The conversation about the disadvantages of higher education becomes interesting

[ad_1]

The first half of March, preceding the finally announced personnel changes in the Ministry of Education and Culture, had at least three events dedicated to education reform. Since this subject has not left me indifferent for many years, I can say that such a concentration of notable events on educational subjects within two weeks during the war is a phenomenal amount. Event No. 1 On March 5, Volodymyr Zelenskyy together with EU President Roberta Metsela met with Ukrainian students in Lviv. The president said the following: everyone is tired of online education, online education does not provide either knowledge or socialization experience; educational infrastructure and knowledge provided in Ukrainian universities must be modern; war determines priorities in education; the modernization of education requires at least financial support from the EU. I agree with everything. From the point of view of communications – a confident 3+. A beautiful picture (very beautiful Lviv University), pleasant smiling speakers, wonderful young people, tolerant content with a slight overlay of populism, conversations about the European future of Ukraine – OK. Regarding the political significance, it is important to understand that this was almost the first statement of the Ukrainian president in the last three years (!) that online education is “everything”. Further, it would be correct, from the point of view of the country’s institutional development, for civil society organizations specializing in educational topics to start monitoring how well Ukrainian rectors heard Zelensky and began to reduce the percentage of online education for students. From what I see every day in front of my eyes at home – no way. But this is a topic for a separate conversation… I understand why this happens. And it’s not just the lack of storage. However, we will, as they say, observe the process. There is great hope that the new leadership of the education industry will help rectors with hearing adjustments a little. Event No. 2 On March 1, representatives of the state institution, which should implement the president’s task of modernizing education, entered the semi-public field. We are talking about the Ministry of Education and Culture. The leadership of the Ministry of Education and Culture together with the current Minister of Education Serhii Shkarlet gathered university rectors at Chernivtsi University and presented to them the joint project of the World Bank and Ministry of Education and Culture “Improving higher education in Ukraine for the sake of results”. I can’t leave a link to the video because it wasn’t there. And it’s a shame. Because the release, posted on the website of the ministry, contains a number of theses that are intriguing due to their reformist depth and remain unanswered: it is said that the goal of the project is to increase the efficiency of the use of budget funds. I would like to understand/hear what toolset is offered; it is said that the goal of the project is to improve the efficiency of management of higher education institutions. And here it would be interesting to hear what was discussed at the meeting, because it is known in narrow circles that the heads of the Ministry of Education and Culture have something to share with the public precisely in the issue of the modernization of the management system of universities. There are cases that impress with their “creativity”; it is said that it is important to work on increasing the level of public trust in universities. If it was “just interesting” to hear about the two previous points, then here I would very, very, very much like to understand what the Ministry of Education and Culture considers necessary to do in order to restore trust in higher education institutions; well, where is the information about the project budget? it is not in the release. From the point of view of communications – a sure “1”. Why was there no broadcast? Well, just edit it, make a presentation. Why was the program presented only to rectors? Why was there no presentation of it to the students? Is the student the main client of the educational process at the university? Or maybe the rector? I don’t know… By the way, I learned about the event from Facebook posts posted by the rectors who came to the presentation of the program by the ministry’s leadership. Their posts about this presentation were as empty as the MES release – something like “reform to be”. The main conclusion of event #2: it would be difficult for the Ministry of Education and Culture under the leadership of Scarlett to fulfill the tasks voiced by the participant of event #1 (primarily, about the modernization of the educational process). Event No. 3 “University Sustainability School”, which was held by the Kyiv School of Economics on March 11-12, is the third event that I would like to highlight. If you compare the communications of the KSHE and MES events, the contrast is incredible. Because the first is when you want to be modern, heard and supported, the second is when you need to say something, God, at least something. All the messages that I read in my feed about the School contained in one way or another the messages that, in my opinion, were embedded in the event by its organizers: Ukrainian education, which wants to compete for students, must be inclusive, interesting, modern , and universities are socially responsible. This means that the communication was both transparent and successful. The general impression from the event is that healthy people of Ukrainian higher education are finally looking for collaborations to create a competitive educational product. However, there is a nuance. The event at KSHE, which, I hope, will be the beginning of a healthy collaboration of those forces in the system of the higher world who understand the urgent need for decisive changes, took place against the background of the cautious beginning of public conversations that it is desirable to return the opportunity to study in foreign universities to male students with mobilization delays. This abstract conversation acquired certain concreteness precisely at one of the School’s panels. And it came from Taras Dobka, the first vice-rector of UCU, who was cautiously supported by Anna Novosad, who for a certain time in 2019 held the position of Minister of Education and Science. Mr. Taras said that it is necessary to allow students to study outside of Ukraine by compiling a list of universities in the top 100 world rankings. An important condition is not an individual invitation for the student, but “accepted” by the Ukrainian university. Ms. Anna did not name the number “100”, but she said that it is appropriate to make such a list. Regarding the “top 100”. Mr. Taras has a diploma from the International Academy of Philosophy of Liechtenstein (the university is not in the 2023 QS World University Rankings, which ranks 1400 world universities) and is an excellent vice-chancellor of an excellent Ukrainian university. Ms. Anna has a diploma from the University of Maastricht (278th position in the authoritative 2023 QS World University Rankings) and was a good head of the Directorate of the Ministry of Education and Culture, and then – for a short time, but a progressive Minister of Education. Interestingly, both universities are not among the top 100 universities in the world. Here the first question arises regarding the common sense of the communication made: why is it that Ukrainian students cannot study in these universities today, what is wrong with them, with the universities? Why are these universities relevant to be a vice-rector and minister today, but to plan your career in Ukraine five years from now, these universities are no longer enough? As for the “acceptance” of an invitation to study abroad by a Ukrainian higher education institution, we are talking about programs that take place, probably, within the framework of Erasmus+ (EU). I carefully follow academic mobility programs at the best technical university in the country. For example: academic exchanges under the auspices of Erasmus+ with European universities that can theoretically be included in the top 100 in the world ranking in computer sciences – with the Technical University of Munich, Delft University of Technology, Aalto University (Finland), Sorbonne University, the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology, There is no Polytechnic Institute of Milan. There are no exchange programs with US universities at all. There was a summer school in Toronto. What does it mean? That a student of this university (the best technical university of the country) will not be able to go study abroad while the war is going on, because this university does not have partner programs (accepted) with universities of the top 100 world rankings. And if the student himself brings a personal invitation to study from a world-class top-100 university (this is called “initiative mobility”), then the university will still think about whether to accept this initiative or not… It is very interesting what the position of the new head of the Ministry of Education and Culture and his team will be regarding the return of the opportunity for Ukrainian youths to get an education (fully or partially) outside of Ukraine. I think that in order to agree to the proposal of Mr. Taras and Ms. Anna, as well as those colleagues who probably support such an innovation regarding the sequestration of study opportunities outside of Ukraine, we need to do two things: raise the ratings of our best Ukrainian universities to at least level 4-5 hundreds of world rankings; somehow work with the mobility departments of the vast majority of universities so that exchange programs with the world’s first hundred appear. And so far this is not the case, and our children are studying remotely for the third year at universities, where teachers (not all, of course) do not see a problem in giving an equal score for a subject to a student who wrote a coursebook himself and a student who bought it, as long as the mobility departments offer programs exchange from the computer science course as much as possible with the University of Malta (with all due respect to Malta and its university), the decision to “allow” departure by “limiting” the list of universities “worthy” of accepting Ukrainian students will essentially be a continuation of the same scarlet ban, just more beautifully packaged. Not more. It is bad that this insincerity was heard on the panel of the School: it does not contribute to the formation of trust in the institution that is being created. But it is good that this discussion took place in public, because it gives an understanding of the routing of the process and shows the preservation of democratic procedures in the country in the form of public discussion of complex decisions. So, to summarize, the high concentration of March events and statements that preceded the release of Serhiy Skarlet showed the following: the authorities (or someone in the authorities whose children started studying at Ukrainian universities this year 😊) really felt that without radical changes in Ukrainian higher education school slippers; The Ministry of Education and Culture in its current personnel (just read the biographies of the heads of the institution on the website) is not in a position to accept the challenge and save the system from collapse; professional people, who are certainly in higher education in Ukraine, began to save themselves by their own efforts, without waiting for help from the state and trying to create a road map for the modernization of the educational process. Thank you very much. The public discussion of the design of the reforms (here we already thank democracy in the country and its carriers in the university network) highlighted the presence among the reformers of the Ukrainian higher school of the idea of ​​the expediency of once again using the protectionist potential of the state to protect the national producer of educational services by actually prolonging the ban on studying not in Ukraine, but in a “beautiful” way. Hope for the continuation of protectionism in the form of banning the client from studying outside of Ukraine is an alarm bell. I honestly tried to explain why. I sincerely hope that this initiative will not have life. Nataliya Kononenko, leading researcher of IPiEND of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, specially for UP. Life Publications in the “View” section are not editorial articles and reflect exclusively the author’s point of view.

[ad_2]

Original Source Link