Universities will have to become more flexible – Kommersant

A week ago, the head of the Ministry of Education and Science, Valery Falkov, presented a “unique domestic system of higher education,” which was announced last year as a replacement for the Bologna system. At first glance, the new scheme does not differ much from the current one: students are also offered three levels of higher education, however, without the same training periods for all programs. Some of the experts interviewed by Kommersant believe that the reform will give universities greater flexibility and be able to meet the personnel demands of the market. Others point to possible problems: the dissatisfaction of teachers tired of the reforms, as well as difficulties with international cooperation of universities.

On April 19, Valery Falkov presented a new system of domestic higher education to Russian rectors. According to him, students and universities will receive flexible terms of study and competition of programs, and higher education will be able to “get away from the opposition of bachelor’s and specialist’s degrees.”

The new model provides for three levels: basic, specialized and postgraduate. According to Mr. Falkov’s proposal, basic – basic – education will correspond to the current bachelor’s and specialist’s degrees. Students will have to study for four to six years, terms to be set by universities, employers and regulators. Mr. Falkov said that now the magistracy is “a continuation of the first level” and does not provide in-depth knowledge. The specialized level provides for both structural and substantive changes in educational programs. Here the training will last one to two years; a number of areas will not be available to students who have not passed the first stage in the same or related specialty. The third stage of education – postgraduate studies – will be available to those who have completed the basic stage with a period of study of at least five years or have received a specialized higher education. Mr. Falkov noted that this level is the training of scientific and scientific-practical personnel.

Associate Professor of the Department of Political and Public Communications at the Institute of Social Sciences of the RANEPA Nikolai Kulbaka told Kommersant that many university employees do not support the new reform, if only because the higher education system “has just begun to work more or less calmly” after the previous one. However, the rector of the Moscow City Pedagogical University Igor Remorenko (in 2004-2013 he worked in the Ministry of Education and Science) notes that the reform is not as radical as it could be. “Everyone was afraid that after giving up the magistracy there would be one “mono-level”, after which one could immediately enter graduate school. Since all three levels have been preserved, I think the transition (to the new system.— “b”) will be easy,” he says. And Pavel Kudyukin, co-chairman of the Universitetskaya Solidarity trade union, calls the reform “just a renaming of the three levels of higher education, which were determined by the 2012 law on education.”

Mr. Kudyukin acknowledges that the Bologna system has never been fully implemented in Russia, but wonders if its successful elements will continue, “for example, a system of credits that makes it possible to count the courses taken when moving from one educational organization to another, to including abroad. Mr. Kullbacka is also sure that the new system will complicate both the international interaction of educational institutions and the procedure for the recognition of Russian diplomas by other countries – “this problem will be solved, most likely, through some kind of bilateral agreements.”

Alexei Maslov, director of ISAA MSU, argues that Russia has not fully received the opportunities for international cooperation that were discussed when joining the Bologna process. “We should have received opportunities for academic mobility, all our Russian students should have been able to travel to European universities. But Russia did not receive this. And even the Erasmus + system, which involves the exchange between EU and Russian universities, has not fully worked. Therefore, the system that many fought so hard for was ineffective,” he says.

Mr. Maslov believes that the old model of higher education “has largely outlived itself and did not meet many of Russia’s national interests.” “What Falkov proposes is a much more flexible scheme associated with a deeper professionalization of education,” he is sure. “Many universities offered to automatically return to the specialist’s system, that is, to five years of study. But this automatically destroys ties with Asian universities, since China, Korea, Indonesia and other countries have a two-level system – four plus two years. At the same time, there is no Bologna system there.”

Viktor Bolotov, ex-head of Rosobrnadzor, scientific director of the Center for Monitoring the Quality of Education at the Higher School of Economics, agrees with this. “In different areas of training, there may be different terms for the implementation of programs, different requirements for the competencies that graduates master depending on the needs of the labor market,” he notes. “There is, of course, a threat that some of these proposals will cover up just a “change of plates.” There was a bachelor’s degree, now – basic education. But I think the ministry, together with Rosobrnadzor, will not allow this.”

“Such level training provides more opportunities for the implementation of educational programs that meet the needs of employers and students,” says Alevtina Chernikova, Rector of NUST MISiS. Thus, for a research master’s program, it is important to maintain a two-year term of study, which provides the necessary knowledge for building a scientific career, “at the same time, in some cases, one year is enough to train IT specialists,” says the rector.

“The success or failure of higher education does not depend on whether the system is Bologna or not, but on funding, cooperation with strong foreign universities and inclusion in the international scientific environment,” Mr. Kullbacka emphasized. higher education remains with its own problems.”

Emilia Gabdullina, Alexander Chernykh