from their local communities, to thedetriment of the university and community alike;that too many of their best young teachers,students, and professionals have left their


7/34

INTRODUCTION


countries to teach, study, and work abroad; thattheir university management is often out of touchwith what it is managing; that there is a tendencyto replace higher education with job training; andthat there are very few incentives at all within thesystem for professors and students to work

harderor, indeed, for anyone to do anything toimprove higher education in the post-communiststates.

There were several major concerns that the group

described during the course of their discussions. They

said that:

Universities in the post-communist states do notdo enough to foster professional integrity and

responsibility among their students and faculty,

and corruption is endemic at all levels of higher

education as a result

Universities in the post-communist states havelost their integrity and no longer focus upon the

quality of higher education, or quality in general,

as one of their primary objectives

Universities in the post-communist states havenot developed an atmosphere and environment

that would allow their faculty and students to

engage in the free exploration and development

of ideas that is, or should be, characteristic of

higher education

Universities in the post-communist states are toooften ivory towers isolated from the external

communities in which they are locatedand theeducational programs that they offer do not

adequately prepare their students for meaningful

employment in the real world as a result

Universities in the post-communist states do nothave the financial resources to compete with

universities in the West, and all too often waste

the little money that they have

University management, and especially Ministriesof Education, in post-communist states are too

often out of touch with the real problems that

teachers and students face

The knowledge and skills that students acquire inthe universities of the post-communist states do

not meet the current job needs of their societies,

let alone the job needs of the future

Too many of the best young students, professors,and qualified professionals are leaving the post-

communist states to seek better opportunities in

the West There are virtually no incentives for anyone

working within the systems of higher education in

the post-communist states to improve the quality

of what they are currently doing

THIS REPORTThe following pagesdescribe the contrastingconceptual possibilities that the professors in ourproject developed for public policy pertaining tothe future of higher education in post-communiststates. They also describe the possible actions thatmight be taken to implement each of them, and

the likely effects that those actions might haveupon individuals, groups, institutions, and thesocieties in their countries at large. We want toemphasize that this report does not advocate theadoption of any of these policy possibilities foranything other than thoughtful considerationand discussion. It instead describes possibilitiesthat the professors thought might be useful forpublic discussion in their countries, along withtheir possible practical consequences and theconcerns, values, interests and beliefs that inspire

them. You should bear in mind that it containspossibilities that none of the professors wouldendorse as public policy in their home countries,but which they nonetheless think should be partof their public policy discussion.

Our reasons for presenting this materialmay thus be different from what you expect.Most public policy reports recommend actionsthat governments should take to solve problemsin current public policy. They are written toovercome opposition and secure support for

those actions. This report is different in that itassumes that higher education is a perennial areaof concern, but does not presume that our currentpolicies are broken and need to be repaired.Some of the possibilities in the report may differfrom current policy. But others are no doubtconsistent with it. We do not present them to

forge a consensus for actionor even to foster adebate about which is the best or most useful to


8/34

INTRODUCTION


adopt. We present them instead with the hopethat they will deepen your understanding of thegovernance concerns and possibilities pertainingto the future of higher education in post-

communist statesand that this will help you tomake more thoughtful policy choices. We have,in describing each possibility, thus suggested

reasons why you might notlike itand we havetried to point out other policy possibilities thatyou might prefer if you dont.

It is pointless, and even counter-productive, totry to compare or evaluate the possibilities in thisreport in terms of any one concern, policy issue,or concept of higher education. Some of thepossibilities may be consistent with each other.Others are mutually exclusive. But they each

present an approach that merits your exploration,consideration, and discussion.

We want to emphasize that each possibilityin this report is described in broad conceptualterms, and that we have made no effort todescribe the many qualifications and exceptionsthat we would need to make to them if we wereto actually adopt any one of them as our policy.It may be useful, for this reason, to emphasizethat we do not intend any of the possibilities inthis report to be understood as being, in any way,absolute, unqualified, or complete.It seems clear,on the contrary, that we would have to work outthe details of each of the possibilities were we toever adopt it as our actual policy toward highereducation. We know the devil is in the details.But we believe that they are best worked out asthe need arises in the real world. We also want toemphasize that we do not intend the possibleimplementations and possible effects that we listafter each possibility to be necessary, complete,certain, or even consistent with each other. You

can usually implement a policy in many differentways, and its actual effects will depend uponhow it is actually implemented. The professorsoften disagreed about how to implement apossibility and about the effects that it mighthave. And you will no doubt think of differentways to implement each possibility, and differentconsequences that it might have for individuals,groups, institutions, and society at large as well.

We have nonetheless included their thoughtsabout them in this report

partly to illustrate how a discussion aboutconceptual possibilities might lead to adiscussion about possible actions and their

possible consequences in the real world partly to give you a better idea of what the

professors who developed these possibilitieswere thinking about, and

partly with the hope of stimulating furtherdiscussion about the conceptual possibilitiesthemselves.

Finally, we want to emphasize that this is aspecialIF report, and to explain the various waysin which it is special. Here, the first thing to say isthat by calling it a special report we do notmean

to suggest that we attribute any special authorityto the people who developed it, or any specialvalue to the policy possibilities that it presents.We regard it as a special report, on the contrary,because the project that produced it differs insignificant ways from the projects that we usuallyconduct at IF. It is a special report, first of all,because it is the result of an IF mini-project.Unlike our regular projects, the discussion timein this project was severely limited, partly by thefact that the professors would be in the United

States for only a few months, and partly by thefact that they had many other things to do whilethey were here. Unlike our regular projects, thepolicy possibilities in this report were developedby only one panel of discussion participants,whereas our regular reports present possibilitiesthat are developed by two panels that conducttheir discussions separately and are broughttogether only toward the very end of the projectto meld the possibilities that they have developedseparately. Unlike our regular IF projects, thediscussion sessions that produced these policypossibilities were not all facilitated by an IFFellow, but by their participants, who werelearning how to facilitate IF-style discussions sothey can use our discussion process as a teachingmethod in their courses when they return home.We could have very easily spent three or fourhours of discussion for every hour of discussionin this mini-project. We would have done so in aregular IF project. And we no doubt would have


9/34

INTRODUCTION


developed the possibilities in this report further ifwe had done so in this project, or if we had twoseparate panels, or if an IF Fellow had facilitated

all of the discussionsthough it is impossible toknow exactly how they would be different.Finally, it is a special IF report because, unlike

our regular reportswhich, as the product ofconfidential sanctuary discussions, guarantee

anonymity to the panelists who produce themwe have published the names of the people whoproduced the possibilities in it in accordance withtheir request. These are the reasons why we call ita special IF report.

We know that the conceptual possibilities inthis report are not the only policy possibilities

pertaining to the future of higher education inpost-communist states. But we hope that they areprovocative and worthy of your attention andcareful discussion. We hope that you will findthem interesting, that you will understand themin the way that we intend them to be understood,that they will stir your imagination and causeyou to think about other conceptual possibilitiespertaining to the future of higher education the inpost-communist states, and that you will discussthem with your friends and fellow citizens in the

cooperative spirit in which we developed them.

As you consider the possibilities in this reportand discuss them with others, you may wish toask yourselves some of the following questions:

What are the values that motivate this particularpossibility?

Why might someone hold these values? Why might someone be opposed to them? What goals is this possibility trying to achieve? Why might someone have those goals? Why might someone be opposed to them? What actions might we take to implement this

possibility were we to adopt it?

What effects might those actions have uponindividuals, groups, institutions, and society atlarge?

How might they affect you personally? What are the strengths of this possibility? What are its weaknesses? Who would be likely to benefit from the adoption

of this possibility?

Who would be likely to benefit from its rejection? What other approaches are available for pursuing

the values and goals that inspired this possibility?

Who might be more likely to benefit fromchoosing those other approaches?

Who might be less likely to benefit from choosingthose other approaches?

What actions would we be likely take toimplement this possibility, given our currentpolitical realities, were we to adopt it?

What effects would those actions be likely tohave upon individuals, groups, institutions, andsociety at large?


10/34

INTRODUCTION


How effective would this possibility be inachieving its desired ends if we were to adopt it?

What would you do to strengthen this possibility? How would you compare this possibility to each

of the other possibilities in this report?


11/34

POSS IB IL ITY A


NURTURE INTEGRITY

This possibility would nurture the integrity of the educational system with the aim ofeliminating corruption and improving the quality of all aspects of the educational process.It would institute procedures for quality assurance; create a fair merit-based system that

rewards the productivity of students, teachers, and administrators; and require periodicevaluations of the system as a whole. It would try, in this way, to develop the professionalsocial, and personal responsibility that is necessary to eliminate corruption.

Do you believe that our universities have losttheir integrity as institutions of higher education?Do you fear that corruption is so widespread andtacitly accepted that it permeates each and everyaspect of our educational system? And do youfeel that the way to improve the quality of highereducation is to reward students and teachers who

are more productive than others?This possibility flows from a concern that oursocieties newfound preoccupation with moneyhas taken hold of our universities, that they arenow directed more toward turning a profit thanproviding quality education, and that corruptionof one form or another now pervades everyaspect of our system of higher education. It alsoflows from a belief that our universities cannotcompete with the best universities in the West,and from a concern that our students are not

learning the knowledge and skills our societyneeds, let alone the knowledge and skills theyneed to compete in an increasingly competitiveglobal job market. Today, our universities useout-dated textbooks, technology, and teachingmethods to teach out-dated courses in classroomsthat are out-dated and over-crowded too. Today,our teachers are too over-loaded with work todevelop new courses, or to learn new methods ofteaching them. And today, there are very fewincentives for anyone within our universities to

improve the quality of what they are doing. Thisloss of integrity may be due to the old communistideology that rewards people equally regardlessof the quality of their work, or to a generalbreakdown of honesty in our society. But thispossibility maintains that we must strengthen theintegrity and quality of our system of higher

educationand that the first steps toward doingso is to reward people for the quality of their

work, and to eliminate corruption at all levels ofthe academic system.

Rewarding people equallymight make sensein a world in which everyone had the sameknowledge and talent, and put the same kind ofeffort into their work. But this is not the world inwhich we actually live. Instead of motivating

people to put more effort into their work, it onlydeprives those who could perform better if theytried a little harder of any reason to do so. It also

has a tendency to foster corruption at all levelsfirst, because the idea that all people deserve thesame rewards regardless of the quality of theirwork is fundamentally dishonest and, second,because people who get the same rewardsregardless of the quality of their work will eitherignore the quality of their work or seek out otherways to get ahead.

Other Perspectives. But even if you agree thatwe need to strengthen the integrity of our systemof higher education, you may still think thatrewarding merit exclusively is not the way to go.You may feel that everyone has a right to highereducation, and that no one should be deprived ofan education just because he or she is unable topay for it. Or you may feel that it is easier todevelop your knowledge and talents if you come

from a rich familyand that education could tooeasily become a merit-based system of rewardingthe rich. If you are inclined to think this way,then you may think that universities shouldforget about rewarding merit, and even abouteliminating corruption, and focus instead upongiving all students an opportunity to get a higher

Today there are very few incentives for anyone

within our system of higher education to try to

improve what they are doing.


12/34

NUR TUR E INTE GR ITY POSS IB I L I TY A


education, regardless of their ability to pay for itand regardless of the quality of their academic

work.

Possible Implementations

We could

Improve our admissions system so as to acceptonly students who are academically preparedto study at the university level

Create an understandable, clear, and concretemerit-based system to reward professors andstudents

Create a zero-tolerance student honor code andstudent court system to try students who aresuspected of cheating by their peers

Support and reward students and faculty whotry their best and do not resort to cheating

Develop both internal and external qualityassessment processes for regular evaluation ofthe university, its management, departmentalprograms, faculty, and students

Create competitions and other opportunities toreward people from an early age for merit andachievement in a wide range of activities

Introduce and use a Total Quality Managementprocess in universities

Familiarize academic staff and students withmodern teaching methods and research byactually using them in their classrooms

Possible Effects of These ActionsThese actions could

Improve quality and reduce corruption by

accepting students who are prepared to studyat the university level

Enable professors to make enough money tomake ends meet in an honest way, instead oftempting them to take bribes from students

Create a culture of honor; make students takeresponsibility for their actions; deter studentsfrom becoming plagiarists and cheats

Reduce corruption among students and facultyby providing positive reinforcement

Focus the attention of faculty, students, anduniversity management on the quality ofhigher education; lead to internationalaccreditation of our universities

Help to instill the competitive spirit and theidea that we should reward merit within allmembers of the society from an early age

Focus attention on the production process andaway from peoples ambitions and feelings

Raise the quality of teaching and learning,thereby improving the overall quality of highereducation at the university level


13/34

NUR TUR E INTE GR ITY PO S S I B I L I T YA


For Further Discussion

Do you think that our universities have lost their integrity and no longer have the objective of offering a highquality education as their primary goal? If so, why so? If not, why not? And if so, why do you think they have

lost their integrity?

Do you believe that people who do the same kind of work should be rewarded equally, regardless of howwell they do it? If so, why so? If not, why not? Do you think that improving the quality of higher education is primarily a university problem, or primarily a

societal problem? And in either case, what do you think we need to do to solve it?

Do you think that improving the quality of higher education is primarily a matter of offering the rightincentives to students, faculty, and university management to try to improve what they are doing? If so, why

so? If not, why not? And if not, what do you think we need to do to improve the quality of higher education?

Do you think that teaching evaluations and other quality assessment processes do what they are intendedto do? If so, why so? If not, why not? And if not, how would you evaluate the integrity and quality of higher

education?

Do you believe rewarding merit is more likely to benefit the rich, or the poor, or that it is completely neutralwith regard to wealth? And why?


14/34

PO S S I B I L I T Y B


CREATE A CULTURE OF FREEDOM

This possibility would try to create a culture of freedom in the university by providingmore freedom to students and faculty wherever possible. But it would also hold themmore responsible for their decisions and actions.

Do you believethat education at the universitylevel should encourage students to think forthemselves, and should train them how to do so?Do you feel that it is difficult for professors tooffer such encouragement and training whenthey feel that their own freedom to do thesethings is at risk? And do you worry that this kindof academic freedomis now under attack frommany different forces both in and outside theuniversity?

This possibility flows from a belief that thepurpose of higher education is to teach studentshow to think for themselves and that, in order toachieve this goal, universities need to provide anopen atmosphere in which students and teachersfeel free to explore new ideas and to say whatthey think. It also flows from a concern that sucha free and open atmosphere does not yet exist inour universities. Instead of encouraging studentsand faculty to explore new ideas and to say whatthey think, our universities more often condition

themvia grades, scholarships, grants, academichonors, jobs, salaries, and job promotionsto saywhat they think their superiors want to hear.Today, higher education in many universitieslargely consists of learning how to recognize anddefer to the accepted academic authorities.Critical thinking and classroom discussions areoften discouraged, regardless of how we mightpraise them as ideals. And many students andprofessors still feel a deeply embedded fear ofbeing punished for saying what they really think.

Today, academic freedom is purely academic.Students and professors who do not get themessage often find it impossible to remain in theuniversity or to advance in their chosen careers.And the result is the mediocrity and stagnationwe currently find in even our best universities.This possibility would try to reverse this trend bycreating and fostering a culture of freedom in ouruniversities that would reward the explorationand development of new ideas instead of

punishing it.

Cultivating a culture of freedomis the keyto nourishing higher education and innovation inthe post-communist states. But the culture offreedom that this possibility envisions does notmean that anything goes. Greater freedom, on thecontrary, only comes with greater responsibility.So while this possibility would generally permitstudents and professors to study what they want,to explore new ideas, to say what they think, andto challenge the currently accepted authorities, itwould also hold them more responsible forsubjecting what they think and say to greatercritical scrutiny, both from themselves and from

their peers.Other Perspectives. But even if you agree thatour universities do not encourage students andprofessors to think for themselves and to saywhat they think, you may not agree that it is sucha bad thing. You may think that these freedomsare great for developing scientific theories andinnovations, but that most of our students willmore likely go into fields in which saying whatthey think might place them at a disadvantage.Or you may think that the future of higher

education in the post-communist states has manyother objectivessuch as meeting requirementsfor integration into the Bologna Process and the

EUbesides academics and academic freedom.Or you may simply think that point of highereducation is not so much to explore new ideas asto gain skills and expertise in an established field.But if you are inclined to think any or all of thesethings, then you may also think that what we

Instead of encouraging students and professors to

explore new ideas and to freely say what they

think, our universities have conditioned them

through the distribution of grades, scholarships,

academic honors, salaries, grants, jobs, and job

promotions to say only what they think their

su eriors want to hear.


15/34

NUR TUR E INTE GR ITY PO S S I B I L I T YA


need is not so much a culture of freedom as aculture of hard work.


16/34

PO S S I B I L I T Y C



We could Allow students to take more independent

study courses and to create their own academicprograms so they can study what they trulywant to study

Introduce a curriculum of student-centereddiscussion courses, transforming students intofacilitators and professors into research modelsand academic mentors

Give students a voice in faculty councils andtake their opinions into consideration

Conduct more anonymous faculty feedbacksurveys

Establish a joint-decision-making process withinput from faculty, university management andthe Ministry of Education

Institute democratic system of managementwith direct elections on all levels of university

Start an international association of universityprofessors to lobby on behalf of professors andacademic freedom

Start an open forum blog about Freedom inOur University on the universitys website

Create an open forum in which students andfaculty can engage in critical discussions abouttheir ideas and actions with their peers

Possible Effects of These Actions

These actions could Result in more interested and highly motivated

students, and in graduates who have a greaterdiversity of knowledge and skills than ourcurrent graduates have

Motivate students to take a more active role intheir own education; train students better forteam work jobs in the real world; result inbetter trained students and happier professors

Prepare students to be active members of theircommunities; lead to better faculty decisions

Help to inform university management aboutthe real concerns of faculty

Result in better governance of the university asa result of faculty input about the real situationof the ground

Help to develop a culture of freedom by givingstudents and faculty a voice and a vote

Give international support to faculty who arebrought up on charges that violate theiracademic freedom

Encourage students and faculty to say whatthey really think

Help students and faculty to take greaterresponsibility for their ideas and actions bythinking through them more carefully


How would you describe a culture of freedom? What are its essential features? And how would you create aculture of freedom?

Do you agree that our universities, and our society at large, need a culture of freedom in order to flourish?If so, why so? If not, why not?

Do you believe that education at the university level should largely consist in encouraging students to thinkfor themselves, and in training them how to do so? If so, why so? If not, why not? And if not, what should it

be?

Do you think that it is actually possible to train students to think for themselves? If so, why so? If not, whynot? And if so, what would such training involve?

Do you think that professors generally feel free to say what they think? If so, why so? If not, why not? Do you think that academic freedom is now under attack from forces both in and outside the university?

And if so, what are some of those forces, and what kinds of pressures might they exert?


17/34

CR E ATE A CULTUR E OF FR E E D OM PO S S I B I L I T YB


REACH OUT TO THE COMMUNITY

This possibility would encourage universities to play a more active role in public life bydevoting more of their resources to serving their local communities, and by creating acurriculum that simultaneously emphasizes higher education in the arts and sciences, job

training, and service learning. It would, in this way, try to bridge the gap betweentheoretical and practical education by expanding and strengthening the universitysworking relationships with businesses, state-owned enterprises, NGOs, governmentagencies, and other external stakeholders in their local community.

Do you worry that our universities too oftenisolate themselves from the external communitiesin which they are located? Do you feel that theycould enrich their students learning experiences,teach civic responsibility, and strengthen theirlocal communities by integrating instruction and

reflection with community service? And do youthink that reaching out to their local communitiesin this way would also help their students to findmeaningful jobs in their communities when theygraduate?

This possibility flows from a belief that the oneof the most important goals of a higher educationis to prepare students to participate in the life oftheir communities as active and engaged citizens,and from a concern that our universities aremissing opportunities to prepare their students

for participation in community life by offering apurely theoretical education that ignores bothpractical learning experiences and meaningfulcommunity service. This possibility would aim attaking advantage of such opportunities. Insteadof conceiving of higher education as theoreticalinstruction and reflection conducted largely inisolation from the cares of the outside world, itwould redesign university curricula to activelyseek out practical learning-by-doing experiencesin community service. And instead of evaluating

the quality of higher education in terms of thetheories their students learn, it would measure itssuccess by the practical things students learn todo to help their communities. It would thus aimat transforming the university from an ivorytower into a place where students, professors,and people from the local community cometogether to solve their most pressing practicalproblems.

Far from training esoteric scholars in abstractacademic fields, this possibility would aim atdeveloping practical researchers and communityleaders who are ready, able, and willing to workwith businesses, local governments, state-owned

enterprises, NGOs, government agencies, andother stakeholders in their local communities toacquire the practical knowledge and skills to

make their communities, and the world at large,a better place to live.

Other Perspectives. But even if you agree thatwe need community leaders who have the reallife knowledge and skills to address the practicalproblems that our communities face, you mayfeel that this is not, and should not be, either thegoal of highereducation or the job of a university.You may think, on the contrary, that there is also

a pressing need to develop theoretical knowledgeto address our scientific problems; that doing sorequires theoretical instruction and reflection,conducted in isolation from the immediate caresof the real world; and that the special job of theuniversity and higher education is to provide it.If you tend to think this way, then you might alsothink that our universities should continue topromote the classical ideals of higher educationinstead of trying to play a more active role in

This possibility would transform the university

from an ivory tower into a place where people can

learn the practical knowledge and skills they need

to help them make the world a better place to live.

It would thus encourage universities to cooperate

with businesses, state-owned enterprises, NGOs,

government agencies, and other stakeholders in

their local community.


18/34

PO S S I B I L I T Y C


community life.


19/34

RE ACH OUT TO TH E CO M M U N I T Y PO S S I B I L I T YC



We could Conduct joint surveys of market demand for

university graduates to develop curricula thatreflects the interests of government, business,and the community

Organize cooperation between faculty,students, and community leaders

Analyze service learning projects developedby foreign universities and introduce theminto our curricula

Assign students to do service learning projectsto improve how local organizations function

Support doctoral student research orientedtoward solving practical problems in thecommunity

Develop ways to commercialize researchresults

Provide short university courses for industryleaders in the community

Create volunteer unions in universities andvolunteer community service opportunities

Develop community initiatives and provideuniversity participation and support for them

Possible Effects of These ActionsThese actions could Adjust curricula to meet real market demands

and requirements; lead to the development of anew curriculum that would prepare students tobe more useful members of their communities

Improve the quality of education; help studentsto find meaningful employment

Help students learn how to combine theorywith practice so they can play an active role inpublic life

Increase students self-confidence by givingthem more practical experiences

Raise additional money for doctoral programs;help to find practical applications of ouravailable knowledge

Help to raise additional financial resources toimprove the quality of higher education

Improve relations between universities andindustries in the community

Help to improve university facilities; promotestudent involvement in community life

Improve community initiatives and relationsbetween universities and local communities


Do you think that universities currently isolate themselves from the external communities in which they arelocated? And if so, why do you think they do it?

Do you think that reaching out to their local communities in the way this possibility envisions would helpuniversities to achieve their current goals, or that it would introduce an entirely new set of goals foruniversities to achieve? And why?

Do you think that teaching civic responsibility and integrating theoretical instruction and reflection withpractical community service are among the proper aims of higher education? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Do you think that reaching out to local communities in the way that this possibility envisions would helpstudents find meaningful jobs in their communities when they graduate? If so, why so? If not, why? Andwould it make any difference to your disposition toward this possibility if it did not?

Do you think that the adoption of a curriculum devoted to service learning would change the relationshipbetween students and their professors? And if so, how?

Do you agree that universities should restructure their curricula in the way this possibility envisions to reachout to their communities? If so, why so? If not, why not?


20/34

PO S S I B I L I T Y D


AIM AT FINANCIAL AUTONOMY

This possibility would focus upon developing and implementing a wide range of activitiesfor raising funds for higher education and using them effectively. It would, in this way, tryboth to achieve financial autonomy for the university and create a reputation for its

honest and responsible use of money.Do you think that our universities need moremoney if they are ever going to be able to offer ahigh quality education? Do you worry that theyoften seem to use the little money that they dohave ineffectively? And do you believe that theywould function better if they were both morefinancially independent and more responsible intheir use of funds?

This possibility flows from the belief that our

universities simply do not have enough money tofunction properly on a day-to-day basis, let aloneto provide quality world-class higher education,and from a concern that they do not always usethe little money that they do have very wisely. Italso flows from a concern that government willnot be able to provide them with it, and wouldput unacceptable strings on its use if it could.This possibility maintains that the situation willimprove only if our universities can becomefinancially independent. It would thus seek ways

for them to become financially autonomous, andways for them to use their funds more effectively.Regardless of where you look, our universitiesare impoverished compared with universities inthe West. People are underpaid and overworked.Buildings are old and in poor repair. Textbooksare out-of-date. And technology, when it exists atall, is antique. This possibility would thus try tofind ways to raise funds to improve the situation.It would try, first of all, to create a culture inwhich fundraising is seen as good, necessary, and

normal instead of bad, wrong, and shameful.Universities would identify possible mechanisms

that they could use to raise fundsand possibledonors to target. They might, for example, decideto charge tuition to students who do not pay anytuition, and raise tuition on students that do.They might try to raise more funds from alumni,parents, local businesses, non-profit internationalfunding agencies, and international corporationswith the aim of eventually becoming financially

independent.

But regardless of how we raise money,the key to this possibility will be in learning howto use it wisely. Here, this possibility maintainsthat faculty oversight of university budgets andspending is essential for the wise use of funds.Such oversight would ensure that there would berational differences between the salaries ofuniversity managers and university professors;that there would be differences in the salaries ofprofessors based upon their experience, research,publications, and the results of their teaching;that funds would be paid to teachers for writingtextbooks and traveling to conferences; thatscholarships would be given to talented students;and that sufficient money would be spent onpurchasing better equipment, new textbooks and

journals, and on developing a more attractivelearning environment.

Other Perspectives.But even if you agree thatuniversities should try to raise more money andspend it wisely, you may think that it isunrealistic to think that they will be able to drawwater from a well that is dry. You may also thinkthat it is wishful thinking to think that facultyoversight of university spending will transformour universities into world-class institutions.And you may think that we need to find ways toimprove the quality of higher education in our

This possibility flows from the belief that our

universities simply do not have enough money to

function properly on a day-to-day basis, let alone

to provide quality world-class higher education,

and from a concern that they do not always use

the little money that they do have very wisely. It

would thus seek ways for universities to raise more

money, and ways for them to use the funds that

they raise more effectively, in an attempt to

eventually achieve financial autonomy.


21/34

ABOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PO S S I B I L I T YB


universities without relying upon an influx ofmore money.


22/34

PO S S I B I L I T YE EXPERIMENT WITH MANY DIFFERENT METHODS



We could Allow state universities to raise money and to

decide for themselves how to use it

Raise money from university alumni, andinvolve them in improving their universitiesfacilitates and resources

Create a culture of rich people donatingmoney to universities

Create research parks with businessincubators at universities

Develop university websites and sell space onthem to private businesses, NGOs, and stateorganizations to advertise themselves andtheir products

Organize university research conferences forinvestors to interest them in investing inuniversity research projects

Increase university tuition and fees on allstudents

Create and sell a wide variety of universitylogo products

Create a quality financial system to improvefinancial management and develop facultyoversight of the universitys budget to use theuniversity funds more effectively

Possible Effects of These ActionsThese actions could Make universities responsible for themselves

and less dependent on state

Create more active alumni communities andassociations; improve our universities facilitiesand resources

Help raise money for universities and improvetheir financial situations

Transform our universities research into newbusinesses

Help universities raise money and achievefinancial autonomy; associate universities tooclosely with certain businesses, NGOs, and stateorganizations

Attract potential investors to support universityresearch projects, thus freeing up universityfunds for other things

Bring tuition and fees into closer alignment withthe actual costs of higher education

Raise awareness of and loyalty to the university;bring in extra money

Result in more efficient use of university funds;eliminate corrupt practices in the managementof university funds; totally backfire, if facultyturn out to be corrupt and inefficient managers


Do you believe that our universities need more money in order to offer a high quality education? If so, whyso? If not, why not?

Do you worry that our universities often seem to waste the little money that they have instead of using iteffectively? And if so, what would you do to improve the way they use money?

Do you think that faculty oversight of university spending would help to improve the way our universities usemoney, or only make it worse? And why?

Do you believe that universities would generally be better off or worse off if they were financiallyindependent from the state? If so, why so? If not, what not?

Do you think that trying to raise funds for education would provide students with the kind of education theyneed in todays world, or that it would ultimately distract them from getting it? And why?

Do you believe that the quality of education ultimately depends upon money? If so, why so? If not, why not?


23/34

A I M A T F I NANC IAL AU T O N O M Y PO S S I B I L I T YD



24/34

PO S S I B I L I T Y E


END THE BRAIN DRAINAND BEGIN A BRAIN GAIN

This possibility would develop a favorable social environment in our countries anduniversities that would motivate and encourage our students, professors, and qualified

professionals to return home after studying and working abroad. It would also try toattract the best students, professors, and qualified professionals from other countries toour universities.

Do you believe that we are both subsidizingthe West and impoverishing our own future byallowing our best and brightest students, facultymembers, and young professionals to go abroad?Do you fear that they will almost inevitably try toemigrate once they see what the West has to offerthem? And do you feel that we must find a way

to reverse this trend if we are ever to flourishagain as a society?

This possibility flows from a belief that thefuture of our countries depends entirely upon thetalent of the people who live and work in them,and from a concern that many of our best andbrightest students, professors, and professionalsare leaving their home countries to live and workabroad. This brain drain results in a decreasingintellectual potential for both our universitiesand our countries, which in turn reinforces thebrain drain by weakening our universities abilityto get the resources that they need to attract goodstudents and to provide a world-class education.But this possibility also flows from a concern thatit is difficult to solve the brain drain problem onthe university level alone. Trying to keep ourstudents, faculty, and young professionals athome by investing in our universities physical

environmentin buildings, new technologies,

equipment, and the likeand by increasing thesalaries of our faculty is a way of treating the

symptoms of our problem instead of theirunderlying cause. A more general and effectivepolicy for a national education system isnecessary. This possibility would thus not just tryto reverse the brain drain. It would also try todevelop an open social environment that fosterscreativity and innovation in an effort to attracttalented students, faculty, and professionals from

other countries to aid in our transition to a trulyfree and open society.

Far from forbiddingour students, faculty, andyoung professionals the exit visas they need tostudy and work abroad, this possibility wouldfacilitate their travel abroad and use whatever wecan learn from it to develop incentives that

would make them want to return home, and thatwould make it more attractive for talentedforeign students, faculty, and professionals tostudy, work, and live here too.

Other Perspectives. But even if you agree thatwe need to find ways to reverse the brain drainand to encourage a brain gain, you may also feelthat talk about developing a social environmentthat would both make our students, faculty, andyoung professionals want to return home, andmake the talented students, faculty, and youngprofessionals want to study, live, and work heretoo is an empty promise unless we can actuallycome up with the goods. You may feel that trying

to develop a more open society by sending ourbest and brightest abroad inevitably puts the cartbefore the horse, that we need to develop a moreopen social environment that fosters creativityand innovation in order to attract foreign talent,and that it may actually be necessary to keep ourbest and brightest at home in order to do this. Ifyou are more inclined to think this way, then youmay also think that we should focus more upon

This possibility flows from a belief that the future

of our countries greatly depends on the talent of

people who work in them, and from a concern that

our most talented students, professors, and young

professionals are leaving their countries to live and

work in other countries.


25/34

ABOLISH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY PO S S I B I L I T YB


developing incentives to keep our best andbrightest at home, instead of trying to get them toreturn after they have left.


26/34

PO S S I B I L I T YF IMPROVE TEACHING EVALUATIONS



We could Use total quality management methods to

increase quality of university education

Have universities pay their most talentedstudents and professors to study and workabroad, and then use the knowledge andexperience they gain at home

Have universities collaborate with NGOs andother universities and institutions in anacademic foreign exchange program

Introduce new rules to promote universityfaculty solely on the basis of their experiencestudying or working abroad

Offer tax free status to university faculty andprofessionals who have studied or workedabroad

Give scholarships and tax free status tostudents and professors from the West whostudy and work at our universities

Get western universities to give credit forcourses their students take at our universities

even if they pay only our tuition costs

Absolutely defend free speech and academicfreedom of professors and students

Introduce Western technology, includingcomputer software to organize onlineconferences, in our universities

Possible Effects of These ActionsThese actions could Increase motivation for teachers to work and

students to study at their home universities

Motivate talented students and professors toreturn home to work in their home countries,instead of finding some other ways to leavetheir countries and stay abroad

Raise our universities images and quality;make their professors and students more loyal;benefit all parties to the academic exchange

Give powerful professional incentives to returnhome to university faculty who are studying orworking abroad

Give powerful financial incentives to returnhome to university faculty and professionalsstudying or working abroad

Give powerful financial incentives to attractstudents and professors from the West to studyand work at our universities

Provide a powerful financial incentive forwestern students to take courses at our

universities

Result in a more open atmosphere in ouruniversities and society

Give an incentive to stay home, or return home,to professors and students who have worked orstudied abroad


Do you agree that the fact that many of our best students, professors, and young professionals are workingand studying abroad poses a threat to the future of our countries? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Why do you think our best students, professors, and young professionals try to leave our countries? Do you believe that we are subsidizing the West and impoverishing our own future by allowing our best and

brightest students, faculty members, and young professionals to go abroad? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Do you fear that our students, professors, and young professionals will almost inevitably try to emigrate oncethey see what the West has to offer them? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Do you think that it is possible to reverse our brain drain? And if so, what can we do to reverse it? Do you think it is possible to attract foreign students and professors to study and teach at our universities?

And if so, how would you do it?


27/34

PR O M O T E CL A S S I C A L H I GH E R ED UCAT ION PO S S I B I L I T YFNO T JO B TR A IN ING


PROMOTE CLASSICAL HIGHER EDUCATIONNOT JOB TRAINING

This possibility would promote the classical ideals of higher education both as the basisfor a students future self-development and self-realization and as a way to ensurehappiness and satisfaction in his or her personal and professional life.

Do you believe that universities today haveforgotten the classical goals of higher education?Do you feel that they are now far more concernedwith immediate gratification, networking, jobplacement, and making money than they are withachieving those ideals? And do you worry thattodays students are being trained in narrow areas

that, while perhaps suitable for the kinds of jobsthat exist in business and industry today, mayleave them totally unprepared to transition intothe kinds of jobs that business and industry mayneed tomorrow?

This possibility flows from a belief that a goodclassical education is best suited to develop well-informed and resourceful people who are able tocombine both broad knowledge and knowledgeof specific areas with generic skills of reasoningand critical thinking in a flexible way to address

the ever-changing situations that they find in life.It also flows from a concern that the pressures offinding meaningful employment after graduationhave led our students and universities to pursuethe kind of education that will enable graduatesto fill the immediate needs of the job market.Today, universities seem less inclined to upholdthe traditional values of higher education, andmore inclined to redesign their curricula to fitwhatever they perceive as the current needs of the

job market. This is not so much higher education

as it is job training. And it might not be so badwere the jobs and skills that our businesses needtoday a good predictor of the jobs and skills thatthey will need tomorrow. The result, however, isthat university students are increasingly trainedin narrow specialties that may get them jobs upongraduation, but often leave them unprepared andunable to adapt when the needs of the job marketchange. This possibility would try to reverse this

trend in higher education in an attempt to preparestudents who are better able to adapt to newchallenges in their lives.

Far from seeking the advice of businessleaders to redesign university curricula to suittheir needs, this possibility would promote theideals of higher education both as the basis for a

persons future development and self-realization,and as a way to ensure happiness and satisfactionin his or her personal and professional lives.Students would not be trained in a narrow field,but in a more general and classical way thatwould enable them to make their lives richer andmore fulfilling. It would thus aim at satisfying theever-changing needs of an ever-changing jobmarket by endowing students with the criticaland creative mental skills that will enable them toadapt to it. And it would, in this way, encourage

universities to develop more active, involved, andinformed critical thinkers that are vital for a moreinnovative and democratic society.

Other Perspectives.But even if you generally

agree with the classical goals of higher education,you may think that a classical higher education isa luxury that our students and universities can nolonger afford. You may think that our jobs havebecome far more specialized in recent decades,and that they thus require workers who are morespecialized too. Or you may think that the jobmarket has become increasingly competitive as aresult, and that our universities will need to teach

Today, universities seem less inclined to uphold the

traditional values of higher education, and moreinclined to redesign their curricula to fit whatever

they perceive as the current needs of the jobmarket. This is not so much higher education as itis job training.


28/34

PO S S I B I L I T YF


the skills that their students will need to competefor them are going to survive in todays world.But if you think any or all of these things, thenyou may also think that universities need to adapt

their concept of higher education to the changingrealities of the 21stcentury.


We could Develop a long-term strategy to focus on the

classical values of higher education whilemeeting the needs of the job market

Explain the value of classical education tohigh school students, incoming universitystudents, and their parents

Launch an aggressive advertising campaignto raise public awareness about how classicaleducation gives students greater flexibility in

the job market Resist the temptations and international

pressures to develop a practical job-trainingcurriculum focused on narrow specializations

Promote a liberal arts curriculum structuredaround reading, analyzing, and criticallydiscussing world classics and original sourcesin the humanities, arts, and sciences

Create separate non-university job-trainingschools for students who are not interested in

pursuing higher education Offer different degrees and certifications for

higher education and job-training

Create faculty/student discussion clubs andstart a discussion in the university aboutwhat higher education should be

Hold more essay contests, debates, discussionsessions, poetry and literature evenings


These actions could Create a more favorable environment for

promoting the classical ideals of highereducation

Raise public awareness about the value ofclassical education and make more studentsinterested in pursuing it

Persuade people that classical education ismore valuable and useful than job training;produce graduates who can adapt more

easily to the changing needs of the job market Help us save the programs that we have in

our universities for the study of humanities,arts, and sciences

Develop our students minds and their abilityto read difficult texts, to think for themselves,to think critically about difficult issues, andto make their own judgments about them

Improve both classical education and job-training courses; make students and faculty

happier at both kinds of institutions

Clarify in the public mind that there is adifference between the two

Let students and faculty say what they thinkabout the suggested reforms in highereducation information

Create a society where classical highereducation and intellectuals are respected


Do you believe that there is, or should be, a difference between job training and a university education?If not, why not? And if so, how do you think they do or should differ?

Do you believe universities are currently focused too narrowly on job training? If so, why so? If not, why not? Do you agree that a broad liberal arts education prepares students better for the job-market than specific

training in a narrow specialty? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Do you think that the value of education is its ability to prepare students for jobs? If so, why so? If not, whynot?


29/34

PO S S I B I L I T YG


Do you agree that our current educational system is not in tune with the real job market needs of the future? Would you prefer to have a classical higher education, or good job training? And why?


30/34



DEMOCRATIZE UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT

This possibility would introduce a democratic structure of university management toincrease faculty oversight of university budgets, curricula, strategic development, hiring

policy, identification of priorities, and other governance issues. It would also ensure that

faculty and students have both a voice and a vote in the governance process.

Do you think that the people who manageuniversity affairs are often out of touch with whatthey are supposed to be managing? Do you worrythat the people they manage have gotten used totelling them what they want to hear, and that theyare now too fearful of possible retributions to tellthem what really needs to be done? And do youthink that the only way to improve the situation isto democratize university management by givingfaculty, students, and other stakeholders a realvoice in the universitys governance and decision-making processes?

This possibility flows from a concern that thepeople who manage universities have lost touchwith conditions on the ground, that they are nowmore concerned with making money than withimproving higher education, and that they arethus making decisions that are detrimental to theproper function of universities. It also flows froma belief that the people who are directly affected

by management decisions are in the best positionto make them, and a concern that management istypically unreceptive to what they say unlessthey say what it wants to hear. This possibilitywould thus aim at improving the management ofour universities by introducing a democraticstructure for managing their affairs. It would thusprovide faculty and students with both a voiceand a vote in the universitys governance anddecision-making processes. Including faculty andstudents in the universitys decision-making

processes would result in more satisfied andloyal faculty and students. It would also result inbetter decisions. And it would enhance thedemocratic atmosphere in the university bymaking the rationale for these decisions moretransparent. This policy would consider facultyand students as partners in the universitysgovernance process. It would seek their adviceabout what they think a higher education is, or

should be, and by trying to meet their overallexpectations.

Democratizing university management inthis way would better prepare our students andfaculty for the kind of democratic governancethat is useful for both learning and collectivedecision-making. It would balance majority rulewith respect for the interests and rights ofminorities. And it would eventually enhance thegeneral democratic atmosphere in our society by

developing and strengthening leadership skills inour young.

Other Perspectives. But even if you agree thatuniversity management is generally out of touchwith what it is managing, you might not agreethat democratizing university management is theright way to go. You may think that, whatever

else might be said in its favor, democracy doesnot have a very good reputation for efficientmanagement. You may think that students are notyet ready to manage themselves, let alone theaffairs of a university. And you may think thatallowing university faculty to oversee budgetdecisions will only lead to battles in which facultytry to get the most that they can for their owndepartment. If you think any or all of these things,then you might also think that there must be a

Including faculty and students in the universitys

decision-making process would result in more satisfied

and loyal faculty members and students. It would also

result in better decisions. And it would improve the

democratic atmosphere in the university by making

the rationale for these decisions more transparent. It

would, in this way, better prepare our students for the

kind of democratic governance that is useful for both

learning and collective decision-making, and it would

generally enhance the democratic systems in society

by developing and strengthening the leadership skillsof our young.


31/34



better way than democracy to improve university management.


We could Institute democratic system of management

with direct elections on all levels of university

Conduct joint decision-making meetings withrepresentatives of the Ministry of Education,university faculty members, and universitymanagement

Establish a clear and transparent structure foruniversity decision-making procedures

Require university management to presentmore detailed and transparent financial reportsto faculty

Maintain transparency in faculty performancereviews, promotions, and pay raises

Create a blog or wall to post comments aboutmanagement decisions

Hold meetings with university management,faculty, and students about the quality ofteaching and learning

Promote the ideas of democracy, freedom, andself-governance via the universitys newspaper,TV, and discussion clubs

Form an international association of universityprofessors to lobby on behalf of the academicfreedom of university professors


These actions could Stop the process of decreasing democracy in

our universities

Inform the Ministry of Education of the realconditions on the ground; enable the Ministryto focus upon building institutions ratherthan course content

Clarify the decision-making process; ensureits transparency; restore confidence in it

Result in better financial management; resultin even fewer faculty members reading thereports due their greater detail

Backfire, if people fear retribution for whatthey say

Provide an opportunity for open discussion;help university management get feedback

Inform university management of conditionson the ground; result in an improvement inthe quality of education

Better prepare students to make their owngovernance choices about the kind of societyin which they want to live

Enable elite professors in our society to jointheir international counterparts in promotingthe ideas of democracy and freedom


32/34

IMPROVE UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PO S S I B I L I T Y



Do you agree that the people who manage university affairs are often out of touch with what they aresupposed to be managing? And if so, why do you think they are out touch?

Do you believe that management often encourages the people it manages to tell them only what they want tohear? If so, why so? If not, why not?

Do you think that including faculty, students, and other stakeholders in a universitys go vernance anddecision-making processes is more likely to improve university management or make it more difficult? Explain

your answer.

Do you believe that democratizing university management would result in better management decisions? Ifso, why so? If not, why not?

Do you believe that the people who are directly affected by management decisions are always, or usually, inthe best position to make them? If so, why so? If not, why not? And if not, then who might be in a better

position to make themand why?

Do you agree that democratic governance is useful for learning? If so, why so? If not, why not? And what, inany event, is democratic governance?


33/34

AFTERWORD


ON CONTRASTS AND CHOICESAMONG THE POSSIBILITIES

There are many contrasts among the sevenconceptual possibilities in this report, and many

choices that you would have to make in order toadopt any of them. Some of these contrasts andchoices concern the nature of higher education.Others concern the purpose of higher educationand role that money plays in it. Still othersconcern the way in which universitie

future of higher education in post communist countries

Documents