Russian higher education

Опираясь на документы из личного дела профессора Томского университета М.И. Боголепова, автор подробно разбирает историю его принятия в число университетских преподавателей. Этому принятию предшествовало полугодовое противостояние между университетом и Министерством народного просвещения по вопросам о праве М.И. Боголепова читать лекции в должности приват-доцента и о размере его зарплаты. В статье доказывается, что "случай Боголепова" был важным эпизодом в борьбе университета за право предоставлять своим преподавателям льготные условия, необходимые для решения проблемы кадров. Томская история служит наглядным примером борьбы университетов за каждую крупицу самостоятельности в условиях охранительного университетского устава.

О рейтинге лидеров университетского образования по версии Forbes Russia: от либеральных экспериментов к классическому университетскому национально ориентированному образованию или актуален ли сегодня текст гимна Вышки?

Пока проректора занимаются игрой в политику, а ректора-в демиургов отечественного образования, моя московская альма-матер теряет свои позиции. И смешнее всего, что происходит это на фоне сумасшедшей по своей нелепости программы по вхождению пятерки отечественных вузов в сотню лучших мировых. Одним из активных участников этого чудесного действа является Высшая школа экономики. В погоне за ускользающей улыбкой Хирша и повышением прочей наукометрической наукоподобной лабутени, Высшая школа экономики начинает тотально проигрывать внутри самой России по:-качеству образования;-востребованностью выпускников;-фактору Форбса;-итоговому балу. Самое причудливое то, что рейтинг составлен не "НОДом", и не в застенках МГУ или воскресшими чекистами Дзержинского! Рейтинг, в котором НИУ ВШЭ досадно опускается все ниже и ниже опубликован, о, ужас! русской редакцией журнала Forbes Russia, то есть журналом, который плоть от плоти разделяет воинствующий либерализм #ВШЭ. Результаты следующие. В пятерке лидеров-в общем зачете: 1 Национальный исследовательский технологический университет «МИСиС» Москва 54,11 2 Московский государственный институт международных отношений (университет) МИД России Москва 52,24 3 Московский физико-технический институт Московская область 52,01 4 Национальный исследовательский ядерный университет «МИФИ» Москва 51,46 5 Московский государственный университет имени М. В. Ломоносова Москва 51,27-по качеству образования: 1 Санкт-Петербургский национальный исследовательский университет информационных технологий, механики и оптики Санкт-Петербург 32,91 2 Национальный исследовательский ядерный университет «МИФИ» Москва 32,86 3 Российская экономическая школа Москва 32,77 4 Национальный исследовательский технологический университет «МИСиС» Москва 32,08 5 Московский физико-технический институт Московская область 31,15-по востребованности выпускников:

The enhancement of academic leadership through development of internationalization is one the prime goals of higher education institutions (HEIs) all over the world. For that purpose, they use not only traditional tools, based on "export of education" or development of cooperation with institutions in other countries/regions but also the new ones, envisaging the involvement of the "third parties". One of such mechanisms is European Union (EU) Erasmus+ program, which is to some extent EU "soft power" tool, aimed at promotion of the European best practices by supporting educational and scientific activity both in the EU and non-EU countries. In the recent years, Erasmus+ programme got extremely popular among HEIs within the post-soviet space. Especially among Russian universities, striving to get involved into different projects within Erasmus+ programme-International Credit Mobility (ICM), Jean Monnet Activities (JMA) and Capacity Building in the field of Higher Education (CBHE), which contribute to enhancement of internationalization. One of the best practices of involvement of Russian HEIs into Erasmus+ programme is the activity of Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University). Starting to develop the Erasmus+ projects from 2013 with one JMA-project by now the institution can boast more than 300 facilitated ICMs, six JMA-projects and two CBHE-projects. The ambitious mid-term strategy of RUDN University aimed at not only multiplying the number of projects, but also taking cooperation within Erasmus+ programme to the higher level by establishing Erasmus+ Centre of Excellence. It enables not only to get the new opportunities for internationalization but to enhance its reputation as an internationally oriented institution, getting higher positions in the academic ratings and promoting the leadership function among not only Russian but also international HEIs.

ABSTRACT

EU-Russia higher education cooperation has continued despite global tensions including Crimea incorporation. One example of this cooperation is the development of Finnish-Russian double degree programmes.

This paper focuses on institutional environments where double degrees develop and asks how and why they produce uncertainty from inside Finnish and Russian universities in the period of this unfavourable political situation. The matryoshka model is applied to understand the institutional environment of a university and the institutions around it. The institutional nature of a double degree is determined by comparative analysis of how internal university stakeholders in Finland and Russia perceive a programme’s benchmarks.

The study is based on the analysis of interviews conducted in partner universities. This paper discusses how perceptions of double degrees influence uncertainty in programme provision within and between institutional environments in Finnish and Russian universities. In addition, the level of institutionalisation of the double degrees may be evaluated.

This is the text of a discussion organized by the Editorial Board of
this journal on December 9th, 2015. The debate was devoted to the
issue of scientific status of theology and the place of theology among
other academic disciplines. Participants of this discussion: historian
Olga Vasil’eva (Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy
and Public Administration, since 2016 — Minister of Education and
Science of the Russian Federation), philologist Nikolay Grintser
(Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public
Administration), historian Askold Ivanchik (corresponding member
of the Russian Academy of Sciences); sociologist Boris Knorre (Higher
School of Economics), philosopher Svetlana Konacheva (Russian State
University of the Humanities); Alexander Kyrlezhev (scientific editor
of this journal); theologian Konstantin Polskov (St.-Tikhon’s Orthodox
University), scholar of religion Vladislav Razdiakonov (Russian State
University of the Humanities); theologian Andrey Shishkov (SS Cyril
and Methodius Theological Institute of Post-Graduate Studies).

This thesis calls attention to a previously unexplored phenomenon: leadership programmes for educators in support of education reforms. Such programmes, appearing nowadays in different parts of the world, are designed to enable educators to carry out certain activities, and to change their perceptions about newly introduced policies. This study analyzes such a programme for university leaders, initiated and supervised by Russian Ministry of education and science. Theoretically the study builds on a concept of New Public Management (NPM), arguing that this concept is relevant to both Russian education reforms and the programme contents. NPM refers to a complex phenomenon of introducing private sector mechanisms into the public sphere. This thesis shows how Russian higher education reforms since early 1990s are going along the lines of NPM, but at the same time paradoxically combine it with planned economy approaches and tight state control. Apart from internal contradictions, the reforms implementation in Russia is also impeded by public resistance and lack of leadership in universities. The study suggests that the programme in focus served as a means of NPM reform implementation, and provided a concentrated version of the local higher education narrative. Research aims were formulated as follows: 1) to uncover the specifics of NPM narrative in Russian context; 2) to discuss the programme as an instrument of facilitating higher education reform in Russia. Methodologically this research is a qualitative case study. Transcripts of the programme lectures served as the primary data for analysis, complemented by interviews and field notes. The data was processed through a theory-guided qualitative content analysis procedure. The results of analysis show that 80 per cent of the contents were in line with the NPM narrative, which was justified primarily through international competitiveness argumentation. The study reveals the ambiguous role of the state, which was positioned as the main controller or customer, but was also addressed as a barrier for development. It shows how student-centeredness lacked from the narrative, while industries and regions were pictured as important stakeholders. The study also uncovers contradictions within the narrative that can explain difficulties in reform implementation: the call for cooperation contradicts enhanced competition; the orientation to the global market contradicts local functions of universities; and suggested NPM means contradict humanitarian missions of higher education. Basing on a single case with the corresponding limitations to generalization, this thesis contributes to the body of research on NPM, studying it in the previously uninvestigated context of Russian higher education.