Graduates for the streets: the main problems of Russian higher education are named

Let me remind you that the Bologna system is the principle of recognition of higher education diplomas in the European space. At the same time, there has never been any “accession” or “detachment” of Russia from the Bologna process. This process never solved the problem that was discussed in the early 90s: Russian diplomas were not “automatically” recognized, for example, in EU countries, with the exception of cases of concluding separate bilateral agreements on the mutual recognition of documents on higher education. At the same time, we have actually completely switched to a two-level system of higher education (bachelor + master), but have retained a two-level system of academic degrees (candidate + doctor of science), which is not provided for by Western education standards.

I remembered this story solely for the reason that at the state level we have neither a vision nor a strategy of what, in essence and in what form, higher education should be in our country. Even with “beautiful” strategic documents, for example, the State Program of the Russian Federation “Development of Education”, none of the decision makers are able to explain to us what the main tasks our domestic higher school is called upon to solve.

To be fair, it must be said that a lot has been done over the past twenty years, especially in the regions. Federal universities (10 universities), national research universities (29 universities), flagship universities in the regions (34 universities) have appeared in the country, and the Priority 2030 project is being implemented. Many universities have become basic scientific and technological companies, as well as points of attraction for young people and creative people in their regions.

With all the indicated advantages, it should be noted that over the years of reforms, we have lost dozens of scientific schools, and Soviet scientific and technological reserves have already been completely depleted. In this situation, even a radical increase in funding for science and higher education will not always produce the expected effect for the simple reason that sometimes there is nothing and no one to invest in. At the state level, we are investing enormous financial resources in higher education, but we have a categorical shortage of qualified specialists in all industries, sectors and complexes, which is very clearly evident right now, during the Northern Higher Education period.

What is the basic contradiction from which we cannot find a way out? Here we have to find the answer to the question of what we want from higher education: to train personnel or to create the cultural and intellectual foundation of our country and civilization? And the answer, paradoxically, is very simple: we need both.

Higher school trains not only professionals, it is designed to create a layer of cultured people, and this is an ambition of a higher level. Probably, four years of practice-oriented education can prepare a good professional, but this, as we understand, is clearly not enough. It is necessary to create conditions for learning throughout his life, and this requires critical thinking, a creative approach, and a desire to solve complex problems. The formation of these qualities is a separate function of higher education, the implementation of which requires time, resources, and the presence of its own competencies. Here we need to think about returning higher school to a specialty (5-6 years of study) as the basic stage of higher education in areas of increased technological complexity or critical responsibility.

The educational process in higher education is a four-way relationship in which the state, university, employer and student participate (not on equal terms!). Moreover, the interests of each party do not always coincide, and often even contradict each other. This is normal, because in a healthy conflict the necessary essence is born – a professional and a citizen. And the state here should not take anyone’s side, since it is the state that needs to simultaneously solve several problems at once: to provide the economy with specialists, to create conditions for the quality of life of a citizen and to strengthen its own cultural and intellectual foundation. All of these tasks are extremely important, and ignoring any of them is fraught with the most negative consequences. It is worth paying attention to at least three key problems that require an early solution.

First, vision and strategy. Why do we need higher education? What should it be like? How many universities should we have, what kind of specialists are they supposed to train? We need to have answers to these questions. Let me remind you that there is a concept of three missions of a modern university. The first is education, the second is science, and the third is solving complex socially significant problems. Without going into details, I would like to note that a modern higher school should act as a social elevator for citizens, be a source of personnel for domestic companies and should be ready to solve problems of extreme complexity, both scientific, technological or national economic. Probably, not every university can act in all these guises at the same time. So the question is not posed, but if we are talking about the entire system of higher education, then we are simply obliged to place the highest demands on it, reflecting the ambitions of our society, state and civilization. Based on this, we absolutely need to correct all our strategic documents and not only bring them into line with the level of tasks being solved, but also transform them into real plans, road maps and instructions for daily work.

Secondly, science is a different story. As I said above, Soviet scientific and technological resources are no longer enough. And here the matter, of course, is not only a matter of insufficient funding; the main problem is the lack of effective integration between science, technology and real production. All these spheres often live their own separate lives, without intersecting with each other. And the role of higher education in terms of the implementation of all three of its missions is, of course, colossal, since it is the university that can be the assembly point where scientific, technological and industrial interests intersect.

And here we come to the third problem. Not only science and technology, but also higher education as a whole are often in a state of isolation from the real economy. What kind of specialists a higher school prepares and what kinds are required in enterprises and organizations are, as they say, two big differences. After the collapse of the Soviet higher education system, a monstrous gap emerged between higher education and production. In fact, higher education often prepares graduates “for the street.”

I would like to note that only three main areas of training specialists with higher education have maintained and even increased the quality of their work since Soviet times. These are medicine, military affairs and the artistic field. It’s just that in universities of this profile there has never been a break with real work, with production, with practice. Both doctors, officers, and creative workers are still trained on a university basis with real immersion in the practical production process in the relevant field. There are departments of relevant universities in hospitals, theaters, and a military unit is also a large educational platform.

This approach allows not only to immerse students in real practical life, in which they are called upon to build up their competencies, it also creates the basis for future employment of graduates, the formation of both social elevators and an appropriate quality of life.

And here we come to a decision that has been in the air for a long time, but for some reason few people are ready to accept it and begin to implement it. I propose to establish the distribution of all university graduates studying on a budgetary basis, with mandatory employment and work in selected organizations for 4-6 years (depending on the period of study) – by analogy with military universities.

It is important to note that private organizations and businesses must also be allowed to distribute graduates. I will say more, for example, in the agro-industrial complex almost all producers are private businesses, and almost all agricultural universities are state-owned. And this is typical for many industries. But it is precisely this circumstance that will create extremely favorable conditions, primarily for the integration of higher education and real production. Businesses will very quickly sense the opportunity to save on costs associated with retraining the specialists they need, and they will come to higher education themselves. Where will the university get the necessary laboratory facilities or expensive equipment? The easiest way: find it in real production.

Anticipating criticism, I would like to note that it is impossible to form a professional army that does not have a full-fledged conscription. The practice of targeted recruitment suggests that a graduate, as a rule, remains to work in the organization that hired him. In this case, we simply extend the target set to the entire budget contingent.

Our economy is now booming. The pace of industrial growth and growth in other production areas is significant. But we can grow even faster. We don’t have enough specialists for this. So let’s move them “from the street” into real economic production. Most of them will thank us again.